There are only two genders and a global epidemic of social disorders and mental illnesses.
We have been writing about the grooming of children by public schools, colleges and universities to provide sex partners for perverts, pederasts and pedophiles.
But even more onerous are those doctors who swore an oath to “first do no harm” that are profiting from the mutilation of the sex organs of underaged children.
Dr. Scott Mosser says that he has removed the breasts of 13 year old girls and would happily do it to 12 year olds too. https://t.co/WtXc6d6MiS
No one can change their gender! What they can do is mutilate themselves psychologically, spiritually and physically. This is the greatest and most culturally destructive myth of my generation.
It is barbaric and goes against science and all that is right and the truth. Genital mutilation is not healthcare!
What is most disturbing is the number of “pediatric gender clinics”, a.k.a. genital mutilation factories, that have taken root across America since 2007.
The UCLA Gender Health Program’s pediatric practice (Los Angeles, Calif.) includes “puberty suppression therapy” and “hormone replacement therapy.” It also features “gender affirmation surgery.” According to their website, “most surgical procedures are not recommended until adulthood,” which implies that at least some gender transition surgical procedures may be performed prior to adulthood.
The Gender Clinic at Stanford Medicine Children’s Health (Palo Alto, Calif.) treats both minors and “adults 18 years and older,” offering “puberty blockers and gender affirming hormones.” They provide gender transition surgery to “adolescents and young adults,” touting their “innovative surgical techniques” and “state-of-the-art operating suites.” They boldly state their not-so-medical opinion that “everyone deserves to have their physical body reflect their gender identity.”
The Division of Plastic Surgery at Connecticut Children’s Hospital (Hartford, Conn.) “offers surgical options for gender affirmation to adolescents.” Their Gender Program recommends parents contact them “when puberty begins” for a range of treatments including “puberty blockers” and “hormone therapy.” They also link to various gender dysphoria support groups, including a Hartford group for ages 16-26 and a Bridgeport group for ages 13-24. In these support groups, children could develop close, emotional bonds to adults who are not relatives.
The Essence Clinic at St. Luke’s Children’s Hospital (Boise, Id.) offers “hormonal therapy, including puberty blockers” and “surgical consultations and referrals” to “children, adolescents, and young adults.” Two of its five providers specialize in surgery.
The Gender Development Program at the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago (Chicago, Ill., Westchester, Ill.) offers “gender-affirming surgery referrals” for “children and adolescents,” who may “begin care with us up to age 22.” They say they “work closely with several surgeons who are experienced in this type of care and can provide more information and referrals for patients seeking these services.” However, their 19-member gender development team includes two pediatric surgeons, a pediatric plastic surgeon, and an attending physician of plastic and reconstructive surgery, and one of their three locations is a “surgical treatment center,” making it likely that they perform surgeries in-house.
At the University of Illinois Hospital (Chicago, Ill.), “gender affirming surgery” is systematically interwoven into their surgical department, with no division between surgeons performing gender transition procedures and surgeons performing other types of plastic surgeries, and seemingly no division in care between children and adults. As an example, the program’s director “focuses on the reconstructive needs of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults up to age 25” and “specializes with adolescents and young adults in the realm of chest reconstruction, including asymmetric breasts, oversized breasts (female macromastia and male gynecomastia), and top surgery.”
The Boston Children’s Hospital (Boston, Mass.) has offered “gender-affirming chest surgeries for individuals over 15 years old” (see above).
The Child and Adolescent Transgender Center for Health at Boston Medical Center (Boston, Mass.) provides “access to onsite hormone blockers,” “gender-affirming hormone therapy,” and “referral to … other Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery services” for “children, adolescents, and young adults.” The Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery presents a “unified structure” for all “gender affirming care.” An anonymous testimonial on their website indicates they perform transgender surgeries on minors, “As a parent of a child going through the transgender experience, I have found valuable information on this site. After the surgery, I will be caring for him/her at my home.”
The Gender and Sexuality Service at NYU Langone’s Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital (New York, N.Y.) will perform “gender-affirming medical interventions” on a “child, adolescent, or young adult,” working with health insurers “to obtain approvals for presurgical and surgical procedures.” The sizable “Gender and Sexuality Service Team” of nearly 19 doctors include four who represent plastic and reconstructive surgery.
Golisano Children’s Hospital, associated with University of Rochester Medicine, (Rochester, N.Y.) features “gender health services” to “youth and young adults” including “cross-gender hormone therapy,” “pubertal blockade,” and “surgical services” with three surgeons listed.
Doernbecher Children’s Hospital (Portland, Ore., Beaverton, Ore.) offers “a full range of services for transgender and gender-nonconforming children and teens,” including hormone treatments, surgery, and handouts with tips on how to appear more like the opposite sex. They “evaluate surgery for teens on an individual basis.”
The Gender Clinic at Seattle Children’s Hospital (Seattle, Wash.) accepts “new patients ages 9 to 16.” The services they provide include “puberty blockers,” “gender-affirming hormones,” and “gender-affirming surgery.” While gender transition procedures for minors require parental consent, “Washington state privacy laws limit parent and caregiver access to adolescents’ health information. … The patient chooses whether to consent to releasing medical information.”
The Gender Health Clinic at Children’s Wisconsin (Milwaukee, Wisc.) focuses on “children and youth” and “will meet with new patients through age 16.” They offer “puberty-suppressing hormone therapy, gender-affirming hormone therapy, surgical treatments, and speech/voice training.” They refer patients 17 or older to “an adult hormone provider.”
We are saddened that some of our major university medical centers are in the business of doing irreparable harm to underaged children. This is gender mutilation of the worst kind.
This isn’t doing these patients any good to believe that by mutilating their sexual organs they can change their gender. Gender is immutable. Science tells us so.
To perform these types of “therapies” and surgeries is criminal at best.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-08-26 15:07:222022-08-31 16:17:36GENITAL MUTILATION IN AMERICA: List of 13 U.S. Hospitals That Operate on Underaged Children’s Sex Organs For Profit
FBI officials obstructed the investigation into Hunter Biden’s laptop prior to the 2020 election by instructing agents not to further examine the laptop, whistleblowers purportedly told Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson.
Federal authorities took the laptop from a Delaware computer repair shop in December 2019 after being alerted to its presence by the store owner. However, whistleblowers said local FBI leadership told employees not to look at the laptop for months and declared the FBI would not further change the election outcome, according to a letter Johnson sent Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz Tuesday.
“These whistleblowers stated that local FBI leadership told employees, ‘you will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop’ and that the FBI is ‘not going to change the outcome of the election again,” Johnson wrote. “Further, these whistleblowers allege that the FBI did not begin to examine the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop until after the 2020 presidential election—potentially a year after the FBI obtained the laptop.”
Johnson recounted asking the FBI in October 2020 what it had done after obtaining the laptop.
“The FBI failed to respond to my questions and I led the call for you to examine whether the FBI took appropriate and necessary investigative steps after receiving Hunter Biden’s laptop,” he said. “Four months later, in February 2021, you informed me that your office would not take any actions that could interfere with an ongoing investigation.”
Johnson argued the whistleblowers’ claims “provide even more evidence of FBI corruption and renew calls for you to take immediate steps to investigate the FBI’s actions regarding the laptop.”
The New York Post published a report weeks before the 2020 presidential election about the emails from the laptop that showed Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings with Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, where he was part of the Board of Directors. Former President Donald Trump’s then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani had given the outlet information about the computer’s hard drive.
The FBI did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-08-26 14:31:282022-08-26 15:29:06FBI Agents Were Told Not To Look Into Hunter Biden’s Laptop, Whistleblowers Say
The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) redacted affidavit relating to the raid on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home was released on Friday. The document shows that the DOJ pointed to a number of classified materials already obtained from Trump’s home as reason for the August search warrant request.
Though much of the affidavit was redacted, unsealed portions of it revealed that the latest search came after the FBI reviewed 15 boxes that Trump turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in January, sparking further concern about other potential documents. Fourteen of these boxes had classification markings,” according to the affidavit.
The 14 boxes contained 184 documents – 25 of the documents had “top secret” markings, 92 were labeled “secret” and 67 had a “confidential” warning, according to the affidavit.
The affidavit also notes that the DOJ requested Trump secure the storage room at Mar-a-Lago, pointing out that the department sent a letter to “FPOTUS COUNSEL 1” on June 8, 2022. This letter “reiterated that the PREMISES are not authorized to store classified information and requested the preservation of the STORAGE ROOM and boxes that had been moved from the White House to the PREMISES.”
“As I previously indicated to you, Mar-a-Lago does not include a secure location authorized for the storage of classified information,” the letter reads, according to the affidavit. “As such, it appears that since the time classified documents [redacted] were removed from the secure facilities at the White House and moved to Mar-a-Lago on or around January 20, 2021, they have not been handled in an appropriate manner or stored in au appropriate location. Accordingly, we ask that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the documents had been stored be secured and that all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until farther notice.”
