FASCISM: Democrat Introduces Resolution to Expel GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

/in , , , , , /by

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.

Democrat introduces resolution to expel GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

By CNN, March 20, 2021

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.

Outrage over Greene grew more intense in Congress in the wake of a report from CNN’s KFile that she repeatedly indicated support for executing prominent Democratic politicians in 2018 and 2019 before being elected to Congress.

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.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

GREEN FRAUD: Why the green new deal is even worse than you think

/in , , , , , /by

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.

REGISTER NOW

PRE-ORDER GREEN FRAUD

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT event is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Disney Leaning Left: CEO Speaks Following Carano Firing

/in , , , /by

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.

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

Twitter Suspends Me for Criticizing Cardi B

/in , , , , , /by

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.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab, MeWe or Parler (preferably) or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

Who Was the Biggest Mass Murderer in History?

/in , , , /by

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.

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.

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.

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.

This article first appeared at the Volokh Conspiracy.

COLUMN BY

Ilya Somin

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.

Capitol ‘Investigation’ Criminalizes Political Dissent

/in , , , , , , /by

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.

Capitol Investigation Seeks to Criminalize Political Dissent

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.”

The judge agreed.

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.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Chuck Schumer: ‘Make No Mistake, Democracy Reform is a Top Priority’ for Democrats

/in , , , , , , /by

“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.

Chuck Schumer: ‘Make No Mistake, Democracy Reform is a Top Priority’ for Democrats

By Sean Hannity, March 17, 2021

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.

Democrats are now pursuing new legislation on gun control, “democracy reform”, the Green New Deal, expanded voting, and other progressive priorities.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

COUP: Democrats Renew D.C. Statehood Push That Would Establish Autocratic One Party Rule

/in , , , , , , , /by

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.

Democrats renew DC statehood push that would remake national politics

House will hold a hearing Monday to make DC the 51st state

By Fox News, March 16, 2021

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.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has pushed to have a statehood bill on President Biden’s desk within his first 100 days in office, will be among the witnesses testifying. Biden is supportive of D.C. becoming the 51st state.

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.

RELATED ARTICLE: MI Court: Michigan Secretary of State’s Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump Claim

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

California Bill Proposes Removing Cops Who Express Religious Or Conservative Beliefs

/in , , , , , /by

Here it is …… the road to ruin. This is the stuff of Mein Kampf. “Guardians of the State.”

California Bill Proposes Removing Cops Who Express Religious Or Conservative Beliefs

March 16, 2021 By Gabe Kaminsky

A new bill introduced by California State Assembly Member Ash Kalra in San Jose would prohibit police officers from serving if they have used arbitrarily defined “hate speech” or are affiliated with a “hate group.”

The bill, known as the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act (CLEAR Act), claims to combat “the infiltration of extremists in our law enforcement agencies” and would mandate a background check for all officers who have “exchanged racist and homophobic messages.”

Kalra claims that AB 655 is necessary to prevent “the apparent cooperation, participation, and support of some law enforcement” in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.

The bill defines hate speech as “as advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

Pacific Justice Institute Senior Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds said this broad and purposefully arbitrary definition could give way for Christians and conservatives to be classified as “hateful” based on the premise of rejecting abortion or supporting Proposition 8 in California, a same-sex amendment that passed in 2008.

McReynolds also questioned how this would affect those of the Muslim faith — since many religious mosques and followers have taken a stance against homosexuality.

“Under the guise of addressing police gangs, the bill at the same time launches an inexplicable, unwarranted, and unprecedented attack on peaceable, conscientious officers who happen to hold conservative political and religious views,” wrote Reynolds. “Indeed, this is one of the most undisguised and appalling attempts we have ever seen, in more than 20 years of monitoring such legislation, on the freedom of association and freedom to choose minority viewpoints.”

The California GOP currently states in its platform that it believes in traditional marriage and does not believe that Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage decided in 2015, can “coerce a church or religious institution into performing marriages that their faith does not recognize.”

According to this new Democratic bill, disagreeing on moral or religious grounds with homosexuality would technically mean the state GOP is espousing hate speech.

“Should the state now ban from public service qualified, fair-minded people who happen to hold religious or political views that conflict with controversial Supreme Court decisions on marriage and abortion?” asks Greg Burt, Director of Capitol Engagement with the California Family Council. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional violation of religious liberty and freedom of speech. It is also a tyrannical abuse of power from a politician seeking to ruin the lives of those he disagrees with.”

