Who is Really Running the Destroy-America Biden Regime?

“Guilty as hell, free as a bird—America is a great country.” – Bill Ayers, Weather Underground founder (Oct. 7, 2021)

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. – George Soros, hedge-fund billionaire.


In today’s chaotic political landscape, it is obvious that the Democrat Party in power is comprised largely of far-left radicals, many of them shockingly anti-American and predictably anti-Semitic  (as are all deranged leftists).

After all, with Barack Obama, they thought they were significantly closer to their 100-year goal of a socialist-cum-communist America, and believed that “President” Hillary would fulfill their cherished fantasy.

And then along came President Trump to smash that fantasy to smithereens.

When everything the Democrats tried to sabotage President Trump failed––the Russian hoax, the Ukraine hoax, the Stormy Daniels hoax, the impeachment fiascos, on and on––they pulled out the Wuhan lab surprise, effectively creating a pandemic.

The result was the entire world isolated in their homes, worldwide economies destroyed, and the unprecedented phenomenon of mail-in ballots, which essentially insured that the voter fraud Democrats are so famous for––ACORN, anyone?, and the Dominion voting machines used in “elections” in Venezuela and other banana republics to insure the desired outcomes––would succeed as it had in the past.

And it did. Today, however, with audits being conducted in every significant state, that colossal voter fraud is being proven…stay tuned! And with the arrest of Hillary’s lawyer, Democrats are also looking at the coming arrests of all those higher-ups who colluded in the criminal anti-Trump effort, including Ms. Hillary herself!

THE FIRST EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE FRAUDULENT ELECTION

In less time than a normal human pregnancy, putative president Biden managed to accomplish the following:

And that’s the short list!

SO, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THIS CATASTROPHE?

Is it Barack Obama? As writer Steve Weinstein spells out, Obama always had a lazy disregard for the tough work, and as we can see to this very day, is far more interested in displaying the conspicuous consumption that is part and parcel of his nouveau-riche persona than in the gritty fray of politics.

Is it Susan Rice? For sure, a reliable functionary and skilled to the nth degree at lying through her teeth, but with zero evidence of being a strategic thinker.

Is it Ron Klain? A clever guy, now Biden’s Chief of Staff, but more adept at managing a clearly diminished and doddering POTUS than orchestrating the complexities of an attempted coup d’état.

Is it Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s first Chief of Staff, or David Axelrod, the chief strategist of Obama’s two presidential campaigns? Clearly not, since neither was even invited to his lavish birthday party in August of 2021 at the Obama’s $15M waterfront mansion on Martha’s Vineyard ––although Jay Z and Beyoncé were among other very important people who were invited.

Is it Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s longtime senior advisor? She certainly has the brains, ability to think strategically, and fidelity to leftist ideology. She simply doesn’t have the burning hatred it requires to work so diligently for America’s downfall.

Is it Nancy Pelosi? Just the other day, the House Speaker twice referred to the president as Obama. Highly unlikely that this addled octogenarian is calling any shots! In fact, she can hardly cope with the far-left flank of her own Party. But she was certainly not too addled a few weeks ago to meet with the guy (and his son) who bankrolls her agenda and tells her what to do.

Is it Joe Biden himself? There are more than 330-million Americans who have eyes and ears to make that determination. In my opinion, not one of that massive number of people believes that the intellectually––and now cognitively––limited Joe Biden manages more than barely getting through the day.

Is it China’s leader, Xi Jinping, or Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin? It is certainly possible that they are colluding with each other against America, and even “speaking with” those who are directing things from the Oval Office. But both are too busy running their own massive countries to manage toppling a colossus like the U.S.A., especially when things are going so well in the direction they desire.

WHO THEN?

There are only two people, I believe, who qualify as possible candidates for choreographing the massive coup attempt currently taking place before our eyes. Both have spoken of their contempt ––if not searing hatred––for America, and both have tried mightily over decades to bring down our country. And, most important, both have the brains and power and track records to place them in frontrunner contention.

The first is Bill Ayers, now 76 and a retired professor of education at the Univ. of Illinois at Chicago. Ayers gained early fame when he founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group that sought to overthrow America, and conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings (including police stations, the U.S. Capitol, and the Pentagon, et al) during the 1960s and 1970s.

In an early eighties interview, Ayers remembered his reaction upon learning that because of government overreach he would not be prosecuted for a Weather Underground bombing spree that killed a policeman. “Guilty as hell, free as a bird—America is a great country,” he exulted.

After that, he joined his version of mainstream society as a professor but was far from through with far-left politics.

In 1995, when Barack Obama was running for state senator in Illinois, Ayers held a fundraiser in his living room––while both insisted that they only knew each other casually. In fact, their cozy relationship had been public knowledge in Chicago for years.

And when prolific journalist and author Jack Cashill wrote Deconstructing Obama––based on his exquisite forensic analysis of Ayers’ former writings––he made an airtight case that it was Ayers who actually wrote Obama’s two bestsellers: Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope.

According to blogger Bernie Quigley, Obama and Bill Ayers were “together from the beginning” [of Obama’s political career]. When Obama met with Ayers at “the salon gatherings of Chicago’s Beautiful People,” he added, “it was the kickoff of a political career which would lead, potentially, in little over a decade, from the house of the most notorious of the violent Amerika-hating revolutionaries from the ’60s still alive, Bill Ayers and [his wife and fellow terrorist] Bernadine Dohrn, to the White House.”

In fact, Quigley writes, between 1995 and 1999, Obama led the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) that Ayers founded––“a program that called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism.’

So, what is Bill Ayers doing now? For one thing, lamenting on his blog the deaths of his fellow terrorists. And last year, upon observing the violence and destruction wrought by Antifa and Black Lives Matter in Portland and Kenosha, he remarked: “Am I the only one, or do you feel eerily that we’re living in Kansas, 1859 ––[when Kansans engaged in a violent guerrilla war between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces which contributed to the coming Civil War]––and that tensions are boiling over, but only years later will people say, ‘Yes, the Civil War began there and then?’”

Clearly not through with politics, is Ayers now whispering into the ears of Joe Biden’s handlers exactly what to do to bring down America? He certainly seems a viable candidate to me.

WHO ELSE?

The second––and most likely––candidate is George Soros, now 91, the still active and vital hedge-fund billionaire whose brilliance is undisputed, whose political involvement and effectiveness in world affairs is second to none, who is considered both indispensable and formidable to his fans and terrifying to his adversaries, and whose financial resources are unlimited.

In a 2018, the editors at David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks wrote an exhaustive, riveting, must-read study of Soros, entitled: Who is George Soros and Why He Hates America. I urge everyone to read this article because it demonstrates the passion, the ideology, and––as the crime shows emphasize, the means, motives, and opportunity––that George Soros has had to pour his heart and soul and massive amounts of money into transforming America from a Democratic Republic into the ideals of his Open Society Foundations, founded in 1993. Those ideals are:

  • The diminution of American power.
  • The subjugation of American sovereignty in favor of global governance.
  • The implementation of redistributive economic policies—both within the U.S. and across national borders.”

The breadth, depth––the sheer magnitude––of what Soros has accomplished, worldwide, since he got deeply involved in politics in the mid-1980s, is breathtaking. “My spending rose from $3 million in 1987 to more than $300 million a year by 1992,” he said.

Imagine what it is today!

The above-cited article called Soros “one of the most politically powerful individuals on earth. Since the mid-1980s, he has used his immense influence to help reconfigure the political landscapes of several countries around the world—in some cases playing a key role in toppling regimes that had held the reins of government for years, even decades.” Not to omit that, famously, Soros broke the bank of England, raking in more than a billion bucks in the deal.

Vis à vis the United States, a strong case can be made for the claim “that Soros today affects American politics and culture more profoundly that any other living person.”

As of 2018, the OSF’s total assets exceeded $1.9 billion. Each year, the Foundations award scores of millions of dollars in grants to over 206 U.S. organizations, which, among other things:

  • Depict America as a nation whose enduring racism must be counterbalanced by racial and ethnic preferences in favor of nonwhites,
  • Disparage capitalism while promoting a dramatic expansion of social-welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes,
  • Promote open borders, mass immigration, a watering down of current immigration laws, increased rights, and benefits for illegal aliens, and ultimately amnesty,
  • Assert that virtually all American military actions are unwarranted and immoral,
  • Exhort the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with, and to make concessions to, Arab terrorist groups and regimes that have pledged to destroy America and Israel alike,
  • On and on and on.

AN OVER-ARCHING VISION

Among the central political ideas that unite Democrats––and certainly energize whoever is running the show––is the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Begun in 1966 and flourishing to this day, the founders of this plan, both from Columbia University, loathed America and insisted that capitalism could be collapsed by overloading the government with financial demands that could never be met.

Or as writer Jeff M. Lewis explains in “They Intend to Destroy America,” the plan is to “overload the American public welfare system and create a crisis that will bankrupt the nation, leaving no choice but to adopt a socialist/communist system of government.“

Cloward and Piven also formed voter-fraud schemes like Project Vote, ACORN, etc., still extant only with different names. And surprise, surprise––ACORN’s lawyer was none other than Barack Obama. Birds of a feather, and all that.