Multiple media organizations, including CNN and The New York Times, pushed for the affidavit – which would shed light on the reasoning behind the unprecedented raid – to be released because of intense public interest and the unparalleled nature of the situation.
Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart – who also signed off on the search warrant used in the FBI’s August 8 raid – ordered the DOJ to submit redactions to the affidavit after formally rejecting the department’s push to keep the document private. Reinhart approved the redactions on Thursday and noted the affidavit would be released by noon on Friday.
In the wake of the FBI’s search, Trump slammed the incident as being politically motivated. He encouraged the “immediate release of documents” relating to the search of his Florida home and, on August 22, filed a lawsuit asking for a “special master” to be appointed to independently oversee the review of various materials that had been taken.
The DOJ on Friday also released a document detailing its proposed redactions to the affidavit and reasons for the redactions – though notably the reasons for keeping portions of the affidavit under wraps were also redacted. In this document, the DOJ noted that the redactions are an effort to protect a “significant number of civilian witnesses.”
The Justice Department's reasons for keeping large portions of its Mar-a-Lago warrant application sealed are themselves sealed. pic.twitter.com/H86pYcnQL2
MORE: Here is "a chart identifying the government's proposed redactions as belonging to different categories of protected information," per the DOJ. But, as you can see, it's really hard to say. https://t.co/nqiAZfIWympic.twitter.com/XgaZOVFojX
— Chris “Subscribe to Law Dork!” Geidner (@chrisgeidner) August 26, 2022
Eighty percent of Americans say that, “political correctness is a problem in our country.”
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past five years, you’ve probably heard of cancel culture.
But what is it? Why do people on the right and left—and libertarians—disagree so vehemently on everything from whether or not it’s a problem, to whether or not it even exists?
This article takes a deep dive into the question of “what is cancel culture?” We’ll go beyond the talking points of both sides and look at:
Does cancel culture exist…or is it just ‘consequence culture’ as many on the left claim?
If it exists, who does it? Is it just one political party, or does every political tribe try to cancel people who disagree with them?
What does cancel culture (or ‘consequence culture’) look like in practice?
Why is trying to silence dissent bad?
Is this just about giving disadvantaged people a voice, and holding the powerful accountable when they abuse their power?
Is Cancel Culture ‘Consequence Culture’?
Some on the left have said that cancel culture doesn’t really exist as a phenomenon. Instead, it would be better to call it ”consequence culture.” Actor and TV personality LeVar Burton, for instance, says, “In terms of cancel culture, I think it’s misnamed, that’s a misnomer. I think we have a consequence culture and that consequences are finally encompassing everybody in the society.”
Writing for Vox, Aja Romano argues that cancel culture has its roots in historically marginalized groups seeking justice against powerful people who abuse their power. In this sense, it’s a tool for social justice.
Anne Charity Hudley, the chair of linguistics of African America at the University of California Santa Barbara, elaborates on this claim: “for black culture and cultures of people who are lower income and disenfranchised, this is the first time you do have a voice in those types of conversation.”
For defenders, canceling is just a new form of boycott. Hudley argues, “When you see people canceling Kanye, canceling other people, it’s a collective way of saying, ‘We elevated your social status, your economic prowess, [and] we’re not going to pay attention to you in the way that we once did. … ‘I may have no power, but the power I have is to [ignore] you.’”
Lisa Nakamura, PhD, Professor and Director of the Digital Studies Institute at the University of Michigan, echoes Hudley. She argues that cancel culture is, “a cultural boycott. It’s an agreement not to amplify, signal boost, give money to.”
Under this definition, cancel culture is simply about holding powerful people accountable. For defenders of this new cultural phenomenon, it’s essentially taking the #MeToo movement and applying it on a broader scale. Indeed, when Romano lists celebrities who have been canceled, she cites Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, and Louis C.K., suggesting that she sees the #MeToo movement as a core component of cancel culture.
In this formulation, cancel culture (or consequence culture) has three core components:
1) It’s about accountability, and holding powerful figures like Weinstein accountable for abusing their power
2) It’s primarily exercised by people who have been historically marginalized.
3) A primary consequence is a lack of attention given to the person, which amounts to canceling them.
Framed like that, it doesn’t seem so bad. After all, not a lot of folks of any political ideology opposed locking up Harvey Weinstein. And the right to not to pay attention to people you don’t like is fundamental to our ideal of free expression and a free society.
But when we examine what cancel culture actually looks like in practice, we find some aspects that are deeply troubling.
What Does Cancel Culture Actually Look Like?
When we dig below the rhetoric and look at actual cases, we see five broad trends that, together, seem to define almost all of cancel culture:
#1: Online Mobs
In practice, cancel culture often manifests as online mobs. Someone decides that someone else did something they don’t like, and whips people into a frenzy to go after the offender. The mobs can then take on a life of their own, doxxing people or destroying folks’ lives for minor offenses.
A lot of times, the victims of cancel culture are among the most vulnerable people in society.
In 2019, members of the trans community tried to cancel Dave Chappelle (admittedly not a vulnerable person at this point in his life). A young up-and-coming trans comedian named Daphne Dorman defended Chappelle, and the mob turned on her.
As Chappelle recounts the story in his Netflix special The Closer, “It took a lot of heart to defend me like that. And when she did that the trans community dragged that b**** all over Twitter. For days they were going in on her….”
Six days after the dragging started, Dorman killed herself. To be clear, Dorman suffered from psychological issues including severe PTSD, and it’s unlikely according to her family that the Twitter mob was why she died. But as Chappelle said, “I don’t know if it was them dragging or I don’t know what was going on in her life but I bet dragging her didn’t help.”
Author Lauren Hough became another victim of cancel culture. Her debut novel Leaving Isn’t the Hardest Thing was a brutally honest story about her growing up in the “Children of God” sex cult. A critic on Goodreads gave the book 4 out of 5 stars. Hough responded snarkily: “Glad to see most of the Goodreads *ssholes still giving 4-star reviews to show they’re super tough reviewers who need to, like, fall in love, you know? Anyway, no one likes you.”
After Hough’s response, the sky fell down on her.
The public backlash was brutal. People flooded to Hough’s Goodreads page and started leaving 1-star ratings and reviews of her book out of spite. As of this writing, the book has 7,922 ratings with an average of 3.19 stars. 32 percent of her ratings are 1 star, many from people who left reviews like, “id [sic] not finish at 0%.” And “its always the white women” (a reaction, it seems, to Hough criticizing her 4-star review).
Here we can see the stark difference between how defenders describe cancel culture (or consequence culture) and how it often looks in real life. First, Hough wasn’t a powerful figure. She was a debut novelist, not Harvey Weinstein. She was a gay woman who dealt with sexual abuse, homelessness, and addiction; who put her experience on the page in novelized form; and then got raked over the coals for a single rude response to a single critic.
There’s another difference, too. Hudley defends cancel culture as simply depriving someone of your attention: “I may have no power, but the power I have is to [ignore] you.” But the Hough example goes much farther. These reviewers weren’t just giving her book a pass, they were actively trying to prevent other people from reading her work. They were working to sabotage her career.
Trans writer Isabel Fall provides another useful example. She wrote a short story in 2020 that depicted gender dysphoria. Fall published under a pseudonym, and critics of the story took the story as transphobic. They harassed her, doxxed her, forcibly outed her, and ultimately drove her offline.
This isn’t about going after powerful people to hold them accountable. Too often, what cancel culture looks like in practice is people from marginalized communities getting dragged and publicly shamed for saying something the online mob doesn’t like.
#2: Getting People Fired For Speaking Out
A second big thrust of cancel culture is getting people fired when they speak out against the far-left orthodoxy.
In 2020, bestselling children’s author Gillian Philip was fired by her publisher. Her crime? She changed her Twitter handle to include the hashtag #IStandWithJKRowling (the hashtag is a reference to Rowling’s controversial stance on transgender issues).
As another example, Nick Buckley was fired from Mancunian Way, a charity that he directed and founded. The charity helped disadvantaged youth in Manchester, including thousands of black and minority children. His crime? He wrote a blog post criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement. Days later, he was removed from the charity.
These cases (and there are many more like them) illustrate another key difference between cancel culture and accountability movements like the #MeToo movement. The #MeToo movement held powerful people accountable for actual sins. Weinstein sexually assaulted dozens of women. Buckley and Philip, on the other hand, simply expressed mainstream political views or made benign social media posts. To say that these firings are about holding people “accountable” is to turn making non-left statements into a crime that requires punishment.
To be fair, there are cases where cancel culture looks exactly like what its supporters envision: a groundswell of people holding the powerful accountable for abusing their power. Michael Richards is a good example of this: the star of the popular sitcom “Seinfeld” went on an objectively racist tirade in 2006. His career subsequently cratered.
