Mexican President Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador blamed President Joe Biden’s immigration policies for the crisis at the southern border during a Tuesday press conference.
“Expectations were created that with the Government of President Biden there would be better treatment of migrants,” Lopez Obrador said. “And this has caused Central American migrants, and also from our country, wanting to cross the border thinking that it is easier to do so.”
AMLO: "Expectations were created that with the Government of President Biden there would be a better treatment of migrants. And this has caused Central American migrants, and also from our country, wanting to cross the border thinking that it is easier to do so" pic.twitter.com/TNrZQamuWK
“People don’t go to the United States for fun, they go out of necessity,” Lopez Obrador said, according to Reuters.
Biden sent an envoy to the region to address the surge at the border, with Mexico’s Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard saying there needs to be “humanitarian actions” that promote economic development to address the root causes of migration from Central America to the U.S., according to Reuters.
Biden’s administration, however, has blamed the Trump administration for the crisis at the border despite rolling back Trump-era policies meant to curb illegal immigration.
Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas blamed the Trump administration Sunday while speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, according to The Hill.
“There was a system in place in both Republican and Democratic administrations, that was torn down during the Trump administration, and that is why the challenge is more acute than it ever has been before.”
“We are rebuilding the orderly systems that the Trump administration tore down to avoid the need for these children to actually take the perilous journey,” he said.
Biden has since suggested his administration would be re-establishing the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forces migrants seeking asylum to remain in Mexico while their asylum claims were processed.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2021-03-25 07:13:452021-10-07 20:30:52Mexican President Blames Biden For Border Crisis, Says He Created ‘Expectations’
But Communist China operatives, Democrat disinformation, Palestinian Nazis, New York Times child predators etc are all still spreading their poison with Facebook. It’s victims are punished.
I predict that Facebook will censor its way into tech oblivion — just wait.
Facebook Says It Removed 1.3 Billion Fake Accounts, Explains How It Handles Misinformation
By Samuel Allegri, The Epoch Times, March 22, 2021:
Facebook on March 22 issued an announcement on how it plans to combat misinformation on its platforms. The technology giant also said it took down 1.3 billion fake accounts between October and December 2020.
“Tackling misinformation actually requires addressing several challenges including fake accounts, deceptive behavior, and misleading and harmful content,” Guy Rosen, vice president of integrity at Facebook, wrote in the statement.
Rosen said they have a group of “more than 80 independent fact-checkers, who review content in more than 60 languages,” and if they judge something as untrue, the content’s dissemination is limited.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies via video conference before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington on July 29, 2020. (Graeme Jennings/Pool via Reuters)
“When they rate something as false, we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it and add a warning label with more information for anyone who sees it,” Rosen wrote.
He also noted that once one of these labels is applied, the vast majority of people don’t click on the post.
“We know that when a warning screen is placed on a post, 95% of the time people don’t click to view it,” he said.
The company published its policies before a U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce investigation into how tech platforms are tackling misinformation.
Rosen wrote that Facebook suppresses the distribution of “Pages, Groups, and domains who repeatedly share misinformation,” with a particular emphasis on “false claims about COVID-19 and vaccines and content that is intended to suppress voting.”
Rosen said the platform uses both people and artificial intelligence to detect activity they’re looking to combat, adding that they now have 35,000 people working on it.
“As a result, we’ve removed more than 12 million pieces of content about COVID-19 and vaccines,” he said.
Facebook Fact-Checker Funded by Chinese Money
While Facebook portrays its army of fact-checkers as independent, the money behind at least one carries a distinct taint.
Lead Stories is partly paid through a partnership with TikTok, a social media platform run by a Chinese company that owes its allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Moreover, the organization that’s supposed to oversee the quality of fact-checkers is run by Poynter Institute, another TikTok partner.
Lead Stories says it’s been contracted by ByteDance “for fact-checking-related work,” referring to TikTok’s announcement earlier this year that it has partnered with several organizations “to further aid our efforts to reduce the spread of misinformation,” particularly regarding the CCP virus pandemic, which originated in China and was exacerbated by the CCP regime’s coverup.
Lead Stories was started in 2015 by Belgian website developer Maarten Schenk, CNN veteran Alan Duke, and two lawyers from Florida and Colorado. It listed operating expenses of less than $50,000 in 2017, but had expanded sevenfold by 2019, largely because of the more than $460,000 Facebook paid it for fact-checking services in 2018 and 2019. The company took on more than a dozen staffers, about half of them CNN alumni, and became one of Facebook’s most prolific fact-checkers of U.S. content.
In the third episode of The Politically Incorrect Guide podcasters and authors Tom Woods and Michael Malice become the un-PC Schoolhouse Rock to bust myths about the American Judiciary.
Tom & Michael prove that the courts are no impartial guardian of our liberty, instead being biased towards big government, that the states were supposed to be able to nullify federal law and federal courts, and that the left’s court packing desires are a partisan scam.
