VIDEO: New York Daily News Inducted To The Wall of Shame

Yet another journalist™ who couldn’t keep his facts straight is getting the alpaca treatment.

Rocco Parascandola, from the New York Daily News, was forced to retract when he defamed Project Veritas’ video exposing Pfizer.

You can watch my take on this latest edition of lousy journalism here:

CLICK HERE TO VIEW: The highlighted Rocco published originally.

Fact-check: False.

We NEVER claimed that the Pfizer COVID vaccine contained aborted fetal cells. 

As soon as we saw that the New York Daily News had published this lie, we reached out to Rocco for a correction.

Here is what he responded with.

And the highlighted text below is what the article was “tweaked” to say.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ROCCO TWEAK

Now that’s more like it. That’s ACTUALLY what we reported in our video.

Here’s the bigger issue, however. Rocco published this falsehood because The Associated Press had made the following assertion beforehand:

CLICK HERE TO SEE AP NEWS QUOTE

The Associated Press drew up a Straw-Man Argument to attach what social media users were saying about our video to our journalism itself.

Because of this “defamation by implication,” the New York Daily News published it as FACT.

This is dishonest and sloppy journalism — from both AP and the New York Daily News.

I hope Rocco learns a lesson from this and does proper research next time — BEFORE reporting on Project Veritas.

But if he makes another mistake like this again…he may find himself being deposed under oath in a courtroom.

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas video and column are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

CALIFORNIA: L.A. on High Alert After Series of MASS LOOTING ROBBERIES

UPDATE: Looters looting other looters in San Francisco [Video]


The poison fruit of catastrophic Democratic policies.

Former Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said that the recent epidemic of “flash mob” thievery going on in California will inevitably spread around the country.

“This is something now that I really unfortunately think is going to spread,” Ramsey told CNN on Thursday, via Newsweek. “Right now it’s in California, but it will spread, there’s no question about it.”

By: OAN Newsroom, November 27, 2021

A citywide tactical alert was lifted throughout a majority of Los Angeles on Saturday after the city was hit with multiple smash-and-grab robberies. Los Angeles Police are on high alert after the city underwent at least six flash mob style robberies on Black Friday.

The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department continued looking for suspects Saturday after they said eight males barged into a Home Depot Friday night. According to officers, the group walked directly towards their pick of crowbars, sledgehammers and other tools, clearing out the stores entire hammer section.

Employees, however, said a group of up to 20 males believed to be 15- to 20-years-old pulled up to the storefront in about 10 cars prior to the incident.

One employee said the group put on ski masks and rushed towards cars parked at the end of the lot before beginning to check the doors to see if they could gain access to them. Luis Romo then explained that once the cars wouldn’t budge, the group started jogging towards the front of the store where they began stealing the product.

“We tried to actually stop them. We closed the front entrance and they put their sledgehammers up like whoever got in the way they were going to hurt them,” said Romo.

Police told local news outlet KCBS this robbery was extra concerning as the tools could be used against more stores in the area. The Los Angeles Police Department later issued a tactical citywide alert after a large group robbed a Bottega Veneta in the Melrose area.

Police said an unknown amount of merchandise was stolen from the high-end clothing store and that one employee was pepper sprayed. Additionally, authorities said three armed men stole a Rolex watch from a store on Melrose Avenue.

The string of crimes come as the Golden State grapples a surge in smash-and-grab robberies from large groups and the LAPD has begun boosting its patrols in high-profile shopping districts. Cities in California weren’t the only ones struck with smash-and-grab robberies on Friday night as such violence has seemed to pick up in several areas across the country.

RELATED ARTICLE: Thieves target Home Depot in California, making off with hammers, crowbars and other tools

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Parents Upset As Schools Force Kids Nationwide To Undergo Mandatory Quarantines After Nearly Two Years Of COVID Precautions

Some parents from Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania told the Daily Caller that their children are forced to undergo mandatory quarantines with no virtual learning options, despite evidence that schools pose few transmission risks. Many parents expressed fatigue over the nearly two years of COVID-19 precautions in schools.

Brighton Area Schools, a district in suburban Detroit, is requiring students under the age of 12 to quarantine for 14 days if they are exposed to a COVID-positive student, according to a letter from the district’s superintendent obtained by the Daily Caller. Jennifer Smith, a mother with three children in the district, told the Daily Caller that there are no virtual learning options for children placed in mandatory quarantine.

On Nov. 1, Brighton Area Schools announced that they waived mandatory quarantines for most middle and high school students, though not for students in sixth grade or below. According to the district’s correspondence, deciding whether to waive quarantines for younger students will be contingent on “the availability of vaccines for the 5-11 year old population.”

Brighton Area Schools allow parents to choose whether their child wears a face mask or not, according to district policy, though mandatory quarantines for healthy children are still in place.

Smith told the Daily Caller that her nine-year-old child began a 28-day “healthy child quarantine” on Oct. 19. She received an email on Nov. 9 from Hornung Elementary School informing parents that all classes would go virtual on Nov. 10 due to “an unexplained rise in COVID-19 cases among students” following Halloween. The closure was suggested by the Livingston County Health Department.

CLICK HERE FOR: Screenshot/Email from Brighton Area Schools

According to a testimony from a Livingston County Health Department official, school districts make their own rules regarding quarantine, testing, and masking policies, though the county health department offers data and advice.

The Michigan mother said that her son went from Oct. 19 to Nov. 10 with no virtual school option, and was only offered virtual classes when the entire elementary school shut down. Smith said that she is “extremely upset” as she had “no choice” but to take off work and “go without pay.”

Brighton Area School District did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment.

Parents nationwide told the Daily Caller that they are concerned about learning losses, and some are concerned about the effects learning loss will have on students of color or lower socio-economic status.

Data from 2020 bear out the points that schools are not driving infections and school closures or learning losses are disproportionately hurting minority students. A study of 4.4 million students found that test scores of black, Hispanic, and poor children took the biggest hit when students were not in school. A large study from Oct. 2020 found that schools aren’t large vectors of infection.

Mandatory quarantines — and their effects — are not specific to Michigan. Mother Nicole Eidson told the Daily Caller that quarantines are also taking place in the Chandler Unified School District (CUSD) in Arizona.

According to CUSD’s COVID policy, quarantining students is “required by the Maricopa County Department of Public Health” when a student comes in “close contact” with a student who is COVID-positive. The district’s website states that quarantined students receive “Google classroom assignments and/or activities,” though Eidson noted that children do not receive any teacher instruction during quarantine.

“There may be schools or teachers that are still teaching the quarantined kids, but there are some that are not as well,” Eidson said.

Chandler Unified School District did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment.

Guidelines for K-12 quarantines in some states specifically target those who are unvaccinated. Washington State’s Department of Health guidelines for K-12 schools states that quarantines are only for those who are unvaccinated. This includes 5-11 year olds who are now eligible for a vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Florida, under guidance from Gov. Ron DeSantis, took a different approach. Students are no longer required to quarantine if they’re exposed to COVID-19 and are asymptomatic, according to NPR.

Some school districts are moving towards “Test to Stay” programs, wherein students who come in close contact with a COVID-positive peer can get consecutively tested to remain in school. Souderton Area School District in Pennsylvania is set to implement the program on Nov. 29, according to a local news outlet.

Superintendent Frank Gallagher said he is hopeful that the “Test to Stay” program will allow “exposed students to stay in school instead of quarantining at home.”

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is considering promoting similar “Test to Stay” programs, according to U.S. News.

COLUMN BY

CHRISSY CLARK

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Arizona School Board, Police Coordinated To Spy On, Arrest Concerned Parents

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

Company Contrast: Parler vs. Facebook

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 company we will be focusing on this week is Parler, which gets a 2ndVote score of 3.08.

Parler is an American social networking service that believes in the basic right of free speech. Here users have the freedom to say what’s on their mind; be it supporting their chosen political candidate or criticizing the extreme liberal left and they can do so without their content being taken down or censored. In their company policy they state that their “mission is to create a social platform in the spirit of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” – Parler

When looking to connect with your community over social media, look to Parler or other alternatives to the mainstream tech giants such as Facebook (1.00).

Facebook, which receives a 2ndVote score of 1.00, clearly has no respect for the basic freedoms of Americans. On numerous occasions, Facebook has supported organizations such as the Center for American Progress which has worked to strip down our first amendment right by opposing religious liberties and RFRA laws. The company itself has even directly stopped free speech by censoring and banning users it doesn’t like, such as the former President, Donald Trump. We urge you to stop using Facebook’s platform and, if you feel compelled, send them a letter through our website demanding that they change these un-American policies.

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

GOP Rep. Cammack: Omarova ‘Not Fit to Be Our Banking Nominee’

Republican senators sound alarm on Biden bank nominee


Friday on Fox Business Network’s Varney & Company, Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) reacted to five Democrat senators reportedly opposing President Joe Biden’s nomination of radical Saule Omarova as the Comptroller of the Currency, saying the Marxist philosophy of the banking nominee makes her “not fit” for the job.

“The thing about this administration that baffles me — I truly do not know where their heads are at. They are so far removed from reality. It’s concerning,” Cammack stated. “You know when you have someone, and I think about Senator Kennedy’s remarks when he addressed her, ‘is it professor or comrade?’ Her philosophies are rooted in Marxism. She is not fit to be our banking nominee.”

