If there are riots now in America, what will it be like 20 years from now if the New York Times gets its way?
The New York Times sponsored the 1619 Project, which postulates that America’s real beginnings as a nation are when the first African slaves were brought over….to Jamestown in 1619.
Many historians note that this is a distortion of our nation’s roots. Worse, it makes young people turn against this country. Despite our flawed history and their own personal sins, the founders created the framework by which evils like slavery could one day be uprooted. And it has been.
This battle over history and what is to be taught in our schools (when they reopen) has reached the highest echelons of power these days.
CNN reported (5/3/2021): “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is asking schools to stop using the 1619 Project, a curriculum aimed at reframing US history around the date of August 1619, when the first slave ship arrived to what would become the U.S.”
McConnell and other Republican senators said, “Families did not ask for this divisive nonsense. Voters did not vote for it…Americans never decided our children should be taught that our country is inherently evil.”
In my humble opinion, Mitch is right to do this. If this curriculum continues to spread, all children will learn is a distorted view of our past.
In his classic book “1984,” George Orwell said, “Whoever controls the past controls the future.” And he added, “Whoever controls the present controls the past.”
There is indeed a battle over the history of America. Much of the rioting in the streets of the last year has constituted a war on America as founded. Statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and many others have been torn down by the mobs. Even Abraham Lincoln has not escaped the wrath of rioters.
Although some historians support the 1619 Project, many historians vehemently disagree. A few months ago, the DailyWire reported that a group of scholars demanded that the Pulitzer Board revoke the Pulitzer Prize awarded to NYT writer Nikole Hannah-Jones’ Pulitzer Prize for her introduction to the 1619 Project.
Bob Woodson, an African-American scholar who has worked for decades on behalf of urban renewal, organized a number of scholars to oppose the 1619 Project.
In an interview I did with Woodson for D. James Kennedy Ministries, he told our viewers, “We at the Woodson Center organized 23-plus scholars and activists to confront this 1619 Project. We call ourselves 1776 Unites.” These scholars include some prominent Blacks, like Dr. Carol Swain, retired professor at Vanderbilt Law School.
Already the Woodson Center has seen some changes: “As a result of our essays that we wrote…Nikole Hannah-Jones, who was the author of the 1619 Project actually revised it…We forced them to back away from, and change, the reasons for the Revolutionary War.”
Initially, the 1619 Project promoted the false idea that America’s War for Independence was held for the purpose of protecting slavery.
That is an astounding claim, in light of the Fairfax Resolves of 1774, whereby George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other Members of the Virginia House of Burgesses tried to abolish the slave trade into Virginia. King George III put the kibosh on their efforts. (This was before MP William Wilberforce’s successful crusade, motivated by his Christian faith, to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself throughout the British Empire.)
Woodson adds this about the 1619 Project: “They are trying to define America by its birth defect of slavery and Jim Crow, and our counter is that no individual or nation should be judged by the worst of what they used to be. America is a country of redemption. America is a country of second chances, and so we at 1776 Unites believe that America is defined by its promise. And the Constitution is a mechanism for us to be self-correcting, and America is the only nation on the face of the earth that fought a civil war to end slavery.” [Emphasis added]
The above-mentioned Dr. Carol Swain argues that the 1619 Project sends a “very crippling message to our children” by conveying the idea that racism is in our national DNA. It basically says that no matter how hard you try, you will always be a victim of hopelessly racist America.
What is this all about? Dr. Richard Land, the president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, observes, “If you want to remake America, you’ve got to tear down belief in the country we have now. You have to make the country we have now and the founding fathers and our institutions illegitimate—that’s what the 1619 Project is about.”
There is a battle over history, and it is a battle we must win if we are to continue as a free nation.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jerry Newcombehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Newcombe2021-05-06 07:40:572021-05-06 07:40:57Teaching Kids That America Was Always Racist
First, Ahmad Saleem, a community organizer for CAIR in Florida, was busted after showing up to molest what he thought was a 12-year-old girl he had met over the internet. When Ahmad showed up in a car with a plate, “Invest in Children”, the cops were waiting for him instead.
The son of Pakistani immigrants had headed up the local Muslim Students Association at the University of Central Florida before moving up the ranks at CAIR. Then it was off to prison.
Now it’s Hassan Shibly’s turn. The Syrian immigrant who headed up CAIR Florida was accused of assaulting his wife, threatening to kill her, and sexually harassing CAIR employees. Shibly was also accused of threatening some of his accusers, and trying to pay them off.
An NPR article noted that CAIR leaders had been aware of the accusations as far back as 2016 and that no action was taken. “CAIR National has a history of turning a blind eye to many incidents over the years, and the information is coming out. No NDA will save them from what’s to come,” a former CAIR employee tweeted.
A forum for CAIR victims on Instagram quickly filled up with stories of a CAIR chapter head who “was found to be sexually harassing a member of staff and other women also complained about his behavior” only to be protected by the local CAIR governing board, a CAIR leader grooming an employee into a sexual relationship, a CAIR leader using “his religious belief that men can have 4 wives to manipulate women into having affairs with him behind his legal wife’s back”, and a “lawsuit with an imam and a little girl.”
This kind of thing happens a lot.
When the various Islamist groups set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and similar networks operate in this country, they use the laws of Sharia that they intend to impose on Americans.
Two years ago, Zia ul-Haque Sheikh, a former ISNA board member, and the Imam at the Islamic Center of Irving, was accused of sexually exploiting a 13-year-old girl. He allegedly tried to marry the girl, when she came of age, even though he already had two wives at the time.
Also at the Islamic Center of Irving, a security guard was accused of molesting a third-grader, and there was an incident of a foreign man kissing minors at the mosque.