Based on the Regnery book series of the same name, each episode of The Politically Incorrect Guide will cover stories from history, culture, and social movements that students in today’s mainstream education system may never hear, but need to know. The book series contains 32 works, each written by a different expert, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, both of which will be among the show’s upcoming episodes. Season one of The Politically Incorrect Guide is 10 episodes long and will release throughout 2021.
Be sure to check out the show and Dangerous Documentaries’ work on social media:
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Capital Research Centerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCapital Research Center2021-03-23 05:48:112021-10-07 20:30:56VIDEO: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court!
Iran’s mullahs understand the world in terms of strength and weakness. They see Biden’s handlers as weak, and are taking advantage of the opportunity, significantly increasing their boldness and aggressiveness around the world.
by James LaPorta, AP, March 21, 2021 (thanks to the Geller Report):
Iran has made threats against Fort McNair, an Army post in the U.S. capital, and against the Army’s vice chief of staff, two senior U.S. intelligence officials said.
They said communications intercepted by the National Security Agency in January showed that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard discussed mounting “USS Cole-style attacks” against the Army post, referring to the October 2000 suicide attack in which a small boat pulled up alongside the Navy destroyer in the Yemeni port of Aden and exploded, killing 17 sailors.
The intelligence also revealed threats to kill Gen. Joseph M. Martin and plans to infiltrate and surveil the installation, according to the officials, who were not authorized to publicly discuss national security matters and spoke on condition of anonymity. The Army post, one of the oldest in the country, is Martin’s official residence.
The threats are one reason the Army has been pushing for more security around Fort McNair, which sits alongside Washington’s bustling newly developed Waterfront District….
At a virtual meeting in January to discuss the proposed restrictions, Army Maj. Gen. Omar Jones, commander of the Military District of Washington, cited “credible and specific” threats against military leaders who live on the Army post. The only specific security threat he offered was about a swimmer who ended up on the installation and was arrested.
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the district’s sole representative in Congress, was skeptical. “When it comes to swimmers, I’m sure that must be rare. Did he know where he was? Maybe he was just swimming and found his way to your shore?” she said.
Jones conceded that the swimmer was “not a great example there, but our most recent example” of a security breach.
He said the Army has increased patrols along the shoreline, erected more restricted area signs and placed cameras to monitor the Washington Channel.
Puzzled city officials and frustrated residents said the Army’s request for the buffer zone was a government overreach of public waterways.
Discussions about the Fort McNair proposal began two years ago, but the recent intelligence gathered by the NSA has prompted Army officials to renew their request for the restrictions….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2021-03-23 05:04:222021-10-07 20:30:57THE BIDEN EFFECT: Iran Threatens Jihad Massacre at Army Post in Washington, D.C.
Although the Harris/Biden team is dodging the question, the crisis is growing on the Southern Border as thousands of mostly teenagers breach the border.
In January the message went out far and wide that America was now free for the taking!
Yesterday when I wrote my Refugee Round-up for the week at RRW, I linked the data on file at the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement about where the “children” were distributed to sponsors around the US.
(Only the numbers distributed are available. The data does not include those still in custody.)
In that round-up, I also explained that the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) are NOT refugees.
The data is only through January 31st so the full impact of the Biden-welcome has not yet been recorded.
Nevertheless, this list of counties is likely to continue to be the primary locations to suffer the most impact of the invasion.
By the way, see the UAC numbers that went to each state since 2014. I think you will be shocked and disappointed to see how large the numbers were for a few of Trump’s years in office.
Top welcoming states, for the mostly teenaged illegal aliens who will impact high schools (get your kids out!) and crime gangs, are: Texas, New York, Florida, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia.
A total of 7,207 UACs were distributed among all states in the first four months of FY21.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2021-03-22 08:31:532021-10-07 20:30:57Unaccompanied Alien Teens Coming to a County Near You!
Former President Donald Trump said in a statement Sunday that the Biden Administration must “immediately complete the wall” to stop the influx of illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
“They must immediately complete the wall, which can be done in a matter of weeks – they should never have stopped it,” the statement said. “They are causing death and human tragedy. In addition to the obvious, drugs are pouring into our country at record levels from the Southern Border, not to mention human and sex trafficking. This Administration’s reckless policies are enabling and encouraging crimes against humanity. Our Country is being destroyed!”
“His self-satisfied presentation – in the middle of the massive crisis he helped engineer – is yet more proof he is incapable of leading DHS,” the press release stated. “Even someone of Mayorkas’ limited abilities should understand that if you provide Catch-and-Release to the world’s illegal aliens then the whole world will come.”
Last month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encountered 100,441 people attempting entry along the southwest border, according to the agency.
Border humanitarian disaster. 'It's a breach of national security not seen before in modern history': Dem Texas mayor slams Biden for doing nothing about immigration disaster https://t.co/JXGduZ1EaQ
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2021-03-22 07:00:082021-10-07 20:30:57‘Our Country Is Being Destroyed!’: Trump Rips DHS And Biden Administration Over Southern Border Crisis
Hirsi Ali is certainly well-fitted to examining the issue. In 1992, she fled from Africa to escape an arranged marriage, and was granted asylum in the Netherlands, where she was later elected to parliament.