On April 6, AB 655 will head for a vote before the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

RELATED ARTICLE: Democratic senator on hot mic confessing plan to eliminate GOP …. again

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Will California Schools Mandate Pagan Religion?

/in , , , , , /by

In California schools, it would seem that Jesus is out, but worshiping human-sacrifice-requiring Aztec deities may soon be in.

In a 1996 book I wrote with D. James Kennedy, The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail, which dealt with today’s anti-Christian bias, we noted the following: “San Jose, California. City officials built a statue of the Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl, costing taxpayers half a million dollars. The mayor says the Aztec religion possessed ‘those elements that seek to elevate the human consciousness to a higher plane.’”

After observing the story, we offered this commentary, “The irony is that the Aztec religion routinely engaged in human sacrifice. Here is a statue built to honor the god of human sacrifice—the worship of whom cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings. Yet the same city ruled that there is no room for a manger with baby Jesus in it. Jesus, whose teachings and followers have banished human sacrifice from every corner of this world, is out. A god demanding human sacrifice is in.”

Here we are a quarter of a century later, and now comes a story out of California about a proposed plan to promote such teaching, accompanied by ritual Aztec chanting, in the public schools there. Once the teachers’ union says the schools can open, of course.

Writing for the city-journal.com (3/10/21) Christopher F. Rufo notes: “Next week, the California Department of Education will vote on a new statewide ethnic studies curriculum that advocates for the ‘decolonization’ of American society and elevates Aztec religious symbolism—all in the service of a left-wing political ideology.”

If this passes, it could impact “10,000 public schools serving a total of 6 million students.” Rufo notes that this curriculum was developed by a Marxist and is part of the “pedagogy of the oppressed.”

The chanting, of course, means that the children would be involved in not just learning about the deities, but in actually worshiping them.

Rufo opines, “The chants have a clear implication: the displacement of the Christian god [sic], which is said to be an extension of white supremacist oppression, and the restoration of the indigenous gods to their rightful place in the social justice cosmology. It is, in a philosophical sense, a revenge of the gods.”

In the name of “the separation of church and state”—words not found in our Constitution—any remnant of our nation’s Judeo-Christian tradition seems to find no place in our public schools. But chanting to pagan deities is fine with the left.

The first Congress under the Constitution wrote the First Amendment in 1791. And the first liberty they guaranteed—before freedom of speech, of the press, or of assembly—was the freedom of religion. They wanted to make sure that there would be no national church at the federal level, forcing people of other denominations to conform. They also wanted to make sure the government would not restrict the free exercise of religion.

The First Amendment later was twisted to mean we should have a strict “separation of church and state”—not allowing any reference to God in the public arena.

That same Congress that gave us the First Amendment passed a law called The Northwest Ordinance, spelling out an expectation for territories that became future states, saying, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

It is historically undeniable that when they said, “religion,” they meant Christianity (in one form or another). And when they said, “morality,” it was Biblical morality.

Note the priority of the Congress as to schools. Teach them about God, morality, knowledge.

How different is the anti-Christian curriculum proposed in California.

Those Aztec deities demanded violence. Robert Ripley of “Believe It or Not” fame writes about a carved circular stone found in the National Museum in Mexico City, where the human victims were slaughtered in Aztec worship: “The prisoners, who for several years had been held in reserve for this festival, were ranged in files forming a procession nearly two miles long. This long line slowly walked to their death marking time to the shrieks of the dying as they were bent naked on this stone and their hearts torn from their bodies. It required four days to finish the slaughter.” (Wonder Book of Facts, 1957).

In contrast, Jesus—who said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”—offered Himself as the sacrificial “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” But today, California educators apparently prefer pagan deities that demand human sacrifice for worship. Since recognition of God has been expelled in our public schools, too many of our learning centers have become secular wastelands. In California, it could get even worse.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Worshiping Human Sacrifice & Cannibalism.

Fla. Gov. DeSantis blames Biden for ‘disastrous’ border crisis: ‘This is intentional,’ ‘ideological’

/in , , , , , , /by

Indeed. The crime, the chaos, and the costs of the Biden Administration’s border policy is of no concern to them. What is important to the Biden Administration is expanding their voting base. Rational American’s must come out in big numbers for the 2022 mid-term elections, so that the Democrat Party can be voted out of power. Support pro-Trump candidates.