Sheikh’s accuser claimed that she had reported this to the president of the Islamic Center of Irving board, Nouman Ali Khan, who “discouraged her from sharing what she experienced because it would harm Sheikh’s reputation.”
Khan, an Islamic preacher and a Pakistani immigrant, had headed up the Bayyinah Academy before being accused of latching on to troubled women at Islamic events and then exploiting them. The Islamist cleric had frequently appeared at ISNA and other Islamist events, and had previously defended the Sharia practice of lashing those accused of immoral behavior.
Sheikh Usama Canon, the Islamic cleric who founded the Ta’leef Collective, had been a frequent speaker at CAIR and ISNA events, an instructor at the Islamist Zaytuna Institute, and an advisor to the Inner-City Muslim Action Network (IMAN).
Canon, a black convert to Islam turned preacher, was ousted after allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior that included grooming women. He still remains involved in various Islamic institutions and organizations including the Downtown Islamic Center of Chicago.
Muslim feminist activists insist that the answer is more female leadership, but Linda Sarsour, probably the most prominent female Muslim activist in America, was herself accused of enabling sexual harassment back when she was working at the Arab American Association.
“She oversaw an environment unsafe and abusive to women,” a former employee, who claimed to have been repeatedly groped, alleged.
The Islamist apples rarely fall far from the tree.
Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and probably the leading Islamist figure in the West, has been accused of raping a series of women.
Ramadan’s alleged assaults took place in Washington D.C., in Paris, London, and major cities around the world. The victims who have come forward included a disabled convert to Islam and former teenage students: including one as young as 14 years old.
The disabled woman described meeting Ramadan after a conference on Islamophobia and Palestine before he beat her, raped her, and then urinated on her.
Abuses happen in all religions and among secular intellectuals, but Islam is unique in that its theology provides a license for sexual abuse. A number of the Muslim leaders caught in the #MeToo moment employed the toolbox of Sharia law to perpetrate their abuses. They used the legal fiction of “temporary marriages” to force women into illicit affairs and the codes of a religion whose founder married a 7-year-old girl and where children are married off well before they hit puberty to justify abusing underage girls. And the Islamist infrastructure around them, tapping into the Sharia demand for multiple witnesses to a rape charge, ignored their accusers.
Rape and sexual abuses can happen in a variety of settings, but Islam is uniquely built to justify and protect behaviors that are crimes in the United States, but normative in the Muslim world.
The #MeToo scandals of Islamism are just symptoms of the fundamental divide between two civilizations and their accompanying value systems. The Islamists had always intended to build a state within a state. And within their organizations and communities, the state within a state operates under Sharia law, with legal, but no moral accountability, to the United States.
After 9/11, America’s Islamists increasingly came to align with the Left. The unspoken conflict between Sharia and feminism has yet to explode out into the open because there is too much at stake for both sides. But the #MeToo scandals at CAIR and other Islamist groups are a fracture point between two ideologies that are hostile to America, but also to each other’s values.
The miniature clash of civilizations within the political infrastructure of multiculturalism is coming.
Islamists have injected their policy priorities, support for the Muslim Brotherhood, hostility to Israel, hijabization, and opposition to fighting terrorism, into the Left. But the Left has also injected its own values, including feminism, into the Islamist political infrastructure.
Leftists and Islamists allied in Egypt, Algeria and Iran, among many other places, to overthrow establishment governments, only to have those alliances come apart in blood and tyranny.
The American alliance between Islam and the Left may meet the same end.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2021-05-06 06:37:432021-05-06 06:37:43Hamas-linked CAIR and other US Islamic Groups have a #MeToo Problem
Since Iran’s 1979 Revolution, the Islamic Republic has been widely identified as the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism. From then until now, the fanatical religious Iranian regime has funded, trained, armed, and launched clandestine attacks by numerous terrorist groups. Brookings Institute reports that Iran has backed “not only groups in its Persian Gulf neighborhood, but also terrorists and radicals in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Bosnia, the Philippines, and elsewhere. Iran calls this “exporting the Revolution.”
However, no country has been more repeatedly and specifically targeted by Iran — in word and deed and by proxies — than the Jewish State of Israel.
“Death to Israel” continues to be the hateful chant repetitively heard during Iran’s official state-sponsored rallies, parades and political gatherings. Iran’s tireless calls for the destruction of Israel is well-known by most Americans. And, of course, no one knows about Iran’s demands for violence and terrorism against Israel better than former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
Yet, as we recently learned, John Kerry has apparently betrayed both America and Israel, and has done so with potentially deadly intelligence leaks about Israel to Iran.
As Tony Perkins recently explained on “Washington Watch,” according to news reports, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said John Kerry informed him about classified U.S. intelligence regarding some 200 Israeli strikes on Iranian targets in Syria.
In a shocking revelation, disclosed during a leaked three-hour recorded interview inside Iran, Zarif complained that Iran’s military has long kept him in the dark on crucial matters. He then said he had to find out about Israeli attacks against Iranian interests in Syria from none other than John Kerry.
In light of Zarif’s remarks, three GOP House Foreign Affairs Committee members wrote to the U.S. State Department’s Inspector General last Wednesday to demand an investigation into Kerry. The House member leading that charge, Congressman Andy Barr of Kentucky, serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He spoke to Tony about Kerry’s alleged treachery.
“Imagine a former U.S. secretary of state,” Barr began, “divulging sensitive, perhaps classified top-secret military related information to a sworn enemy of the United States about our key ally in the region, the state of Israel. If these reports are true, not only did John Kerry undermine our critical American-Israeli alliance, he really turned his back on Israel. He betrayed Israel.”