“But, again, it’s just like the typical Biden administration that we’ve seen over the last 11 months,” she continued. “They are willing to put everything on the line, consequences be damned, because they believe that they are somehow virtuous in pursuing this ultra-progressive, leftist ideology. But we see that their policies are hurting America. We know that this banking nominee will only exacerbate these problems.

“It’s pretty simple,” she concluded. “I know I have a minor in economics, not a major and certainly not a master’s or a Ph.D., but I can tell you this — when government spends more, people like you and me and everyone around the country, we have less in our pockets. It’s really that simple.”


Saule Omarova

3 Known Connections

In a March 2021 interview which was part of the Jain Family Institute’s Social Wealth Seminar series, Omarova, while discussing “troubled industries and firms that are in transitioning,” bluntly declared that the destruction of the oil, gas, and coal industries would be essential for the protection of the natural environment. “And here what I’m thinking about is primarily coal industry and oil and gas industry,” she said. “A lot of the smaller players in that industry are, uh, going to probably, uh, go bankrupt in, in, in short order, at least we want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change, right?” On another occasion, Omarova put it this way: “In order to prevent climate change, we have to bankrupt all the coal, oil, and gas companies.”

In May 2021, Omarova was named a Senior Berggruen Fellow at the Berggruen Institute, a Los Angeles-based think tank which believes that both capitalism and democracy are “faltering” institutions in need of “great transformations.”

To learn more about Saule Omarova, click here.

RELATED VIDEO: Steve Moore breaks down damaging effects of Biden economic policies

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

‘Build Back Better’ Communism Act Offers Media Billions To Go After Republicans

This is the real life version of Ayn Rand’s “Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule” is the very definition of heavy handed, top-down government regulation. It’s no wonder Rand, America’s greatest philosopher and political theorist is banned in colleges.

Build Back Better Act Offers Media Billions To Go After Republicans

By Daniel Greenfield Nov 24, 2021

Biden claims that the Build Back Better Act will help ordinary Americans, but the legislation, like so much in Washington D.C., is a collection of pork for corrupt special interests. One of those special interests is the media which suppressed negative stories about Biden and the Democrats, like the FBI investigation of Hunter Biden, while promoting disinformation, like the Steele Dossier, targeting President Trump: Biden’s opponent in the presidential election.

The media operates like a Democrat messaging operation and its partisanship has undermined its business model, especially for local news outlets which, unlike major national outlets, cannot simply ignore their existing readers and viewers to focus exclusively on radical urban leftists.

Congressional Democrats, with the complicity of some Republicans, had previously proposed media subsidy schemes that included tax credits for media companies, tax breaks for subscribing to papers, and even a $5,000 tax credit for taking out an ad in the local paper.

The media subsidy scheme in Biden’s Build Back Better Act offers $1.9 billion to the media with a payroll tax credit covering 50% of salaries, as much as $25,000, for the Democrat propagandists on media company payrolls, and another 30% over the next four years.

While the Democrats claim that this $1.9 billion special interest giveaway to the media is helping “local news”, it’s capped at 1,500 employees. The Washington Post has only a little over 1,000 “journalists” on its payroll. The legislation is written in a typically convoluted fashion, so it’s not altogether clear if the premier propaganda outlet of the Democrats, owned by the richest man in the country, would qualify for these subsidies at a time when Americans are struggling to get by.

Lest there be any doubt that the so-called “local journalism” provision is a State Media scheme to subsidize hit pieces on Republicans, Democrats explained that’s exactly what it’s there for.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer touted the ability of “local journalism” to stop Republican candidates like  Edward Durr, a truck driver who spent $153 to defeat New Jersey Senate boss Steve Sweeney: the biggest Democrat power broker in the state.

“There was no opportunity for local media to provide even basic information about the candidates,” Rep. Blumenauer whined. “The guy would never have been elected if he had gotten any scrutiny at all.” By scrutiny, the leftist Democrat means hit pieces, of the kind that the media belatedly began generating after the truck driver’s unexpected election night win.

Give the media $1.9 billion in subsidies and they can stop the next truck driver from beating their Senate boss through lies, smears, intimidation, and disinformation campaigns.

If this dirty deal were any more corrupt, it would be taking place in a brothel.

But Democrats are not just relying on the innate biases of the media. One of the biggest dark money investments of their political machines have been fake news local operations.

Democrat groups like Report for America and Courier Newsroom have embedded subsidized reporters and created fake local news outlets to push leftist agendas. Report for America is funded by the usual Democrats megadonors, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Knight Foundation, as well as by Big Tech monopolies like Google and Facebook.

Courier Newsroom, backed by the controversial Acronym/Pacronym network, had begun generating fake local news sites for the 2020 election with names like “UpNorth News” in Wisconsin. It’s being rebooted with the backing of George Soros and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman who had previously been caught pushing fake news through the Alabama Project.

The Alabama Project had, in its own words, targeted the state’s Senate election, by having “orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.”

The LinkedIn co-founder apologized, claimed that he knew nothing and that it would never happen again. And here he is, alongside Soros, backing Good Information Inc. which will fund non-profit propaganda media and invest in for-profit media that pushes its political agenda.

Good Information Inc., is just a rebooted version of Courier Newsroom’s fake news network.

The Build Back Better Act’s $1.9 billion media subsidy isn’t just funding an industry aligned with the Democrats, but one that has become a false flag operation for its messaging apparatus.

The Dems might just as well add $1.9 billion in subsidies for their own political consultants.

The connection between the media’s political fake news operations and the pork isn’t even being disguised.

CNN’s Brian Stelter quotes “Report for America co-founder Steven Waldman, who has helped lead the drive for the tax credit”, saying, “It’s a huge breakthrough for local news if it becomes law.” Report for America is indeed vocally advocating for the Democrat media subsidy. And it would be a “huge breakthrough” if part of the cost of Democrat messaging operations were being subsidized by American taxpayers freeing Dem megadonors to wage war elsewhere.

But the core business model of the leftist machine has been to not simply establish political operations that can swing elections, but figuring out how to make them into permanent taxpayer-funded features of public life so they can move on to their next “startup”.

Waldman, like CNN and Report for America, not to mention many of RFA’s megadonors, operate out of New York City. Their interest isn’t in local news, it’s in winning elections. Local elections are now routinely swung by rivers of cash coming out of New York and California. Not satisfied with using billions to rig local elections in places they would never visit, they want American taxpayers to subsidize their political activists and their fake news operations.

The media has gone to work telling Americans that giving them billions is actually a wonderful idea in the ultimate example of a conflict of interest. What the media neglects to mention is that its outlets are facing hard financial times because they have alienated two thirds of their audience. Unable to convince Americans to watch, read, and pay for their lies, they’re now resorting to extracting the money through the politicians they’ve been working to elect.

The same radical shift in the media that alienated its readers and viewers also vested the industry with the political power to steal billions from Americans and put it in their pockets.

The media is no longer an independent industry, it’s an arm of the ruling party.

The $1.9 million in media subsidies is a timely reminder that the only thing that the trillions in special interest pork are actually “building back better” is the Democrat Party.

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

The Cobra Effect: Lessons in Unintended Consequences

Human beings react to every rule, regulation, and order governments impose, and their reactions result in outcomes that can be quite different than the outcomes lawmakers intended.


Every human decision brings with it unintended consequences. Often, they are inconsequential, even funny. When Airbus, for example, wanted to make its planes quieter to improve the flying experience for travelers, it made its A380 so quiet that passengers could hear, with far too much clarity, what was happening in the plane’s bathrooms. Other times unintended consequences have far-reaching, dramatic effects. The US health care system is a case in point. It emerged in its present form in no small part because of two governmental decisions.

First, wage and price controls during World War II caused employers to add health insurance as an employee benefit. Why? The law prohibited employers from raising wages, so to attract workers, they offered to provide health insurance. Then, in 1951, Congress declared that employer-provided health insurance benefits would not count as taxable income. This made it cheaper for employees to take raises in the form of increased tax-free insurance benefits rather than in the form of increased taxable wages.

Consequently, not only do workers now receive health insurance through their employers (unlike, for example, their car and home insurance), but those insurance plans also tend to be more luxurious than what they would have been had Congress never given them special tax treatment. These two political decisions helped to create the health care system we now have, a system that nearly everyone agrees is broken.

No one set out to create a broken system, no more than anyone ever set out to make bathroom noises more conspicuous on airplanes. These were unintended consequences. And you can see them everywhere when you know to look.

Unintended consequences happen so often that economists call them “Cobra Problems,” after one of the most interesting examples.

In colonial India, Delhi suffered a proliferation of cobras, which was a problem very clearly in need of a solution given the sorts of things that cobras bring, like death. To cut the number of cobras slithering through the city, the local government placed a bounty on them. This seemed like a perfectly reasonable solution. The bounty was generous enough that many people took up cobra hunting, which led exactly to the desired outcome: The cobra population decreased. And that’s where things get interesting.

As the cobra population fell and it became harder to find cobras in the wild, people became rather entrepreneurial. They started raising cobras in their homes, which they would then kill to collect the bounty as before. This led to a new problem: Local authorities realized that there were very few cobras evident in the city, but they nonetheless were still paying the bounty to the same degree as before.