Their vision is exactly what we are witnessing today with the mad rush of hundreds of thousands illegal aliens pouring over our southern borders and being secretly ferreted to American cities, all with the promise of free everything––food, housing, medical care, education, even drivers’ licenses! And all with the implicit directive to Vote Democrat!

At the same time, we have the discredited “expert” on all things corona virus, Dr. Anthony Fauci, insisting on what Senator Ron Johnson (R-MN) calls the “totalitarian biomedical security state of forced vaccination.”

We also have:

A Cloward-Piven dream come true! Unsustainable debt, thousands more American streets becoming tent cities of the homeless, sick, hungry, addicted; rising unemployment, a compromised healthcare system, a drastically weakened military, an immobilized populace, a reviled education system, and that is the short list!

Ruth S. King––writer, editor, and international blogger––sees not only a coup, but an authentic insurrection: “When the established government does not recognize dissidents and calls them “domestic terrorists” and limits their speech, controls the media, alters the language, denies legitimate history, trashes tradition and culture, erases national borders, blurs the role of the military, destroys the canons of education, science and medicine, and uses the powers of government to spy on its citizens–that is an insurrection.”

And who is orchestrating this last-gasp attempt of the Left? Isn’t it obvious?

©Joan Swirsky. All rights reserved.

Biden Plan Would Sabotage U.S. Economic Competitiveness in One Huge Way, Analysis Finds

That’s not ‘Building Back Better’—it’s shooting ourselves in the foot.  


President Biden has heralded his $4.5+ trillion spending proposals and accompanying tax hikes as an investment in “leading the world versus letting it pass us by.” Yet, paradoxically, a new analysis exposes one huge way Biden’s plans would make the US less competitive on the global stage.

Key to financing the spending plans is a proposed increase in the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 26.5 percent. When factoring in state corporate taxes, the US’s average corporate tax rate would reach a whopping 30.9 percent. And according to a new Tax Foundation analysis, this punitive level of business taxation would be the third-highest corporate tax rate among developed countries, outstripped only by Colombia and Portugal.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE TAX FOUNDATION INFOGRAPHIC

Why is this a problem?

Well, the US would become a less attractive place for business investment, which is bad news for entrepreneurs, workers, and customers alike. Businesses would understandably be less likely to conduct business in the US when they could go to dozens of other developed countries with lower tax rates. As a result, our economic competitiveness would suffer.

“Returning to near the top of the OECD in corporate tax rates would… disincentivize investment and encourage firms to shift profits and locate elsewhere, resulting in fewer job opportunities for Americans and less tax revenue for the U.S. government,” the analysis explains.

Yikes.

Biden claims his tax-and-spend agenda is meant to reassert America’s dominance. But the costly tax hikes the president seeks would set our economic competitiveness back on the global stage. That’s not “Building Back Better”—it’s shooting ourselves in the foot.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

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

WATCHNew Biden Vax Mandate Doesn’t Make ANY Sense (Here’s Why)

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Like this story? Click here to sign up for the FEE Daily and get free-market news and analysis like this from Policy Correspondent Brad Polumbo in your inbox every weekday.

The January 6 Insurrection Hoax

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “Critical American Elections.”


Notwithstanding all the hysterical rhetoric surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, two critical things stand out. The first is that what happened was much more hoax than insurrection. In fact, in my judgment, it wasn’t an insurrection at all.

An “insurrection,” as the dictionary will tell you, is a violent uprising against a government or other established authority. Unlike the violent riots that swept the country in the summer of 2020—riots that caused some $2 billion in property damage and claimed more than 20 lives—the January 6 protest at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. lasted a few hours, caused minimal damage, and the only person directly killed was an unarmed female Trump supporter who was shot by a Capitol Police officer. It was, as Tucker Carlson said shortly after the event, a political protest that “got out of hand.”

At the rally preceding the events in question, Donald Trump had suggested that people march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”—these were his exact words—in order to make their voices heard. He did not incite a riot; he stirred up a crowd. Was that, given the circumstances, imprudent? Probably. Was it an effort to overthrow the government? Hardly.

I know this is not the narrative that we have all been instructed to parrot. Indeed, to listen to the establishment media and our political masters, the January 6 protest was a dire threat to the very fabric of our nation: the worst assault on “our democracy” since 9/11, since Pearl Harbor, and even—according to Joe Biden last April—since the Civil War!

Note that phrase “our democracy”: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and various talking heads have repeated it ad nauseam. But you do not need an advanced degree in hermeneutics to understand that what they mean by “our democracy” is their oligarchy. Similarly, when Pelosi talks about “the people’s house,” she doesn’t mean a house that welcomes riff-raff like you and me.

I just alluded to Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed supporter of Donald Trump who was shot and killed on January 6. Her fate brings me to the second critical thing to understand about the January 6 insurrection hoax. Namely, that it was not a stand-alone event.

On the contrary, what happened that afternoon, and what happened afterwards, is only intelligible when seen as a chapter in the long-running effort to discredit and, ultimately, to dispose of Donald Trump—as well as what Hillary Clinton might call the “deplorable” populist sentiment that brought Trump to power.

In other words, to understand the January 6 insurrection hoax, you also have to understand that other long-running hoax, the Russia collusion hoax. The story of that hoax begins back in 2015, when the resources of the federal government were first mobilized to spy on the Trump campaign, to frame various people close to Trump, and eventually to launch a full-throated criminal investigation of the Trump administration.

From before Trump took office, the Russia collusion hoax was used as a pretext to create a parallel administration shadowing the elected administration. Remember the Steele dossier, the fantastical document confected by the “well-regarded” former British spy Christopher Steele? We know now that it was the only relevant predicate for ordering FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page and other American citizens.

But in truth, the Steele dossier was just opposition dirt covertly paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. From beginning to end, it was a tissue of lies and fabrications. Everyone involved knew all along it was garbage—rumors and fantasies fed to a gullible Steele by shady Russian sources. But it was nonetheless used to deploy, illegally, the awesome coercive power of the state against a presidential candidate of whom the ruling bureaucracy and its favored candidate disapproved.

The public learned that the Democratic National Committee paid for the manufactured evidence only because of a court order. James Comey, the disgraced former director of the FBI, publicly denied knowing who paid for it, but emails from a year earlier prove that he knew all along. And what was the penalty for lying in Comey’s case? He got a huge book deal and toured the country denouncing Trump to the gleeful satisfaction of his anti-Trump audiences.

What was true of Comey was also true of the entire intelligence apparat, from former CIA Director John Brennan to Congressman Adam Schiff and other Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee to senior members of the FBI. All these people said publicly that they had seen clear evidence of collusion with Russia. But they admitted under oath behind closed doors that they hadn’t.

General Michael Flynn, Trump’s original National Security Advisor, had his career ruined and was bankrupted as part of this political vendetta. Meanwhile James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, John Brennan, Peter Strzok, and all the rest of the crew at the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies suffered nothing. When it came to light that an FBI lawyer altered an email in order to help get a FISA warrant—in other words, that he doctored evidence to spy on a political opponent, which is a felony—he got probation.

The recent news that Special Counsel John Durham is indicting Michael Sussman, a lawyer who covertly worked for the Clinton campaign and lied to the FBI, is welcome news. But it seems like small beer given the rampant higher-level corruption that saturated the Russia collusion hoax.

At least 74 million citizens voted for Donald Trump in 2020, which is at least 11 million more than voted for him in 2016. Many of those voters are profoundly disillusioned and increasingly angry about this entire story—the years-long Robert Mueller “investigation,” the two impeachments of President Trump, the cloud of unknowing that surrounds the 2020 election, and the many questions that have emerged not only from the January 6 protest at the Capitol, but even more from the government’s response to that protest.

Which brings me back to Ashli Babbitt, the long-serving Air Force veteran who was shot and killed by a nervous Capitol Police officer. Babbitt was a useful prop when the media was in overdrive describing the January 6 events as an “armed insurrection” in which wild Trump supporters, supposedly at Trump’s instigation, attacked the Capitol with the intention of overturning the 2020 election.

According to that narrative, five people, including Babbitt, died in the skirmish. Moreover, it was said, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was bludgeoned to death by a raging Trump supporter wielding a fire extinguisher. That gem of a story about the fire extinguisher, reported in our former paper of record, The New York Times, was instantly picked up by other media outlets and spread like a Chinese virus.

Of course, it is absolutely critical to the Democratic Party narrative that the January 6 incident be made to seem as violent and crazed as possible. Hence the comparisons to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. Only thus can pro-Trump Americans be excluded from “our democracy” by being branded as “domestic extremists” if not, indeed, “domestic terrorists.”

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution accords American citizens the right to a speedy trial. But most of the political prisoners of January 6—many of whom have been kept in solitary confinement—are still waiting to be brought to trial. And although the media was full of predictions that they would be found guilty of criminal sedition, none has.

Indeed, the prosecution’s cases seem to be falling apart. Most of the hundreds who have been arrested are being charged with trespassing. Another charge being leveled against them is “disrupting an official proceeding.” This is a felony charge designed not for ceremonial procedures like the January 6 certification of the vote, but rather for disrupting Congressional inquiries—for example, by shredding documents relevant to a Congressional investigation. It originated during the George W. Bush administration to deal with the Enron case.