Congressman Barr continued, “And, I would argue, because Israel is this island of moderation and a democracy in an otherwise very dangerous part of the world, Kerry really threatened and undermined U.S. national security interests as well. And this is a kind of a pattern for John Kerry. He has a very bad habit of cozying up with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” We know this because he was not only the architect of the flawed Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), but if these recent reports are true, he appears to be putting his own personal ego and his interest in salvaging this flawed deal way ahead of U.S. national security and certainly above the security of our friends in Jerusalem.”
Barr went on to say, “We know that John Kerry has admitted having two conversations with the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Zarif, during the period of time when Secretary Pompeo and the Trump administration — the previous administration — was directly in the process of withdrawing from the flawed agreement and reimposing sanctions and initiating a maximum pressure campaign.”
Barr explained, “If that timeline is accurate, then we have John Kerry working directly at odds with U.S. foreign policy, in something akin to a shadow diplomacy that was undermining the official policy of the United States. John Kerry was actively trying to undermine the official policy of the United States — a policy that was intended to reestablish deterrence against the world’s state sponsor of terrorism.”
Was John Kerry’s activity illegal? According to Congressman Barr, most likely it was. He, along with Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) and Congressman Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), have written to the State Department’s Inspector General asking for immediate answers to some key questions:
“We want to know what the State Department knew and when they knew it. We want to know the status of John Kerry’s security clearance. We want to know whether these leaks and shadow diplomacy put the Israeli Defense Forces in danger of retaliation. We want to know if there were any retaliatory attacks launched on Israeli allies.”
Barr concluded, “We need to get to the bottom of this. And we want the State Department Inspector General to take it seriously.”
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2021-05-05 07:59:452021-05-05 07:59:45VIDEO: John Kerry's Shocking Betrayal of U.S. Intelligence and Israel Security
Over 200 employees of Simon & Schuster have gone full fascist, signing a petition calling on the publishing giant to stop providing a platform for everyone except fellow leftist fascists. The haters of the freedom of speech made three demands:
Cancel the two-book deal with Mike Pence and do not sign any more book deals with former members of the Trump administration.
End Simon & Schuster’s distribution deal with Post Hill Press [which publishes conservative books].
Commit to ongoing reevaluations of all clients, authors, distribution deals, and all other financial commitments that promote white supremacist content and/or harm the aforementioned marginalized communities.
The fascists claimed that “when S&S chose to sign Mike Pence, we broke the public’s trust in our editorial process, and blatantly contradicted previous public claims in support of Black and other lives made vulnerable by structural oppression. Simon & Schuster has chosen complicity in perpetuating white supremacy by publishing Mike Pence and continuing to distribute books for Post Hill Press, including predator Matt Gaetz’s FIREBRAND. By choosing to publish Mike Pence, Simon & Schuster is generating wealth for a central figure of a presidency that unequivocally advocated for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Blackness, xenophobia, misogyny, ableism, islamophobia, antisemitism, and violence. This is not a difference of opinions; this is legitimizing bigotry.”
Of course. No dissent from the left is a legitimate “difference of opinions,” because leftists see the world in a way that religious fanatics throughout history would find familiar: they alone have the vision of what is good and just, and since all those outside the fold are ignorant and evil, they have no rights that the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable opinion are bound to respect.
So far, however, Simon & Schuster’s chief executive Jonathan Karp has shown himself to be among the unredeemed. Karp reminded the fascists in his employ that the job of a publishing house was to allow for “a diversity of voices and perspectives.” Diversity! Karp’s choice of words must have driven the petitioners up the wall, because like all leftists, they are no doubt extremely proud of their commitment to “diversity” in all forms except, of course, a genuine diversity of thought. Black and brown and queer and trans voices and all the rest are welcome among them, as long as they all think the same way and say the same thing. But here was Karp gently making it clear that the petitioners weren’t really in favor of diversity in any meaningful way. “We come to work each day to publish, not cancel,” he said, “which is the most extreme decision a publisher can make.”
For that he will likely be canceled himself before too long.
The American left long ago embraced authoritarianism and fascism, and is increasingly intolerant of any point of view other than its own. Note that the petitioners included in its laundry list of denunciations the spurious propaganda neologism “Islamophobia.” “Islamophobia” is an illegitimate conflation of two distinct phenomena: crimes against innocent Muslims, which are never justified, and honest analysis of the motivating ideology of jihad terror, which is always necessary. It is inconceivable that anyone would want to publish a book calling for attacks on innocent Muslims or any innocent people, but there are many books discussing the motivating ideology of jihad terrorism.
Islamic advocacy groups and their leftist allies have been insisting for years that such books, too, constituted “Islamophobia.” Such analyses are what these fascists at Simon & Schuster want to stamp out. If the left succeeds in consolidating power, it will be impossible to publish, and likely illegal to enunciate publicly, any opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women and others, for there is no example of any such opposition not being considered “Islamophobic.”
The fascist employees also demanded that Simon & Schuster cut ties with my publisher, Post Hill Press (my last six books have been or are in the process of being published under Post Hill’s imprint, Bombardier Books), with which Simon & Schuster has a distribution arrangement. The petition libelously asserts that Post Hill “openly supports and normalizes violence against minors, Black women, and all Black people by individuals and the state.” This is, of course, not remotely true. It is how left-fascists lie in order to demonize and destroy their opponents. Although Karp has rejected this petition, expect to see much more of this sort of thing. We have not yet reached the high tide of left-fascism in America today.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2021-05-05 07:20:162021-05-05 07:22:20FASCISM: Simon & Schuster Employees Demand Publisher Drop Books They Disagree With
Just as George Orwell warned, governments don’t have to be the censors for free speech and free expression to be fatally stifled.
Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
The above is a quotation from George Orwell’s preface to Animal Farm, titled “The Freedom of the Press,” where he discussed the chilling effect the Soviet Union’s influence had on global publishing and debate far beyond the reach of its official censorship laws.
Wait, no it isn’t. The quote is actually an excerpt from the resignation letter of New York Times opinion editor and writer Bari Weiss, penned this week, where she blows the whistle on the hostility toward intellectual diversity that now reigns supreme at the country’s most prominent newspaper.
A contrarian moderate but hardly right-wing in her politics, the journalist describes the outright harassment and cruelty she faced at the hands of her colleagues, to the point where she could no longer continue her work:
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again.’ Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
Weiss’s letter reminds us of the crucial warning Orwell made in his time: To preserve a free and open society, legal protections from government censorship, while crucial, are not nearly enough.
"I do not believe I have ever said that it is important to collect the art of white men. I have said that it is important that we do not exclude consideration of the art of white men." The curator who said this was accused of white supremacy and resigned. https://t.co/MdHGex0WfD
To see why, simply consider the fate that has met Weiss and so many others in recent memory who dared cross the modern thought police. Here are just a few of the countless examples of “cancel culture” in action:
A museum curator in San Francisco resigned after facing a mob and petition for his removal simply because he stated that his museum would still collect art from white men.
The head opinion editor of the New York Timeswas fired and his colleague was demoted after they published an op-ed by a US senator arguing a widely held position and liberal colleagues claimed the words “put black lives in danger.’
A random Boeing executive was recently mobbed and fired because he wrote an article 30 years ago arguing against having women serve in combat roles in the military.
A data analyst tweeted out the findings of a research paper (by a black scholar) about the ineffectiveness of protests and was fired after colleagues claimed their safety was threatened.
Led by progressives as prominent as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, a woke mob tried to get a Chicago economist fired from his editorship of an economics journal for tweeting that embracing “Defund the Police” undercuts the Black Lives Matter movement’s chances of achieving real reform.
These are just a few examples of many. One important commonality to note is that none of these examples involve actual government censorship. Yet they still represent chilling crackdowns on free speech. As David French put it writing for The Dispatch, “Cruelty bullies employers into firing employees. Cruelty bullies employees into leaving even when they’re not fired. Cruelty raises the cost of speaking the truth as best you see it—until you find yourself choosing silence, mainly as a pain-avoidance mechanism.”
There is a dramatic difference between disagreement and cruelty and malice. I know Bari well enough to know that she welcomes the former. The latter is difficult to endure, no matter how thick your skin. https://t.co/71vpSI4NLz
What the Times did to @bariweiss is unconscionable. It’s not civil, It’s not in the reader’s interest, and the well-documented culture of extreme harassment will, I hope, now come to light. This is the biggest media story in years.
These recent observations echo what Orwell warned of decades ago:
Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship… but the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the [government] or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.
Similarly, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell noted in a 1922 speech “It is clear that thought is not free if the professional of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living.”
Among other things, Russell — who was speaking as an atheist in 1920s England and thus barred from many opportunities, and noting Communists were similarly excluded in the US — emphasized that "free thought" is suppressed by far more than state sanction or prohibition: pic.twitter.com/66wRrcgJNs
Some might wonder why it’s really so important to protect speech and thought beyond the law. After all, if no one’s going to jail over it, how serious can the consequences really be?
While understandable as an impulse, this logic misses the point. Free and open speech is the only way a society can, through trial and error, get closer to the truth over time. It was abolitionist Frederick Douglas who described free speech as “the great moral renovator of society and government.” What he meant was that only the free flow of open speech can challenge existing orthodoxies and evolve society. From women’s suffrage to the civil rights movement, we never would have made so much progress on sexism and racism without the right to speak freely.
Silence enshrines the status quo. As John Stuart Mill put it:
If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
This great discovery process through free-flowing speech first and foremost requires a hands-off approach from the government, but it still cannot occur in a culture hostile to dissenting opinion and debate. When airing a differing view can get you mobbed or put your job in jeopardy, only society’s most powerful or those whose views align with the current orthodoxy will be able to speak openly without fear.
Orwell and Russell were right then, even if we’re only fully realizing it now. Self-censorship driven by culture, not government, erodes our collective discovery of truth all the same.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2021-05-04 06:39:502021-05-04 06:41:15Why George Orwell's Warning on 'Self-Censorship' Is More Relevant Than Ever
Former President Donald Trump on Monday announced he’ll begin to use the term “the big lie” – commonly used by his critics to describe his baseless election fraud claims – to refer to the 2020 election results, a sign he has no plans to tone down his rhetoric as one social media platform adjudicates his suspension.
In a statement sent through his political action committee, Save America PAC, Trump incorrectly blasted his loss in November as “The Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020” and said it “will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!”
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 ranking House Republican and a vocal Trump critic, shot back on Twitter that the election “was not stolen,” adding, “Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE” and “poisoning our democratic system.”
But this latest development comes as Facebook announced Monday it would decide the fate of Trump’s account, which was suspended after his supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 based on his fraud claims, on Wednesday.
As early as the morning after election day, Trump began falsely claiming victory, using the time it took to count mail-in ballots as a window of opportunity. He has refused to concede President Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election even after putting out multiple video statements acknowledging he would be leaving office after his supporters stormed the Capitol.
“We will never give up. We will never concede,” Trump told a crowd of supporters gathered in front of the White House on Jan. 6 – some of whom later marched to the Capitol and stormed the building.