City officials did a reasonable thing: They canceled the bounty. In response, the people raising cobras in their homes also did a reasonable thing: They released all of their now-valueless cobras back into the streets. Who wants a house full of cobras?

In the end, Delhi had a bigger cobra problem after the bounty ended than it had before it began. The unintended consequence of the cobra eradication plan was an increase in the number of cobras in the streets. This case has become the exemplar of when an attempt to solve a problem ends up exacerbating the very problem that rule-makers intended to fix.

There is, of course, nothing special about cobras. The same sort of thing happened in the late 1980s in Mexico City, which was at the time suffering from extreme air pollution caused by cars driven by its 18 million residents. The city government responded with Hoy No Circula, a law designed to reduce car pollution by removing 20 percent of the cars (determined by the last digits of license plates) from the roads every day during the winter when air pollution was at its worst. Oddly, though, removing those cars from the roads did not improve air quality in Mexico City. In fact, it made it worse.

Come to find out, people’s needs do not change as a result of a simple government decree. The residents of Mexico City might well have wanted better air for their city, but they also needed to get to work and school. They reacted to the ban in ways the rule-makers neither intended nor foresaw.

Some people carpooled or took public transportation, which was the actual intent of the law. Others, however, took taxis, and the average taxi at the time gave off more pollution than the average car. Another group of people ended up undermining the law’s intent more significantly. That group bought second cars, which of course came with different license plate numbers, and drove those cars on the one day a week they were prohibited from driving their regular cars. What kind of cars did they buy? The cheapest running vehicles they could find, vehicles that belched pollution into the city at a rate far higher than the cars they were not permitted to drive. The people released their cobras into the streets, except this time the cobras were cars.

These examples of unintended consequences aren’t aberrations. Unintended consequences arise every time an authority imposes its will on people. Seat belt and airbag laws make it less safe to be a pedestrian or cyclist by making it safer for drivers to be less cautious. Payday lending laws, intended to protect low-income borrowers from high lending rates, make it more expensive for low-income borrowers to borrow by forcing them into even more expensive alternatives.

Requirements that corporations publicize how much they pay their CEOs in order to encourage stockholders to reduce CEO pay resulted in lesser-paid CEOs demanding more pay. Three-strikes laws, intended to reduce crime, increase police fatalities by giving two-time criminals a greater incentive to evade or even fight the police. The Americans With Disabilities Act gives employers an incentive to discriminate against the disabled by not hiring them in the first place so as to avoid potential ADA claims. Electrician licensing requirements can increase the incidence of injury due to faulty electrical work by reducing the supply of electricians, thereby encouraging homeowners to do their own electrical work.

But perhaps nothing illustrates the scope of the potential problems arising from unintended consequences better than Venezuela’s terrible game of whack-a-mole that began with the 1976 nationalization of its oil industry. The government’s intent was to keep oil profits in the country. And that’s how it went—for a while.

But when the government takes over a once-private industry, the profit incentive to maintain physical capital is lost, and physical capital deteriorates. The deterioration plays out over a decade or so, and that’s what made it appear—at least for a while—that unlike everywhere else socialism had been tried, Venezuela’s socialism was working. But as the oil industry’s physical capital broke down, oil production fell. Coincidentally, it was around this time that oil prices fell also—a fact socialism’s supporters point to as the real culprit.

That is without question incorrect given that no other oil-producing nation suffered what Venezuela was to suffer.

As oil revenues and production plummeted, Venezuela’s government acted the way governments inevitably do when revenues disappear. It borrowed and taxed as much as it could, and then it started printing money. The printing led to the unintended consequence of inflation, then prices rose so high that people could no longer afford food. To respond to this unintended consequence, the government imposed price controls on food. But this created a new unintended consequence wherein farmers could no longer afford to grow food. And so the farmers stopped growing food. Finally, the government forced people to work on farms in order to assure food production.

The ultimate unintended consequence of Venezuela’s nationalizing its oil industry was slavery.

None of this means there is no place for legislation. What it does mean is that lawmakers should be keenly aware that every human action has both intended and unintended consequences. Human beings react to every rule, regulation, and order governments impose, and their reactions result in outcomes that can be quite different than the outcomes lawmakers intended. So while there is a place for legislation, that place should be one defined by both great caution and tremendous humility. Sadly, these are character traits not often found in those who become legislators, which is why examples of the cobra problem are so easy to find.

COLUMN BY

Antony Davies

Dr. Antony Davies is the Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at FEE, associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, and co-host of the podcast, Words & Numbers.

James R. Harrigan

James R. Harrigan is and the F.A. Hayek Distinguished Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education and Senior Editor at the American Institute for Economic Research. He is also co-host of the Words & Numbers podcast.

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

Sheriff Sued for Reporting Illegal Alien Criminals to ICE

In a distressing sign of the times, the official elected to enforce the law in a major U.S. County is being sued for transferring illegal immigrant criminals to federal authorities. Collaborating with the feds—rather than releasing illegal alien offenders back into the community—compounds racial disparities in the policing, immigration, and criminal justice systems, in which black and Latinx communities are disproportionately targeted for arrest, detention, and deportation. At least that is what the leftist civil rights group that filed the lawsuit this week claims. The scary part is that the local law enforcement agency will probably lose the legal battle because the entire state is a sanctuary for illegal immigrants and official measures have been enacted to protect the undocumented from deportation.

The defendant in the case is Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, currently serving his third term as the top cop in the central California county of around 1.6 million that includes the state’s capitol. Jones and his agency are accused of violating California sanctuary laws by reporting illegal immigrants jailed for committing local crimes to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) upon completing their sentence. The offenders are eligible to return to their home and communities in the U.S. but instead are enduring a “cruel double punishment,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney, Sean Riordan, who filed the complaint on behalf of the illegal immigrants. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s “anti-immigrant agenda” harms communities, the ACLU lawyer asserts.

Among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is a 26-year-old Mexican national, Misael Echeveste, who has lived in the Sacramento area illegally since he was a young child. After serving a six-week sentence for assault and battery at a county facility called Rio Consumnes Correctional Center (RCCC), Echeveste was transferred to ICE and is fighting deportation to Mexico where the ACLU points out “he doesn’t know anyone or have family.” Another plaintiff, identified by the initials M.A.A., was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol without a license. The following day, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office turned him over to ICE, and he was “permanently separated from his family in Sacramento,” the complaint states. The rest of the plaintiffs include three other illegal immigrants arrested by the agency for driving under the influence of alcohol, not exactly pillars of the community.

The lawsuit alleges that “sheriff’s officials unlawfully transfer(ed) immigrants to ICE after they have completed their county jail sentences, rather than releasing them to their families and communities or following proper notification procedures inside the jail.” Specifically, the suit accuses the sheriff’s office of violating two state laws, known as the TRUTH Act and the California Values Act. The first one, which went into effect in 2017, requires that local police give criminals in the U.S. illegally a written notice of their transfer to ICE. The second, which was enacted a year later, forbids all California law enforcement agencies from using funds or employees to “investigate, interrogate, detain or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.” The measure is also known as SB 54, the state’s sanctuary law.

Dozens of cities throughout the nation have passed sanctuary measures to shield illegal immigrants, but only 11 states have enacted blanket laws. Besides California, they include Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Additionally, a growing number of leftist officials running local governments refuse to participate in a federal-local partnership known as 287(g) that notifies ICE of jail inmates in the country illegally so they can be deported after serving time for state crimes. ICE has repeatedly warned that when law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders onto the streets, it undermines its ability protect public safety and carry out its mission. Judicial Watch has reported extensively on some of the culprits, providing outrageous examples that include elected law enforcement officials freeing child sex offenders, major counties releasing numerous violent convicts and a state—North Carolina—that discharged nearly 500 illegal immigrant criminals from custody in a year.

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

DeSantis blasts Biden, calls inflation a ‘huge problem,’ pledges gas tax relief

Nobody is fighting harder for the American people than Governor Ron DeSantis. DeSantis is taking on the Biden Administration at every turn, as he prepares for a possible run at the presidency in 2024. If President Trump can’t run for POTUS in 2024, than Governor DeSantis is unquestionably our candidate. And the Democrats should be very concerned about Joe Biden sharing a debate stage with the great governor. #DeSantis2024!

DeSantis calls inflation a ‘huge problem,’ pledges gas tax relief

By Local10.com, November 22, 2021

Gov. Ron DeSantis said Monday that the state legislature will pursue gas tax relief for Florida residents, calling inflation a “huge problem.”

At a news conference Monday morning in Daytona Beach, accompanied by the state’s Department of Transportation Secretary Kevin J. Thibault, DeSantis placed the blame on “inflationary policies out of Washington.”

“The price of a Thanksgiving dinner is up over 20% just over last year,” DeSantis said. “I think what’s most dramatic, because it affects most people in their daily lives, is gas prices going up.”