Fla. Gov. DeSantis blames Biden for ‘disastrous’ border crisis: ‘This is intentional,’ ‘ideological’

By Washington Times, March 15, 2021

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said Sunday that the massive influx of migrant children at the U.S. border is a crisis of President Biden‘s own making.

Appearing on Fox News’ “Justice,” Mr. DeSantis told host Jeanine Pirro that Mr. Biden had adopted “disastrous” immigration policies that signaled to migrants the U.S. had opened its doors.

“It obviously is a disastrous change in policy, Judge,” the Republican governor said. “If you look, Donald Trump had, obviously, the wall, which we all supported, but also safe third-party agreements, as well as ‘Remain in Mexico.’ And guess what happened? The border was under control. So they’ve gone back on those policies, and they’ve created this crisis.

“But I think that this is intentional,” Mr. DeSantis continued. “I think this is ideological. I think that they’re getting bit by this politically now. But I think that this was something that they absolutely anticipated. It’s a disastrous way to start an administration. I think most of the American people are going to be strongly opposed to this, and hopefully, they’ll reverse course.”

“Biden is going in the absolute wrong direction,” he added. “Trump had it right at the border. Biden‘s got it wrong.”

The number of unaccompanied minors in federal custody on the southern U.S. border has reached record numbers under the Biden administration, increasing 25% from last week and forcing children to stay longer in overcrowded, jail-like facilities despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, ABC News reported Monday.

The Biden administration has repeatedly refused to characterize the border situation as a “crisis,” instead calling it a “challenge” as it reopens multiple facilities across the country to accommodate the influx of migrants.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rep. John Katko: People on the Terror Watch List Caught Coming Across the Border in Last Few Days

Biden Nominee Who Called For Decriminalizing All Drugs Owns Millions In Company Accused Of ‘Fueling Mexican Cartels’ Heroin Production’

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE: Media misquoted Trump in notorious phone call with Georgia investigator

Black Lives Matter Admin Used $450,000 In Donations For Personal Use, FBI Says

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Here’s the List of the Top 20 States Getting ‘COVID’ Bailout Money [And Why It Raises a Giant Red Flag]

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

It’s simply naïve and ignorant of human nature to expect people—especially the kind of people who become politicians—to dole out trillions of dollars without any hint of favoritism or impropriety.

President Biden is taking a victory lap after signing his $1.9 trillion ‘COVID’ spending bill. “Help is here,” he wrote in a tweet promoting his plan.

But Americans who are initially glad to hear that more ‘COVID’ relief is supposedly on its way may be surprised when they learn that the latest legislation funnels $350 billion in unneeded taxpayer money to flush the coffers of state and local governments.

In the president’s telling, this is much-needed aid that will allow municipal governments facing massive COVID-related revenue pitfalls to pay their front-line emergency responders and essential personnel. But the facts reveal a different story.

While it’s plausible on its face to think that COVID would have led to a revenue drop for state and local governments, this never materialized in most places. According to JP Morgan, state revenue was “virtually flat” in 2020 nationwide while 21 states actually saw slight revenue upticks.

Cato Institute economist Chris Edwards noted that while there was a significant downturn in state revenue in the second quarter of 2020, overall it was balanced out by an uptick in the third quarter. “There is no need for more federal aid to the states,” he concluded.

So, the $350 billion in state “aid”—which cost roughly $2,442 per federal taxpayer—Congress  just passed wasn’t actually necessary. What’s the driving motivation behind it, then? This becomes clearer when we consider which states are getting the most taxpayer cash.

Here are the 20 states receiving the most money from the latest spending legislation.