#3: Disinviting Speakers
One area where cancel culture manifests offline is on college campuses where students (and sometimes faculty) will hear that someone has been invited to their university to speak, and then mobilize to try to get them uninvited. In extreme (albeit disturbingly frequent) cases, students will even violently protest and shut down the campus to prevent speakers from speaking.
A peaceful disinvitation isn’t as damaging as getting someone fired, because the speaker will simply go on to their next speaking gig. But the core elements of cancel culture are still here: X says something that some people disagree with, so they band together to prevent anyone from hearing from X and attempt to hurt X’s career.
In the past 10 years (2013-2022), 125 disinvitations have been issued to public figures who were invited to speak on campuses.These included Ben Carson, Condoleezza Rice, Ilya Shapiro, George Will, Ben Shapiro, and other mainstream figures.
#4: Self-Censorship
Unsurprisingly, given the consequences for even mild dissent, this new online culture has led many people to preemptively silence themselves.
Heterodox Academy surveyed 445 academics about the state of free inquiry on campus, asking them, “Imagine expressing your views about a controversial issue while at work, at a time when faculty, staff, and/or other colleagues were present. To what extent would you worry about the following consequences?”
One of the hypothetical consequences Heterodox Academy listed was, “my career would be hurt.” How many academics said they would be “very concerned” or “extremely concerned” about this consequence? 53.43 percent.
To put it another way: over half of academics on campus worried that expressing non-orthodox opinions on controversial topics could be dangerous to their careers.
We see the same self-censoring phenomenon among college students. In 2021, College Pulse surveyed 37,000 students at 159 colleges. They found that 80 percent of students self-censor to at least some degree, while 48 percent of undergraduates reported feeling “somewhat uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” expressing their views on a controversial topic in the classroom.
In a panel on free speech and cancel culture, former ACLU president Nadine Strossen said, “I constantly encounter students who are so fearful of being subjected to the Twitter mob that they are engaging in self-censorship.”
If cancel culture is just about holding powerful people accountable, why is it that young people are so scared of saying something that might put them in the crosshairs?
#5: Governmental Pressure
Unfortunately, legislators and public officials are realizing that they can leverage a version of cancel culture to punish corporations who don’t toe the right line.
In 2022, Florida passed a law revoking the Walt Disney Company’s special tax status. Revoking special government privileges can be good, but the reasoning in this case was disturbing: Florida Republicans are explicitly punishing Disney for opposing Republican-backed Florida House Bill 1557 (the “Don’t Say Gay” bill).
Daily Wire cofounder Ben Shapiro tweeted, “Corporations have an interest in lobbying on issues that directly impact their business. If they choose to engage in politics outside their purview, they will be treated with all the aggression inherent to the political sphere, and they will deserve it.”
In other words, governments can and will target specific companies for speaking out on cultural and political issues.
In 2021, Major League Baseball announced that it would move the 2021 All-Star Game and the MLB draft out of Atlanta in order to protest a voting-ID law that Georgia had passed. Many Republicans were furious, and some sought to punish MLB’s act of dissent. Representative Jeff Duncan said he would work to end baseball’s federal antitrust exception. Former President Donald Trump urged supporters to, “boycott baseball and all of the woke companies.”
Trying to use societal pressure to silence or punish dissenters is almost never a good thing…but it’s even worse when legislators use governmental power to do the punishing.
Why Is Silencing Dissent Bad?
Okay, so cancel culture is real and the consequences can be brutal. On an individual level, it’s obvious why this isn’t a good thing: it would be awful to lose your job and your ability to provide for your family because you changed your Twitter bio.
But on a societal level, why is this bad?
First, we don’t want a society in which people feel like they have to walk on eggshells around each other. That creates a culture of fear and loneliness. It’s inimical to the idea of building genuine connection, which we as humans need.
The second reason that we want to avoid a culture where peoples’ livelihoods can be destroyed for wrongthink is that if dissenters live in fear and don’t speak up, we’ll never learn and grow as a society. None of us has all the answers, because life is complex and as humans we’re inherently flawed. We need to listen to people who disagree with us so that we can all move closer to the truth.
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt puts it eloquently in an Atlantic article titled, “Why The Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid.” He points out that, “People who think differently and are willing to speak up if they disagree with you make you smarter, almost as if they are extensions of your own brain.”
By contrast, “People who try to silence or intimidate their critics make themselves stupider, almost as if they are shooting darts into their own brain.”
The third reason we should oppose this kind of culture is…it’s just vicious. We shouldn’t embrace a culture where online mobs can destroy peoples’ livelihoods for small sins or expressing non-orthodox political views.
Is Cancel Culture A Partisan Phenomenon?
Cancel culture is unfortunately not a partisan phenomenon; both the left and the right do it. However, they cancel in very different ways and to different degrees.
So who cancels more? Let’s take a look at the data:
1) Social Media Canceling: Left-Wing (Anecdotally)
Writing for Quillette, Richard Hanania argues that Twitter is far more likely to censor right-wing voices than left-wing voices. He notes, “Of 22 prominent, politically active individuals who are known to have been suspended (from Twitter) since 2005 and who expressed a preference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, 21 supported Donald Trump.”
Now maybe all 21 right-leaning individuals deserved to be removed from Twitter. Maybe they said awful things that violated Twitter’s terms of service. But as Hanania points out, liberals who say awful things generally get a pass from the social media giant. Sarah Jeong, former editorial writer for the New York Times, posted lots of Tweets expressing contempt for white people. Sample Tweets include, “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins,” and, “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”
Kathy Griffin demanded that her followers doxx students at Covington High School who were accused of harassing a Native American activist. (For those unfamiliar, doxxing is when you publish private or identifying information about someone, generally with the intent to harm them.)
Neither Griffin nor Jeong were punished by Twitter.
When it comes to silencing people for their political views, social media giants like Twitter seem to prioritize canceling non-liberals.
2) Getting People Fired For Their Political Views: Left-Wing (Data)
A big part of cancel culture seems to be this push to punish people who dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy, and in this case liberals are also leading the charge.
The libertarian Cato Institute, together with YouGov, surveyed 2,300 American adults for its 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey. One of the categories of questions they asked respondents was if a business executive should be fired for expressing certain political views. In every instance, Democrats were more likely than Republicans (and often much more likely) to answer in the affirmative.
Some of these beliefs are horrendous, but others are simply heterodox. For instance, over a third of Democratic responders said a business executive should be fired if they, “believe psychological differences explain why there are more male engineers.” But the psychological differences between men and women, and to what extent these differences affect career selection, is a topic of open debate among psychologists.
The nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has been tracking disinvitations to speakers on campus for decades, and they have a robust database that includes who the speaker was, the controversy, and whether the calls to disinvite came from the left of the speaker or the right of the speaker.
In the past 10 years (2013-2022), 125 disinvitations have been issued based on political pressure. Only 28 (22.4%) of these came from the right. The remaining 97 (77.6%) came from the left.
The Cato Institute’s 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey also asked Democrats and Republicans whether a speaker should be allowed to speak at their university if they held certain political opinions (for example, saying that police are justified in stopping blacks at higher rates). In every single hypothetical, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say that the speaker should be disinvited, often by double digits.
Democrats are also much more likely than Republicans to support students who forcibly shut down campus speakers. When Cato asked, “How should colleges handle students who disrupt invited speakers and prevent them from speaking? (Select all that should apply)” Republicans were much more likely to give responses such as, “Require the students pay a fine” or, “Suspend the student for 30 days.” By contrast, 64 percent of Democrats said that the college should, “Listen and address students’ concerns.” (36 percent of Republicans said the same).
When it comes to offline attempts to cancel an invited speaker, Democrats are far more eager than Republicans. And, disturbingly, many Democrats are more willing than Republicans to turn a blind eye to forcible attempts to silence speakers on campus.
4): Using Government to Punish Speech They Don’t Like: Right-Wing (Anecdotal)
Unfortunately, Republicans are learning to embrace cancel culture, and doing it in a very dangerous way: they’re employing the power of the state against companies who take political sides that they disagree with.
Both the Disney example and the Major League Baseball example cited above were Republican-led silencings.
Some liberals try to use social pressure to stop dissenters from speaking or acting in ways that don’t support their agenda. Disturbingly, some Republicans are learning they can use governmental pressure to accomplish the same ends.
Who’s Actually Doing the Canceling?
On the right, the perpetrators of cancel culture are the rich and powerful: governors and legislators, cheered on by well-known pundits like Ben Shapiro. This is a case of those in power working to use their power to punish corporations who don’t toe the appropriate line.
But on the left, it’s often also the rich and powerful who are working to punish wrongthink.
This might come as a surprise to defenders of cancel culture, who tend to praise it as a power rebalance and a way for marginalized voices to be heard. Procon.org, a prestigious site known for making the best arguments for and against debatable positions, published three ‘Pros’ and 3 ‘Cons’ of cancel culture. One of their ‘Pros’ was “Callout culture [in this case, a synonym for cancel culture] gives a voice to disenfranchised or less powerful people.” Or recall Hudley’s claim about cancel culture: “for black culture and cultures of people who are lower income and disenfranchised, this is the first time you do have a voice in those types of conversations.”