Following the grisly assassination of her colleague Theo van Gogh (who worked with Hirsi Ali when directing the anti-Islamist film Submission), she eventually relocated to the United States.
In this book, she describes how women are becoming almost invisible in a growing number of neighbourhoods in Europe’s cities, especially where Muslim immigrants form a majority.
Those women who are present in such communities often wear Islamic garb, and women and girls who do not dress like this are increasingly falling victim to verbal or non-verbal intimidation, and occasionally sexual assault, a problem which has worsened in the last decade as immigration increased.
Though she acknowledges the difficulties in comparing statistics across countries, the evidence she cites show that rates of rape or sexual assault went up between 2014-2017 in every European country where data is available.
In Germany, which adopted the most liberal stance on immigration in 2015, the number of victims of rape and sexual coercion increased by over 40 percent from 2016 to 2017.
Additional data suggests that migrants are responsible for a disproportionate amount of this violence: for example, asylum seekers were suspects in 11 percent of all reported rapes and sexual harassments in Austria in 2017, despite making up less than 1 percent of the population.
The author’s painstaking examination of similar evidence sheds light on why women feel increasingly unsafe on European streets, a fact demonstrated by polling data from the EU and OECD.
High-profile incidents such as the mass sexual assaults mainly perpetrated by Arab and North African migrants in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015 have drawn attention to this, as did the revelations that grooming gangs had exploited thousands of British girls in Rotherham and elsewhere.
As with Cologne, the crime was so large-scale that it could not be ignored or written off as a localised incident. Nor was it possible to ignore the fact that the culprits were predominantly Muslim men.
A key question which Hirsi Ali poses is why Western feminists who have driven the #MeToo movement forward have been so reticent when it comes to asking questions about what is happening to women in poorer parts of Europe’s cities at a time when immigration — legal and illegal — has increased greatly.
In 2015, almost two million people arrived in Western Europe from countries with large Muslim populations. Over the past decade, there were around 3.5 million illegal border crossings, with many others coming legally and claiming asylum, confident that they will not be deported even if their applications are turned down.
As a result of this enormous influx, Europe’s Muslim population increased from 19.5 million in 2010 to 25.8 million in 2016.
These immigrants are disproportionately young males, from a cultural background which is deeply uncomfortable with the level of social freedom which women enjoy in the West.
In considering why this process has accelerated in spite of the serious problems it has caused, Hirsi Ali is very perceptive in her description of how the “integration industry” – bureaucrats, NGOs, non-profits, lawyers, etc – often benefit financially from their participation in a process which has failed to assimilate recent newcomers.
Interestingly, Hirsi Ali rejects the populist solution of stopping the inflow by beefing up security and deporting those who are here illegally.
Drawing on her own experience as an asylum seeker, she suggests alternative policies: replacing the existing asylum framework with one which favours those who are willing to integrate; addressing the push factors which contribute to the outflow from the Muslim world; and limiting the pull factors by trimming Europe’s generous welfare states.
Some of this is commendable, but there are difficulties too.
Her suggestion that Europeans “should send military and civilian forces to help build institutions and the rule of law” in the immigrants’ homelands ignores the record of recent Western interventions. Compared to this, the populist/conservative policy of increasing security in border regions and in the Mediterranean appears far more achievable.
On the broader point about the ability to make large-scale Islamic immigration work, she appears uncomfortable with some of the evidence she cites, as when she points to the divergent experiences of Christian and Muslim Lebanese refugees who left their war-torn homeland for Australia in the 1970s.
There, and though starting from the same base, the Lebanese Christians easily outperformed their compatriots when it came to educational and occupational achievement, just as Hindus and Sikhs have outperformed Muslims in the UK, where the participation of Muslims in the labour force remains low, particularly when it comes to women.
Given the enormous challenges we face, a much more restrictive approach to immigration from the Muslim world is now called for — but that is not a call which Hirsi Ali is prepared to make.
Her analysis is lacking in one other area, when compared to the book which her friend Douglas Murray wrote some years ago, The Strange Death of Europe.
In her glowing admiration for the Europe which took her in, Hirsi Ali speaks the language of the classical liberal in her emphasis on individual rights and concludes with a quote from John Stuart Mill.
Murray’s book was also intended to sound the alarm when it came to the cultural threat facing Europe.
Though a non-believer, he went to great lengths to highlight the Christian foundations of Europe’s humane and enlightened culture and concluded by suggesting that Europe’s future would rest upon the attitude of its people towards the churches and other great cultural buildings which surround us: “Around the questions of whether we hate them, ignore them, engage with them or revere them, a huge amount will depend.”
While Hirsi Ali praises the fruits of European civilisation, Murray went further in recognising and defending the roots which allowed them to blossom. So should all who care about the future of Europe.