The indisputable fact about January 6 is that although five people died at or near the Capitol on that day or soon thereafter, none of these deaths was brought about by the protesters. The shot fired by Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd that hit Ashli Babbitt in the neck and killed her was the only shot fired at the Capitol that day. No guns were recovered from the Capitol on January 6. Zero.

The liberal commentator Glenn Greenwald further diminished the “armed insurrection” narrative in an important column last February titled “The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot.” The title says it all. Kevin Greeson, Greenwald notes, was killed not by the protesters but died of a heart attack outside the Capitol. Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke that day. Rosanne Boyland, another Trump supporter, was reported by The New York Times to have been inadvertently “killed in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line.” But later video shows that, far from that, the police pushed protesters on top of Boyland and would not allow other protesters to pull her out.

Four of the five who died, then, were pro-Trump protesters. And the fifth? Well, that was Officer Sicknick—also a Trump supporter, as it turned out—who, contrary to the false report gone viral of The New York Times, went home, told his family he felt fine, but died a day later from, as The Washington Post eventually and grudgingly reported, “natural causes.” No fire extinguishers were involved in his demise.

***

The January 6 insurrection hoax prompts lots of questions.

Why, for example, did the government mobilize 26,000 federal troops from all across the country to surround “the people’s house” following January 6? Why were those troops subjected to FBI vetting, with some of them sent packing?

Why is there some 14,000 hours of video footage of the event on January 6 that the government refuses to release? What are they afraid of letting the public see? More scenes of security guards actually opening doors and politely ushering in protesters? More pictures of FBI informants covertly salted among the crowd?

My own view is that turning Washington into an armed camp was mostly theater. There was no threat that the Washington police could not have handled. But it was also a show of force and an act of intimidation. The message was: “We’re in charge now, rubes, and don’t you forget it.”

In truth, there is little threat of domestic terror in this country. But there is plenty of domestic conservatism. And that conservatism is the real focus of the establishment’s ire.

It is important to note that while the government provides the muscle for this war on dissent, the elite culture at large is a willing accomplice. Consider, for example, the open letter, signed by more than 500 “publishing professionals” (authors, editors, designers, and so on), calling on the industry to reject books written by anyone who had anything to do with the Trump administration.

These paragons pledged to do whatever they could to stop “enriching the monsters among us.” But here’s their problem: over 74 million people voted for Trump. That’s a lot of monsters.

Many people have been quoting Benjamin Franklin’s famous response when asked what sort of government they had come up with at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. “A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.” Right now, it looks like we can’t. It looks as if the American constitutional republic has given way, as least temporarily, to an American oligarchy.

As the years go by, historians, if the censors allow them access to the documents and give them leave to publish their findings, may well count the 2016 presidential election as the last fair and open democratic election in U.S. history. I know we are not supposed to say that. I know that the heads of Twitter and Facebook and other woke guardians of the status quo call this view “The Big Lie” and do all they can to suppress it. But every honest person knows that the 2020 election was tainted.

The forces responsible for the taint had tried before. Hitherto, their efforts had met with only limited success. But a perfect storm of forces conspired to make 2020 the first oligarchic installation of a president. It would not have happened, I think, absent the panic over the Chinese virus. But that panic, folded in a lover’s embrace by the Democratic establishment, was not only a splendid pretext to clamp down on civil liberties; it also provided an inarguable excuse to alter the rules for elections in several key states.

“Inarguable” is not quite the right word. There could have been plenty of arguments, and many lawsuits, against the way the executive branches in these states usurped the constitutionally guaranteed prerogative of state legislatures to set the election rules when they intervened to allow massive mail-in voting. But the Trump administration, though foreseeing and complaining about the executive interventions, did too little too late to make a difference.

Among the many sobering realities that the 2020 election brought home is that in our current and particular form of oligarchy, the people do have a voice, but it is a voice that is everywhere pressured, cajoled, shaped, and bullied. The people also have a choice, but only among a roster of candidates approved by the elite consensus.

The central fact to appreciate about Donald Trump is that he was elected president without the permission, and over the incredulous objections, of the bipartisan oligarchy that governs us. That was his unforgivable offense. Trump was the greatest threat in history to the credentialed class and the globalist administrative state upon which they feed. Representatives of that oligarchy tried for four years to destroy Trump. Remember that the first mention of impeachment came 19 minutes after his inauguration, an event that was met not only by a widespread Democratic boycott and hysterical claims by Nancy Pelosi and others that the election had been hijacked, but also by riots in Washington, D.C. that saw at least six policemen injured, numerous cars torched, and other property destroyed.

You will search in vain for media or other ruling class denunciations of that violence, or for bulletins from corporate America advising their customers of their solidarity with the newly-installed Trump administration. As the commentator Howie Carr noted, some riots are more equal than others. Some get you the approval of people like Nancy Pelosi and at least the grudging acceptance of oligarchs of the other party. Others get the FBI sweeping the country for “domestic terrorists” and the lords of Big Tech canceling people who defend the protesters’ cause.

Someday—maybe someday soon—this witches’ sabbath, this festival of scapegoating, and what George Orwell called the “hideous ecstasy” of hate will be at an end. Perhaps someday people will be aghast, and some will be ashamed, of what they did to the President of the United States and people who supported him: the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, for instance, proposing to put Senator Ted Cruz on a “no fly” list, and Simon & Schuster canceling Senator Josh Hawley’s book contract.

Donald Trump is the Emmanuel Goldstein (the designated principal enemy of the totalitarian state Oceania in Orwell’s 1984) of the movement. But minor public enemies are legion. Anyone harboring “Trumpist” inclinations is suspect, hence the widespread calls for “deprogramming” Trump’s supporters, who are routinely said to be “marching toward sedition.”

Michael Barone, one of our most perceptive political commentators, got it right when he wrote of the rapid movement “from impeaching incitement to canceling conservatism.” That is the path our oligarchs are inviting us to travel now, criminalizing political dissent and transforming policy differences into a species of heresy. You don’t debate heretics, after all. You seek to destroy them.

Donald Trump’s accomplishments as president were nothing less than stunning. Trump was, and is, a rude force of nature. He accomplished an immense amount. But he lacked one thing. Some say it was self-discipline or finesse. I agree with a friend of mine who suggested that Trump’s critical flaw was a deficit in guile. That sounds odd, no doubt, since Trump is supposed to be the tough guy who mastered “the art of the deal.” But I think my friend is probably right. Trump seems never to have discerned what a viper’s nest our politics has become for anyone who is not a paid-up member of The Club.

Maybe Trump understands this now. I have no insight into that question. I am pretty confident, though, that the 74 plus million people who voted for him understand it deeply. It’s another reason that The Club should be wary of celebrating its victory too expansively.

Friedrich Hayek took one of the two epigraphs for his book, The Road to Serfdom, from the philosopher David Hume. “It is seldom,” Hume wrote, “that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Much as I admire Hume, I wonder whether he got this quite right. Sometimes, I would argue, liberty is erased almost instantaneously.

I’d be willing to wager that Joseph Hackett, confronted with Hume’s observation, would express similar doubts. I would be happy to ask Mr. Hackett myself, but he is inaccessible. If the ironically titled “Department of Justice” has its way, he will be inaccessible for a long, long time—perhaps as long as 20 years.

Joseph Hackett, you see, is a 51-year-old Trump supporter and member of an organization called the Oath Keepers, a group whose members have pledged to “defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The FBI does not like the Oath Keepers—agents arrested its leader in January and have picked up many other members in the months since. Hackett traveled to Washington from his home in Florida to join the January 6 rally. According to court documents, he entered the Capitol at 2:45 that afternoon and left some nine minutes later, at 2:54. The next day, he went home. On May 28, he was apprehended by the FBI and indicted on a long list of charges, including conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, destruction of government property, and illegally entering a restricted building.

As far as I have been able to determine, no evidence of Hackett destroying property has come to light. According to his wife, it is not even clear that he entered the Capitol. But he certainly was in the environs. He was a member of the Oath Keepers. He was a supporter of Donald Trump. Therefore, he must be neutralized.

Joseph Hackett is only one of hundreds of citizens who have been branded as “domestic terrorists” trying to “overthrow the government” and who are now languishing, in appalling conditions, jailed as political prisoners of an angry state apparat.

Hayek’s overriding concern in The Road to Serfdom was to combat the forces that were pushing people further along that road to servitude. His chief concern was unchecked state power. In a new preface to the book’s 1956 edition, Hayek noted that one of its “main points” was to document how “extensive government control produces a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.”

“This means,” Hayek wrote, “that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit.”

This dismal situation, Hayek continues, can be averted, but only if the spirit of liberty “reasserts itself in time and the people not only throw out the party which has been leading them further and further in the dangerous direction but also recognize the nature of the danger and resolutely change their course.”

Note the power of that little word “if.” It was not so long ago that an American could contemplate totalitarian regimes and say, “Thank God we’ve escaped that.” It’s not at all clear that we can entertain that happy conviction any longer.