This is a lofty idea…but the data tell a different story.
Almost all of the cancellations from the left come from the far left, not the middle. Moderate liberals don’t consider supporting JK Rowling to be a fireable offense. Middle-of-the-line Democrats don’t tend to want business executives fired for believing that men might want to be engineers more often than women do.
This isn’t just anecdotal. Scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon polled 8,000 respondents for a study called, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape.” Based on the poll responses, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus groups, they divided Americans into seven political tribes ranging from far-left (“Progressive Activists”) to far-right (“Devoted Conservatives”). Among other things, they asked members of each tribe for their views on political correctness.
Eighty percent of Americans across the board said that, “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Left-leaning respondents tended to say that political correctness was less of a problem than right-leaning respondents did, but even among the second-most-liberal group of Americans (“Traditional Liberals”), 61 percent agreed with the statement that political correctness was a problem.
Only Progressive Activists truly support political correctness: a mere 30 percent of them said that political correctness was a problem.
If you think political correctness is a problem, you’re unlikely to try to get someone fired for non-politically-correct statements like, “#IStandWithJKRowling.” To put it another way: data on their views about what kind of speech should and should not be permissible strongly suggest that Progressive Activists are the ones driving cancel culture on the left.
So who are Progressive Activists? Are they the, “lower income and disenfranchised” people whom Hudley imagines?
Not exactly.
The Hidden Tribes report offers in-depth data about each political tribe, in terms of beliefs and also in terms of demographics. They find that Progressive Activists are:
More likely to be white than the average American (80% of Progressive Activists, vs 69% of Americans) (only Devoted Conservatives are more likely to be white than are Progressive Activists)
Twice as likely to have completed college as the average American (59% vs 29%)
Almost twice as likely to make $100,000 per year or more as the average American (25% vs 13%) (Progressive Activists are more likely to be in this top income group than are members of any other political tribe)
Less than half as likely to make under $20,000 per year as the average American (7% vs 17%) (only Devoted Conservatives are less likely to be poor than are Progressive Activists)
And even though African Americans represent 12 percent of the US population, just 3 percent of Progressive Activists are black.
Essentially: the group most in favor of cancel culture on the left is also one of the richest, most privileged, highly educated, whitest groups in the country. In their power and privilege, they mirror the group of elected officials and pundits who have endorsed cancel culture on the right.
Maybe these aren’t the two groups that should be in charge of telling the rest of Americans what we are and aren’t allowed to say.
Julian is a former political op-ed writer and current nonprofit marketer. His work has been featured in FEE, National Review, Playboy, and Lawrence Reed’s economics anthology Excuse Me, Professor.
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)2022-08-26 13:49:482022-08-26 13:53:04What Is Cancel Culture? Getting Beyond The Partisan Talking Points
There’s an apocryphal quote often misattributed to Ben Franklin that goes something like this: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” While we’re not quite nearing the collapse of our republic, we are actively witnessing the corrosive effect it has when the political power of redistributionism is abused.
President Biden is “canceling” (transferring) student debt for millions of Americans and forcing the rest of us to pay for it. His plan “cancels” $10,000 for borrowers who earn less than $125,000 individually or $250,000 for their household. It also includes two other forgiveness plans that bring the total cost to taxpayers up to $500 billion, a whopping $3,500 per federal taxpayer.
Simply put, we’re all going to have to pay more in taxes so that a relatively affluent slice of society doesn’t have to repay their investment on college degrees that will, on average, earn them $1 million more over a lifetime.
People are pissed off. And for good reason, as the manifest unfairness of punishing those who scrimped and saved to bail out those who didn’t is obvious and maddening. But there’s an even deeper injustice to this: President Biden is trying to, legally, buy votes and reward his party’s voter base.
Think about the simple facts.
Student debt “cancellation,” by definition, only financially rewards those who attended college. College graduates are a voting block that voted for President Biden overwhelmingly. So, too, this bailout disproportionately aids those living in major cities and those living in the Midwest and Northeast, where student debt is geographically concentrated. These just so happen to be places that voted for Biden as well.
President Biden’s student loan bailout is perfectly calibrated to benefit a slice of society that voted for him, and, more importantly, a voting block that is key to the Democratic Party’s success this November. Through it, he is attempting to use public policy to reward his voters at the public’s expense.
This is precisely what French economist Frédéric Bastiat once dubbed “legal plunder.” He famously noted that, “Government is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
To this end, Bastiat explained, “Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”
To be clear, something being “legal” plunder doesn’t always mean it is actually legal. In this case, Biden’s attempt to unilaterally cancel student debt is highly suspect both constitutionally and legally. It’s legal plunder nonetheless, however, because it attempts to pervert the law and use it for naked clientelism.
That might win the president some votes. But it’s exactly the kind of partisan plunder that corrodes a republic.
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)2022-08-26 13:26:582022-08-28 10:32:58Biden’s Student Loan Bailout Is a Textbook Example of ‘Legal Plunder’
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) president Randi Weingarten defended a contract between Minneapolis Public Schools and the union which will fire white teachers over minority teachers.
The March contract between Minneapolis Public Schools and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) includes a deal that fires teachers who are not a part of underrepresented populations first, instead of basing termination on seniority. Weingartentweeted an article by the Associated Press with a quote from Greta Callahan, the president of the teachers chapter of Minneapolis Federation of Teachers.
“This,” Weingarten tweeted, followed by a quote from Callahan.
“The same people who want to take down teachers unions and blame seniority are now defending it for white people. This is all made up by the right wing now,” Callahan said.
This. “The same people who want to take down teachers unions and blame seniority are now defending it for white people. This is all made up by the right wing now." – @greta_callahan@MFT59https://t.co/y11edqHh71
Callahan said that the new contract does not threaten any job because there are vacancies in the school district, according to the AP. She also added that the contract will help account for the minority teachers who have quit in the past few years.
The contract that ended a 14-day union strike keeps minority teachers “exempted from district-wide layoff[s] outside seniority order.” The new policy is intended to reverse “past discrimination” due to “disproportionate hiring.”
Weingarten, AFT, MFT and Minneapolis Public Schools did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
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.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-08-26 06:27:302022-08-26 06:42:07Teachers Union President Defends School District That Will Lay Off White Teachers First
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a teachers’ contract that provides discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities. The lawsuit was filed against the superintendent of the Minneapolis Public Schools, the Minneapolis Public Schools, and the Minneapolis Board of Education for violating the Equal Protection Guarantee of the Minnesota Constitution (Clapp v Cox et al. (No. 27-CV-22-12454))
The controversial contract was agreed to in March 2022 to end a 14-day teacher strike. The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers ratified the contract shortly after the agreement was reached. The Minneapolis Board of Education ratified it in May of this year.
The Judicial Watch lawsuit states:
Among other things, the contract provides preferences, protections, and privileges for MPS teachers of certain races and ethnicities under a section entitled “ARTICLE 15. PROTECTIONS FOR EDUCATORS OF COLOR.” There is no similar provision covering educators who are not “of color.”
Under the contract, teachers of color are exempt from Defendant MPS’s seniority-based layoffs and reassignments, which means, when layoffs or reassignments occur, the next senior teacher who is not “of color” would be laid off or reassigned. In addition, the contract mandates that Defendants reinstate teachers of color over more senior teachers who are not “of color.”
Upon information and belief, prior to the contract, teachers were laid off or reassigned in order of seniority, with the least senior teachers laid off or reassigned first, without regard to race or ethnicity. Similarly, teachers were reinstated in order of seniority, with the more senior teachers reinstated first, without regard to race or ethnicity.
Article 15’s preferences, protections, and privileges for certain public-school teachers on the basis of race and ethnicity violates Minnesota’s Equal Protection Guarantee, which states that “no member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.” Minn. Const. art. 1, § 2. The Equal Protection Guarantee is analyzed under the same principles and mandate as the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit asks the court to enter a judgement that will declare that all actions taken to implement the racial and ethnic preference provisions of Article 15 of the contract to be illegal. They are also asking that the court declare it illegal to use any taxpayer dollars to implement these provisions of the contract, and the defendants be prohibited from taking any actions to implement these racial and ethnic provisions.
“It is incredible that in this day and age a school system would engage in blatant racial discrimination in employing teachers,” stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. “The courts can’t move soon enough to shut down this extreme leftist attack on the bedrock constitutional principle that no one can be denied equal treatment under law on account of race.”
Judicial Watch is being assisted in the lawsuit by Daniel N. Rosen of Rosen LLC in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
In a separate case, the city of Asheville, NC, in January 2022 settled a Judicial Watch federal civil rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove all racially discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship program. Additionally, the city also agreed to remove racially discriminatory eligibility provisions in a related program that provides grants to educators.