  1. California: $42.3 billion
  2. Texas: $27.3 billion
  3. New York: $23.5 billion
  4. Tribal Governments: $20 billion
  5. Florida: $17.3 billion
  6. Illinois: $13.5 billion
  7. Pennsylvania: $13.5 billion
  8. Ohio: $11 billion
  9. Michigan: $10.1 billion
  10. New Jersey: $10 billion
  11. North Carolina: $8.7 billion
  12. Georgia: $8.17 billion
  13. Massachusetts: $7.96 billion
  14. Arizona: $7.48 billion
  15. Washington: $6.94 billion
  16. Virginia: $6.68 billion
  17. Maryland: $6.21 billion
  18. Tennessee: $6.12 billion
  19. Colorado: $5.9 billion
  20. Indiana: $5.7 billion

At first glance, it’s hard to decipher a clear pattern on this list. It’s not ordered by population, otherwise Florida would be above New York and Georgia would be above New Jersey. So, how did they divvy up the money?

Curiously, the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress factored in not just population but also the number of unemployed citizens. This had the direct effect of skewing the bailout benefits toward states that enacted harsher lockdowns and punishing states who prioritized preserving economic activity.

It must be noted that the list is skewed to include more “blue” states that voted for Biden, 13, than “red” states that voted for Trump, 6. It was, in many cases, Republican governors who opted for lighter restrictions and abandoned harsh lockdowns. In states like Florida, this has averted the unemployment and social destruction other states experienced—without producing noticeably worse COVID deaths.

One could argue that perhaps focusing on the unemployment rate is meant to ensure the aid goes to the states shortest on revenue. But why not use actual revenue shortfalls, then? Indeed, California tops the list for bailout money, yet the Golden State is actually running a budget surplus!

The only conclusion left to draw, however disappointing, is that Democrats crafted this bailout’s structure to favor states who pursued the COVID-19 policies they agree with—aka, states run by Democrats. Suffice it to say that political favoritism should never determine how limited taxpayer money is spent.

But, unfortunately, cronyism and favoritism are features, not a bug, of big government spending programs. As economist Ludwig von Mises once explained, big government programs concentrate enormous spending power in the hands of a few political officials; all but ensuring that favoritism follows.

“There is no such thing as a just and fair method of exercising the tremendous power that interventionism puts into the hands of the legislature and the executive,” Mises wrote.

It’s simply naïve and ignorant of human nature to expect people—especially the kind of people who become politicians—to dole out trillions of dollars without any hint of favoritism or impropriety. So, while Americans will understandably be angered by the way Congress has carved out hundreds of billions for state governments that don’t need it, they’d be wrong to think this is a one-time mistake.

Corruption and dysfunction are baked into the cake when we entrust the government with vast economic powers.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

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

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

Kentucky’s Berea College Hosts Event Calling ‘Trumpism’ a Form of Terrorism

/in , , , , /by

The left’s effort to demonize and criminalize all opposition to its sinister agenda is advancing rapidly, and so the news out of Kentucky’s Berea College on Friday, as outrageous as it was, came as no surprise. Fox News reported that Berea “is scheduled to host an event critical of Donald Trump and associating the former president and ‘white citizenship’ with terrorism.” But would Berea or other colleges and universities like it ever dream of holding an event about actual terrorists, specifically Islamic jihadis? Not on your life!

“A flyer obtained by Young America’s Foundation (YAF),” Fox continued, “describes the event as a way to ‘resituate Trumpism and white citizenship as forms of white terrorism enacted against the majority of people living within the borders of the U.S. and beyond.’”

The event is set for this coming Wednesday. In these days of stifling Covid orthodoxy, it will, of course, take place not in person, but over Zoom. The flyer announcing the event reads like a parody of today’s campus intellectual fads and shibboleths: “The Women’s and Gender Non-Conforming Center [I bet you wish you had one of those on your campus] presents GENDER TALK…White Citizenship as Terrorism: Make America Great Again, Again.” The event is “co-sponsored by Law, Ethics, and Society,” an organization that likely has little to with actual law, ethics, or anything that would strengthen a society.

The flyer, according to Fox, “features images of protesters carrying tiki torches at the racially charged Charlottesville, Virginia, protests at the beginning of Trump’s presidency.” It states:

Despite calls for multiculturalism and color-blindness, segments of white America mourn their so-called loss of privilege, consistently begging to return to the nostalgic past in which their esteemed value as white citizens went unquestioned. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” appears to follow suit by offering a seemingly benign promise to return America to a previously “great” past. But the offer to “Make America Great Again, Again,” requires we refocus on how the last four years of daily tweets and administrative actions redefine whiteness. If terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to create a state of fear towards particular communities and identities, then this is what “Trumpism” is at its core.