That’s one melancholy lesson of the January 6 insurrection hoax: that America is fast mutating from a republic, in which individual liberty is paramount, into an oligarchy, in which conformity is increasingly demanded and enforced.

Another lesson was perfectly expressed by Donald Trump when he reflected on the unremitting tsunami of hostility that he faced as President. “They’re after you,” he more than once told his supporters. “I’m just in the way.”

Bingo.

COLUMN BY

Roger Kimball

Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and publisher of Encounter Books. He earned his B.A. from Bennington College and his M.A. and M.Phil. in philosophy from Yale University. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Book Review, and is a columnist for The Spectator WorldAmerican Greatness, and The Epoch Times. He is editor or author of several books, including The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed AmericaThe Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages ArtTenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, and Vox Populi: The Perils and Promises of Populism.

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

France Aghast After a Huge Report on Sexual Abuse in The Catholic Church

But not everything in the report adds up.


France is reeling after yesterday’s release of a report on child sexual abuse. An estimated 216,000 victims suffered abuse between 1950 and 2020, according to the Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse in the Church (CIASE).

“The church failed to see or hear, failed to pick up on the weak signals, failed to take the rigorous measures that were necessary,” Jean-Marc Sauvé, the president of the commission, told the media in Paris. For years, the church showed a “deep, total and even cruel indifference toward victims.”

“The Catholic Church is thus, with the exception of family and friendship circles, the environment in which the prevalence of sexual violence is by far the highest,” the report said.

The report is massive – about 2,500 pages of background, analysis, and testimony from victims – so even the French will have difficulty in assessing it. However, an executive summary – which has also been published in English – makes available the report’s principal conclusions and recommendations.

To the eternal shame of the Catholic Church, there have been a number of reports on sexual abuse around the globe and their findings are always the same: a large number of priests abused children in the decades after World War II. Bishops covered it up, sometimes with the complicity of the police. This has been the story in Australia, Ireland, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany.

However, it’s always helpful to look at the fine print and not just the headlines. Is this report fair?

I don’t want to be misunderstood. As I wrote about the report of Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Sexual Abuse, these are “horrifying stories of abuse by men (they are nearly all men) and women consecrated to God. They are deplorable and inexcusable and cry out to the Almighty for redress. The lives of many innocent children have been ruined.”

The only decent response to the testimony of the victims is rage. Perhaps barbaric punishments, like stoning to death, should be revived for these barbaric crimes.

But we live in a civilised society. The guilty must be punished, but they must first be proven guilty. They have a right to an advocate to speak in their defence. And guilt is not proven simply by citing a few headlines.

Unfortunately, media coverage of the French report, in my estimation, has been very poor. Journalists have plucked a few startling figures from the executive summary with very little critical sense. If French Catholics want to reform their Church, they have to work with facts, not emotions.

Here are a few issues that call for further explanation.

(1) The report’s executive summary is headed: “Sexual Violence in the Catholic Church France 1950 – 2020”. One would assume that all the statistics relate to these seven decades. But this is not the case. It appears the statistics also include the years 1940 to 1949 (pages 125 and 151 of the Report). At one point it states that “the period 1941-1969 accounted for 55.9% of the violence committed against minors by clerics and religious — i.e. approximately 121,000 minors.”

It’s not clear how much abuse happened in the 1940s, but including it in the figures for 1950 to 2020 inflates the total abuse significantly.

(2) The horrifying headline figure of 216,000 is an estimate, according to the New York Times, “ a projection based on a general population survey, archival analysis, and other sources”. In short, it is an informed guess. When studying clerical abuse of children, any number greater than zero is infinitely too much. But readers of the report need to understand that the figure of 216,000 is an extrapolation. Like all such figures, it has its limitations – especially considering that many of the perpetrators and victims must have died decades ago. Only an experienced historical statistician is capable of assessing whether they are realistic.

(3) The report says that between 2,900 to 3,000 priests and religious were perpetrators of sexual violence. Since there were 115,000 clergy in France during this period, the rate of offending is roughly 3 percent. This, the Commission noted, is much less than corresponding figures for other countries, which range between 4.4 percent and 7.5 percent. Perhaps it is even less, given that the data includes the 1940s.

(4) The most damning allegation in the report is that the Catholic Church is the most dangerous place for children in France. What evidence is there of this? Not much.

A bar chart on page 233 of the report depicts the incidence of abuse: in the family (3.7%), unknown (2.1%), friends of the family (2.0%), friends (1.8%), clergy (0.82%), lay Catholic employees (0.4%), holiday camps (0.38%), and public schools (0.34%).

However, the figure for public schools excludes public boarding schools, although this is only disclosed in a footnote. If abuse in this setting is included, the percentage for public schools rises to 0.49%. Why was it excluded?

In any case, the figure for public schools is simply not credible. While the public eye is currently on the Catholic Church, France’s public schools have a scandalous record for sexual abuse.

In 2015, the minister for education, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, was forced to admit that 16 teachers had been allowed to continue working in schools even though they had convictions for paedophilia on their record. Homayra Sellier, founder of Innocence en Danger, an NGO dedicated to child abuse victims, told the media that this was just the tip of the iceberg. “The ministry of education has covered this up for years. The government has never been inclined to listen to these stories.” She estimated that there were “thousands” of cases in public schools.

As I pointed out above, the figures in the report are rubbery, but in the 50 years from 1970 to 2020, 75,000 children were allegedly abused by clergy – that’s 2,500 a year. Is that more or less than the number in public schools? It is far from clear.

(5) The report states starkly that “The Catholic Church is the place where the prevalence of sexual violence is at its highest, other than in family and friend circles.” This invites two questions. First, how does the Commission know this if Protestant and Muslim communities have not been investigated with the same rigour? How about the French military, whose soldiers were alleged to have been involved in horrific abuse of children in the Central African Republic a few years ago. How about sporting associations?

Second, the report uses the present tense, “is”. It fails to analyse the abuse by decades, but it does indicate that more than half of the abuse (55.9%) happened before 1970 and that it declined up until 1990. Thereafter the picture is murkier. Less than half the abuse (44.1%) happened in the 50 years to 2020. It appears that things did improve. Perhaps in the 1960s the Catholic Church might have been the worst place, but is that still the case? Like many of the startling allegations highlighted by the media, this withers under closer scrutiny.


The report is grim and depressing. If one act of sexual violence on a child is enough for the earth to open beneath a clerical perpetrator – how about 216,000? However, it’s important for the French Church to demand the full truth. The Commission’s analysis is surprisingly imprecise; it’s not necessarily accurate.

And a lot is at stake. The report’s recommendations, for instance, include a revision of how priests observe the seal of confession.

In the United States, a newspaper columnist concluded after a similar report in Pennsylvania that “It is time to face the horrible truth: The Catholic church is a paedophile ring … Like a criminal syndicate, it is time for the Church to be broken apart and cleaned out.” France has a long, long history of anti-clericalism and its enemies could try to use this report to écrasez l’infâme, in the words of Voltaire, to crush the loathsome beast.

It’s absolutely necessary to get the facts right. The victims of clerical sexual abuse deserve justice, but justice must always be based on truth.

COLUMN BY

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. More by Michael Cook.

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

Panic Has Led to Government “Cures” That Are Worse than the Disease, History Shows

Let’s take the novel coronavirus seriously, but let’s not throw reason, prudence, or the Constitution out the window.


Anyone who’s seen the John Hughes movie Ferris Beuller’s Day Off probably remembers the scene where Ferris’s economics teacher (Ben Stein) explains the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to a roomful of bored, sleeping students. The scene is brilliant for many reasons, perhaps most so because it perfectly demonstrated how some of the most boring things in history are also the most important.

Smoot-Hawley was, of course, one of the great blunders in history.

Passed in 1930 over the objection of more than a thousand economists, the legislation increased tariffs (which were already high) on imports to protect US industries and farmers, sparking a trade war that deepened the Great Depression. It’s a perfect example of authorities taking decisive action to alleviate a crisis—and making things much worse.

What many forget is that Smoot-Hawley didn’t cause the Depression. It was a response to the Depression. Indeed, it may never have passed at all without the catalyst—the Stock Market Crash of 1929—that sent the nation into a frenzy. Senate Republicans had defeated the GOP-controlled House bill the previous year, but trade restrictionists found a convenient crisis in Black Tuesday, which triggered widespread hysteria, allowing the law to squeak through. (President Hoover opposed the bill but signed it anyway because of political pressure, which included resignation threats from several Cabinet members.)

Designed to protect Americans during the economic crisis, Smoot-Hawley proved disastrous. Imports fell from $1,334M in 1929 to just $390M in 1932. Global trade fell by roughly 66 percent, government data show. By 1933 unemployment was 25 percent, the highest in US history.

To “correct” things, Americans elected Franklin D. Roosevelt, who launched a series of federal programs—which made the crisis even worse. The rest, as they say, is history.

Smoot-Hawley and the New Deal are hardly the only examples of government actions making a panic worse.

In his book Basic Economics, the economist Thomas Sowell recounts several instances in which governments turned small problems into major ones by using blunt force—often price controls—to respond to public panic about rising costs of a given commodity.

One of the more famous examples of this is the gasoline crisis of the 1970s, which started when the federal government took a small problem (temporary high costs of gasoline) and turned it into a big one (a national shortage).