In May 2022, Judicial Watch won a court battle against California’s gender quota law for corporate boards. The verdict came after a 28-day trial. The verdict followed a similar ruling in Judicial Watch’s favor in April finding California’s diversity mandate for corporate boards unconstitutional.
The Minneapolis Public Schools and school board just got sued over a teacher contract exempting minority teachers from seniority-based layoffs and favoring them in reinstatement. The lawsuit cites the Equal Protection clause of the Minnesota state constitution which is analyzed the same way as the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The teacher contract is a perfect summary of the shift in civil rights thinking from ‘equality’ to ‘equity’. Under equality, an objective standard like seniority would generally carry the day. But under ‘equity’, disadvantaged groups always win, objective standards be damned, no matter who gets hurt in the process. This is basically communist thinking. Declare certain groups to be class enemies who always lose, henceforth, and other groups who automatically win, regardless of the merits of the case. Under Lenin, the Soviet Union confiscated houses from class enemies and gave them to the hero worker class. Maybe you like that idea, but Lenin also killed peasant land owners by the thousands just because they were land owners, class enemies. If you can’t see the injustice in that, you are very far gone and there’s no hope for you. Lenin called them bloodsuckers, vampires, and plunderers. Today, class enemies are called racists, bigots, and homophobes in a similar effort to justify injustice.
Hopefully, you can see the shift in civil rights thinking to ‘equity’ is poisonous and manifestly unjust. The lawsuit against Minneapolis schools is new, so we’ll have to wait awhile to see what happens, but Judicial Watch – the group that brought the suit – has prevailed in Equal Protection cases in the past. Asheville, North Carolina settled one case by removing racial favoritism from scholarships and teacher grants. Judicial Watch also won in California, knocking down gender quotas for corporate boards.
I’ve commented on other situations where the poisonous diversity narrative ran smack-dab into Equal Protection principles. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot only gave interviews to “black and brown” journalists and doubled down when criticized, but eventually backed down entirely. A U.S. civil rights official warned two colleges that segregated graduation ceremonies for Black, LGBTQ, and other minority students violate federal anti-discrimination laws. A Texas law requiring out-of-state students to pay higher tuition than illegal aliens was knocked down. But justice doesn’t always prevail in these situations. Utah public health officials were warned dispensing COVID drugs based on race was illegal, but did it anyway with the Biden administration cheering them on.
Other instances where equality under law is threatened have come up, recently. Another watchdog group that opposes “radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology” in healthcare brought a civil rights complaint against the Emory University med school for granting scholarships to students who “self-identify as an under-represented minority.”
The American Bar Association abandoned a plan to yank accreditations from law schools that failed to boost enrollment of ‘underrepresented groups’ to the ABA’s satisfaction, that is, schools that failed to meet the ABA’s totally subjective diversity standards.
A New Jersey parent took dead aim at the Woke policies at her son’s school and sued the school for creating a hostile environment for whites with its programs to indoctrinate students about institutional racism and white privilege. The suit argues such indoctrination is straight out of totalitarian reeducation camps, which reinforces my point about all of this going back to communist thinking.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration is institutionalizing racism, racial payback, and so-called ‘equity’ in every corner of the government. It is favoring racial and LGBT groups with quotas and other goodies in contracts, grants, benefits, hiring, apprenticeships, and in a dozen other ways, regardless of individual qualification or merit. All this is being done on the sly to avoid legal challenges.
Whatever you call this, you can’t call it equal protection of the laws. Class enemies everywhere, beware, Lenin lives. Kill the Kulaks! But before you sign up to pull the trigger, you should know Lenin had to reverse himself and let peasants own land again after communism wrecked the economy. Poisonous policies have a way of self-destructing, so can we get through the Wokism phase quickly, please? We need to get back to the thinking that made the Civil Rights Era great – true equality before the law – before civil rights thinking went off the rails.
“Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” — Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe …
‘Show me the man, and we’ll create the the crime.‘ — Democrats in post-Trump America.
The Biden White House worked directly with the Justice Department and National Archives to instigate the criminal probe into alleged mishandling of documents and still Biden’s spokeswoman has repeatedly claimed Joe Biden had no knowledge of the raid and that he found out about it in the media.
“I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s ‘protective’ claim of privilege,” acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall wrote Trump’s team in May.
Long before it professed no prior knowledge of the raid on Donald Trump’s estate, the Biden White House worked directly with the Justice Department and National Archives to instigate the criminal probe into alleged mishandling of documents, allowing the FBI to review evidence retrieved from Mar-a-Lago this spring and eliminating the 45th president’s claims to executive privilege, according to contemporaneous government documents reviewed by Just the News.
The memos show then-White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su was engaged in conversations with the FBI, DOJ and National Archives as early as April, shortly after 15 boxes of classified and other materials were voluntarily returned to the federal historical agency from Trump’s Florida home.
By May, Su conveyed to the Archives that President Joe Biden would not object to waiving his predecessor’s claims to executive privilege, a decision that opened the door for DOJ to get a grand jury to issue a subpoena compelling Trump to turn over any remaining materials he possessed from his presidency.
The machinations are summarized in several memos and emails exchanged between the various agencies in spring 2022, months before the FBI took the added unprecedented step of raiding Trump’s Florida compound with a court-issued search warrant.
The most complete summary was contained in a lengthy letter dated May 10 that acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall sent Trump’s lawyers summarizing the White House’s involvement.
“On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel’s Office — affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum — formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes,” Wall wrote Trump defense attorney Evan Corcoran.
That letter revealed Biden empowered the National Archives and Records Administration to waive any claims to executive privilege that Trump might assert to block DOJ from gaining access to the documents.
“The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President’s purported ‘protective assertion of executive privilege,’” Wall wrote. “… I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s ‘protective’ claim of privilege.”
The memos provide the most definitive evidence to date of the current White House’s effort to facilitate a criminal probe of the man Joe Biden beat in the 2020 election and may face again as a challenger in 2024. That involvement included eliminating one of the legal defenses Trump might use to fight the FBI over access to his documents.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and the committee’s likely chairman if the GOP win control of Congress in November, called the Biden White House’s involvement and privilege waiver “amazing news” with implications for past and future presidents.
“Look, the left, they’ve been out to get President Trump because President Trump’s a threat to the clique, to the swamp, to the bureaucracy, to the deep state,” Jordan told the “Just the News, Not Noise” television show Tuesday night. “Whatever term you want to use. And they all know it.
“That’s why they were out to get him before he was in office, and they set up the whole Russia collusion hoax. It’s why they tried to get him while he was in office. And of course, obviously they continue to do so now that he’s left. It’s just never going to end.”
Alan Dershowitz, the famed Harvard law professor emeritus and lifelong Democrat, reviewed some of the correspondence at Just the News’ request. He said the Biden White House’s eagerness to waive Trump’s claims of privilege could have future implications for generations of presidents to come.
“I was very surprised,” Dershowitz said after reading the text of Wall’s letter. “The current president should not be able to waive the executive privilege of a predecessor, without the consent of the former president. Otherwise, [privilege] means nothing. What president will ever discuss anything in private if he knows the man who beat him can and will disclose it.”
While some courts have upheld the notion of a successor president waiving privilege for a predecessor, Dershowitz said the matter remains to be decided definitively by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The best thinking is that an incumbent president cannot waive the right of the previous president,” he said in a phone interview with Just the News. “It would make a mockery of the whole notion of privilege.”
In her letter, Wall told Corcoran the Biden administration believes a Watergate era ruling suggested Biden had the authority to waive Trump’s privileges.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), strongly suggests that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege ‘against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked,’” she wrote. That ruling, however, was issued under an earlier predecessor law for presidential records and in the immediate aftermath of one of America’s worst presidential scandals.
The correspondence reviewed by Just the News also provides a contemporaneous window into what the National Archives (NARA) found when it first got boxes of documents returned from Trump’s compound in February 2022. Those boxes had been packed up by the General Services Administration as Trump was leaving the White House on Jan. 20, 2021.
“In its initial review of materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials,” Wall wrote. “NARA informed the Department of Justice about that discovery, which prompted the Department to ask the President to request that NARA provide the FBI with access to the boxes at issue so that the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community could examine them.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-08-24 07:25:162022-08-24 07:28:09Biden Reclassified the Russia Collusion Docs That Trump Declassified To Aid/Abet DOJ’s ‘Criminal’ Probe Against Trump
KINNEY COUNTY, Texas — An immigration attorney and federally appointed magistrate in Texas was arrested and charged with smuggling of a human and resisting arrest.
Timothy D. Japhet was arrested Saturday afternoon in Kinney County by Constable Jimmy Fullen. Four adult men were detained alongside Japhet.
It is unknown if the men were taken against their will or if they paid Japhet to transport them. It is also unknown if Japhet represented the group legally.