The average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the state jumped 10 cents in the middle of last week to $3.36, according to the American Automobile Association, the highest price at any point since September 2014. It sat at $3.35 on Monday morning, six cents below the national average of $3.41.

https://twitter.com/GovRonDeSantis/status/1462810131624779776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1462810131624779776%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2021%2F11%2Fdesantis-blasts-biden-calls-inflation-a-huge-problem-pledges-gas-tax-relief.html%2F

RELATED TWEET:

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

America’s Deadliest and Most Violent Supremacists

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)” – Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.” ― George Orwell, 1984


In my lifetime as a career U.S. Army officer I have witnessed those who have done violence against Americans both domestically and abroad. They do violence and create mayhem in a cause that they believe is just. When I and my family were stationed in Germany in the early 1970s we had two groups that targeted the U.S. military and innocent civilians. They were the Baader-Meinhof Gang/Red Army Faction (RAF) and Black September/Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) that attacked, kidnapped and then killed 18 Israeli Olympic athletes and one German police officer in Munich in 1972.

But is violence the answer? Is cruelty the answer? Is murder the answer?

Today I keep hearing the word “supremist” being tossed about by individuals, organizations and politicians. These individuals and groups are not afraid to use violence against those that they label supremacists to make their point. They are not afraid to use government entities, like the IRS, FBI, DOJ, OSHA, FDA, to reek havoc upon those “supremacists” who disagree with them and their ideologies.

It seems our government is using the word “supremacist” to go after: parents, the un-vaxxed, those of the opposing party, states that oppose government intervention and even ordinary Americans who are labeled “supremacists.” Supremacist is word du jour today.

As George Orwell wrote in his dystopian novel 1984,

“The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”

Who are the real supremacists?

Merriam-Webster defines a supremacist as:

[A]n advocate or adherent of the supremacy of one group a person who believes that one group of people as identified by their shared race, ethnicity, sex, gender, or religion is inherently superior to other groups and should have control over those other groups

In America we believe in equal justice under the law. No-one is above the law. But is this true? Do some people, politicians and organizations literally get away with murder?

It seems like some individuals, politicians and organizations believe that they are above the law.

One of the symbols of a supremacist is the raising of the fist. It shows an allegiance to their cause, no matter how violent and deadly to their fellow citizens.

QUESTION: Who are the true supremacist’s?

The Top Supremacists in America

Supremacists believe they are superior to all others. They demand control of all others. Its obey or perish.

Here’s a list of organizations that have worked to bring America to its knees. I consider them, by their actions, be be supremacists.

  1. The Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The CPUSA is a Marxist political party in the United States that was created in 1921 as the result of a forced merger between two rival communist factions, each founded in 1919. The FBI reported, “In April 1958, a representative of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) named Morris Childs made important trips to the Soviet Union and China. His purpose: to re-establish formal contact between the CPUSA and these countries.” The FBI under Operation SOLO Operation SOLO was a long-running FBI program to infiltrate the Communist Party of the United States and gather intelligence about its relationship to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, and other communist nations. It officially began in 1958 and ended in 1977, although Morris and Jack Childs, two of the principal agents in the operation, had been involved with the Bureau for several years prior. The files range from March 1958 to April 1966. Click here to read about Operation SOLO. Why did this operation stop in 1966? Why isn’t the FBI continuing to look at the CPUSA? Today Biden has nominated Saule Omarova, a Communist, to be the Comptroller of Currency. Omarova posted this on Twitter, “Until I came to the US, I couldn’t imagine that things like gender pay gap still existed in today’s world. Say what you will about old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Market doesn’t always ‘know best’.” Why isn’t the FBI looking at Omarova who graduated from Moscow State University in 1989 on a Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship?
  2. The Black Panthers. According to the FBI, “The Black Panther Party (BPP) is a black extremist organization founded in Oakland, California in 1966. It advocated the use of violence and guerilla tactics to overthrow the U.S. government. In 1969, the FBI’s Charlotte Field Office opened an investigative file on the BPP to track its militant activities, income, and expenses. This release consists of Charlotte’s file on BPP activities from 1969 to 1976.” Click here to see the FBI Files on the Black Panthers.
  3. The Weather Underground. The FBI reported, “On January 29, 1975, an explosion rocked the headquarters of the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C. No one was hurt, but the damage was extensive, impacting 20 offices on three separate floors. Hours later, another bomb was found at a military induction center in Oakland, California, and safely detonated. A domestic terrorist group called the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for both bombs. Originally called the Weatherman or the Weathermen, a name taken from a line in a Bob Dylan song, the Weather Underground was a small, violent offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, a group created in the turbulent ‘60s to promote social change. When SDS collapsed in 1969, the Weather Underground stepped forward, inspired by communist ideologies and embracing violence and crime as a way to protest the Vietnam War, racism, and other left-wing aims. “Our intention is to disrupt the empire … to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks,” claimed the group’s 1974 manifesto, Prairie Fire. By the next year, the group had claimed credit for 25 bombings—including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, the California Attorney General’s office, and a New York City police station. The FBI doggedly pursued these terrorists as their attacks mounted. Many members were identified, but their small numbers and guerrilla tactics helped them hide under assumed identities. In 1978, the Bureau arrested five members who were plotting to bomb a politician’s office. Others were captured after two policemen and a Brinks’ driver were murdered in a botched armored car robbery in Nanuet, New York, in 1981. Key to disrupting the group for good was the newly created FBI-New York City Police Anti Terrorist Task Force. It brought together the strengths of both organizations and focused them on these domestic terrorists. The task force and others like it paved the way for today’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces—created by the Bureau in each of its field offices to fuse federal, state, and local law enforcement and intelligence resources to combat today’s terrorist threats. By the mid-’80s, the Weather Underground was essentially history. Still, several of these fugitives were able to successfully hide themselves for decades, emerging only in recent years to answer for their crimes. Once again, it shows that grit and partnerships can and will defeat shadowy, resilient terrorist groups. Read FBI records on the Weather Underground.
  4. Anti-Fascist (Antifa). On June 24th, 2021 the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote this about Antifa, “As protests raged in over 140 cities in the United States following the death of George Floyd, U.S. president Donald Trump raised the prospect of labeling Antifa as a terrorist group. On May 31, 2020, he tweeted, “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.” Attorney General William Barr also remarked that Antifa was present at some of the protests. “There is clearly some high degree of organization involved at some of these events and coordinated tactics that we are seeing,” he said, “Some of it relates to antifa, some of it relates to groups that act very much like antifa.” Barr described Antifa’s tactics as a “new form of urban guerrilla warfare” in the legacy of Mao Zedong. Other officials, such as Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director Christopher Wray, later pushed back, instead characterizing Antifa as “a movement or an ideology” rather than an organized group…Antifa supporters conduct counter-protests to disrupt far-right gatherings and rallies. They sometimes organize in black blocs—ad hoc gatherings of individuals who wear black clothing, ski masks, scarves, sunglasses, and other material to conceal their faces—use improvised explosives and other homemade weapons, and resort to vandalism. In addition, Antifa members organize their activities through social media, encrypted peer-to-peer networks, and encrypted messaging services such as Signal. Antifa has also adopted anti-fascist symbols on their clothing, flags, and other paraphernalia, such as the two flags of the Antifaschistische Aktion and the three arrows of the Iron Front.
  5. Black Lives Matter/Black Identity Extremists (BLM/BIE). In an August 3rd, 2017 FBI reported titled “Black Identity Extremists Likely Motivated to Target Law Enforcement Officers” concluded, “The FBI assesses it is very likely that BIEs’ perceptions of unjust treatment of African Americans and the perceived unchallenged illegitimate actions of law enforcement will inspire premeditated attacks against law enforcement over the next year. This may also lead to an increase in BIE group memberships, collaboration among BIE groups, or the appearance of additional violent lone offenders motivated by BIE rhetoric. The FBI further assesses it is very likely additional controversial police shootings of African Americans and the associated legal proceedings will continue to serve as drivers for violence against law enforcement. The FBI assesses it is likely police officers of minority groups are also targeted by BIEs because they are also representative of a perceived oppressive law enforcement system.” It was BLM that pushed the idea of defunding the police to create anarchy. Blacks are not oppressed they are now supremacists.
  6. Nation of Islam (NOI). Discover the Networks NOI report states, “The Nation of Islam (NOI) was founded in Detroit in 1930 by Wallace Dodd Fard, an itinerant salesman. Fard’s movement was composed of  traditional Islamic teachings augmented by, and interlaced with obscure mathematical, Gnostic, and heretical accretions, including an identification of all blacks as “Asiatic.” This message resonated among American blacks who had migrated north, seeking to escape racial oppression and rural poverty. One of Fard’s earliest converts was Elijah Poole, a grade-school dropout and alcoholic Georgian who had moved to Detroit in 1923. By 1931, Poole had become known as Elijah Muhammad, and upon Fard’s sudden and mysterious disappearance in 1934, he became head of NOI. Elijah Muhammad moved to Washington, D.C. in 1935 and began proselytizing for NOI in different cities throughout the U.S.  He advocated the creation of a separate black nation on the U.S. mainland, separate from white society in every way — economically, politically, and spiritually. He claimed that Fard was actually Allah, the reincarnation of Jesus, the prophet the world had been awaiting for the last 2,000 years, and the Son of Man. Muhammad was arrested in 1942 for refusing to register for the military draft; he urged all Muslims to resist fighting against Fascism, and openly favored the Japanese as Asiatic heroes resisting white oppression. In 1965, Muhammad published a 300-page book titled Message to the Blackman in America, in which he explained that Allah had originally created the black race before all others, followed sequentially by the brown, red, and yellow races. The white race, said Muhammad, was created some 6,000 years ago, not by Allah but by a renegade black scientist named Yakub. In Muhammad’s view, “the whole Caucasian race is a race of devils . . . the evil and murderous race…When Malcolm made these revelations, an anathema was pronounced on him and he was suspended from his post as the leader of the Harlem Mosque. He was replaced by Louis Farrakhan, who, outraged at what he perceived as Malcolm’s traitorous disloyalty, denounced him in the NOI newspaper Muhammad Speaks. “Only those who wish to be led to hell, or to their doom, will follow Malcolm,” Farrakhan wrote. “The die is set, and Malcolm shall not escape, especially after such evil, foolish talk about his benefactor; such a man is worthy of death.” In effect, Malcolm had been fingered for assassination. Ten weeks later, on February 21, 1965, he was killed in Harlem’s Audubon Ballroom by three gunmen with ties to NOI. ” Read the full Discover the Networks report on the Nation of Islam.
  7. Political Islamists (e.g. Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the PLO). In a September 1st, 2011 article titled “Radicalization of Islamist Terrorists in the Western World” Ryan Hunter, M.A., and Daniel Heinke wrote, “Modern Islamist extremism emerged in the middle of the last century, but, in its beginnings, was limited to the Middle East. That dramatically changed in the aftermath of the assault on 9/11 when the threat Islamist terrorism posed to countries in the Western world became apparent. While it was not the first time Islamist militants targeted a Western country, the scale of the attack—killing almost 3,000 people and destroying the iconic Twin Towers—demonstrated that the threat from such organizations and individuals had shifted. Since 9/11, that menace continues to transform, and Western societies increasingly must deal with a rise in so-called homegrown Islamist terrorism…CONCLUSION. Homegrown individuals engaging in Islamist extremism are both demographically and socioeconomically diverse, preventing the development of a reliable profile. Yet, all these persons develop a new mind-set as they undergo radicalization. While no typical pathway exists for this radicalization process, three main components include deeply ingrained grievances as the basis for an identity crisis, an elementary Islamist/Salafist ideology providing a sense for one’s existence and sense of belonging to a chosen community, and the individual’s mobilization to join the terrorist movement. The understanding of these distinct components of the radicalization process may help law enforcement and intelligence agencies assess potential cases of radicalization and lay the groundwork for other government or nongovernment institutions to develop defined counterradicalization efforts.” Read the full article by clicking here.
  8. Planned Parenthood/Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). Discover the Networks has this history of PP/PPFA, “The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was founded in 1942.  It grew out of the American Birth Control League, which was established in 1923 by the radical social activist Margaret Sanger, who is hailed by PPFA for her efforts to establish “the principles that a woman’s right to control her body is the foundation of her human rights,” and to “establish the contemporary American model for the protection of civil rights through nonviolent civil disobedience.” Today, PPFA is the largest abortion provider in the United States, with some 850 clinics around the country (down from a peak of 938 in 1995). PPFA purports to offer “a wide range of medical and counseling services and health care education,” but its primary business is providing abortion services. In the 2003-2004 fiscal year, the organization increased the number of abortions performed at its facilities by 6.1 percent (over the 2002-2003 figure) to 244,628. At an average cost of $400 per abortion, it is estimated that PPFA took in $104 million from surgical abortions in 2003-2004 — the first time this number surpassed $100 million in a single year — accounting for 34 percent of its $302.6 million clinic income that year. Planned Parenthood completed 138 abortions for every adoption referral it made to an outside agency in 2004…According to PPFA’s 2019-20 annual report, the organization performed 354,871 abortions in the most recent one-year period on record, while providing just 8,626 prenatal services during that same period. As the Blaze.com notes, PPFA “lists millions of other services provided, such as contraceptive counseling, pregnancy tests, and cancer screenings, allowing it to say that abortions only amount to 3% of the services it provides.” In 2009-2010, PPFA received $487,400,000 from the U.S. government. Moreover, the organization’s total net assets topped $1 billion for the first time. Click here to learn more about Planned Parenthood.
  9. Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The FBI states on its website that ALF is, “an extremist animal rights movement—has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF’s operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm “any animal, human and nonhuman.” Animal rights groups in the United States, including ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. A distinct but related group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), claimed responsibility for the arson fires set at a Vail (Colorado) ski resort in October 1998, which caused 12 million dollars in damages. This incident remains under investigation. Seven terrorist incidents occurring in the United States during 2000 have been attributed to either ALF or ELF. Several additional acts committed during 2001 are currently being reviewed for possible designation as terrorist incidents.
  10. Eco-Terrorists Earth Liberation Front (ELF). The FBI and our law enforcement partners have made a number of arrests of individuals alleged to have perpetrated acts of animal rights extremism or eco-terrorism. Some recent arrests include eco-terror fugitive Michael James Scarpitti and accused ELF arsonist William Cottrell. Scarpitti, commonly known by his “forest name” of Tre’ Arrow, was arrested by Canadian law enforcement authorities on March 13, 2004 in British Columbia. Scarpitti had been a fugitive since August 2002, when he was indicted for his role in two separate ELF-related arsons that occurred in the Portland, Oregon area in 2001. William Cottrell was arrested by the FBI’s Los Angeles Division on March 9, 2004, and indicted by a federal grand jury on March 16, 2004 for the role he played in a series of arsons and vandalisms of more than 120 sport utility vehicles that occurred on August 22, 2003 in West Covina, California. Those crimes resulted in more than $2.5 million in damages. Between December 8, 2003 and January 12, 2004, three members of an ELF cell in Richmond, Virginia entered guilty pleas to federal arson and conspiracy charges, following their arrests by the FBI Richmond Division and local authorities. Adam Blackwell, Aaron Linas and John Wade admitted to conducting a series of arson and property destruction attacks in 2002 and 2003 against sport utility vehicles, fast food restaurants, construction vehicles and construction sites in the Richmond area, which they later claimed were committed on behalf of the ELF.
  11. The Democrat Party (DP). Discover the Networks says this about the Democratic Party, “The Democratic Party is presently the largest major political party in the United States. The words “Democracy” and “Democratic” come from the Greek roots demos (“the people”) and kratein (“to rule”). As of June 2020, 34% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats, and 29% as Republicans. On the right-left political spectrum, the Democratic Party currently is far to the left of its chief rival, the Republican Party, and also well to the left of the Democratic Party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. The Democrats themselves have a particularly far-left faction in the House of Representatives which is formally organized into the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Other far-left Democrat factions in the House include the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, both of which are firmly rooted in the dogmas of identity politics.