James Bradshaw works for an international consulting firm based in Dublin, and has a background in journalism and public policy. Outside of work, he writes for a number of publications, on topics including… More by James Bradshaw
This is the most radical and unhinged Congress we have ever seen. They are turning this country into Venezuela. Rational Americans must come out in droves for the mid-term elections, and vote the Democrat Party out of office.
Thank you to the 6,474 great American patriots from all 50 states who've contributed over $210,000 to my re-election campaign in the last 24 hours.
I'll never stop fighting for the People and #AmericaFirst policies.
Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez of California formally introduced a resolution Friday to expel Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from Congress, suggesting that she “advocated violence against our peers, the Speaker and our government.”
“I take no joy in introducing this resolution, but any member who cites political violence and threatens our lives must be expelled,” Gomez said Friday. “I believe some of my Republican colleagues, and one in particular, wish harmed upon this legislative body. I’m not saying this for shock value. It’s the conclusion I drew after a member of Congress advocated violence against our peers, the speaker and our government.”
Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to expel any member with a two-thirds vote, but it’s not expected there would be the votes for that, especially among Republican members. Still, the support for the resolution does illustrate the rancor and divisiveness that has taken root in the House since the riots on January 6 and the storming of the Capitol.
In February, the House voted to remove Greene from her committee assignments, a decisive step that came in the wake of recently unearthed incendiary and violent past statements from the congresswoman that triggered widespread backlash from Democrats and divided congressional Republicans.
House Democrats, who control the chamber, set up the vote after first attempting to pressure Republicans to strip the Georgia Republican of committee assignments on their own. House Republicans did not take that action, however.
Greene defended herself ahead of the vote in a speech on the House floor and attempted to distance herself from the dangerous and debunked QAnon conspiracy theory, which she has previously embraced.
The Georgia Republican has also faced backlash over recently resurfaced comments about the 2018 Parkland school shooting.
In a statement to CNN, Greene said “House Democrats have declared war on House Republican Women,” adding that “Democrats are trying overturn the will of the People who voted for both myself and Congresswoman Miller-Meeks.”
Here are the 72 Democrats who support the resolution:
Jake Auchincloss, Joyce Beatty, Earl Blumenauer, Jamaal Bowman, Brendan Boyle, Tony Cárdenas, André Carson, Matt Cartwright, Kathy Castor, Joaquin Castro, Judy Chu, Yvette Clarke, Steve Cohen, Gerald E. Connolly, Jim Cooper, Lou Correa, Jason Crow, Rosa L. DeLauro, Mark DeSaulnier, Ted Deutch, Veronica Escobar, Anna G. Eshoo, Adriano Espaillat, Dwight Evans, Bill Foster, Ruben Gallego, Jesús G. “Chuy” García, Raúl M. Grijalva, Alcee L. Hastings, Jahana Hayes, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jared Huffman, Pramila Jayapal, Mondaire Jones, Robin Kelly, Ro Khanna, Ann McLane Kuster, John B. Larson, Barbara Lee, Alan Lowenthal, A. Donald McEachin, Jerry McNerney, Grace Meng, Seth Moulton, Grace F. Napolitano, Marie Newman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Donald M. Payne, Jr., Scott Peters, Ayanna Pressley, Kathleen M. Rice, Jan Schakowsky, Albio Sires, Adam Smith, Darren Soto, Marilyn Strickland, Eric Swalwell, Dina Titus, Rashida Tlaib, Ritchie Torres, Lori Trahan, David Trone, Juan Vargas, Nydia M. Velázquez, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Maxine Waters, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Susan Wild, Nikema Williams, Frederica S. Wilson.
The intrepid Marc Morano, author of the bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, breaks down the science and the politics to expose the truth about the Green New Deal in his new book. Join Marc as he discusses what he calls a new LOCKDOWN to save the climate.
“If you care about America’s future, read this book.”—Mark Levin
“A must-read book that shows how the Green New Deal is dangerous, impractical, misguided, and guaranteed to fail with disastrous results for the American people.”—Sean Hannity
Q/A will follow. To ask a question, raise your hand in the zoom or submit ahead of time. We can’t promise to get to every question, but we will take as many as possible.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2021-03-20 11:32:022021-10-07 20:31:01GREEN FRAUD: Why the green new deal is even worse than you think
Leftist hypocrisy reached new heights recently when Disney CEO Bob Chapek claimed that he doesn’t “really see Disney as characterizing itself as left-leaning or right-leaning.” This was in response to outrage following the firing of Gina Carano, who said in a since-deleted tweet that the way the Nazis turned even former neighbors against Jews is not that different from how people today attack based on political beliefs.
Recently, a stockholder asked Chapek why conservative Carano was fired but not liberal Pedro Pascal, who tweeted in 2018 comparing the experience of undocumented migrant children to victims of Nazi concentration camps. Chapek responded that Disney isn’t politically biased, but supports “values that are universal: respect, decency, integrity, and inclusion…harmony and peace.”
But Chapek never defined what made Pascal’s tweet any more “respectful” or “inclusive” than Carano’s, especially considering that Pascal’s tweet displayed a misleading image of Palestinian children “behind bars” in a play area. Meanwhile, Carano’s original tweet made no indication whether those being attacked for political beliefs were on the right or left.