70%. That’s the share of Republicans who believe Biden did not win enough votes to be president, according to a CNN poll of 1,004 U.S. adults released late last month.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Pamela Gellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPamela Geller2021-05-04 05:48:262021-05-04 05:50:31In New Statement, President Trump Says 2020 Election Was “Fraudulent” and “THE BIG LIE!”
The US is in uncharted debt territory. That should worry us.
President Biden on Wednesday pitched a new plan to Americans before a joint session of Congress: more spending.
The just-released $1.8 trillion plan, presented just weeks after Biden signed a $1.9 trillion in COVID relief spending into law, includes “free” community college as well as universal preschool for all three and four-year-olds.
“Mr. Biden could usher in a new era that fundamentally expands the size and role of the federal government,” The New York Timesreported.
Biden’s plan will almost certainly make the deficit worse. Though the plan contains various tax increases to fund its programs, the taxes are likely to fall well short of government outlays, economists say.
“The laws of economics are more rigid than the laws of the federal government, and these tax hikes are unlikely to yield the windfall Biden expects,” Joshua Jahani, the managing director of Jahani and Associates, noted in a recent NBC News article.
How much risk these obligations present is unclear.
There is a school of thought that suggests these debts pose no serious risk. After all, in theory, a government can roll over its debt indefinitely. However, in a recent article for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, economist David Andolfatto noted that ultimately the government doesn’t decide how much debt is bearable. The market does.
“There is presumably a limit to how much the market is willing or able to absorb in the way of Treasury securities, for a given price level (or inflation rate) and a given structure of interest rates,” Andolfatto wrote. “However, no one really knows how high the debt-to-GDP ratio can get. We can only know once we get there.”
A Dangerous Level of Debt?
Andolfatto is right that no one really knows the debt tipping point. But it’s worth noting that the US debt-to-GDP ratio—essentially a country’s debt compared to its annual economic output—was 129 percent at the end of 2020. In other words, the official US debt was nearly a third larger than the entire US economy.
The United States is not Greece, of course. Its economic potential is far greater, and it is operating under a currency it controls. But there’s no denying that the US is in uncharted territory. Today, the federal government debt-to-GDP ratio is higher than it was at the conclusion of World War II, when the nation assembled one of the largest armies the world has ever seen. Perhaps even worse, the government is piling on debt faster than ever.
Eventually, as Andolfatto notes, the market may very well decide enough is enough, and the demand for Treasury securities will dry up. Indeed, this is likely one reason cryptocurrencies are suddenly flourishing.
And it’s not hard to see why. The market is hedging. Like rats on a sinking ship, many are eyeing an exit, sensing that the dollar’s day may finally be coming to an end as its value is eroded by mass pumping.
In a popular 2016 article, author Richard Ebeling explored how central planners in ancient Rome destroyed the economy.
A lot of what Ebeling describes—debt, massive spending, inflation, and price controls destroy—sound eerily familiar to modern ears. And Ebeling naturally explores the age-old riddle: why did Rome fail?
For centuries, as any history buff knows, thinkers from Edward Gibbon to Peter Heather and beyond, have asked this question. The answers vary. Some blame barbarians, others immigration. Some claimed Christianity was at fault, while others point to disease or the weakening of Roman legions.
All of these theories are interesting and worthy of examination, but I’ve found no single better explanation than the one offered by economist Ludwig von Mises who concluded Rome’s decay stemmed from its rejection of individualism and free markets.
“The marvelous civilization of antiquity perished because it did not adjust its moral code and its legal system to the requirements of the market economy,” Mises wrote.
“A social order is doomed if the actions which its normal functioning requires are rejected by the standards of morality, are declared illegal by the laws of the country, and are prosecuted as criminal by the courts and the police.
The Roman Empire crumbled to dust because it lacked the spirit of [classical] liberalism and free enterprise. The policy of interventionism and its political corollary, the Fuhrer principle, decomposed the mighty empire as they will by necessity always disintegrate and destroy any social entity.”
The American president and statesman John Adams once reportedly said there are two ways nations are destroyed.
“One is by the sword and the other is by debt,” Adams reputedly said. (Though the quote is widely attributed to Adams, it’s not supported by written documentation.)
There is no question debt is a serious problem. (Just ask the ancient Romans and modern Grecians.) But if Mises is correct, the explosion of debt may merely be a symptom of a much larger problem: a collapse of the spirit of liberty and the growth of a system hostile to free enterprise.
We should learn from one thing we have that the Romans didn’t: their ominous example.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2021-05-03 05:49:072021-05-03 05:49:07The US Government’s Debt-to-GDP Ratio Is Worse Than Greece’s Before the 2008 Crash [And It’s About to Get Worse]
Apple and several retail trade groups continued lobbying policymakers in the first quarter of this year on a bill to prohibit American firms from using Chinese forced labor, according to disclosures filed with Congress this week.
Apple paid Fierce Government Relations, a Washington, D.C. firm, $90,000 to lobby the House and Senate on multiple pieces of legislation, including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, according to Fierce’s lobbying disclosure filing.
The tech giant also paid $90,000 to Invariant LLC, another Beltway-based firm, to work on several bills and to monitor “legislative action on workforce and supply chains in China.”
Two other companies, JinkoSolar, a Chinese-owned solar company, and VF Corporation, which owns apparel brands like North Face and Dickies, spent $200,000 each on lobbying, including on the Uyghur bill.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the legislation last year to prevent American companies from funding forced labor in China’s Xinjiang autonomous region, which is home to millions of Muslim Uyghurs.
The House passed the Uyghur Act by a vote of 406-3 vote on Sept. 22, 2020, but it was not ratified by the Senate.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers reintroduced the bill on Feb. 18. It includes a “rebuttal presumption” that goods from the Xinjiang region are made with forced labor. American firms would be required to produce “clear and convincing” evidence that their products were made under fair labor practices, according to the proposed bill.