According to an identification card retrieved by Fullen, Japhet has been licensed since 2003.
Authorities did not disclose whether the men were citizens, legal residents or undocumented, or their country of origin.
The current whereabouts and status of the four men were not provided.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-08-24 07:13:532022-08-24 07:15:06Immigration Attorney and Magistrate Arrested For Human Smuggling
David and Ann were together 30 years and married 14 of those years. He was gunned down in June of 2020 at the height of the BLM riots that engulfed a countless number of Democrat-run cities.
Ann Dorn explains, “Although David was retired from the police force at the time, he never retired from serving his community.” Among other services, he agreed to be the “point of contact” for a friend’s pawn shop alarm.
“On the night of June 1, 2020,” she writes, “St. Louis erupted in violence as Black Lives Matter descended upon the city.” Early on the morning of June 2, multiple alarms informed David that someone was in the pawn shop. Although he knew the rioters were shooting “at firefighters and police officers” and “that the city was consumed by violence and chaos,” he still did his duty.
After he arrived at the scene, he found rioters inside the store and asked them to leave. For that, he was shot and killed by a man named Stephen Cannon, who was just found guilty of first-degree murder. “A third rioter live-streamed the entire incident,” Ann Dorn wrote, “and we later learned that one of the many viewers who watched David’s murder unfold was David’s eldest grandson.”
She adds: “David became a cop because when he was a little boy he wanted to be a superhero. And he was a superhero. But if real life superheroes exist, so do supervillains.” She goes on to say that those supervillains “are people like the man who killed my husband” and then adds:
They are people like billionaire George Soros, who use their power and influence to promote extremist politics and fan the flames of division. They are people like Vice President Kamala Harris, who raised money for the rioters’ bail funds, and the CEOs of prominent companies who blindly gave their support and money to this. If a foreign organization were tied to nationwide rioting in the U.S., we’d probably call it a terrorist organization.
David didn’t agree with or support Black Lives Matter. He never understood Black Lives Matter, because it never actually did anything to help Black lives. The same year David was killed, over a dozen children were shot in St. Louis, and never once did Black Lives Matter show up. Their lives mattered. Fifty-five businesses were looted or destroyed the night David was murdered, many of them Black-owned. Their livelihoods mattered. My husband was a Black man who selflessly served his community for over 40 years. His life mattered.
“Ultimately,” she concludes, my husband “was murdered because the people who are supposed to protect our streets — active-duty police officers — were ordered not to do their jobs…. Yes, there are bad cops out there, but addressing bad policing by ordering no policing at all is not a solution.”
BLM Activist in D.C. Calls for “Blood” and Violence
At a “Jail Killer Cops” BLM rally on April 16, 2021 in Washington, D.C., a 21-year-old BLM activist named Rahim B. took the microphone and said:
“Voting is not gonna bring us this [change]. We voted in the new president, Joe Biden, but I told folks straight up — Joe Biden ain’t gonna do nothing for us because Joe Biden was in office as the vice-president when the Black Lives Matter movement started and ain’t nothing changed. We’ve been protesting for a really long time. How much longer can we protest and march in the streets before we are ready, really ready, to get blood on their hands because one of these days, it’s going to have to come to that. [,,,]
“Bringing about that change is not going to always be pretty, and it’s not going to be peaceful. I don’t condemn [those] who loot, I support them for looting. I support people who take matters in their own hands. If you want to set something on fire, go do that.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2022-08-24 06:51:342022-08-24 06:55:43Slain St. Louis Police Captain’s Widow Rips ‘Supervillains’ BLM, Soros, Kamala
While Biden’s panicked evacuation from Afghanistan was going on, it had failed so badly that staffers from his own wife’s office were contacting private rescue groups to get people out.
This is one of the many damning revelations in the report by Rep. McCaul for the Republican minority on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The interim report, “A Strategic Failure” was conducted despite every possible effort by the White House and House Democrats to stop it, including blocking information requests and keeping briefings unnecessarily classified.
With the revelations that the State Department is actively refusing to cooperate with the Special Inspector General on Afghanistan Reconstruction, this report is more urgent than ever.
Forced to rely on personal interviews and public non-classified testimony, the report reveals that Biden had made it a “priority” to maintain an embassy in Kabul even after he had withdrawn the troops and the country was on the verge of falling to the advancing Taliban terror forces.
“POTUS was publicly making it clear that this was a priority. Ambassador Wilson began stating that ‘I am maniacal about the Embassy remaining in Kabul,’” a military officer described.
Secretary of State Blinken and other State Department officials in D.C. and in Kabul refused to consider the possibility of a Taliban takeover. Only Blinken and his department could order an evacuation, and they refused to seriously plan for one until a week before the fall of Kabul.
Military officials were prevented from even discussing an evacuation, being told, “don’t say NEO” and “This is not a NEO for Afghanistan.” NEO stands for Non-Combatant Evacuation.
Biden’s refusal to listen to advisers who told him to maintain a minimal military force on the ground almost led to an even worse disaster as the only remaining airport was overrun.
With American forces under fire, Air Force pilots and maintenance personnel were handed guns and told to stand guard. Had the Taliban wanted to overrun the airport, they could have done so.
The report notes that, “most of the officers working at the Joint Operations Center were also pressed into security duties as the mob got within 150 meters of that key command center.”
And the abandoned and isolated military personnel on the ground were under Taliban fire.
The military helicopters evacuating the embassy had to evade “constant” enemy fire. The airport guard towers “received small arms fire throughout the day” and Taliban mortars forced the closure of the airport. The suicide bombing that killed 13 service members was the inevitable result of Biden’s bad decisions which turned the American presence in Kabul into ‘Fort Apache’.
With no plan, deprived of proper military support, isolated in a small strip of land, surrounded by armed enemies and dangerous mobs, Biden led American military personnel into a trap.
Biden lied, Americans died.
While the State Department’s focus on Biden’s “priority” of maintaining an embassy led directly to the wretched scenes of American citizens being beaten by the Taliban and left behind under fire, Biden’s military brass also has plenty to answer for.
The Taliban had offered, ‘Why don’t you just take security for all of Kabul.’ Gen. McKenzie replied, “That was not my instruction”. The Taliban had urged, “We want you to have it,”
That would have required thousands more troops that Biden refused to authorize.
Gen. McKenzie had initially planned to tell the Taliban to stop outside the city, but in the meeting instead told the Islamic terrorism group that he had “no opinion” on them taking the city.
Instead of trying to secure the city for an evacuation, the Biden administration and its generals outsourced the job to the Taliban with horrifying results for our citizens and our prestige.
Adding to the disgrace, British, French and other NATO members went out into Kabul to rescue their own people, while our own generals refused to do likewise and tried to discourage them.
“U.S. commanders were angered by allied troops leaving the perimeter of HKIA to rescue their respective citizens, expressing concern these movements could draw a negative reaction from the Taliban,” the report notes. Biden’s brass were more concerned about the Taliban’s reaction than about getting all the Americans trapped behind enemy lines out of the country.
And so over 800 American citizens were abandoned by Biden behind Taliban enemy lines.
American women would have been among those who, the report reveals, “were beaten and shot at for not being accompanied by a male, sexually assaulted, trampled, and forced to stand in wastewater for hours”.
“If there’s American citizens left, we’re gonna stay to get them all out,” Biden had promised.
It was one of his many lies.
The McCaul report carefully documents the complete contradiction between the Biden administration’s claims about the evacuation and the realities on the ground. The most damning evidence of that are the efforts by Jill Biden and Kamala’s people to contact private rescue groups to get people out instead of operating through their own administration.
Biden claimed that his withdrawal was carried out with the support and consent of military leaders and allies, and that no one had foreseen a rapid Taliban takeover.
In reality, he had been “warned repeatedly that the return of the Taliban was a question of when, not if” and that “the resurgence of al Qaeda” was “the most likely scenario”.
Biden was aware of this and lied anyway.
NATO allies vehemently opposed Biden’s unconditional withdrawal to such a degree that Secretary Blinken had phoned his boss from a NATO summit to tell him he had gotten a “jolt” in “in quadraphonic sound” opposing the move. His own military advisers had told him not to do it.
Nothing Biden and his people said about their botched evacuation from Afghanistan was true.
After withdrawing forces while leaving thousands of Americans behind on the ground, Biden reluctantly approved a limited evacuation whose military personnel were cut off from the start. Mobs overran the airport, with mostly young men filling up planes which took off. The State Department failed to plan for an evacuation or vet evacuees leading to dozens of Afghans with terror ties coming to America and massive backups of Afghan evaucees abroad.
After its Saigon moment, the Biden administration has been paying “approximately $300,000 per flight to a Taliban controlled airline in order to allow U.S. citizens and Afghan allies to continue evacuating.” Air Taliban is being funded by the United States with State Department officials confirming “that the cash-strapped Taliban are profiting from these payments.“
The Taliban had every incentive to sabotage our evacuation to profit from Air Taliban.