The Democrat Party

The Democrat Party is the epicenter of identity politics and is linked with black identity extremist groups like Black Lives Matter. Democrats also are the party of Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood has targeted minorities since its inception. In fact, due to the efforts by Planned Parenthood to abort black babies the current number of blacks is the U.S. wouldn’t be 13% it would be closer to 31%.

Jeffrey Lord, a contributing editor to The American Spectator and a former aide to Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan, has chronicled the following vital facts about the Democratic Party of 1800 through the 1960s:

  • Seven Democrat presidents owned slaves between 1800 and 1861.
  • Between 1840 and 1860, there were six Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery.
  • From 1868-1948, there were 20 Democratic Party platforms that either openly supported segregation or were silent on the subject.
  • The infamously racist “Jim Crow laws” of the post-Civil War era — mandating segregation in virtually all public settings throughout the South — were passed enthusiastically by Democrats.
  • In the post-Civil War era, the Democratic Party and the Ku Klux Klan had a very close relationship. Columbia University historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan became “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” And according to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease, the Klan served as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”
  • Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. And the 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
  • Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was passed by a Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Abraham Lincoln’s Republican ticket in 1864. The law gave blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, file lawsuits, and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
  • Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.
  • The Democratic Party’s 1904 platform used the term “Sectional and Racial Agitation” to condemn the Republican Party’s protests against segregation and against the denial of voting rights to blacks. This “agitation,” said the Democratic platform, sought to “revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country,” which in turn would bring “confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed.”
  • Between 1908 and 1920, there were 4 Democratic platforms that were silent on the issues of blacks, segregation, lynching, and voting rights. By contrast, the Republican platforms of those years specifically addressed the “Rights of the Negro” (1908), opposed lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928), and (with the advent of the New Deal) the dangers of turning blacks into “wards of the state.”
  • At the direction of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson in 1913, Democrats segregated the federal government.
  • The Democratic Convention of 1924, held in New York’s Madison Square Garden, has been dubbed by historians as the “Klanbake.” Hundreds of the delegates present were members of the Ku Klux Klan, which was so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was unwaveringly rejected. To celebrate, some 10,000 hooded Klansmen staged a massive rally complete with burning crosses and calls for violence against blacks and Catholics.
  • Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom and FDR’s New Deal. But these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks.
  • Thousands of Democratic local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen, and U.S. senators were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965.
  • In return for election support, three post-Civil War Democratic presidents — Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — agreed to leave the issues of segregation and lynching unaddressed.
  • Three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the U.S. House of Representatives came from Democrats, as did four-fifths of the opposition in the Senate. That opposition included such figures as future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Al Gore.
  • The Birmingham, Alabama Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor — who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil-rights protestors in the 1960s — was a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.
  • In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson launched a massive expansion of FDR’s New Deal welfare state that Johnson called the Great Society. One day when he was aboard Air Force One, Johnson confided in two like-minded governors regarding his underlying intentions for the Great Society programs, saying: “I’ll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” In short, he saw government giveaways as a way of buying the allegiance of a permanent, ever-dependent voting bloc for the Democratic Party.
  • In a similar spirit, Johnson said on another occasion: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

In a January 2010 Wall Street Journal article titled “The Fall of The House of Kennedy,” Daniel Henninger pointed out what had been a watershed moment for the Democratic Party 48 years earlier:

“In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party. That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy’s order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities. This in turn led to the fantastic growth in membership of the public employee unions—The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the teachers’ National Education Association. They broke the public’s bank. More than that, they entrenched a system of taking money from members’ dues and spending it on political campaigns. Over time, this transformed the Democratic Party into a public-sector dependency.