Officials in both the Trump and Biden administrations have called the Chinese government’s crackdown on Uyghurs a genocide. American officials, as well as outside watchdog groups, have alleged that Chinese authorities have forced Uyghurs into detention camps where they are forced to work in slave-like conditions, mostly in the apparel and electronics industries.
Apple and other retailers, including VF Corporation and JinkoSolar, have recently faced allegations — which they have denied — that they rely on forced Uyghur labor in their supply chains.
The Washington Post reported on Dec. 29 that one of Apple’s suppliers, Lens Technology, relies on forced labor to make glass screens for its iPhones.
Apple has denied using forced labor in its supply chain, but The Post reported in November that Fierce Government Relations, the firm hired by Apple, met with congressional aides to try to soften language in the Uyghur bill.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Pamela Gellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPamela Geller2021-05-03 05:28:452021-05-03 05:29:11Apple Continues Lobbying Congress On Chinese Slave Labor Bill
April 30, 2021 Updated: April 30, 2021 Florida’s Republican-controlled Senate on April 29 passed a new bill that places several restrictions around vote-by-mail and ballot drop boxes.
The bill, SB 90 (pdf), was passed in the state House 77-40 and in the Senate 23-17. It now goes to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to sign it.
If signed, it would require signature verification for voters, provided by a “wet signature” physically signed on paper kept on file, and access to drop boxes would be limited to early voting hours unless they are located at election supervisors’ offices. Drop boxes would also have to be monitored in-person by an elections official, and ID would be required when dropping off ballots.
Other aspects in the bill include limitations on who can return a finished mail-in ballot, preventing election officials from entering consent agreements, and requiring voters to request a mail ballot every election cycle, rather than every two, as under current law.
The legislation would also ban anyone from “engaging in any activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter” but allow election supervisors to provide “non-partisan assistance,” such as giving items, including food and water, to voters within the restricted zones.
The bill also requires supervisors to set and publish drop box locations 30 days before the election. Those locations cannot be moved for any purpose.
SB 90 was amended from a previous stricter version which had originally banned drop boxes completely.
A spokesperson for Gov. Ron DeSantis said he supports the bill, noting it “will ensure that Florida remains a national leader in election security, integrity and transparency,” ABC News reported.
Democrats, including state Rep. Anna Eskamani, responded to the Senate’s decision on Thursday, calling it a “Georgia-style voter suppression bill” on Twitter.
“It makes it harder to vote by mail, prohibits groups from passing out water to voters and tries to limit ballot boxes. I’m sad but proud of the Democratic Caucus for fighting so hard. Keep fighting,” Eskamani wrote.
Earlier this month, the state of Georgia passed more stringent voting laws which elicited widespread condemnation from Democrats, including President Joe Biden who branded it “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” and “an atrocity.”
The new law adds a host of new voting restrictions, including photo identification requirements for absentee voting, limits on the use of ballot drop boxes, and making it illegal to take food or water to voters in line. It also gives state lawmakers more control over elections.
Other states with GOP-controlled legislatures such as Arizona are also looking at making changes to their mail-in voting systems.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Pamela Gellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPamela Geller2021-05-02 07:20:282021-05-02 07:20:28Florida Passes New Elections Bill Adding Restrictions to Vote-by-Mail and Ballot Drop Boxes
We now have chilling details of California state officials and Big Tech executives conspiring to uproot the First Amendment and influence the 2020 election. And, key targets were Judicial Watch and me.
The proof is in 540 pages and a supplemental four pages of documents we received from the office of the Secretary of State of California revealing how state officials pressured social media companies (Twitter, Facebook, Google (YouTube)) to censor posts about the 2020 election. Included in these documents were “misinformation briefings” emails that were compiled by communications firm SKDK, which lists Biden for President as their top client of 2020.
The documents show how the state agency successfully pressured YouTube to censor my Judicial Watch video concerning the vote by mail and a Judicial Watch lawsuit settlement about California voter roll clean up.
We received the records in response to our California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests to the Office of the California Secretary of State for records related to the Office of Election Cybersecurity’s database of social media posts; communications with social media companies; and other social media related records regarding the 2020 elections. We filed the requests after a December 2020 report surfaced that the state agency was surveilling, tracking, and seeking to censor the speech of Americans:
The Office of Election Cybersecurity in the California Secretary of State’s office monitored and tracked social media posts, decided if they were misinformation, stored the posts in an internal database coded by threat level, and on 31 different occasions requested posts be removed. In 24 cases, the social media companies agreed and either took down the posts or flagged them as misinformation, according to Jenna Dresner, senior public information officer for the Office of Election Cybersecurity.
“We don’t take down posts, that is not our role to play,” Dresner said. “We alert potential sources of misinformation to the social media companies and we let them make that call based on community standards they created.”
Head of conservative group Judicial Watch Hosts video alleging Democrats benefit from incorrect voter rolls and ballot collection.
The Secretary of State’s office details its communication with YouTube: “We wanted to flag this YouTube video because it misleads community members about elections or other civic processes and misrepresents the safety and security of mail-in ballots.” The chart quotes me describing Judicial Watch’s statement about its federal lawsuit settlement with Los Angeles County that will require it to clean up voter rolls and how a Michigan court “changed the rules” on ballot deadlines and ballot harvesting. (The controversial decision was overturned in October 2020.)
The document shows that California state officials contacted YouTube directly to remove the video on September 24, 2020, and that YouTube seemed to respond by deleting the video on September 27, 2020.