It began when OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), a newly formed oil cartel, cut oil production, causing fuel prices to rise. To address the rise, the Nixon administration (and later the Ford and Carter administrations) resorted to price controls to keep fuel prices low for consumers.

The result? Mass fuel shortages across the country that led to long lines and many Americans unable to buy fuel. This “energy crisis,” as it was dubbed at the time, in turn wreaked havoc on the automotive industry.

As Sowell explains, however, there was not an actual scarcity of gasoline. There was nearly as much gas sold in 1972 as the previous year (95 percent, to be precise). Similarly, Americans in 1978 consumed more gasoline than in any other previous year in history. The problem was the resources were not being allocated efficiently because of state-imposed price controls.

The energy crisis was entirely predictable, two Soviet economists (who had vast experience in the arena of central planning-induced shortages) later observed.

In an economy with rigidly planned proportions, such situations are not the exception but the rule—an everyday reality, a governing law. The absolute majority of goods is either in short supply or in surplus. Quite often the same product is in both categories—there is a shortage in one region and a surplus in another.

No one likes high gas prices, but the energy crisis of the 1970s wasn’t truly a crisis until the government created it. Nor was the result unique. Similar examples can be found throughout history, from the grain shortages in Ancient Rome brought about by Diocletian’s “Edict on Maximum Prices” to the mortgage crisis in 2007 and the financial crisis that ensued.

This might seem obvious in hindsight, yet similar mistakes are made today during crises, just on a smaller scale. To address alleged crises in housing, California and Oregon recently passed rent control laws that will surely have a devastating impact on residents in those states. Similarly, anti-price gouging laws (and social pressure) regularly lead to mass shortages during national emergencies.

As America endures the most frightening pandemic in a century, the COVID-19 outbreak, it’s important that decisions affecting the lives, liberties, and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people are being reached through reason, not collective fear.

Pandemics are clearly different from economic depressions and fuel shortages, but some of the same lessons apply. Like an economic panic, pandemics incite mass fear, which can lead to flawed and irrational decision making.

We know that human beings by nature are prone to crowd-following, especially during periods of social unrest and panic. This instinct has resulted in some of the greatest tragedies in human history.

COVID-19 may very well prove to be every bit as dangerous as we’ve been led to believe. Epidemiologists, vaccine researchers, and other medical experts agree it’s highly contagious and deadly, especially for certain at-risk demographics (the elderly and people with compromised immune systems and lung damage, for example). Yet many of the same experts disagree on the scope of the COVID-19 threat.

One of the problems medical professionals are encountering is they simply don’t have a lot of reliable data to work with.

“The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable,” John P.A. Ioannidis, an epidemiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford University who co-directs the university’s Meta-Research Innovation Center, recently wrote in Stat.

Let’s face it: pandemics are scary. This is probably doubly true in the age of social media, when the scariest models tend to be the ones most shared, which fuels even more panic. Because of the heightened level of fear, it’s not unreasonable to think public officials could “follow the crowd,” which is a bad idea even when the crowd isn’t totally petrified.

“Crowds do not reason….they tolerate neither discussion nor contradiction, and the suggestions brought to bear on them invade the entire field of their understanding and tend at once to transform themselves into acts,” wrote Gustave Le Bon in his seminal 1895 work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind.

It’s no secret or coincidence that crises—foreign wars, terrorist attacks, and economic depressions—have often resulted in vast encroachments of freedom and even given rise to tyrants (from Napoleon to Lenin and beyond). In his book Crisis and Leviathan, the historian and economist Robert Higgs explains how throughout history, crises have been used to expand the administrative state, often by allowing “temporary” measures to be left in place after a crisis has abated (think federal tax withholding during World War II).

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

Let’s take the novel coronavirus deadly seriously, but let’s not throw reason, prudence, or the Constitution out the window while doing so.

If we do, we may find the government’s “cure” for the coronavirus cure is even worse than the disease.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Households Brace for Higher Winter Heating Costs as Natural Gas Prices Vault

Hey Nancy Pelosi, Here Are 4 Easy Things to Cut From the $3.5 Trillion Spending Plan

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

AG Garland Sics FBI on Parents Opposed to Critical Race Theory

In a memorandum issued on Monday, Attorney General Merrick Garland has directed the FBI to combat purported “threats of violence” against school administrators from so-called “hate groups” — by which he means parents justifiably outraged over the leftist indoctrination that passes for K-12 education in American schools.

Garland expressed concern about a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools… While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.”

Garland announced his 30-day plan to combat the reported problem, which will include the FBI working with U.S attorneys across the country to discuss “strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.”

The memorandum arrived less than a week after leaders of the National School Boards Association wrote President Joe Biden a letter claiming that “many public school officials are also facing physical threats because of propaganda purporting the false inclusion of critical race theory within classroom instruction and curricula. This propaganda continues despite the fact that critical race theory is not taught in public schools and remains a complex law school and graduate school subject well beyond the scope of a K-12 class.”

Fact check: The only propaganda here is Critical Race Theory (CRT), which most assuredly is being taught in K-12 public schools all across the country.

Left-dominated schoolboards across the country, who are responsible for establishing racist indoctrination curricula like CRT, are now demonizing legitimately concerned parents as domestic terrorists, and our Attorney General, who backs such indoctrination, intends to threaten those parents with the coercive power of the FBI.


Merrick Garland

4 Known Connections

On June 15, 2021, Garland announced the unveiling of the Biden administration’s new “First National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” an initiative designed to combat what Garland viewed as one of America’s most serious problems: “domestic terrorism” carried out mostly by conservative adherents to a doctrine of “white supremacism.” Below are some of Garland’s remarks from that day, remarks in which he: (a) cast the Trump supporters who had breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6 as uniquely evil; (b) warned of the allegedly enormous threat posed by violent white supremacists; (c) likened such people to genocidal Islamic terrorists; and (d) gave anecdotal examples of past terrorist incidents that had been perpetrated exclusively by whites:

  • “Our current effort comes on the heels of another large and heinous attack, this time the January 6th assault on our nation’s capital…. Over the 160 days since the attack, we have arrested over 480 individuals and brought hundreds of charges against those who attacked law enforcement officers and obstructed justice and used deadly and dangerous weapons to those ends.”
  • “In March, [America’s intelligence and law-enforcement agencies] concluded that domestic violent extremists posed an elevated threat to the homeland in 2021. Our experience on the ground confirms this; the number of open FBI domestic terrorism investigations this year has increased significantly. According to an unclassified summary of the March Intelligence Assessment, the two most lethal elements of the domestic violence extremist threat are racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists and militia violent extremists. In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.”

To learn more about Merrick Garland, click here.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hundreds of Thousands of “Domestic Terrorists” AKA Parents, Stand Up to Biden Regime and School Boards

Biden DOJ Goes to War Against Parents

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

Today is October 5th, 2021 and Joe Biden’s ‘Build Back Better Agenda’ is the worst in U.S. History

Biden and his minions are bound and determined to Build Back Bigger Government.” – Dr. Rich Swier


So what does Build Back Better (BBB) mean? Didn’t the last President Make America Great Again? So is Biden’s intent to make America greater than his predecessor?

According to the White House website the intent of Build Back Better is to:

The Build Back Better Agenda is an ambitious plan to create jobs, cut taxes, and lower costs for working families – all paid for by making the tax code fairer and making the wealthiest and large corporations pay their fair share.

Since Biden’s inauguration has he created more jobs? Cut taxes? Lowered costs for working families?

Just look at the economy and you will see higher unemployment, lower wages, workers being fired for not taking the Covid vaccine, higher gasoline prices, shortages of goods and services (particularly in those states that have full or partial lockdowns) and more people looking for a job.

What we are seeing is the false notion that taxing corporations is good for us. Why? Because when any corporation is taxed more they either pass on that cost to their consumers or go out of business.

AOC’s dress with the statement in red to “tax the rich” is a false flag. History tells us that the rich find ways to avoid taxes and the working class gets a greater tax burden or worse workers are laid off because corporations cut staff when faced with more regulation and higher taxes.

Is Build Back Better Really Better, so far?

Biden laid out the following goals for his “Build Back Better” agenda:

  1. “Build a Modern Infrastructure” [More government spending]
  2. “Position the U.S. Auto Industry to Win the 21st Century with technology invented in America” [Mandate the auto industry comply or else]
  3. “Achieve a Carbon Pollution-Free Power Sector by 2035” [Green New Deal]
  4. “Make Dramatic Investments in Energy Efficiency in Buildings, including Completing 4 Million Retrofits and Building 1.5 Million New Affordable Homes” [More Green New Deal mandates]
  5. “Pursue a Historic Investment in Clean Energy Innovation” [Green New Deal on asteroids]
  6. “Advance Sustainable Agriculture and Conservation” [Famers required to be green or else]
  7. “Secure Environmental Justice and Equitable Economy Opportunity” [Equal people are not free and free people are not equal]

The Biden administrations agenda has become very clear.

If the intent of Biden is to make the lives of every American better then as of October 5th, 2021 he is a complete failure.