Sizable quantities of weapons and equipment have fallen into the hands of the Taliban. Some family members of Americans, including military personnel, are still trapped in Afghanistan.
Despite the withdrawal, massive amounts of our money continue flowing to the Taliban in the form of hostage payments and foreign aid. Al Qaeda freely operates in Afghanistan and the United States of America suffered an unprecedented disgrace, abandoning citizens and allies.
A year later, the interim report from the Republican minority on the House Foreign Affairs Committee is only the beginning of the effort to expose the truth about Biden’s betrayal.
But it is an important step in the fight against the lies and the spin from the man who did it all.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Sydney’s Festival of Dangerous Ideas will host a discussion of bestiality.
When it comes to taboos, straight talk about bestiality is right up there with supporting Israel Folau and voting for Donald Trump. Which must be why Sydney’s Festival of Dangerous Ideas has welcomed Joanna Bourke, a distinguished British historian, to its shindig on the weekend of September 17 and 18. She is the author of Loving Animals: On Bestiality, Zoophilia and Post-Human Love, distributed by the University of Chicago Press. Its blurb explains that “Bourke looks at the changing meanings of ‘bestiality’ and ‘zoophilia,’ assesses the psychiatric and sexual aspects, and she concludes by delineating an ethics of animal loving.”
To no one’s surprise, and no doubt to the delight of the organisers, the New South Wales Arts Minister, Ben Franklin, demanded that Bourke’s talk be cancelled. Since the NSW government is a major sponsor, his opinion ought to count for something. However, Simon Longstaff, the head of The Ethics Centre, which organises the Festival, blew him a raspberry and said that he would not bow to pressure. “To suggest that this was in some sense promoting sex with animals is like saying a historian who covers the history of cannibalism is promoting cannibalism,” he said. He told the Sydney Morning Herald that Bourke’s book presents only three ways of thinking about bestiality – dangerous, perverted or wrong-headed: “It takes a particular kind of mind to think that loving animals must involve sex with animals.”
Which prompts two questions.
First, if Bourke’s book is as platitudinous as Mr Longstaff suggests, what is the point of inviting her to a Festival of Dangerous Ideas? He would be selling tickets under false pretences.
Second, is Bourke really an advocate of sex with animals?
To quote someone who knows about fine distinctions in discussions about sexual matters, Bill Clinton, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Practically, she is not. Peter Singer is an advocate for euthanasia as a theoretical possibility, but he does not practice euthanasia. But theoretically, Bourke is an apologist for the higher bestiality. She states in her book: “interspecies relationships can be complex, rich and fulfilling. Love—that most intimate and vulnerable emotion—is itself a coup de foudre; it is ungovernable. By being ‘open to otherness’, we might finally find ourselves edging towards becoming true companion species.”
“Coup de foudre” is a highfalutin expression for love at first sight. It’s not the sort of expression that most people use about their Labradors.
So Mr Longstaff is mistaken. Bourke hedges her conclusions with the what-ifs, buts, and mights typical of queer theory. She is not proselytising for bestiality. But she lays a moral foundation for its possibility. Perhaps he closed Loving Animals before reaching page 146.
My real gripe, though, about the Festival of Dangerous Ideas is not the taboo subject of sex with animals. It is its poverty of imagination.
As a talking point, bestiality is no longer dangerous; it is merely titillating. The rest of the weekend program promises to be interesting, but it will not shock, threaten, frighten or disgust.
“Blowing the whistle on Facebook” – everyone’s least favourite social media platform — that’s dangerous?
“Beyond The Gender Binary. There is so much more than male and female, and you’re only limited by your imagination.” In 2022, that’s dangerous?
“My Greatest Period Ever. Don’t just go with the flow – you can use the menstrual cycle to improve your life by harnessing the power of the period.” That’s dangerous? It’s just crass.
In any case, “dangerous” to whom? Not to those attending. They will be in a safe space, insulated from prickly scepticism about the pieties of wokedom. The audience will baa in concert and the speakers will be applauded and feted.
In a post-modern society, the truly transgressive topics are not how to dehumanise social life; but how to rehumanise it. Here are some truly taboo ideas:
Every child deserves to live in a family with her biological mother and father.
Homosexuality is unnatural and should be discouraged.
We need a voice for God in the Constitution.
Transgender medicine is child abuse.
Abortion is murder and abortionists should be jailed.
Queer theory leads straight to bestiality.
If the Festival of Dangerous Ideas ever dared to host such blasphemies, all hell would break loose. Twitter warriors would swarm like bees. The speakers would be cancelled. Sponsors would pull out.
EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-08-24 06:01:302022-08-24 06:04:02Is the last taboo dangerous – or just boring?
Tony Fauci’s announcement yesterday that he would finally step down from a public health post that he has parlayed over thirty-eight years into one of the most powerful – and the highest compensated – in the federal administrative state is a kind of Rorschach test.
Those who have seen Dr. Fauci as the heroic scientist who valiantly, and successfully, led the response to the COVID-19 pandemic are anguished by his retirement in December. For those of us perceiving him instead as the villainous uber-bureaucrat whose role reflected not hard science, but personal calculation and benefit, his departure is long-overdue and can’t come soon enough.
The question is: Will Fauci be held accountable, for example, for the consequences of his enabling the Chinese Communist Party’s biological warfare program to use U.S. funds and technology to create the coronavirus that has killed a million of us?
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Center For Security Policyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCenter For Security Policy2022-08-23 11:53:282022-08-23 11:53:43The Fauci Rorschach Test
“You’ve got the NSA doing all this collecting of material on all of its citizens – that’s what the SS (Schutzstaffel), the Gestapo, the Stasi, the KGB, and the NKVD did. (NKVD is The People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs.)” — William Binney – Former intelligence official with the United States National Security Agency and whistleblower.
“We must rid this nation of the United Nations, which provides the communist conspiracy with a headquarters here on our own shores, and which actually makes it impossible for the United States to form its own decisions about its conduct and policies in Europe and Asia.” — John T. Flynn – author of While You Slept
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” — Thomas Jefferson
“No cause is left but the most ancient of all, the one, in fact, that from the beginning of our history has determined the very existence of politics, the cause of freedom versus tyranny.” — Hannah Arendt
“Not yet, O Freedom! close thy lids in slumber, for thine enemy never sleeps” comes from William Cullen Bryant’s poem, The Antiquity of Freedom. Close not your eyes in slumber fellow citizens, but rise as warriors for the cause of freedom!
Are Americans so weak that they will keep their heads down and hope the evil passes? Are they so propagandized by the Democrat’s media comrades that they believe what is happening is righteous? Or are they oblivious to the very threats of evil occurring in our nation and around the world?
Not only are we a nation now known for genocide, we mirror third world tyrannical dictatorships. Hitler had his Gestapo and Biden has the armed federal agencies, including the entire intelligence community. Do our fellow citizens have a clue what the Gestapo represented? Afterall, few government schools teach world history, much less American history and the US Constitution.
Hitler’s Gestapo
In 1933, Hermann Goring combined the various political police agencies into an organization. It was called the Gestapo, an abbreviation of Geheime Staatspolizei, the official secret police of Nazi Germany. They were the policing arm of the dictator in charge. Goring’s Prussian Secret Police force was originally formed in 1851 with the police forces of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, Baden and Wurttemberg. They were initially organized to suppress political dissent in the wake of the 1848 revolutions which spread across Germany. In previous articles I’ve mentioned the 1848ers who emigrated to America after their attempts to establish socialism failed in Europe. In 1933, Hermann Goring recreated them with the Gestapo, and in 1936, it became a branch of the Schutzstaffel (SS) run by Heinrich Himmler.
Think we don’t have the same thing here in America? We certainly do. Like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh and others, Biden used dictatorial powers and his politicized DOJ in a huge show of force against an opposition leader and former president. The August 8th FBI raid on Mar-A-Lago was a wild abuse of power. We have seen these actions in other countries where it is immediately denounced as an act of a dictator.
Mainstream media comrades have always called January 6th an insurrection and attack, albeit the billions of dollars of damages incurred nationwide by BLM and Antifa communists is never mentioned. According to Roll Call’s article of April 2021, “Capitol hill lawmakers were grappling with how best to respond to the rising threat of violent white supremacy nationally. Lawmakers are divided over the need for a new domestic terrorism law. Every single democrat agrees that right-wing violence has become an alarming problem.”
What absolute rubbish!
The psychological projection propaganda used by Saul Alinsky acolytes in politics and media has much of America’s electorate fooled enough to believe conservatives are a danger. Yet, every violent insurrection in America during the COVID nightmare over George Floyd’s death was perpetrated by communists whose aim is to incite riots and division. The democrats, mainstream media and Justice Departments supported them, bailed them out, dismissed charges and squelched the truth of their roots and actions.