It should be no surprise that Disney sits at a low 1.67 out of 5.00 on our 2ndVote scale, with their leftist agenda featuring shows with openly LGBT characters. Chapek himself has made promises to “represent our audience” through committing to even more LGBT programming, despite conservative protests against these agendas being shown to their children.
Additionally, when Georgia passed the heartbeat bill banning abortions after about six weeks into pregnancy, Disney threatened to pull filming in the state entirely, showing that they care more about defending leftist ideals than stopping mothers from having their unborn babies torn apart.
Despite blatantly defending these leftist causes, Disney would like us to believe they are unbiased. But we know that isn’t the case. Speak out against Disney’s hypocrisy by contacting them today. Then go beyond words and hit them where they’ll hear it — right in the pocketbook. Cancel the Disney+ subscription. Make your voice count and show Disney that we will not accept their double standards.
Politicians such as Maxine Waters can praise and encourage BLM/Antifa violence via Twitter, and they still have access. Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamanei can send anti-Jewish and anti-Israel tweets, and he’s still on the platform. But dare criticize rapper Cardi B over her depraved 2021 Grammy Awards “performance” featuring her song, “WAP,” which itself would have been censored pre-Sexual Devolution, and that’s a suspension for you.
That’s what happened to me, anyway — ironically, while I was crafting a magazine essay on cancel culture. So, hey, sort of like a researcher in the midst of a set of experiments who then finds out he’s going to be one of the test subjects, Twitter gave me some very timely and personal material a day before my article deadline.
At issue was Cardi B’s reaction to criticism leveled against her by commentator Candace Owens. She posted an old, suggestive photo of Melania Trump to justify her actions and asked why Owens had a problem with her. I then responded:
“@iamcardib Maybe because you’re acting like a greedy slut who’s corrupting the young? Just a thought. Here’s a pro tip: You don’t justify bad behavior by citing other bad behavior. Children do that.”
Apparently, this was too much for the Twitter twits, and they suspended me for violating their “rules.” Really, though, I’m surprised it took so long. It apparently didn’t faze the Twitter twits that I’d called them Twitter twits on their own platform for years or that I’d repeatedly (and correctly) identified their treasured “transgenderism” in my tweets as the MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status) agenda.
But a reprobate woman worth $30 million must be protected from criticism, apparently. Twitter really had to reach for a violation rationale, though, as it sent me the following message:
You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.
For the record, I didn’t actually call the esteemed singer a “slut,” but wrote that she was acting like one. But I’m befuddled: Into which of the above categories does “slut” fall?
Admittedly, I’m not “woke.” But I’m pretty sure slut isn’t a race, ethnicity or nationality. I don’t think it’s a social class (caste), either. But does it describe some official caste in India, maybe one just above the “untouchable” — the über-touchable? (If this is an inappropriate question, forgive me; I’m not a cultural anthropologist.)
Is slut now a “gender” or “gender identity”? The latter category’s choices are metastasizing like the national debt, you know.
It also seems unlikely that “slut” describes a religious affiliation; one can’t be sure, however, with how seriously leftist sexual devolutionaries take their carnal pleasures. And we can forget about age.
But does the status in question result from a disability or disease? Is there a sluterovirus plaguing the population? Anthony Fauci can get right on that one. Yet given that Two-mask Tony has said that “hooking up” via a dating app is okay if you’re willing to accept the risk (but, he also warned, you may never again be able to shake hands), it’s unlikely he’ll be pushing for a vaccine.
Anyway, Twitter wants me to be a “good boy” and delete the tweet. This will never, ever happen. Given the filth and insult they allow (mainly from the Left) on their platform, it’s almost satirical to take issue with my message. I won’t yield to the double standard.
Why, just consider what motivated my response. I won’t explicitly explain what “WAP” stands for, but the first word is “Wet.” The second is the a-word meaning “derrière” and the last is the p-word that can describe a feline. But, yeah, my tweet in response to Cardi B’s Grammys performance — which featured simulated lesbian sex acts to the “WAP” tune — is the problem.
By the way, if you think I’m judging the rapper harshly, note what she said just recently in response to critics who complained that she wasn’t releasing enough new “music.” “I have so much pressure,” she informed. “I’m working on a lot of s***….” You see, even she knows what she’s producing.
All this said, after thinking things over, I realize that perhaps an apology is in order. So, yes, I’m genuinely sorry I compared sluts to Cardi B.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2021-03-20 08:24:282021-10-07 20:31:03Twitter Suspends Me for Criticizing Cardi B
Who was the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world? Most people probably assume that the answer is Adolf Hitler, architect of the Holocaust. Others might guess Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who may indeed have managed to kill even more innocent people than Hitler did, many of them as part of a terror famine that likely took more lives than the Holocaust.
But both Hitler and Stalin were outdone by Mao Zedong. From 1958 to 1962, his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 million people—easily making it the biggest episode of mass murder ever recorded.