According to Wikipedia Build Back Better:

The Build Back Better Agenda is a projected $7 trillion COVID-19 relief, future economic, and infrastructure package proposed by President Joe Biden. It will include investments in infrastructure, and is projected to create 10 million clean-energy jobs. Expenditures would also include government funds on housing, education, economic fairness and health care.[1]

The plan is divided into three parts: the American Rescue Plan, a COVID-19 relief package, which passed in March 2021;[2] the American Jobs Plan, a proposal to rebuild America’s infrastructure and create jobs;[3] and the American Families Plan, a proposal to invest in areas related to childcare and education.[4] As of October 1, 2021, the American Rescue Plan is the only plan that has been signed into law, though proposals featured in the American Jobs Plan have been passed in the Senate through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act[Emphasis added]

So Build Back Better is actually a massive government growth coupled with social a massive government spending spree. Not surprisingly it is inextricably tied to Covid.

To pass the Democrat/Biden Build Back Better agenda requires the American people’s cooperation. However, we are seeing more and more Americans taking up arms against this plan via civil disobedience.

Since Biden’s election his poll numbers have dropped dramatically as he and his handlers try to implement his BBB agenda.

Conclusion

Build Back Better is missing one word in its title “government.” Biden and his minions are bound and determined to Build Back Bigger Government.

There’s no better in Biden’s Agenda only worse

Using the office of the president Biden has not waited for Congress to implement his BBB agenda. Rather he and his administration are using federal agencies like the CDC, OSHA, IRS, Justice Department and FBI to suppress any and all opposition to the BBB agenda.

If you are in the medical profession and work in a hospital and you choose not to get the Covid vaccine you can be fired.

If you are in a company with more than 100 workers and you fail to get the Covid vaccine you will be fired.

If you are in the U.S. military and your choose to not take the Covid vaccine you could be dishonorably discharged.

If you don’t have a “vaccine passport” your ability to travel within the United States and overseas can be restricted or even denied.

The backbone of Build Back Better is comply or else.

Freedom of choice. My body, my choice only applies to killing the unborn, not to you if you don’t get jabbed.

We predict as the Build Back Better agenda moves forward more and more American workers and their families will move backwards.

Biden seems to be building backwards, not forward. He wants to empower government not the individual, and many Democrats are fine with this. This goes beyond socialism, this is Communism writ large.

Gird your loins. We have three years and two more months of Biden, unless something dramatic happens.

Can you survive? Can your family survive? Can America’s Constitutional Republic survive.

The midterm elections in 2022 will be a bell weather election. If conservatives, note I did not write Republicans, don’t take control of one or both houses of Congress we are doomed

Get out and vote. Insure your state implements laws that enhance election integrity.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Can The Government Mint a $1TRILLION Coin to Pay Its Bills?

Here’s why the fantastical notion of a trillion-dollar coin appearing out of thin air to pay the bills is so appealing—and perilous.


Gridlock in Washington, DC continues amid a fight over raising the debt ceiling, the legal limit on how much the federal government can borrow. Right now, the federal government will be unable to pay its bills on October 18 if the limit isn’t raised, which would prompt a default with disastrous economic ramifications. The most likely outcome is that Congress, in one way or another, comes together to raise the limit. But the deadlock is leading some progressives to push for an extreme and unusual solution.

What if the Treasury Department simply minted a $1 trillion platinum coin, deposited it, and used it to pay its bills without taking out new debt? Yes, seriously. The idea sounds fantastical, but is gaining traction.

“[President] Biden does have an ace in the hole if Congress doesn’t suspend the debt limit,” left-leaning economist Dean Baker wrote for CNN.com. “Due to a technicality in the law, the Treasury Department can print a platinum coin and assign a huge value to it—say, $1 trillion—and sell it to the Federal Reserve Board. This would get around the need to borrow.”

Others share Baker’s view. Writing for the Washington Post, Zachary D. Carter described the solution as “perfectly painless” and “economically meaningless.” New York Times columnist and left-wing economist Paul Krugman has endorsed the idea, as have members of Congress including Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Jerry Nadler.

But if this admittedly novel solution sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.

In fact, there’s an intense debate over whether the federal government actually has the legal authority to pursue such a scheme. Florida Atlantic University economist and monetary policy specialist William J. Luther told FEE in an interview that he believes minting a $1 trillion “token” coin would be unlawful. (For wonky legal reasons explained in this thread.)

More importantly, it’s a bad idea on the policy front. For one, it undermines citizen accountability for the federal government’s spending policies.

“We don’t want bureaucrats at the Treasury circumventing the rules established by Congress,” Luther says. “If Congress wants to spend more without raising taxes, it needs to raise the debt ceiling. If it does that, voters can hold these elected officials accountable. But if you don’t have that vote, it’s hard to hold people accountable.”

Moreover, the economic ramifications of minting a $1 trillion coin are grave.

One of the most glaring concerns people raise with the idea is that minting a $1 trillion coin would lead to inflation by increasing the money supply while the economy otherwise is unchanged. But Luther explains that the Federal Reserve would likely counteract this effect.

“The Fed would neutralize the monetary effects of this coin by selling some of its treasury holdings back to the public and destroying the money it received,” the economist said. “On the one hand you have the Treasury creating a $1 trillion coin, on the other hand you have the Fed contracting the money supply by $1 trillion… so there’s no net monetary effect.”

This means inflation isn’t necessarily a worry—but also reveals why the $1 trillion coin is not actually “painless” or “economically meaningless.”

“Yes, it’s a way around the debt ceiling,” Luther explained. “[But] a trillion dollars that used to be in the private sector is now in the public sector.”

“There is a real resource constraint,” he continued. “Typically, if the government does more, the private sector does less… with some exceptions. [Generally], markets do the best they can with the resources they have. So, if the government bids more of those resources into its own projects, it is necessarily bidding those resources away from the alternative projects they would have been used to pursue. It doesn’t matter how they’re funded… those real resources are in the economy, the question is whether they’re going to be used by the public sector or the private sector.”

“We’re going to spend that $1 trillion on something,” Luther said. “If you spend a portion building a road, you’re going to have to hire employees, which means you’re bidding them away from other pursuits. You’re going to have to acquire machinery, which means you’re bidding away machinery from other projects. Those real resources are not going to be available for other purposes. Whenever the government is using real resources, that necessarily means someone else in the economy—the private sector—is not using those resources.”

Odds are, the bureaucratic and inefficient federal government will make worse investments with these resources than the private sector would have. After all, the free market allocates resources where they’re needed most in accordance with price signals. The government allocates resources based on lobbying and politics. So, it’s not even just a 1-1 trade-off facing us in the coin-minters’ fantasy, but likely even more lost in economic fallout.

Why does this matter? Well, progressives pushing this scheme are desperate to find a way they can fund their endless government spending ambitions and expansions of the welfare state without having to pay the price or deal with any consequences. That’s why the fantastical notion of a trillion-dollar coin appearing out of thin air to pay the bills is so appealing.

But there’s simply no getting around the basic economic reality of trade-offs and scarce resources, no matter how clever the scheme. Ultimately, government spending has costs that cannot be avoided—no matter how many trillion-dollar coins the Treasury mints.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

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

WATCHNew Biden Vax Mandate Doesn’t Make ANY Sense (Here’s Why)

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. Like this story? Click here to sign up for the FEE Daily and get free-market news and analysis like this from Policy Correspondent Brad Polumbo in your inbox every weekday.

Ingoglia on Biden Border Crisis: ‘Florida will not help with your lawlessness’ [Video]

One Florida House Representative is praising Governor Ron DeSantis’ new executive order preventing Florida agencies from aiding the federal government with relocating illegal immigrants into Florida. One America’s Stefan Kleinhenz has more.

Watch:

©OANN. All rights reserved.

“Raised on Porn” Documentary Exposes Effects of Porn on Children

A new documentary from Exodus Cry and Magic Lantern Pictures, Raised on Porn, exposes the ways pornography has become the new sex education for children and unpacks the dangerous lifelong implications of this global phenomenon.


SIGN THE PETITION demanding age verification on porn sites.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Facebook Deflects Responsibility for Child Wellbeing at Senate Hearing

The Tidal Wave of Lawsuits Facing Pornography Producers

Protecting Children Online: Learning from cases of missing children in South Africa

EDITORS NOTE: This National Center on Sexual Exploitation video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Vax Mandate Stabs Constitution in the Back

Three weeks after announcing a vaccine mandate for private companies of 100 or more employees, the Biden administration still doesn’t have a timeline. When asked, Press Secretary Jen Psaki could only promise “more detail in the coming weeks.” Coming from the administration that blew away previous records for the most executive orders in its first 100 days, this foot-dragging indicates there may be a reason for the delay. Law professor John Yoo suggests the biggest obstacles are constitutional. “I don’t think the Biden administration is going to get through court on this one,” he said on “Washington Watch.”

Yoo identified three particular issues with the president’s phantom regulation. First, “does the law that Congress passed give the president this authority at all?” The president has targeted private businesses because he is claiming the power through the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), which created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). But Yoo pointed out that law is designed to address “unsecured equipment,” situations where “workers are really getting injured by the way employers operate,” and “certain uniform standards.” But the coronavirus “is not really a workplace issue,” said Yoo. It only “happens to occur in the workplace because it happens throughout society.” Biden’s staff has even admitted to “using workplace law as a pretext,” said Yoo, in a way it could never excuse this power grab for other non-workplace-specific problems, like AIDS testing or firearm restrictions.