Church Committee Report – 1976
The 1970’s Church Committee Report details the dark history of the corrupt FBI, NSA and CIA propaganda and political interference. The Committee was chaired by Frank Church (D-ID) and Vice Chairman, John G. Tower (R-TX).
The Church Committee’s reports have been said to constitute the most extensive review of intelligence activities ever made available to the public. Much of the contents were classified, but over 50,000 pages were declassified under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.
Writing for LifeSite News, on August 4, 2022, Robert L. Kinney III notes that the “agency previously engaged in ‘covert efforts to influence social policy and political action’ and at times used methods ‘reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian regimes,’” as noted in an April 1976 Senate report called “Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans.”
After holding 126 full committee meetings, 40 subcommittee hearings, interviewing some 800 witnesses in public and closed sessions, and combing through 110,000 documents, the committee published its final report on April 29, 1976. Investigators determined that, beginning with President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration and continuing through the early 1970s, “intelligence excesses, at home and abroad,” were not the “product of any single party, administration, or man,” but had developed as America rose to a become a superpower during a global Cold War.
“Intelligence agencies have undermined the constitutional rights of citizens,” the final report concluded, “primarily because checks and balances designed by the framers of the Constitution to assure accountability have not been applied.” In a separate appended view, Senator Tower acknowledged “intelligence excesses” and the “need for expanded legislative, executive, and judicial involvement in intelligence policy and practices.”
The reports on the intelligence agencies are 46 years old, and confirm that they are the most weaponized and politicized agencies against the American people and our Constitutional Republic. They are a menace and a danger to our citizens.
They are today’s American Gestapo.
Armed U.S. Agencies
The DOJ has been weaponized for years, and every single one of our 18 intelligence agencies is likewise politicized, including our military. Many are funded by largely classified budgets. Agencies you’d never suspect would need firearms are now armed.
John Watson’s American Thinker article of June 18, 2020, Where are All the Guns and Ammo Purchased Under Obama, gives us a good idea of the arming of civilian government employees during the Obama regime. The author quotes Obama’s troublesome statement during his campaign.
We cannot continue to rely only on our military … we’ve got to have a civilian security force just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.
Like Herman Goring, Obama and Biden are creating an armed federal police force.
Watson then continues and lists all the various agencies who are now heavily armed, as well as the largess spent on ammunition and firearms. (The government purchased over a billion pieces of ammunition, causing a national shortage.) Agencies include the Small Business Association, The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, The Department of Health and Human Services, the Smithsonian, Social Security, the Forest Service, National Park Service, and Inspector General’s Office and tons more.
Some of these agencies are armed with sophisticated weaponry normally carried by special forces.
Are these government employees the new “civilian security force?”
The American Gestapo?
The Department of Homeland Security, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the IRS are three of the largest and most dangerous agencies to citizens of the once free republic, and they’re all heavily armed.
DHS
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put out a National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin on Feb. 7, 2022, stating that, “The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.”
No mention of Antifa or BLM.
On August 16, 2022 James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released a leaked DHS document on Domestic Violent Extremists (DVEs) in wake of the FBI’s raid of Trump’s Florida residence. Here is the leaked bulletin.
Document lists perception of “government overreach” and “election fraud” as red flags.
“The threats we have observed, to date, underscore that DVEs may view the 2022 midterm election as an additional flashpoint around which to escalate threats against perceived ideological opponents, including federal law enforcement personnel.”
“Information contained in this intelligence bulletin is for official use only. No portion of this bulletin should be released to the media, the general public, or over nonsecure Internet servers. Release of this material could adversely affect or jeopardize investigative activities.”
Again, communist groups, Antifa and BLM, are never mentioned. However, Fox News tells us that the rosary has now become an extremist symbol, because they claim Catholics are a growing contingent of Christian nationalism! And just what is wrong with being a Christian nationalist?
An ATF agent allegedly created an illegal gun registry of Black Metal Firearms in Mesa, Arizona with her personal cell phone. That has been the agency’s goal as they have acquired nearly one billion 4473 “background check” forms to pin down how many and which Americans are purchasing firearms. This action by the ATF is an attempt to establish a permanent National Gun Registry, the first step towards outright gun confiscation. It is illegal, and unconstitutional, but they have it. The ATF was involved in the Waco Siege and Operation Fast and Furious, which left U.S. Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry, and hundreds of Mexican citizens dead. The ATF needs to be eliminated.
IRS
As for the Internal Revenue Service, the recent $770 billion Inflation Reduction Act. will double the size of the IRS, and authorize it to hire up to 87,000 additional employees as well as an additional $80 billion in funding. The IRS currently has 93,654 employees. Their budget last year was $12.6 billion. On August 10th, National Review exposed the job listing for new agents “willing to use deadly force,” and then the IRS pulled the job post. Open the Books investigation showed that by 2019, the agency had spent over 20 million on guns, ammo, and military style equipment. How much more will $80 billion purchase?
Any idea of what all those new armed agents are going to do? Their targets are defined as domestic terrorists. The DOJ classifies them as conservatives and Trump supporters along with parents who are unhappy with what is happening in the government controlled public schools.
The elite want the middle class totally destroyed, losing 46% of small businesses during COVID and the Antifa and BLM riots wasn’t enough for them. What is left of America’s small businesses will also be a new target…the harassment will be endorsed and promoted by Biden’s weaponized agencies. They’re coming after those earning $400K or less.
Small businesses operate on a tight marginal basis, not having the ability to survive a full up audit. In his August 7, 2022 article, John Hinderacker of Power Line believes that the new hires will be used like Lois Lerner was doing, going after conservative 501(c)(3) groups and political campaigns in order to shift the political wars in the democrats’ favor. Lois Lerner ended up being a test run, a successful test run congressional democrats just turned into a business model.
Most law-abiding citizens know they have something to fear from a state agency that doesn’t concern itself with due process, has no regard for your privacy and is empowered to target anyone it wants without any genuine oversight.
An American Gestapo.
The Enemies List
Trump allies and constitutional conservatives are the enemies of the illegitimate neo-Marxist collectivists. Aaron Kliegman’s August 17tharticle in John Solomon’s Just the News documents the blacklisting of conservatives who have been targeted by the DOJ.
From Mike Flynn to Rudy Giuliani, from Roger Stone and Paul Manafort to Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, a long list of Trump allies and Biden critics have been probed, raided, handcuffed, charged, and jailed by the Justice Department.
John Solomon’s June 6th article chronicled the two-tiered justice system. In just one comparison, Eric Holder escaped punishment of contempt of congress charges for not complying with a congressional subpoena in the Fast and Furious scandal and his own DOJ department failed to prosecute him. Ten years later, academic Peter Navarro “was handcuffed and shackled after being indicted for contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena.”
Worse yet, those who supported our 45th president and went to the January 6th, 2021 rally are excoriated as lawbreakers in what was called an insurrection worse than Pearl Harbor and 9/11. John Solomon’s January 26, 2022 article tells us, “Trump gave the order to ‘make sure’ January 6 rally was ‘safe event,’ Pentagon memo shows.” Former career federal prosecutor, David Sullivan said the entire hearings lacked an accountability process and both the Justice Department and congressional hearings raised questions of fairness and gave viewers a reason to tune out what proved to be “very scripted” interrogations. Mr. Sullivan called the hearings Stalinist.
Put America in debt to the tune of over $30 TRILLION dollars.
Let over 100,000 illegals into America each month while paying them and transporting them across America on the tax payer dime.
Funds the Iranian regime so it can develop a nuclear weapon.
Funds and supports terrorists of Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban and others.
Supported the Chinese communist Black Lives Matter organization as it burned down American cities and killed American citizens on the streets.
Told us “There is no organized Antifa” while Antifa burned down American cities and killed American citizens.
Illegally electronically surveilled the President of the United States, his family and his staff with no prosecutions after 6 years.
Calls the MAGA Movement “the most dangerous political movement in American history” and targets Patriots for prosecution and persecution while wittingly lets felons free from jail and fails to prosecute high government officials for treason, sedition, and other crimes.
And the list goes on.
Conclusion
Love him or hate him, Donald Trump has been a target of the left since 2015 and the raid on Mar-A-Lago was an obvious abuse of politicized power. This easily should have and could have gone through attorneys, but the DOJ loves using their comrades in the media to convince the propagandized and deliberately dumbed down Americans that Trump is a criminal with their explosive use of force.
Why would they take the family passports? Why would they take Roger Stone’s pardon when it was on the front page of the Washington Post? Why would they take declassified materials? Because the DOJ, i.e., Attorney General Merrick Garland gave them license to do so through approval of the warrant by Judge Bruce Reinhart who should have recused himself.
Trump is the target, but what has been done to him and the people who worked for him can be done to the average citizen. This time it’s not just our Jewish brethren, it’s all of us.
The enemies of freedom have created Obama’s civilian security force.