The Vast, Cruel, Deliberate Extinction of Millions
Historian Frank Dikötter, author of the important book Mao’s Great Famine, recently published an article in History Today, summarizing what happened:
Mao thought that he could catapult his country past its competitors by herding villagers across the country into giant people’s communes. In pursuit of a utopian paradise, everything was collectivised. People had their work, homes, land, belongings and livelihoods taken from them.
In collective canteens, food, distributed by the spoonful according to merit, became a weapon used to force people to follow the party’s every dictate. As incentives to work were removed, coercion and violence were used instead to compel famished farmers to perform labour on poorly planned irrigation projects while fields were neglected.
A catastrophe of gargantuan proportions ensued. Extrapolating from published population statistics, historians have speculated that tens of millions of people died of starvation. But the true dimensions of what happened are only now coming to light thanks to the meticulous reports the party itself compiled during the famine…
What comes out of this massive and detailed dossier is a tale of horror in which Mao emerges as one of the greatest mass murderers in history, responsible for the deaths of at least 45 million people between 1958 and 1962.
It is not merely the extent of the catastrophe that dwarfs earlier estimates, but also the manner in which many people died: between two and three million victims were tortured to death or summarily killed, often for the slightest infraction.
When a boy stole a handful of grain in a Hunan village, local boss Xiong Dechang forced his father to bury him alive. The father died of grief a few days later.
The case of Wang Ziyou was reported to the central leadership: one of his ears was chopped off, his legs were tied with iron wire, a ten kilogram stone was dropped on his back and then he was branded with a sizzling tool – punishment for digging up a potato.
The basic facts of the Great Leap Forward have long been known to scholars. Dikötter’s work is noteworthy for demonstrating that the number of victims may have been even greater than previously thought, and that the mass murder was more clearly intentional on Mao’s part, and included large numbers of victims who were executed or tortured, as opposed to “merely” starved to death. Even the previously standard estimates of 30 million or more would still make this the greatest mass murder in history.
While the horrors of the Great Leap Forward are well known to experts on communism and Chinese history, they are rarely remembered by ordinary people outside China, and have had only a modest cultural impact. When Westerners think of the great evils of world history, they rarely think of this one.
In contrast to the numerous books, movies, museums, and and remembrance days dedicated to the Holocaust, we make little effort to recall the Great Leap Forward, or to make sure that society has learned its lessons. When we vow “never again,” we don’t often recall that it should apply to this type of atrocity, as well as those motivated by racism or anti-semitism.
The fact that Mao’s atrocities resulted in many more deaths than those of Hitler does not necessarily mean he was the more evil of the two. The greater death toll is partly the result of the fact that Mao ruled over a much larger population for a much longer time. I lost several relatives in the Holocaust myself, and have no wish to diminish its significance. But the vast scale of Chinese communist atrocities puts them in the same general ballpark. At the very least, they deserve far more recognition than they currently receive.
Why We so Rarely Look Back on the Great Leap Forward
What accounts for this neglect? One possible answer is that the most of the victims were Chinese peasants—people who are culturally and socially distant from the Western intellectuals and media figures who have the greatest influence over our historical consciousness and popular culture. As a general rule, it is easier to empathize with victims who seem similar to ourselves.
But an even bigger factor in our relative neglect of the Great Leap Forward is that it is part of the general tendency to downplay crimes committed by communist regimes, as opposed to right-wing authoritarians. Unlike in the days of Mao, today very few western intellectuals actually sympathize with communism. But many are reluctant to fully accept what a great evil it was, fearful—perhaps—that other left-wing causes might be tainted by association.
In China, the regime has in recent years admitted that Mao made “mistakes” and allowed some degree of open discussion about this history. But the government is unwilling to admit that the mass murder was intentional and continues to occasionally suppress and persecute dissidents who point out the truth. This reluctance is an obvious result of the fact that the Communist Party still rules China. Although they have repudiated many of Mao’s specific policies, the regime still derives much of its legitimacy from his legacy.
I experienced China’s official ambivalence on this subject first-hand when I gave a talk about the issue while teaching a course as a visiting professor at a Chinese university in 2014.
Why It Matters
For both Chinese and westerners, failure to acknowledge the true nature of the Great Leap Forward carries serious costs. Some survivors of the Great Leap Forward are still alive today. They deserve far greater recognition of the horrible injustice they suffered. They also deserve compensation for their losses, and the infliction of appropriate punishment on the remaining perpetrators.
In addition, our continuing historical blind spot about the crimes of Mao and other communist rulers leads us to underestimate the horrors of such policies, and makes it more likely that they might be revived in the future. The horrendous history of China, the USSR, and their imitators, should have permanently discredited socialism as completely as fascism was discredited by the Nazis. But it has not – so far – fully done so.
