Tag Archive for: Democrats

Elon Musk Calls Democrats ‘The Party Of Division And Hate’

Elon Musk tore into the Democratic Party in a Wednesday tweet calling them the party of “division and hate.”

“In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party,” Musk said. “But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican. Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold.”

The multibillionaire said he will vote Republican for likely the first time in his life in the 2022 midterm election after overwhelmingly voting Democrat in the past. He said the Democratic Party is controlled by unions and trial lawyers.

“I might never have voted for a Republican, just to be clear,” Musk said during a Tuesday “All-In” podcast. “Now this election, I will.”

“It definitely feels like this is not right,” Musk added. “The issue here is that the Democratic Party is overly controlled by the unions and by trial lawyers, particularly class-action lawyers. … In the case of Biden, he is simply too much captured by the unions, which was not the case with Obama.”

Liberal media pundits and Democratic lawmakers have warned of the supposed dangers of Musk’s vow to foster free speech on Twitter in the midst of his $44.3 billion takeover. MSNBC host Joy Reid previously accused the Tesla CEO in a April 26 segment of “The ReidOut” of wanting the “old South Africa of the ’80s” back, in reference to the Apartheid.

“There was a time when people had the double hashtags around their names because they were Jewish and right-wingers were saying ‘get in the oven’ anytime you made any benign comment on Twitter,” Reid said. “They attacked women, the misogyny was crazy on Twitter for a while. Elon Musk, I guess he misses the old South Africa in the ’80s, he wants that back.”

Musk trolled Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after claiming she has to “collectively stress” about an increase in hate crimes due to his takeover. Musk responded, “stop hitting on me, I’m really shy.”

Liberals have not taken kindly to Musk vowing to allow former President Donald Trump return to the platform when he officially takes over the social media company. Then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the administration is determined to prevent platforms from spreading disinformation at a May 10 briefing.

Musk has been highly critical of the left, recently stating “the far left hates everyone, themselves included,” noting that he does not support the far-right either.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich said Musk’s Twitter takeover will lead him to seek “freedom from accountability” in an April 24 tweet.

AUTHOR

NICOLE SILVERIO

Media reporter. Follow Nicole Silverio on Twitter @NicoleMSilverio

RELATED ARTICLES:

Elon Musk Indicates His Political Views Haven’t Changed, Liberals Have Just Gone Way Too Far To The Left

POLL: Most Democratic Voters Oppose The Abortion Policies Their Party Wants To Nationalize

EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans Call On Congress To Rescind PPP Loans To Planned Parenthood

Dem Witness Says Men Can Get Pregnant And Have Abortions

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

Only Internet Fascism Can Save Democracy

Won’t someone save democracy from the people?

Free speech on the internet endangers democracy, Barack Obama told Stanford University.

The widely hailed speech at Big Tech’s favorite university claimed that autocrats are “subverting democracy” and that democracies have “grown dangerously complacent.” In the slow parade of teleprompter clichés he even  warned that “too often we’ve taken freedom for granted.”

To Obama, the threat to democracy doesn’t come from government power, but the lack of it.

“You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe. Once they lose trust in their leaders, in mainstream media, in political institutions, in each other, in the possibility of truth, the game’s won,” he summed up.

Like every Obama speech, “Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm” didn’t offer anything new, just a distillation of familiar talking points and misplaced assumptions.

The assumption at the heart of Obama’s speech and that of the range of arguments depicting free speech as a cultural and national threat is that the purpose of discourse is state power.

Obama, like many post-liberal lefty critics of free speech, reduces speech to its social impact and its social impact to its political impact. This holistic integration is so fundamental to Marxists and many lefties that they don’t even think twice about the idea that everything we do is reducible to a move on the great abacus of social justice. The food you eat, the car you buy, and the words you say have the potential to either save or damn the planet and humanity.

This quasi-religious conception of mass social mobilization pervades American society. It’s the precondition for wokeness because the only possible moral justification for terrorizing random people on social media is the conviction that governance isn’t political, it’s social, and that the only way to avert climate change and social inequality is by controlling what everyone believes.

Wokeness collapses the distinction between the private and public spheres, and between government and individuals. In a national social crisis, the only conceptual framework through which the Left ever really governs, there’s no time for such liberal niceties as private spheres.

Obama’s speech neatly illustrates the fascism at the heart of this panopticon political project.