Second, “does Congress even have the authority to regulate every workplace in the country?” Though Congress can create some general parameters for workplaces (like OSHA provides), “public health and safety are still primarily in the hands of states,” Yoo said. The problem with President Biden’s proposed regulation, Yoo noted, is that it would be implemented as an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) even though the coronavirus “emergency” has “been going on for over a year and a half now.” Now, “we’ve had time to think about how to roll out the vaccine.” One active principle in that rollout is that “our constitution has created a system of federalism where the federal government isn’t responsible for everything.” States and the national government have worked together so far; why stop now?

Third, “what rights do you and I, as employees, have not to be required to have an injection that we don’t want in our bodies?” If an employee is fired for refusing the vaccine, Yoo observed that they should be eligible for unemployment benefits. If the vaccine is forced on an employee as a condition of employment, said Yoo, “I don’t think you’re consenting at all.” Certainly, if such workers suffer harmful side effects, they are eligible for compensation, he said, either from the employer or society. Such worker protections will cushion the impact of the White House’s push to vaccinate all Americans. Doubtless President Biden’s regulators are confronting these realities now, uncertain how to protect his executive overreach against inevitable court challenges, and perhaps afraid of the “disruption in the economy” Yoo predicted would occur from firing all employees who refused to be vaccinated.

Another Supreme Court defeat of Biden’s policy agenda is certainly in the cards. Biden’s coronavirus mandate would be the 10th ETS issued in OSHA’s history. Of the previous nine, six were challenged in court, and five lost. That’s not a great record. Five weeks ago, the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s eviction moratorium because it lacked clear congressional authorization, saying “we expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of ‘vast economic and political significance.'” Biden’s authority is far murkier (or non-existent) in compelling private employees to be vaccinated.

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action video and column are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Judicial Watch Sues Justice Department for Records of Ashli Babbitt Killing

January 6 has become a touchstone in the uneven application of justice against those who lean conservative. In particular, the obviously political secrecy and stonewalling in the police killing of Ashli Babbitt is undermining the rule of law.

Undaunted by the obstacles thrown our way, we filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records related to the shooting death of 14-year Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Building.

Babbitt was shot and killed as she climbed through a broken interior window in the United State Capitol. She was unarmed. The identity of the shooter was kept secret by Congress as well as federal and local authorities for eight months until U.S. Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd went public to try to defend his killing of Ms. Babbitt.

On April 14, 2021, the Justice Department issued a press release stating: “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice will not pursue criminal charges against the U.S. Capitol Police officer involved in the fatal shooting of 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, the Office announced today.”

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Civil Rights Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (all components of the Justice Department) failed to provide the records responsive to our April 14, 2021 and May 20, 2021, FOIA requests (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice) (No. 1:21-cv-02462)) for:

  • All records, including but not limited to, investigative reports, photographs, witness statements, dispatch logs, schematics, ballistics, and video footage, concerning the January 6, 2021 death of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol Building.
  • All draft and final prosecution declination memoranda related to the death of Ashli Babbitt.
  • All Office of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia officials’ electronic communications concerning Ashli Babbitt and the investigation of her death.
  • All DOJ Civil Rights Division officials’ electronic communications concerning Ashli Babbitt and the investigation of her death.
  • All FBI officials’ electronic communications concerning Ashli Babbitt and the investigation of er death. The time frame for the requested records is January 6, 2021 to the present.

This lawsuit is part of our multi-faceted investigation into January 6.

Earlier this month, the District of Columbia asked a court for an additional delay to respond to our FOIA lawsuit for records related to the U.S. Capitol Police shooting Babbitt to death.

We recently filed a motion for discovery in our lawsuit against the United States Capitol Police (USCP) for emails and videos concerning the Capitol disturbance. The Capitol Police are trying to shut down the lawsuit by arguing that the requested records are “not public records.”

On August 3, we announced that we obtained new documents showing the Washington, D.C. Medical Examiner submitted a request to cremate Babbitt two days after gaining custody of her body. The documents also showed that Babbitt’s fingerprints were emailed to a person supposedly working for the D.C. government, which resulted in Microsoft “undeliverable” messages written in Chinese characters being returned.

Also in August, we uncovered records related to the death of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick which show major media representatives pressuring the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) of the District of Columbia over its conclusion that Officer Sicknick had died of natural causes.

In July, we announced a lawsuit against the FBI for records of communication between the FBI and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transactions made by people in DC, Maryland and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021. The FBI has refused to confirm or deny the existence of any such records.

In May, we sued both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense for records regarding the deployment of armed forces around the Capitol complex in Washington, D.C., in January and February of 2021.

We also filed a lawsuit for Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s communications with the Pentagon in the days after the January 6 incident.

And now that the Deep State leaked that at least one of its (the FBI’s) informants entered the Capitol that day and told them there was no grand conspiracy, it shows that the lies about 1/6 are likely to rival the Russiagate hoax. All the more reason that we’re not going to let this investigation go.

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

How Homosexuality Harms The Church

David Carlin wishes the pope would re-state Church teaching about homosexuality but doubts it will happen, or that America’s bishops will do so.


One of the most common defenses of homosexual behavior is: “This does no harm to you or any other third parties.”  To which my response is: “No harm?  Well, it has pretty much ruined the Catholic Church in America.”

Homosexuality among priests, and sometimes among bishops; plus an attitude of tolerance towards homosexuals among non-homosexual priests and bishops, as if same-sex intercourse is no big deal; plus the colossal scandal of sexual molestation of teenage boys by homosexual priests; plus episcopal attempts to cover up this molestation; plus the widespread pretense among both lay and clerical Catholics that homosexuality had little or nothing to do with the molestation scandal; plus a pro-gay sentimentality found among many lay Catholics; plus Fr. James Martin, S.J. – all this has done immeasurable damage to the Church in the United States.

Anti-Catholics have been given a cudgel with which to beat the Church that is as good as, or even better than, the classic cudgels: the Spanish Inquisition and the trial of Galileo.  A thousand years from now, late-night TV will still be making jokes about Catholic priests molesting young boys.

Non-Catholics (Protestants and Jews and agnostics and atheists) who in these morally corrupt times might have considered joining a Catholic Church that stands for goodness and truth have been driven away by the thought that the Church is as corrupt as any other of our rotten institutions.

We are told that Cato the Elder used to end all his speeches in the Roman Senate, regardless of the topic under discussion, with the words, “Carthage, it seems to me, must be destroyed.”

If I were a Catholic parish priest, I would end all my homilies, regardless of the Scriptural readings of the day, and regardless of the main topic of my sermon, with words like these: “Allow me to remind you, dear friends, that the Catholic religion – the religion you and I profess to adhere to – has always condemned homosexual practice as a very grave sin.”

If any priest, Cato-like, actually says this, he will upset certain parishioners, not a few of whom will drift away to a parish they perceive as being more tolerant and up-to-date, and they will take their money with them.  And some parishioners will write to the bishop complaining about their “homophobic” priest.  More than a few bishops, I suppose, will recommend that the priest “cool it.”  Such bishops, in a paternal attempt to guide their over-zealous parish priests, will explain: “Look, the people of your parish know perfectly well – without your reminding them – what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality. Why irritate them by harping needlessly on this theme?”

But is my hypothetical bishop correct when he says that all Catholics know what the Church teaches about homosexuality?  To answer that we must realize that the average Catholic makes a distinction between two ways in which the Church teaches something.  Sometimes the Church is really serious in its moral teachings, e.g., when it tells us not to rob banks or not to beat our wives.  But at other times (many Catholics believe) the Church is not truly serious, e.g., when it tells us that contraception is a serious sin or that homosexual intercourse is a very grave act.

Given all this, I’m lucky not to be a Catholic priest.  My head would soon be served on an episcopal platter for the delectation of Catholics, both clerical and lay, who are far more humane than myself, far more respectful of the fundamental human right to engage in homosexual sodomy, a right almost universally acknowledged today by all right-thinking people outside of Africa, that “dark” continent where most people still don’t understand how progressive and ultra-modern homosexuality is.

Catholicism is a religion that asks of its adherents – nay, demands of them – that they believe a number of hard-to-believe things.  It tells us we must believe that one God is three Persons, that God has become human, that a virgin has given birth, that a crucified man has come back from the dead, that Jesus has atoned for our sins, that bread and wine routinely become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

If we can believe all that, why do we find it hard to believe that it’s a great sin for two men or two women to engage in sexual relations with one another?  Once upon a time almost everybody believed that.  And yet we actually do find it hard to believe – or at least many of us do.  For the world believes precisely the opposite.

And by “the world” I mean all the “best people,” that is, the social and cultural elites of North America and western Europe.  In America, the moral wisdom of these best people is communicated to the little people (you and me) by the journalistic mass media, by the entertainment industry, and by our best and most famous colleges and universities.  A little further down the line, our public schools even communicate this wisdom to school children.