Just recently, the socialist government of Venezuela imposed forced labor on much of its population. Yet most of the media coverage of this injustice fails to note the connection to socialism, or that the policy has parallels in the history of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and other similar regimes. One analysis even claims that the real problem is not so much “socialism qua socialism,” but rather Venezuela’s “particular brand of socialism, which fuses bad economic ideas with a distinctive brand of strongman bullying,” and is prone to authoritarianism and “mismanagement.”
The author simply ignores the fact that “strongman bullying” and “mismanagement” are typical of socialist states around the world. The Scandinavian nations—sometimes cited as examples of successful socialism- are not actually socialist at all, because they do not feature government ownership of the means of production, and in many ways have freer markets than most other western nations.
Venezuela’s tragic situation would not surprise anyone familiar with the history of the Great Leap Forward. We would do well to finally give history’s largest episode of mass murder the attention it deserves.
ILYA SOMIN is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and the study of popular political participation and its implications for constitutional democracy.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2021-03-19 06:42:382021-10-07 20:31:05Who Was the Biggest Mass Murderer in History?
This isn’t about justice, it’s about completely the coup. The consequences will be disastrous. We know how this goes. History is littered with the unspeakable cost – the untold human toll of leftist revolution.
The government’s response to the January 6 melee isn’t about justice. It’s about partisan retribution and revenge. And the consequences will be disastrous.
By Julie Kelly,In the early hours of March 12, FBI agents in southwestern Florida barricaded a neighborhood to prepare to raid the home of one resident. Christopher Worrell of Cape Coral was arrested and charged with several counts related to the January 6 Capitol melee. Even though Worrell had been cooperating with the FBI for two months, the agency nonetheless unleashed a massive, and no doubt costly, display of force to take him into custody.Law enforcement agents, according to one neighbor who spoke with a reporter, wore “whole outfits . . . like military and it was crazy. There was like six or seven . . . big black vehicles. They busted down the front door.” The raid included “armed men with helmets and a tanker truck” and was partially executed by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.Worrell never entered the Capitol building on January 6; he isn’t accused of committing a violent crime. But a D.C. judge overturned a Florida judge’s ruling to release Worrell pending further review of his case. He remains in jail.
Ginning Up “Domestic Terrorism”
Worrell’s arrest is the latest in what the U.S. Department of Justice warned would be an “unprecedented” investigation leading to sedition charges filed against American citizens. Attorney General Merrick Garland pledged to make the Capitol Breach manhunt his top priority; on his first day in office, he received an update on the investigation from FBI Director Christopher Wray. Garland has compared January 6 to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, including 15 children.
Roughly 300 people have been arrested so far, many of them transported to Washington, D.C. to await trial and dozens denied bail after federal prosecutors argued the defendants, including a high school senior from Georgia, pose a threat to the nation.
The Capitol Breach probe, the department’s official title, is a flagrant political prosecution targeting Trump supporters. Every display—from heavy-handed FBI raids to a militarized Washington, D.C.—is designed to portray the President Trump’s allies as domestic terrorists.
The differences between how the government is handling the January 6 defendants and other so-called protestors could not be more stark. For example, a Portland investigative reporter found the Justice Department has dropped more than one-third of the federal cases related to last summer’s riots in that city, with more to come. Only about a dozen people have been arrested for last week’s rioting in Portland, which included attacks on a federal courthouse.
But the violence in Portland is different, according to Merrick Garland, who said during his confirmation hearing the Capitol attack was “domestic terrorism” because the January 6 protestors attempted “to disrupt democratic processes.” The term doesn’t apply to attacks on the Portland courthouse, Garland claimed, because those only happen at night when court is out of session.
Lucky Antifa.
Stretching the Law
Garland’s explanation, however absurd it sounds to the majority of Americans, bolsters one of the Justice Department’s most widely-used allegations in its Capitol investigation. More than 75 protestors now face one count of “obstruction of an official proceeding.”
The temporary disruption of Congress’ attempt to certify the Electoral College results, a task completed 13 hours after the chaos began, is repeatedly cited in charging documents as evidence of wrongdoing: “It [is] a crime to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding—to include a proceeding before Congress—or make an attempt to do so,” several affidavits read.
But the government’s attempt to apply this vague law to defendants in the Capitol case is a stretch, to say the least. In several instances, it represents an enhancement charge to add a felony to mostly misdemeanor offenses.
Further, there’s no indication the law pertains to a proceeding before Congress. Here’s the exact text from the statute prosecutors cite: “Whoever corruptly . . . otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
The provision is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, signed into law in 2002 as a congressional response to the Enron and WorldCom scandals. Corporate bad actors—not regular citizens protesting the actions of their elected officials in a public government building paid for by taxpayers—are the proper targets of that law.
In his signing statement, President George W. Bush explicitly rebuked any intention to use the law against Americans. “To ensure that no infringement on the constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of grievances occurs in the enforcement of section 1512(c) . . . which among other things prohibits corruptly influencing any official proceeding, the executive branch shall construe the term ‘corruptly’ in section 1512(c)(2) as requiring proof of a criminal state of mind on the part of the defendant,” Bush said in July 2002.