Introduce disagreement and you “raise enough questions” that people “no longer know what to believe” and then “lose trust in their leaders”, “mainstream media” and even “truth”. Stripped of all the Brookings Institute globalist prose, what Obama is really saying is that individual disagreement undermines the state. And that truth is dependent on public faith in the state.

This is a value system utterly at odds with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, one which envisions an intimate link between individual speech and state authority that would have horrified King George III, but absolutely delighted Hitler or Stalin.

It assumes that there can be no other legitimate points of view other than the official one and that there should be no leaders except those who share them. Limiting the range of opinions is necessary to protect state power because there is no distinction between them and the state.

Or as a certain Austrian artist once put it, “One people, One state, One leader”.

When he was promoting his last book two years ago, Obama made the same arguments. “If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work.”

The assumption that the democratic process leads to truth rather than choice, absolute rightness rather than people power, is an undemocratic paradigm. Its inevitable conclusion becomes that of Obama, that democracy must be protected by controlling the people.

Not only elections, but ideas, are too important to be left to the public.

Obama doesn’t want a marketplace of ideas because people might get the wrong idea and vote him and his political allies out of office. The explicit goal of internet censorship is to control election outcomes by filtering what information the public is able to access.

Like the provenance of a certain Delaware artist’s laptop.

Narrowing the range of acceptable information in order to narrow the range of acceptable opinions, candidates and political systems is the first fundamental trick of tyrannies. It takes a certain chutzpah and a stock of Orwellian buzzwords to redefine that as protecting democracy.

Obama complains, “China’s built a great firewall around the Internet, turning it into a vehicle for domestic indoctrination” and proposes a democratic firewall around the internet under a “regulatory structure” to be designed with “communities of color” to slow “the spread of harmful content.” The democratic people of color firewall will be so much better than China’s firewall.

Pro-censorship elites have the same assumptions as China about the interaction between speech, society, and the state which is why they, like Obama, arrive at the same conclusions. They can dress up those conclusions in buzzwords about “democracy” and “people of color”, but those are differences of style, not substance. The trains all end up at the same station.

Obama speaks about “bugs” in the Constitution. While he is always happy to critique America, the particular totalitarian bug here is deeply embedded into the leftist worldview which denies that people have individual agency, insists that everyone is a prisoner of their social context, and contends that the purpose of the society and the state is an enlightened intertwining. The bug, which is really more of a feature, directly leads to the same outcome as in China or Stanford.

A free society requires healthy breathing spaces between politics and life. The difference between a politicized society and a tyranny is only time. The question at the heart of this debate is “What is discourse for” which is really the question of, “What are people here for?” To believe, as the Left does, that people primarily exist as vehicles for political change is to enslave them.

That’s why every leftist revolution invariably slides toward tyranny along the same worn tracks.

The Founding Fathers believed that people would self-define their purposes. That was why America’s revolution uniquely led to freedom and why leftist revolutions lead to tyranny.

America defined freedom as individual power while lefties define it by the power of the state.

Obama is simply replaying what happens when liberation is treated as a collective enterprise, a journey toward rather than from, that can only be achieved collectively, through the exercise of state power rather than individually through personal choices. The internet, once individualistic, has become collective, and social media, the ultimate embodiment of that collectivism, has become the battleground between individualist expressers and collectivist censors.

AUTHOR

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Critical Qur’an: ‘A Qur’an commentary that goes where others fear to tread’

Muslim cleric quotes Muhammad saying even women in labor must have sex if husband wants it

Italy: Muslim migrant cook beheads Muslim migrant dishwasher

Sweden: Almost 30% want to ban ‘offensive’ demonstrations after Muslims riot over Qur’an-burning

England and Wales raise marriage age to 18 in bid to protect Muslim girls

Why Should the UN Consider It Its Duty to Protect Islam from Criticism?

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

Americans Can’t Afford Gas, Congress Just Gave Itself a 21% Raise

The $1.5 trillion omnibus bill has plenty of inflationary spending, and the honorable members of the legislature didn’t leave themselves out.

As part of the $1.5 trillion omnibus spending bill released Wednesday, the $5.9 billion fiscal 2022 Legislative Branch funding portion would substantially boost the office budgets of House members to pay staff more…

This legislation would provide $774.4 million for the Members Representational Allowance, known as the MRA, which funds the House office budgets for lawmakers, including staffer salaries. This $134.4 million, or 21 percent, boost over the previous fiscal year marks the largest increase in the MRA appropriation since it was authorized in 1996, according to a bill summary by the House Appropriations Committee. For paid interns in member and leadership offices, the House would get $18.2 million.