On September 11, 2020, outside consultant Zeke Sandoval, of the SKDK communications firm, provides the Secretary of State’s Office a “Misinformation Daily Briefing,” which again targets me:
Trump tweeted, “The big Unsolicited Ballot States should give it up NOW, before it is too late, and ask people to go to the Polling Booths and, like always before, VOTE. Otherwise, MAYHEM!!! Solicited Ballots (absentee) are OK,” and Twitter was quick to fact check and shared a link with info about how voting by mail is safe and secure. Viral reply on Twitter from Tom Fitton asserting, “Mailing 51 million ballots to those who haven’t asked for increases risk of voter fraud and voter intimidation!”
A 30-page “Misinformation Tracking Sheet” lists social media posts that the office disagrees with and has asked social media companies to remove.
In an internal email on January 12, 2021, Deputy Secretary of State and Chief Communications Officer Paula Valle emails Chief Counsel Steve Reyes and Jenna Dresner in the Office of Cybersecurity, as well as Press Secretary Sam Mahood stating that she is uncomfortable with CalMatters reporter Fred Brewster’s questions about the office’s tracking and censoring efforts:
Hi Steve – Please see below – the reporter at Cal Matters who PRA’d us is doing a follow-up story. We asked him to send us his questions. I am not necessarily comfortable with his line of questions and the additional doors that this will open. I want to get your feedback I would simply like to give him a statement about what our goal is and leave it at that. Thoughts?
Brewster’s questions, which include concerns from citizens who were targeted by the “Misinformation Tracker,” were sent on January 12, 2021:
I reached out to the users on page 7 and page 21 of the Misinformation Tracker request I received. Both individuals wanted to know how their posts ended up being labeled misinformation and how, given their relatively small following, they came to the attention of the Office of Election Cybersecurity?
Another user named “DC O’Bryan” had his post taken down (page 5 of the Misinformation Tracker). In an email, you highlight a report sent to the state that says, “I don’t know if this is hot air meant to provoke. If it is, a call from an official might get the point across that you don’t joke about election fraud.” Was O’Bryan called to confirm that his post was a joke?
How does the Office of Election Cybersecurity differentiate between parody and satire and misinformation?
Did CISA, Facebook, or any other partners provide guidance on how to spot and define misinformation? If someone has their posts in the Misinformation Tracker, are there plans to contact those individuals and is there a way for them to petition the state to delete them?
The Secretary of State’s Office emails Facebook and Twitter on April 25, 2019, with requests from the Office to remove tweets and posts for what they have labeled “misinformation.”
The office emails Facebook, attempting to set up a call to discuss removing future posts. This 15-minute call is with “new Facebook contact for social media reporting: Javier Hernandez, Politics & Government Outreach” in order to discuss how the office will report posts to Facebook. In the email, Facebook outlines its goals to directly work with “electoral authorities in every state” so that they can “report instances of voter suppression on Facebook directly to our team, so [Facebook] can look at them quickly and remove them from the site.”
On December 31, 2019, after the Secretary of State’s office reports a tweet to Support@Twitter.com, Kevin Kane, a Twitter representative, replies and offers his direct contact for the Office’s future needs in removing posts.
In a September 21, 2020, email chain with the subject line “elections issue,” Jenna Dresner in the Secretary of State’s Office of Cybersecurity writes to “Cristina and team” at Facebook at 11:43 a.m.: “We want to flag this Instagram post.”
The reply comes from Facebook Community Operations: “Thank you for your report. We have reviewed the … content and can confirm that the content has been removed …” At 12:53 pm. Dresner writes to Press Secretary Sam Mahood, Social Media Coordinator Akilah Jones and others, “Post from this morning was removed (and fast!) Akilah we can update tracker.”
In an October 28, 2020, email, Jones writes to Flores at Facebook and CCs Dresner that a post, which was from a user named @Screenplaywale, “voters are being asked to gerrymander and voter suppress their ‘trump supporting father’s ballots.’”
In an email chain on September 14, 2020, titled “Election Issue” the office internally complains about how long it takes Facebook to remove a post and how to speed up this process.
Mahood writes to Dresner: “It looks like it took Facebook 2 weeks to respond to Chris. This is way too long, we should raise to FB and make sure we know best method to report posts.” Dresner responds: “Sure – I’m 98% sure this is the one you chased with an email directly to our FB contacts which resulted in it taken down that day. I can confirm that process works for the future?”
On August 22, 2019, Maria Benson, director of communications for the National Association of Secretaries of State emails the communications directors for Secretaries of State offices that Twitter confirmed that they streamlined their process for government officials to report “misinformation:”
Great news—Twitter is now on-boarding states into their mis/disinformation partner support portal! Once on-boarded, you will be able to directly report mis/disinformation instead of having to submit it to me first….” [Emphasis in original]
Benson also gives contact information for Facebook and Google complaints, and says: “If any of the items you reported do not get prompt attention, please let me know and I can also reach out the companies.”
On September 24, 2019, the California Secretary of State’s office confirms that it plans to participate in Facebook’s “misinformation” training which is a review from Facebook on “monitoring guidelines for reporting misinformation” and teaches participants how to use the direct reporting channel Facebook opened for them.
On October 1, 2020, Benson forwards information from Twitter about their training to directly remove posts they label as misinformation to the Secretary of State’s office. This is described by Twitter as: “training on creative and effective content strategies on Twitter in advance of the U.S. Election,” as well as “onboarding state and local election officials onto Twitter’s Partner Support Portal.” This portal is described as, “a dedicated way for critical stakeholders – like you – to flag concerns directly to Twitter.”