“They became different than the party of FDR, Truman, Meany and Reuther. That party was allied with the fading industrial unions, which in turn were tethered to a real world of profit and loss. The states in the North and on the coasts turned blue because blue is the color of the public-sector unions. This tax-and-spend milieu became the training ground for their politicians.”

Conclusion

Discover the Networks gives this analysis of the current Democrat Party:

In the aftermath of Khrushchev’s 1956 revelations about Stalin’s horrific abuses, most of the world’s Communist parties abandoned Stalinism and, to varying degrees, adopted the moderately reformist positions of the new Soviet First Secretary. The American far left likewise sought to distance itself from Stalin, rebranding itself as the so-called “New Left,” a counter-cultural movement that would hold fast to the overriding ideals of Marxism-Leninsim while formally abjuring the horrific crimes of Stalinism. But before long, this New Left would romanticize the neo-Stalinists of the Third World, embracing a whole new set of totalitarian heroes such as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel CastroPol Pot, and Daniel Ortega.

The core of the early New Left was formed by the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a radical organization that aspired to overthrow America’s democratic institutions, remake its government in a Marxist image, and help America’s enemies emerge victorious on the battlefield in Vietnam. Many key SDS members were “red-diaper babies,” children of parents who had been Communist Party members or Communist activists in the 1930s.

As U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War escalated in 1965, SDS membership grew exponentially and the New Left became increasingly radicalized with anti-American hatred and a growing tendency to pose conflicts in terms of “us” and “them” – “the movement” on one side, and “the system” or “the establishment” on the other. Liberals were reviled as part of the latter faction, and deviation from the radical agenda was viewed as political treason. For example, New Leftists excoriated the black pacifist Bayard Rustin for advocating coalition politics and opposing “one-sided anti-American” rhetoric; Staughton Lynd accused Rustin of “apostasy.”

By the middle of 1965, New Leftists no longer referred to themselves as part of American society, rarely if ever using the pronouns “us” or “our” when referring to American people or ideals. For a growing number, nothing less than revolutionary transformation, by way of violence in the streets, would suffice.

By the early 1970s, however, the openly defiant and revolutionary New Left had spent its political capital and was a dying movement. But its adherents remained committed to the cause, altering their tactics so as to work within the political and social system in a manner the New Left had previously chosen not to do. These latter-day leftists incorporated the tactics of Saul Alinsky, seeking to change society by first infiltrating its major institutions – the schools, the media, the churches, the entertainment industry, the labor unions, and the three branches of government – and then implementing policies from those positions of power.

Most notably, the ex-New Leftists found a home in the Democratic Party. By 1972, they had seized control of the party, as evidenced by the nomination of George McGovern as the Democratic presidential candidate on an antiwar platform that cast America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia as an immoral, imperialistic venture. Though McGovern lost 49 of the 50 states in the 1972 election, he and the anti-war radicals who flocked to his campaign moved the Democratic Party dramatically to the left. By way of its political ascendancy within the Democratic Party, the New Left, in a political sense, effectively killed off the classical centrist liberals who had vigorously opposed Communist totalitarianism. After accomplishing this parricide, the New Left occupied the corpse of authentic liberalism (i.e., the Democratic Party) and appropriated the name, “liberalism.”

As we have written, the party of JFK died when he did on November 22nd, 1963. The new Democrats are Marxists/Leninists/Socialists.

If you do not believe this then just look at the Biden administration and its policies.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Increasingly Secret History Of The Racist Democrats

VIDEO: James O’Keefe Dissects NYT Inadvertent Error Excuse for Publishing of Veritas Attorney Privileged Docs

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

The New York Times publishes our attorney-client memos on the heels of the FBI raids that every other organization in our journalism industry, and outside of it, rallied against. We asked the trial court in New York State to require The New York Times to explain themselves. The trial court agreed and ordered The New York Times to stop spreading what they already published.  The New York Times appealed that decision and the Appellate Court, Friday, denied their appeal. The New York Times claimed the documents on their website were an, “inadvertent error.” They knew they messed up. The head of The New York Times then had the audacity to cite the Pentagon Papers, like there’s any comparison. The New York Times are leaking our attorney-client privileged documents, while being an ongoing defendant in that litigation, and that my friends, makes all the difference in the world.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

Last year we published a video in Minnesota showing a Somali man, Liban Mohamed, filming himself on Snapchat in his car clearly committing voter fraud.

LIBAN MOHAMED, BALLOT HARVESTER:

Numbers don’t lie.  Numbers don’t lie. You can see my car is full.  All these here are absentee ballots. Can’t you see? Look at all these. My car is full. My car is full.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

We also published a video of a man named Osman Ali Dahquane bragging that he was breaking the law and bragging on-tape that he did not care.

OSMAN ALI DAHQUANE, BALLOT HARVESTER:

We take money and we vote for you.

OMAR JAMAL:

That is illegal? Isn’t it?

OSMAN ALI DAHQUANE, BALLOT HARVESTER:

We don’t care illegal.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

The New York Times does an article about the video, and in the first sentence of that article they call the video, “deceptive.” The New York Times also reports that we were “making claims without evidence,” and cited a Stanford study that said that the video was “probably part of a coordinated disinformation effort.” We sue the New York Times for defamation. The New York Times’ defense before the court is that the statement that the video was deceptive, in the first sentence of that article, was “an unverifiable expression of opinion.” The judge ruled that the dictionary definitions of deception provided by the defendants’ counsel certainly apply to Maggie Astor. That’s the reporter that wrote the video was deceptive.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

After we won that Motion to Dismiss, Maggie Astor admitted in court documents filed in the answer to our defamation complaint that she is not an opinion writer for The New York Times. USA Today then did a fact-check on our video based upon The New York Times article, which again, The New York Times falsely said was just an opinion piece, and in-turn Facebook, which utilizes USA Today as a fact-checker, banned those videos of those men committing voter fraud in Minneapolis.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

All based upon something The New York Times claimed was just an, “unverifiable expression of opinion.” Fast-forward, the FBI raids Project Veritas and my home. I make a statement and The New York Times misquotes our statement.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

Project Veritas gave the diary to law enforcement to ensure it could be returned to its rightful owner. We never published it. The New York Times reported, “He said that Project Veritas attempted to return the diary to the Justice Department.” Now, I gave a very clear statement with an accompanying transcript, and The New York Times couldn’t even get that correct. Only after we sent The New York Times reporter a letter to point out their mistake, did they correct what they wrote and they actually published a correction, which is at the bottom of that article.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

A week after the raid, many journalists started to ask questions.  Ben Smith, who is actually a media columnist at The New York Times, said that journalists shouldn’t be “cheerleading” it.  A Politico reporter, who is the national political correspondent, said that the raids could have a “chilling” effect.  And Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said it was worrying from a press freedom perspective. All that was November 10th.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

The New York Times then publishes our attorney-client memos.  We ask the trial court in New York State to require The New York Times to explain themselves. “This motion concerns a shocking display of unscrupulous gamesmanship by Defendant, The New York Times. While the litigation between Project Veritas and The New York Times was ongoing, through moribund due to a stay of discovery entered by the Appellate Division at The New York Times’ request, as it appeals the denial of its motion to dismiss, the Times decided to circumvent both its own stay and the normal discovery channels, and to improperly acquire clearly attorney-client privileged memoranda written for Project Veritas by its counsel of record in this case. But, The New York Times did not stop there.  It then chose to further disregard and prejudice Project Veritas’ substantial rights as attorney-client confidences by disseminating those protected legal memoranda to the whole world in two separate online publications.”