As ridiculous and groundless as all that is, as rooted in leftist fantasy about Trump’s presidency being somehow “white supremacist,” Berea College officials were not embarrassed, as they should have been, when asked about this event. On the contrary, they defended it, as any fascist smear merchant would, issuing a statement that said: “To some, the provocative title of the event implies that Berea is not a welcoming place for individuals with differing political views.” More than “implies,” you fascists.

“That is not true,” the Berea statement insisted:

At Berea, we strive to live out our motto: God has made of one blood all peoples of the earth. Berea accepts students of all faiths (or none at all), religious beliefs, ethnicities and political leanings, creating a diverse environment that encourages acceptance, respect and even appreciation across our differences. We encourage open dialog on difficult topics. Racism and white nationalism have been topics of great debate over the past five years. The event planned for next week seeks to confront aspects of the political spectrum that relate to the difficult topic of race in America. While that may cause discomfort, it is a valid and important conversation in this time of political and racial division. It is our hope that these types of conversations will occur across the country. Open, honest dialogue is essential to understanding racism and moving toward an anti-racist society.

Unless you’re a Trump supporter, that is.

Meanwhile, it is a 100% certainty, not 99%, but 100%, that Berea College administrators and professors would recoil in horror at the prospect of hosting an event focusing on the threat of jihad violence and Sharia oppression. In the extraordinarily unlikely off-chance that such an event were scheduled, it would be inundated with charges of “Islamophobia” and “racism” to the extent that most students would not attend, for fear of the social stigma attached to going.

But this? Demonizing and smearing half the American electorate? That’s just fine. And of course it plays right into the agenda of the political and media elites, who have embarked upon a clear initiative to defame all supporters of the former president as “extremists,” as they did previously with foes of jihad terror and Sharia injustice, and destroy them accordingly. The U.S. is entering an extremely dark period, but it has been a long time in the offing. And it has gotten dark early at Berea College.

RELATED VIDEO: Robert Spencer on The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Michigan imam: ‘Not all of them are bad. There are those Christians and the Jews who are doing the work for us.’

Palestinian Authority honors jihad murderer among ‘role models of honorable and fighting women’

Seven years after Nigerian government first declared them defeated, Islamic jihadis murder 30 soldiers

Sri Lanka: Women’s rights activist denounces burqa ban as ‘racist’

UK grants asylum to convicted jihad terrorist who advocated violent jihad and killing of Jews

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

VIDEO: Friends, let’s fix ‘cancel culture’ — Some ideas on how you can fight back

/in , , , , , /by

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ll be familiar with the new craze sweeping the West as the 2020s unfold, known as “cancel culture”.

The more this phenomenon grows, the more the label risks being misapplied. Cancel culture isn’t just anything, however: it follows a very recognisable pattern.

First, someone with public profile transgresses a woke orthodoxy of the present age. Second, a small but influential group names and shames them. Third, a mob forms to sully that person’s reputation and effectively drive them from public life.

The list of casualties grows longer with each passing month.

Arguably the incident that defined the cancel culture genre was the 2017 protest against Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College. More recently we’ve seen Disney fire actress Gina Carano, and the lead guitarist of Mumford and Sons shamed into taking time away from the band.

This week I argued that the Dr Seuss affair was likewise a manifestation of cancel culture, albeit a slightly milder one—and against someone long departed.

(It’s worth pointing out another common feature of cancel culture: how shockingly mild any of the alleged “crimes” actually are. In all seriousness, take some time to look into each incident listed above).

With such incidents in mind, British author and commentator Douglas Murray recently penned a brilliant piece for the The Spectator entitled How to fight back against ‘cancel culture’.

In it, he suggests that there’s a final step to the cancel culture routine—and that is the large number of “otherwise decent people” who fail to defend the victim.

“Why is it that in so many areas of public life, from the lecture hall to the comedy club, when the mini-mob comes, the adults just vacate the room?” he asks. Murray explains the dilemma:

“In case after case it has been the same. The problem is not that the sacrificial victim is selected. The problem is that the people who destroy his reputation are permitted to do so by the complicity, silence and slinking away of everybody else.”

What he surmises is that this—the silent cowardice of bystanders—is the only part of the cancel culture sequence that’s actually fixable.