These documents detail a conspiracy against the First Amendment rights of Americans by the California Secretary of State, the Biden campaign operation, and Big Tech. These documents blow up the big lie that Big Tech censorship is ‘private’ – as the documents show collusion between a whole group of government officials in multiple states to suppress speech about election controversies.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Judicial Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJudicial Watch2021-05-01 05:51:252021-05-01 05:56:23VIDEO: California Officials Pressured Big Tech to Censor Social Media Election Posts
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2021-04-30 06:15:482021-04-30 06:15:48VIDEO: Mike Lindell's film 'Absolute Interference'
Somewhere in the Rocky Mountains, an anonymous researcher has launched a website that tracks people who have been “canceled” for exercising their right to free speech. Appropriately named “CanceledPeople.org,” the database already has 195 entries, with many recognizable names including James Damore, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Jordan Peterson, Charles Murray, Megyn Kelly, Nicholas & Erik Christakis, Bret Weinstein, Chris Mathews, Roseanne Barr, Gina Carano, Roger Pielke Jr., and, of course, Donald Trump.
Notable among those listed are people who are not merely victims of the so-called Left, but also the Right. For example, the first name on the list is Junia Joplin, a Baptist Minister who was fired after she came out to her congregation as a transgender woman during a sermon. This indifference to who is being canceled (and who is doing the canceling) is a welcome attempt at nonpartisanship, although the majority of the listings are people victimized by the Left.
On their About page, the site creators explain what they look for when considering who to add to their database. They write:
“The canceled person has been targeted for behavior that falls within the boundaries of “reasonable expression” (see more on this below). The “offense” may not be recent, and it may not even be their own action.
The canceled person has lost their job or position (this includes forced resignations). Their future professional opportunities have been limited. If they are self-employed, they have suffered financial losses from a boycott or sabotage of their company.
The canceled person has faced a coordinated effort to silence them. The effort seeks to render their person or their ideas unfit to discuss.
The canceled person has faced a coordinated effort to shame them and destroy their reputation. The effort seeks to damage their self-worth and will likely target their personal or professional relationships.”
A strength of this well sourced, no frills database – they don’t even have a logo! – is the “Offense” column, where a lengthy explanation of exactly what happened is provided. Reading these explanations will trigger recollections in many cases where the event gathered national or international publicity for a time, but the name of the person canceled was forgotten.
Whoever is responsible for this database wants to remain unknown, but we salute their efforts and hope they will continue their excellent work. They have created a valuable resource for anyone seeking to more thoroughly understand cancel culture. And needless to say, there have already been far, far more instances of cancelation than the 195 high profile events captured so far in this database, and multiples more cases where people have been intimidated into silence.
Why Are Democrats So Panicked? Because they know. Everybody knows.
Legal battles today as the counting continues at "America's Audit," the forensic audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County. Arizona GOP Chairwoman @kelliwardaz breaks down the results of today's court hearing and gives us her take on what's really going on. #AmericasAuditpic.twitter.com/Wg6yXgDoy9
Despite legal threats from the Democrats, "America's Audit" continues. Arizona Republican Chairwoman @kelliwardaz talks with Audit Director Ken Bennett regarding the audit progress and non-partisan approach. What's got the Democrats so panicked? One word: TRANSPARENCY#AZAuditpic.twitter.com/SxEbPkamtl
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Pamela Gellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPamela Geller2021-04-29 07:21:572021-04-29 07:22:24ARIZONA: Maricopa Audit Director Speaks Out on Why Are Democrats So Panicked?
Multiple battle ground states and counties deleted voter records and adjudication records which is against the 22 month minimum set by FEC law. This law specifically exists so you can audit the records in a contested election such as the one in 2020. (See links below and Antrim county Audit under resources page)
There was a coordinated effort across multiple swing states to kick out libertarian and republican poll watchers and lawyers during the election on November 3rd. (See county by county in the sheet below).
All of this is verified and fact-checked and doesn’t even scratch the surface of what’s on this site. Feel free to dig through the links below and come to your own conclusions.
WHAT IS THE 2020 ELECTION EVIDENCE PROJECT?
The 2020 Election Evidence Project was started in response to the media refusing to report on factual pieces of evidence regarding the 2020 election. Our goal isn’t to convince you of some grandiose conspiracy theory, but instead, to present you with information the traditional media isn’t reporting and allow you to form your own opinions. Because the media generally isn’t reporting on what we’ll be presenting, inevitably a lot of our sources will come from independent and right leaning news sources, tech experts, politicians, lawyers, whistleblower, witnesses, and judges themselves.
I highly encourage you to question everything you see in each piece of presented material. With that said, it’s important to be careful of dismissing information due to the source rather than the claim.
Example: If you see a Youtube video that claims something which makes you uncomfortable, don’t throw out the claim because it’s from a source you’re not familiar with. Research the claim instead. It’s easy to fall into the trap of dismissing evidence from a source (instead of verifying the claim) because as humans, we have an inherent need to be “right.” This is dangerous as our human minds are conditioned to believe pretty much anything that will make us feel “right” even when the truth is contrary to the feeling. (This is a term known as cognitive dissonance.)
Throughout your research if you see something that doesn’t sit well with you, match it up with available sources and evidence to fact check it. When doing so, watch out for misleading “fact checkers” whose headlines will claim to dismiss a “fact” when in reality they only dismiss a portion of a fact or outright masquerade as false evidence being real to prove a point, agenda, or simply get clicks (Reuters, AP, USA Today, Politifact, and others are notorious for this). Remember to question everything and come to your own conclusions.
Finally, please understand, we’re not saying that anything posted on this site is right or wrong, we’re simply pointing out the things that traditional media isn’t reporting. Our goal is to share the information and allow you to decide.
To understand more about how cognitive dissonance works click here.