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

Now, they can “amend” whatever article they want, but here are the facts. The page on which the content was supposedly inadvertently posted contains an advertising placement at the top indicating it was intended for the public view. The page on which the content was posted contained social media badges for easy sharing, indicating it was intended for the public’s view. The page on which these documents were posted contains a link to download the entire document as a PDF, which would have been unnecessary for the reporters working on the story. So, given the sensitivity of the material, it boggles the mind that the Times expects us to believe that the placement of the material on a server that was intended for the public display of content to the World Wide Web was not actually intended to be published.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

The trial court in New York State ordered The New York Times to stop spreading what they already published. The New York Times appealed that decision and the Appellate court Friday denied their appeal.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

Now, they’re doubling down. The New York Times is now claiming such an order is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. But this is not a prior restraint. Why? Let’s be clear. The Times already published the attorney-client memos. The New York Times knew the publication of these communications was wrong, evidenced by the fact that shortly after publishing them the Times removed the memos from its website, and admitted that they were only published due to a “technical error.” This would never be an issue if the Times were not a defendant in our defamation case, and if the memos were not drafted by the very attorneys who represent us in that case. In fact, New York law imposes on litigants, and especially their lawyers, obligations not to infringe the rights of an adverse party by obtaining, using, and publishing attorney-client communications.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

Which, by the way, we’re very proud of what’s in those memos, as the New York Post headline said, they included a “strategy of trying to avoid breaking federal law.” The comments from executive editor Dean Baquet at The New York Times decrying the court’s ruling is nothing more than an attempt to deflect from the resounding criticism they’ve received this week for publishing attorney-client communications. Perhaps Mr. Baquet could explain why his paper has not taken the First Amendment stance in regards to its coverage of the Department of Justice raids against Project Veritas. The New York Times needs to decide if it is in favor of press freedom for all, or only itself, because it can’t have it both ways.

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

The head of The New York Times then had the audacity to cite the Pentagon Papers, like there’s any comparison. Some are parroting The New York Times’ argument, The New York Times v. The United States, that these rulings are unconstitutional. Again, they would have to argue that both the Supreme Court of the State of New York and the Appellate Division of the State of New York are against the First Amendment, which is an extraordinary argument. What they fail to realize here is the difference in this particular case is that we are suing The New York Times for defamation and they are a defendant in that case. Oh, and by the way Mr. Dean Baquet, where was your citation to the Pentagon Papers and the First Amendment when the FBI raided my home and took my phones and my reporter notes. Or were you busy publishing our attorney-client memos? You said, “when a court silences journalism, it fails its citizens and undermines their right to know.” What do you think you did when your reporter called that video in Minneapolis “deceptive,” and then called it an opinion, like that’s a defense. See, that’s silencing journalism.  Defamation is silencing journalism.  You’re still reporting “unverified claims of voter fraud in Minnesota.” You all admitted that you got certain facts wrong about the law in Minnesota and you still haven’t corrected the article! What is that if not silencing journalism and harming the public’s right to know?

JAMES O’KEEFE, PROJECT VERITAS:

Your efforts, Mr. Baquet, at every step, have been to censor and gate-keep information. If your response to that is that we’re “not journalists,” well guess what, look at everyone in our industry except you at The New York Times. The New York Times lied to the American people about those videos in Minnesota and they are leaking our attorney-client privileged documents while being an ongoing defendant in that litigation, and that my friends, makes all the difference in the world.  Maybe they should focus on the principles of the First Amendment and the legal issues at-hand, not focus on their dislike of me personally and Project Veritas.

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas video is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

FACES OF CHILD VICTIMS: The Democrat’s Slaughter at a Christmas Parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin

This is the poison fruit of Democrat incitement to murder by Democrat DAs, elected officials, and their ministry of media propaganda.

FACES OF THE PARADE: This is 11-year-old Jessalyn. She is in the ICU right now with internal injuries. She was with the Waukesha Xtreme Dance team when that SUV came crashing through.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Vehicular Jihad? Darrell Brooks Belongs to Black Supremacist Nation of Islam Sect, the ‘Five Percenters’

Girl, 11, wounded in Waukesha rampage tells doctors to ‘glue me back together’

Waukesha parade victims include members of ‘Dancing Grannies’

Rep. Rashida Tlaib grilled over bill that would empty federal prisons in 10 years

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

‘I Hope You Die’: The Murderous ISIS Jihadi From New York City You Heard Nothing About

My latest in PJ Media:

Ali Saleh, 28, was born and raised in the Jamaica, Queens neighborhood of New York City, in idyllic circumstances: according to court documents, he came “from a loving home, surrounded by parents and siblings, and was both educated and employed.” Yet despite the fact that we are constantly told that ignorance and deprivation cause terrorism, Saleh’s enviable upbringing didn’t prevent him from turning to the dark side. Wednesday, he was sentenced to thirty years in prison after pleading guilty to aiding the Islamic State (ISIS). He gives every indication of being as hardcore an adherent as the jihad terror organization ever had. And one question that no one seems to be asking is: Where did he get these ideas in Queens?

In addition to the 30 years for aiding ISIS, Saleh was also sentenced Wednesday to eight years and four months in prison for assaulting a federal correctional officer. According to the Justice Department, “on July 13, 2018, at approximately 12:35 p.m., while a senior correctional officer was retrieving trash through an access slot of Saleh’s cell, Saleh reached through the slot and slashed the officer with an improvised knife, lacerating the officer’s right forearm and damaging the officer’s radial nerve.  Saleh smiled at the officer and said, ‘I hope you die.’” Charming guy.

That was after Saleh amassed a long record of support for the world’s most brutal and murderous jihad terror group. Matthew G. Olsen, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s National Security Division, stated that “Saleh made numerous attempts to travel overseas to join ISIS, and when those efforts failed, attempted to assist others in joining the terrorist organization.”

Saleh made his loyalties abundantly clear. On July 10, 2014, he wrote online: “We are going to see a lot of be headings [sic] of American soldiers and I want front row seats.” Then on August 25, 2014, he declared: “I’m ready to die for the Caliphate, prison is nothing.” Three days later, he added: “Lets [sic] be clear the Muslims in the khilafah [caliphate] need help, the one who is capable to go over and help the Muslims must go and help.” He also wrote: “I’m ready to die for the Caliphate, prison is nothing.”

Saleh made reservations that day to fly to Turkey, from which he was presumably planning to make his way in to the Islamic State’s domains, but his parents stopped him by taking away his passport. Thus stymied, Saleh began helping ISIS in other ways. In October 2014, he sent $500 to a Muslim in Mali to help him get to Islamic State domains. He also aided others who wanted to help the Islamic State.

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CAIR on Rittenhouse: Hard to imagine ‘black or Muslim defendant in the same circumstances being found not guilty’

NYC: Muslim activist denounces priest as ‘Christian dog’ for criticizing Islam: ‘I will beat the crap out of him’

Biden’s handlers warn Israel that a strike against Iran’s nuclear program would be ‘counterproductive’

Masood Khan: The Jihad Terror Supporter Pakistan Has Sent to the Land of the Free

‘It is Time to Break the False Gods’: ISIS Magazine Calls for Destruction of Hindu Idols in India

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

‘Will Not Fix The Problem’: Biden Releasing Oil Reserves Due To Politics, Critics Say

  • President Joe Biden’s decision to tap the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was derided by top GOP lawmakers and experts who said the move was political and won’t move the needle on gasoline prices.
  • “Even if the economic reality of five or maybe 10 cents a gallon of short term impact isn’t that big of a deal, doing nothing might look like a really big political problem,” Kevin Book, a National Petroleum Council member and managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • The federal government will release 32 million barrels of oil from the SPR and accelerate the release of 18 million barrels that had already been congressionally mandated, the White House announced Tuesday.
  • “This very temporary measure is not going to solve the supply issue at the pump nor is it a solution to gas prices that have doubled in the last year,” Rep. Fred Upton, the top Republican on a House energy subcommittee, told the DCNF.

President Joe Biden’s decision to tap the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was derided by top GOP lawmakers and experts who said the move was political and won’t move the needle on gasoline prices.

The federal government will release 32 million barrels of oil from the SPR and accelerate the release of 18 million barrels that had already been congressionally mandated, the White House announced Tuesday. Biden’s move to release crude oil from the nation’s emergency reserves was made alongside China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K., marking the first internationally coordinated release of emergency oil reserves.

However, experts suggested that the action was likely a political reaction to ever-rising prices at the pump and said it wouldn’t have a significant long term effect.

“It’s possible to say, ‘okay, this is something that politically, if not economically, requires intervention.’ The problem might be that, actually they started talking about doing something back in August,” Kevin Book, a National Petroleum Council member and managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The White House was aware of these rising prices and concerned about them, and started taking steps towards intervention and created an expectation for intervention,” he continued. “So, even if the economic reality of five or maybe 10 cents a gallon of short term impact isn’t that big of a deal, doing nothing might look like a really big political problem.”

Book added that the release would have a minimal effect on oil prices, which had already declined over the last several weeks as reports of such a move became public. The price of oil is expected to decrease in the next couple of months due to normal seasonal market fluctuations, according to Book.

A Goldman Sachs report published last week echoed Book’s comments, arguing that tapping the SPR is a “short-term fix to a structural deficit” and was already priced-in to the market. Oil prices may even increase more than expected due to the move, the report concluded.

Biden even acknowledged that he doesn’t have a near-term fix for higher prices and that tapping reserves would barely have an effect during a CNN town hall in October. His administration has mulled an SPR release for months.

But, like Book, Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute Senior Vice President Christopher Guith said Tuesday that the White House should focus on long term policies rather than “ineffectual band aids.”