No Speedy Trials
How will federal prosecutors convince a judge someone like Christopher Worrell, who never entered the building to try to stop Congress’s certification, had a “criminal state of mind” and wasn’t simply exercising his constitutional right to protest his own government?
What Worrell and others did—those who didn’t commit crimes such as assault a police officer or vandalize property—is wholly American and well within the protections of the First Amendment.
Perhaps that explains why thousands of protestors who occupied the Hart Senate Office building in October 2018 to interrupt the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh didn’t face “obstruction of an official proceeding” charges. Ditto for those who surrounded and banged on the doors of the Supreme Court. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was not accused of inciting an insurrection after she fired up the crowd that later stormed the Senate building and harassed U.S. senators.
Trump-hating thugs who tore up the nation’s capital during his 2017 inauguration also did not face extra charges for “obstruction of an official proceeding.” In fact, nearly all of the charges eventually were dropped by the same U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. now overseeing the Capitol riot investigation.
The burden of proof, to the extent it matters in the hyperpartisan Beltway justice system, is high. Nonetheless, it appears the Justice Department is having trouble building its cases, including “obstruction of an official proceeding” charges.
Last week, the government asked for permission to violate the Speedy Trial Act and grant a 60 day continuance in its case against nine defendants, alleged members of the Oath Keepers, all charged with obstructing an official proceeding among other offenses. The lawyers insist they need more time to assemble all the evidence. “[T]he ends of justice served by granting a request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.”
Convicting any of the Capitol defendants on charges of obstructing an official proceeding will cross a dangerous line—a line government prosecutors and federal judges clearly feel undeterred to cross. This isn’t about justice, it’s about partisan retribution and revenge. And the consequences will be disastrous.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” – President John Adams
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” – President Thomas Jefferson
Actually it’s one-party rule that is a top priority for the Democrats.
Senator Chuck Schumer raised the eyebrows of millions of users on social media Wednesday when he asserted that “Democracy reform” is a “top priority” for Democrats going forward.
“Today, Senate Democrats are introducing the #ForThePeople Act to stand up to voter suppression, end dark money in politics, and re-invigorate American democracy. Make no mistake: Democracy reform is a top priority of this Congress,” posted Schumer on Twitter.
Today, Senate Democrats are introducing the #ForThePeople Act to stand up to voter suppression, end dark money in politics, and re-invigorate American democracy.
Make no mistake: Democracy reform is a top priority of this Congress.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2021-03-19 05:59:262021-10-07 20:31:06Chuck Schumer: ‘Make No Mistake, Democracy Reform is a Top Priority’ for Democrats
Statehood for DC guarantees that the Democrat Party will have two additional senators in perpetuity. Now that the Democrats have control of the Congress and the White House, they will stop at nothing to obtain one-party rule for America. Open borders, federalizing elections, and turning DC and Puerto Rico into states are designed to do just that. The people of West Virginia must contact Senator Joe Manchin, and ensure that he keeps his promise to not kill the filibuster. It’s the only mechanism that we have to prevent radical legislation from moving forward.
They hijacked the election and now they must enshrine their crime.
House Democrats are moving forward with their plan to add the District of Columbia as the 51st state of the union and this time they have supportive leaders in the Senate and the White House on their side.
D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been leading the statehood charge in Congress, predicted earlier this year “there’s never been a time when statehood for the District was more likely.”
The first step will take place Monday, when the House Committee on Oversight and Reform will hold a hearing on Norton’s 51st state legislation, aptly titled H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act.
Bowser has framed statehood as a civil rights issue where taxpaying U.S. citizens have been disenfranchised for the last 200 years and denied democracy.
With Democrats in control of the House, the Senate and the White House, Bowser said in January that the momentum toward statehood is “a promising sign that our country is finally ready to right this historic wrong.”
D.C. statehood already passed the House last June but it died in the GOP-led Senate. House leadership is committed to bringing up statehood for a vote again this year and 214 Democrats have co-sponsored the legislation — or just about all of the Democratic caucus which sits at 220 members currently.
With the Senate now in Democratic hands, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., is leading the effort there for statehood. So far, his statehood legislation has 40 of the 50 Democratic senators signed on as co-sponsors. However, without changing the legislative filibuster, Carper would need the support of at least 10 Republicans to meet the 60-vote threshold to advance — an uphill climb in a divided Senate.
Still, a Carper spokesperson said the senator is encouraged by the progress that is being made in the House and growing support for his companion legislation in the Senate.
“The Senator believes granting DC statehood is a matter of fairness and equity and remains determined to make DC statehood a reality this Congress,” a Carper spokesperson told Fox News Tuesday.
D.C. has a population of more than 700,000 residents ‒ greater than Wyoming and Vermont ‒ but the residents don’t have voting members in Congress or full control over local affairs. However, the District of Columbia pays more in federal taxes than 21 states and more per capita than any state, according to the 2019 IRS data book.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2021-03-18 07:22:482021-10-07 20:31:08COUP: Democrats Renew D.C. Statehood Push That Would Establish Autocratic One Party Rule