We must “encourage people to stand up in defence of people who are being defamed,” Murray proposes. He goes on:

“Simply stand up for your friends, colleagues or allies when you know that they are being lied about. It seems so simple and so obvious a thing to do, and yet it is a habit in exceptionally short supply today.”

His article ends with a profound, almost proverbial truth: “Fighting for something you love will always give you an advantage over someone fighting because of hate.”

Hear, hear.

That’s something we can do on an individual level. But it’s encouraging to see associations forming around the same concern of late, in an effort to collectively push back against cancel culture.

One of these is the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA). The idea for this was sparked by Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University, who draws an analogy between cancel culture and the contrasting ways in which zebras and elephants defend themselves against a lion’s attack.

Zebras scatter, leaving any potential victim to fend for itself, he explains. Elephants, on the other hand, circle around their vulnerable associate. “Academics behave like zebras,” George says. “And so people get isolated, they get targeted, they get destroyed, they get forgotten.”

Like Murray’s his solution is simple: “Why don’t we act like elephants? Why don’t we circle around the victim?” Inspired by the idea, 20 other professors from Princeton (and millions of dollars of donor money) have formed the AFA, whose catchy slogan is that “an attack on academic freedom anywhere is an attack on academic freedom everywhere”.

The group’s 200 members now provide aid and support to defend the “freedom of thought and expression in their work as researchers and writers or in their lives as citizens”. Here’s conservative academic Carol M. Swain explaining the work of the AFA:

Two other organisations advancing a similar cause are the AHA Foundation and Heterodox Academy—both worthy of the reader’s curiosity.

In fact, if you’re looking for a small but immediate way you can help address cancel culture, head on over to the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism and sign their FAIR pledge.

Seriously, do it.

And next time you see a pile-on, stand up for your friends. They need you. Let’s fix cancel culture.

COLUMN BY

Kurt Mahlburg

Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate… More by Kurt Mahlburg.

RELATED VIDEO: Defending Against Cancel Culture.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Woke educators: Math is a form of ‘white supremacy’

6pm curfews for males and other bright ideas from #EnoughIsEnough

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

Biden’s Intel Chief Releases 2020 Election Report Confirming Russian and Iranian Interference

/in , , , , , , /by

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released an unclassified report Tuesday detailing attempts by Russia and Iran to interfere in the 2020 general election and sow general distrust in the United States electoral process.

The report additionally states with “high confidence” that China didn’t deploy any attempts to influence the election for either President Joe Biden or former President Donald Trump, putting it in stark contrast with a previous ODNI report on the subject authored by the Trump administration in August 2020.

“We assess that China prefers that President Trump – whom Beijing sees as unpredictable – does not win reelection,” the Trump administration’s assessment claimed. “China has been expanding its influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests, and deflect and counter criticism of China.

“China sought stability in its relationship with the United States, did not view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk getting caught meddling, and assessed its traditional influence tools primarily targeted economic measures and lobbying-would be sufficient to meet its goal of shaping US China policy regardless of the winner,” the report stated before adding that the National Intelligence Officer for Cyber does believe “that China did take some steps to try to undermine former President Trump’s reelection.”

The new Russia and Iran findings do line up with previous reports filed by the Trump administration, however.

“Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US. Unlike in 2016, we did not see persistent Russian cyber efforts to gain access to election infrastructure,” Tuesday’s report continues. “Iran carried out a multi-pronged covert influence campaign intended to undercut former President Trump’s reelection prospects-though without directly promoting his rivals-undermine public confidence in the electoral process and US institutions, and sow division and exacerbate societal tensions in the US.”

Despite the interference campaigns, the assessment states that no country took measures to alter “any technical aspect of the voting process in the 2020 US elections, including voter registration, casting ballots, vote tabulation, or reporting results,” and that several additional foreign actors attempted to

The White House and ODNI did not return by press time Daily Caller’s inquiries on perceived discrepancies between Tuesday’s report and previous statements made by Trump administration intelligence officials prior to the election in November.

John Ratcliffe, Trump’s DNI, told Fox News in August that “China is using a massive and sophisticated influence campaign that dwarfs anything that any other country is doing.”

COLUMMN BY

CHRISTIAN DATOC

Senior White House correspondent.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLE: China Wants Trump To Lose 2020 Election, Russia Wants Him To Win, Trump’s Intel Chief Says

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