‘A cynical move’

Biden, meanwhile, has faced heavy criticism for his administration’s anti-fossil fuel actions, which include revoking the Keystone XL pipeline permit and banning new oil and gas leases on federal lands. While the president has set ambitious clean energy goals, gasoline prices have risen to their highest level in nearly a decade, government data showed.

Gas prices are tightly tied to the price of crude oil.

“This very temporary measure is not going to solve the supply issue at the pump nor is it a solution to gas prices that have doubled in the last year,” Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, the top Republican on a House energy subcommittee, told the DCNF.

The SPR was established in the 1970s as a tool to help the U.S. survive future energy crises where the global supply of oil dried up. The total inventory is estimated at around 604 million barrels of oil which is kept in deep underground storage caverns in Texas and Louisiana.

The last time the U.S. tapped the SPR was in 2011 when former President Barack Obama ordered a strategic release amid the Libyan civil war, a move that disrupted the Middle Eastern nation’s oil exports.

“President Biden’s policies are hiking inflation and energy prices for the American people,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso said in a statement. “Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will not fix the problem.”

“We are experiencing higher prices because the administration and Democrats in Congress are waging a war on American energy,” he continued.

Dan Kish, a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, said the move was like someone eating everything from the pantry then “shooting the farmers.”

“This is a cynical move by a guy who’s done everything in his power to restrict production here at home and in North America,” Kish told the DCNF. “All the while watching Russia become our number two supplier of foreign oil.”

Kish noted that oil prices have increased since Biden announced the release, a sign that it would have little effect on gasoline prices.

Republican Whip Steve Scalise said the SPR is strictly for emergency purposes in response to a question from the DCNF during an October roundtable. If Biden wanted to lower prices, he would make it easier for firms to drill and construct domestic pipelines, the Louisiana Republican added.

“The SPR is not to be used as a piggy bank just to bail you out when your failed policies create higher gas prices,” Scalise said.

“The answer is very straightforward and it’s right under our feet,” he continued. “Instead of trying to drain what’s left of our reserves, we ought to be producing more energy and creating more jobs here in America to take leverage away from OPEC countries and to take leverage away from Russia.”

COLUMN BY

THOMAS CATENACCI

Energy and environment reporter. Follow Thomas on Twitter

RELATED ARTICELS:

Trump Responds After Biden Announces Release Of Oil From Strategic Petroleum Reserves

Oil Prices Rise After Biden Announces Emergency Action

Joe Manchin Again Urges Biden To Reinstate Keystone XL Pipeline

Biden’s Energy Secretary Fails To Answer Question About Oil Industry

Environmentalists Are Making Putin Stronger Than Ever

White House Adviser Says There’s An ‘Energy Crisis,’ Doubles Down On Calls For Boosted Foreign Oil, Gas Production

Oil Prices Surge Again After OPEC Ignores Biden

Is The Shift To Renewable Energy Propelling Us Into An Energy Crisis?

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.

VIDEO: FBI Raids Home of Conservative School Board Activist Sherronna Bishop

I recently finished “Forty Autumns,” a book that describes the ruthless tactics of East Germany’s communist  regime prior to the reunification of East Germany and West Germany. Known as the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police intimidated opponents of the regime with terrifying raids that busted through the doors of homes occupied by dissidents targeted for retribution.

In western Colorado, the FBI recently carried out a similar heavy-handed raid against Sherronna Bishop, a school board activist who was instrumental in flipping nine school boards in the state from Democrat control to Republican control.

In early October, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the FBI to expand its political witch hunt for “domestic terrorists” by targeting parents protesting school board decisions. Dressed in full riot gear, Biden’s FBI agents terrified Bishop’s home-schooled children by hand-cuffing their mother in front of them and using a battering ram to smash down the door of her home. If Bishop broke some serious law, the violent raid may have been justified. If not, it was an act of tyranny no different than the kind conducted by the East German Stasi.

In the Rumble video below, Bishop describes what happened to Steve Bannon.

Protesting Parents Are Not ‘Domestic Terrorists’ And Will Not Be Intimidated

Earlier this month, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the FBI to expand its political witch hunt for “domestic terrorists” by targeting parents protesting the promotion of critical race theory (CRT) and transgenderism in public schools. Garland’s dirty decision was based on what he referred to as “a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers and staff.”

To the extent educators are the object of illegal acts, the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law, a task local law enforcement officials are fully capable of carrying out without help from the FBI. The Biden Administration’s brazen insertion of one of the federal government’s most feared agencies into local school board disputes smacks of a Soviet-style attempt to frighten and intimidate parents exercising their Constitutional right to petition government for a redress of grievances.

In response to the nationwide race riots during the Summer of 2020, high profile Democrats at all levels of government gave a wink and a nod as Black Lives Matter broke federal, state and local laws for months on end, destroying $2 billion of public and private property and killing or seriously injuring hundreds of law enforcement officers. While those of us who strongly object to political brainwashing of the nation’s school children must never condone violence, we also must not back down in the face of government tyranny. If we do, every freedom we have will be methodically stripped away as the tyrants laugh in our face.

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

Thus far, parents have taken the lead in confronting arrogant Democrat-dominated school boards that are teaching impressionable young children to hate their country. It’s time for the rest of us to join those parents, whether or not we have school-age children. To drive back the radical indoctrination being pushed in K-12 classrooms, the number of school board protesters must swell from the modest levels at present to thousands of parents and other patriotic Americans whose presence would make it clear they will not stand by in silence as the minds of our nation’s children are poisoned by progressive propaganda. Strength in numbers.

PARENTS HAVE RIGHTS

Parents have every right to expect that political and religious values taught at home should never be supplanted by those of their child’s teacher, and to therefore object in the strongest terms to their child being brainwashed with CRT, white privilege, The 1619 Project, Black Lives Matter, wokeness, multiculturalism, intersectionality, toxic masculinity, political correctness, cancel culture, identity politics and other victim vs. oppressor political themes that are used to induce white children to hate themselves, black children to hate white people, and children of all races to hate America. Those who sanction CRT in K-12 schools are tyrants who tolerate no dissent, aiming to destroy anyone who stands in their way. In Loudoun County, Virginia, parents who spoke out against CRT reportedly were targeted for revenge by Democrat members of the school board.

Parents have a right to be concerned that CRT indoctrination may cause lasting psychological damage to their child, just as they have a right to make it known they will not tolerate their child being made to feel unworthy due to inherited traits, such as skin color, over which no human being has control.

Parents have a right to have their child report to them what goes on in the classroom, and to put school officials on notice that if retaliation of any kind is taken against their child, they will aggressively pursue damages to the fullest extent allowed by law.

Parents have a right to partner with No Left Turn in EducationParents Defending EducationSpeak Up For Education and other parent groups committed to reclaiming our public schools from radicalized teachers and administrators who indoctrinate impressionable young children to hate western civilization, capitalism, Christianity, the Constitution and every white person who doesn’t vote Democrat.

Parents also have a right to object to public schools being used as transmission belts for anything-goes progressive sexual mores, such as transgenderism, pedophilia, pornography, and men having sex with little boys. On Sept. 23, an outraged mother in Fairfax County, Virginia confronted school board officials with passages from two school library books that vividly describe grown men having sex with pre-teen boys—watch video.

Elsewhere in Virginia, a biologically male student at a high school in Loudoun County was arrested last July on one count of forcible anal sodomy and one count of forcible fellatio allegedly committed in a school bathroom against a ninth grade female student. The “gender fluid” defendant, who was allegedly wearing a skirt on the day the alleged attack occurred, entered the girl’s bathroom in accordance with a school board policy that allows boys who claim to be a girl to use bathrooms once reserved for biologically female students. In an exclusive update, The Daily Wire reported last week that Loudoun Country Schools tried to conceal the alleged sexual assault to avoid a new round of controversy over its highly unpopular transgender bathroom policy.

PARENTS WILL NOT BACK DOWN!

In a recent article, Mollie Hemingway, senior editor at The Federalist, wrote that conservatives must be bold and defiant even if it costs them. In the 1960s, courageous civil rights marchers were bold and defiant, and it cost them: many were arrested by police doing the dirty bidding of high level Democrats, such as segregationist governors George Wallace (AL), Lester Maddox (GA) and Ross Barnett (MS). By not backing down, civil rights marchers eventually prevailed over the high level Democrat evil-doers that targeted them.

Recently, another high level Democrat—the current Attorney General of the United States—announced plans to intimidate protesters engaged in another just cause: the right of parents to address their grievances to hyper-politicized school boards. That high level Democrat has tasked the Federal Bureau of Investigation with looking for a pretext to prosecute protesting parents as “domestic terrorists.” Like civil rights marchers did, those parents will not back down even if it costs them.

On Nov. 2, Virginia voters will elect the state’s next governor, an election that will likely turn on CRT and other radical policies being forced on public schools by Democrat-dominated school boards. On the campaign trail, Democrat candidate Terry McAuliffe made two shocking statements about the state’s education of school children: (1) that parents should have no say in what their children are taught, and (2) that critical race theory is not being taught in Virginia public schools, which is a flat-out lie. If you have friends or family in Virginia, please consider forwarding this email to them.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: School Punishes 15-Year-Old Girl for Reporting Sexuаl Assаult

RELATED VIDEO: Sherronna Bishop, America’s Mom (Culture Impact Team)