It’s not technically a pay hike for congressmembers, but, in particular House members, are notorious for putting family members on the payroll. And for using staffers to run their errands and handle assorted personal projects for them.

In August, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced staffers’ salaries could exceed those of lawmakers. Members in both the House and Senate, with the exception of leadership, make an annual salary of $174,000. Staffers can make up to $199,300.

That’s convenient since it can act as a pay hike without the negative press.

MRAs tend to be between $1.2 and $1.4 million. A massive MRA increase has all sorts of political and potentially personal benefits. It’s also completely indefensible during an economic crisis.

House Dem leaders are cheering the disgusting pork sandwich as a victory for diversity.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05) and House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08), released the following statement this morning on the inclusion of a 21% increase in Member Representational Allowance (MRA) funding in the Fiscal Year 2022 Omnibus legislation.

Leader Hoyer and Chair Jeffries have long advocated for this increase to the MRA in order to ensure that Members, leaders, and committees can attract and retain the best and brightest to help them serve the American people while promoting a more diverse workforce.

Is there any obscenity that can’t be justified in the name of diversity?

“We join in thanking Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger as well as the Members on the Appropriation Committee for producing a bipartisan omnibus package that includes this increase in office budgets so that Congressional staff pay can be a priority and enhance this institution’s ability to deliver For the People.”

For the People.

Ask not what Congress can do for you, ask what you can do for Congress.

COLUMN BY

RELATED VIDEO: Nancy Pelosi Comforts Zelensky With an Offer of Help From … Billie Jean King

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden: ‘Putin just decides he’s gonna invade Russia’

Capitol Police Funding Went From $375,000,000 to $602,000,000

Canada: Trudeau rejects Zelensky’s request for no-fly zone over fears of Russian escalation, says he’s heartbroken

Saudis, Emiratis Alarmed by U.S. Capitulation to Iran

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

Have You Noticed How Political Satire Has Become Public Policy Under Biden?

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” ― George Orwell, 1984


Each and every day we wake up asking ourselves if Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is reading political satire columns on websites like The Babylon Bee and The Peoples Cube to get his next “Build Back Better” public policy idea.

Political satire is satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics and it has been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime.

Political satire is a very effective method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden.

Today the truth is not only being censored, it is being forbidden. Freedom of speech is not just under assault in America but globally. You see government has learned that the first thing it must do is first stifle its opponents and second disarm them. They use propaganda, myths and lies to demonize, marginalize and finally silence political opposition.

Today truth is what politicians say it is. Today political truth and public policy has morphed into political satire.

But who is laughing, them or us?

We have been following the policies of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. closely. It seems he’s America’s first Political-Satirist-In-Chief. But nobody but the Democrats, the legacy media and social media oligarchs are laughing.

BTW, who names their son Robinette, LOL?

Political Satire is the New Resistance

George Orwell, in his dystopian novel 1984 wrote, “The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”

Are political satirists now taking the lead in telling the truth to make mankind happy? Or, are political satirists becoming the New Resistance?

Here’s a stark contrast between an actual U.S. Army recruitment video and a political satire U.S. Army recruitment video. Which is the truth?

THIS IS ONE IN A SERIES OF ACTUAL U.S. ARMY RECRUITMENT ADS – THIS VIDEO IS TITLED ‘EMMA’:

THIS BABYLON BEE POLITICAL SATIRE U.S. ARMY RECRUITMENT AD IS TITLED ‘SLAY QUEEN’:

Do you get the point now?

We believe that websites like The Babylon Bee and The Peoples Cube are taking the fight to those in power. We believe that their biting commentaries are taking its toll on the political elite and they don’t like it one damn bit.

What’s interesting is that Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, was an actor and comedian before his election. Volodymyr understands the power of language. He is a master of the “political punchline.” When Biden offered to fly Zelenskyy out of the Ukraine just before the Russian invasion he said, “I need bullets, not a ride!”

Watch:

This statement by Volodymyr Zelenskyy has become a motto that immediately went viral.  I need bullets, not a ride became bumper stickers, is printed on shirts and on posters.

Don’t tell me comedians and satirists don’t get it.