In March of 1937, Pope Pius XI wrote two very interesting encyclical letters, one in which he denounced Nazism (Mit brennender Sorge), the other in which he denounced Communism (Divini Redemptoris).

I submit that a papal letter on homosexuality is long overdue.  The theory and practice of homosexuality, not to mention the great tidal wave of pro-homosexuality propaganda that is flooding the world – these things, it seems to me, are almost as grave a threat to the Church today as Communism and Nazism were in the 1930s.

I won’t be holding my breath till Pope Francis writes such a letter.  Nor will I hold my breath in hopes that the Catholic bishops in America will write a collective pastoral letter on the topic.

But is it too much for me to hope that some individual bishops here or there will address such an urgent pastoral letter to his priests and people?

You may also enjoy:

Rev. Jerry J. Pokorsky’s Confronting the Gay Priest Problem

Fr. Bevil Bramwell’s Homosexuality in Romans One

COLUMN BY

David Carlin

David Carlin is a retired professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2021 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ Big Lies

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels


Biden’s Big Lies

Watch the White House press secretary repeat the “big lie” that the Democrat $3.5 trillion spending bill “costs zero dollars.”

Biden in a September 25th, 2021 Tweet stated, “My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars.”

The American people are now seeing the political, economic and military consequences of Biden’s big lie.

Let’s go down a short list of Biden’s “Build Back Better” Big Lies:

  1. The Coordinated Attack on Ivermectin is a Crime Against Humanity.
  2. Afghanistan pull out.
  3. Unvetted Afghan immigration crisis.
  4. Southern Border Crisis.
  5. Stagflation in the American economy. Gas is up 43%, Energy costs are up 25%, Rent is up 9%, Bacon is up 28%.
  6. Tyranny in the form of “mandates.” Get vaxxed or else!
  7. Rising gas and oil prices.
  8. The working class’ jobs threatened if they don’t get vaxxed.
  9. The “tax the rich mantra” of Biden and the Democrat Party.
  10. The increase in taxes on every working American.
  11. The attempt at raising the national debt to pay for massive spending bills (i.e. infrastructure).
  12. The continuing efforts to use Covid to shut down the economy.
  13. The continuing efforts to brainwash our public school, college and university students on the goodness of Communism.
  14. The racial hate created using the BLM/Antifa “white privilege” campaign.
  15. The growing scientific data showing that Covid vaccine shots are harming and in some cases killing large numbers of Americans.
  16. The anti-fossil fuels Green New Deal efforts to fundamentally transform American’s use of all forms of energy.
  17. Biden’s support to defund the police, anti-Border Patrol and anti-law enforcement policies.
  18. Biden’s anti-guns anti-self defense and anti-Second Amendment policies.
  19. The radicalization of the Democrat Party and its move toward Communism in the U.S.A.
  20. Biden’s policies to fundamentally transform our public schools into propaganda outlets for big government and centers to force Critical Race Theory on children, without parental consent.
  21. More to be determined…

Biden Has Become a Joke and the Whole World is Laughing

In my column “The Democrats elected a joke and now the world is laughing. But the joke is now on them” I wrote:

Everyone is now laughing at the Biden administration. Biden and his handlers (he has handlers because he is incompetent) are the laughing stock of the whole world.

What is even sadder is that his policies and political positions are now harming working class Americans. Consumer confidence has now reached a 22 year low. It has not been this low since the DotCom implosion under Bill Clinton.

From Biden’s broken national security policies, to his disaster in Afghanistan, to the ongoing border crisis (the border patrol estimated that illegal aliens will top a million for the month of September), to a dangerous immigration policy, to the Democrat controlled Congress’ bills that raise taxes, increase spending and turn one group against another have many Americans of all races crying.

Biden is now openly anti-American in everything that he, and his administration, does. Americans are today paying over $1.00 more per gallon of gasoline at the pump. Oil prices reached $80 per barrel, double the price under Trump prior to the virus from China. And Biden is just getting started on implementing draconian energy policies to “save the planet” from climate change. Go figure!

Here’s striking example of yet another a demented Democrat policy in California: 

Biden’s Mandates

Today the Biden administration’s operative word is “mandate.” Biden is forcing Americans to get Vaxxed. But what about those who get vaxxed and either, get sick, have long term health issues, get Covid and die. Here’s just one example of a pro-vaxx professor in Florida who died after getting her third (booster) shot:

Mandates are not leadership. Mandates are unconstitutional. Mandates are not the law.

Biden wants to mandate Covid vaxxing for every American citizen but will not test illegal aliens for Covid who are surging crossing our Southern border.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, sponsored by The ANTIFA by Jack Posobiec, for Tuesday shows that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Biden’s job performance. Fifty-eight percent (58%) disapprove. The latest figures include 21% who Strongly Approve of the job Biden is doing and 49% who Strongly Disapprove.

This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -28. (see trends)

Conclusion

Political satire has now become public policy under Biden. But is anyone laughing? We think not. People are waking up and we are seeing civil disobedience protests against Biden and his policies growing, not just in the U.S. but globally.

Biden is just another in a long line of tax and spend big government socialists. From FDR to Carter to Clinton to Obama. They’re all birds of a feather who flock together to tax the rich and every single working American to death. Some have even characterized the Biden administration as Obama 2.0!

Gird your loins. Pray! Our only hope is to retake one or both houses of Congress in 2022.

We have made it a point to contest the uncontested absurdities we see. That is what I, as a citizen journalist, do each and every day. Sadly these absurdities have turned into legislation either pending or passed by the Democrats in Congress and pushed by the Biden administration.

The Biden administration will not be over until 2024. A ray of hope is if conservatives, note I didn’t say Republicans, take back a majority in the House of Representatives and Senate.

Be prepared. It will get worse. We hope and pray that one day we will reestablish our Constitutional Republican form of government where the power lies in the hands of the people not government.

It’s now clear that Biden’s Build Back Better agenda is causing crimes to be committed against humanity both foreign and domestic.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Biden’s flailing agenda, a defeat of his own making.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Officials Quietly Preparing For ‘350,000 to 400,000’ Migrant Encounters At Mexico Border In October: Report

Biden’s Team Is Imploding! The Afghan Fallout Is Killing them From The Inside!

lBiden’s ‘Build Back Better’ is Bunk

Other Causes for 80 Percent of ‘COVID Deaths,’ German Expert Claims

30 facts you NEED to know: Your Covid Cribsheet

RELATED VIDEO: TANYA DAVIES MP – MANDATORY COVID VACCINES ARE UNLAWFUL, SIDE EFFECTS ARE NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Mayorkas: 1-in-5 Border Crossers Arrive to U.S. Sick with Illnesses

During remarks at Georgetown University this week, open-borders enthusiast and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas admitted that about 1-in-5 border crossers arriving at the United States-Mexico border are sick with various illnesses.

“We are confronted with a population of people that, as a general matter, that have a rate of illness of approximately 20 percent,” Mayorkas said. “When one is speaking of 7,000 or 7,500 people encountered at the border every day, if one takes a look at that the system, it is not built for that in a COVID environment where isolation is required.”

You know what a good solution for that would be? Secure the border.

Days later, Mayorkas conceded that DHS did not test roughly 13,000 Haitian border crossers for the coronavirus before releasing them into the interior of the U.S. In early August, top DHS officials admitted in court briefs that federal immigration officials were seeing “significantly increased rates” of border crossers arriving in the U.S. while carrying coronavirus.

In addition, CDC officials confirmed this month that Afghans brought to the U.S. by the Biden administration have spurred outbreaks of measles, varicella, mumps, tuberculosis, malaria, leishmaniasis, hepatitis A, and coronavirus.

But our children have to stay masked and socially distanced in school.


Alejandro Mayorkas

10 Known Connections

Mayorkas Defends Decision Not to Build Border Wall, Despite the Flood of Illegal Migrants

Between September 9 and 24, 2021, approximately 30,000 mostly Haitian migrants illegally crossed America’s southern border and gathered in Del Rio, Texas, where they hoped to be granted asylum. By September 25, approximately 12,400 of them had been released into the U.S. interior with instructions to report for immigration court hearings sometime in the future, while another 5,000 were being processed by DHS to determine whether they would be sent back to Haiti or permitted to pursue their immigration/asylum cases.

On September 26, 2021, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Mayorkas: “You say 30,000 people walked across … into Del Rio in the last 17 days. Question: Why didn’t you stop them?” “We encounter them at the border. That’s where we encounter them, Chris,” Mayorkas replied.

Wallace then asked: “Why didn’t you stop them from coming into the country?” “We did,” Mayorkas stated. “We encountered them, they gathered – they assembled in that one location in Del Rio, Texas, and we applied the laws. We applied the public health law under the CDC’s authority, and we applied immigration –”

“My question is why did you allow them in the country in the first place?” Wallace replied. “Why didn’t you build, forgive me, a wall or a fence to stop them from walking – the flood of people coming across the dam, it looks like a highway that allows them to cross the Rio Grande.” “It is the policy of this administration, we do not agree with the building of the wall,” Mayorkas insisted, explaining that permitting individuals to seek humanitarian relief was “one of our proudest traditions.”

To learn more about Alejandro Mayorkas, click here.

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