Political Satire and Public Policy

Let’s look at some recent articles on political satire sites and you answer this question: Is this satire that’s now public policy under the Biden administration.

The Peoples Cube

DoD’s Hashtag Command Center on High Alert

The Coronazis: A Superior Race of the Vaccinated

Biden declares 6th of January Bonfire Day

FDA approves Zyklon-B as Option for Vaccine-Hesitant

Revamped “Trans Siberian Orchestra” Makes Splash

The Magnificent Eight – now with Kyle Rittenhouse

The Babylon Bee

10 Not So Well-Known Side Effects Of The Vaccine

Biden Sells Alaska Back To Russia So We Can Start Drilling For Oil There Again

In Lieu Of Masks, Progressives To Just Wear Shirts Saying ‘I AM A GOOD PERSON’

Putin Receives Nobel Prize In Medicine For Ending COVID Pandemic

Media Says Spike In Myocarditis May Be Linked To Ukraine Crisis

So, after reading these political satire articles are your laughing, crying or both?

The Bottom Line

The reason we wrote this column is because of an article we published titled, “Biden’s FEMA: In case of a nuclear explosion ‘maintain social distancing’ and ‘wear a mask’.”

In the article we stated:

Just when you thought the Biden administration couldn’t get further down the Covid rabbit hole it digs deeper. Biden’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on February 25th, 2022 put out new guidance on what to do should America come under a nuclear attack.

The first scary thing is that FEMA wants us to be prepared for a nuclear attack. The second scary thing is how we should respond to it when we, like the Ukrainians, seek shelter from the nuclear attack.

FEMA warns that in case of a nuclear explosion:

“Try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household. If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not a part of your household.”

Many of our readers thought this article was political satire. We had to send them the link to the Ready.gov website on nuclear explosions which states:

Stay inside for 24 hours unless local authorities provide other instructions. Continue to practice social distancing by wearing a mask and by keeping a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who not part of your household.

So, are you laughing now?

Mark Twain wrote, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

We contend that Biden’s political myths travel half way around the world thousands of times before we the people actually are told the truth.

Gird your loins because we have three more years of Biden’s lies, myths and political theatre.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Soviet Era Inspired Agitprop Shows up in Washington, D.C. 

Tone-Deaf Team Biden Responds to High Gas Prices With Electric Car Sales Pitch

Democrats By Wide Margin Support Trudeau’s Move Against Truckers

Democrats widely support Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s handling of the “Freedom Convoy” protests, according to a Trafalgar Group poll released Tuesday.

A majority of respondents, 55.3%, said they disapprove of Trudeau’s handling of the protests, while 35.1% said they approve. When polling Democrats only, a whopping 65.7% said they approve of Trudeau’s handling while 17.2% said they disapprove.

Republicans offered a stark contrast, with 87.3% saying they disapprove and 8.1% saying they approve. Among those who offered no party affiliation, 74.4% disapprove.

The poll was conducted among 1,080 likely general election voters between Feb. 18 to Feb. 20. There was a 2.99% margin of error.

In an unprecedented move, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14. The move allowed him to take additional steps to quell the protests against mandates in Canada. With the invocation of the act, Trudeau said police would be given additional tools to strengthen their ability to impose fines or imprisonment on those who do not comply with orders.

The government could then ensure essential services are rendered, such as towing vehicles blocking roadways, while permitting financial institutions to regulate and prohibit the use of property to fund or support illegal blockades.

“This is not a peaceful protest,” Trudeau said. “The blockades are harming our economy and endangering public safety. This is hurting workers who rely on these jobs to feed their families.”

“I want to be very clear, the scope of these measures will be time limited, geographically targeted and reasonable and proportional to the threats they are meant to address. This is about keeping Canadians safe.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association publicly opposed Trudeau’s invocation, calling it a “threat” to democracy and civil liberties.

“The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met,” the association said. “Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.”

Since the invocation, dozens of protesters have been arrested. Some police officers on horseback were recorded trampling over protesters.

COLUMN BY

BRIANNA LYMAN

Reporter. Follow Brianna on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Crackdown Begins: Canadian Police Send Banks Names Of ‘Freedom Convoy’ Protesters, Accounts Frozen

House Democrat Ruben Gallego Says He Wants Government To Seize And Redistribute Truckers’ Vehicles

Canadian Liberal MP Claims Pro-Freedom Convoy Phrase ‘Honk Honk’ Is A Hidden Message For ‘Heil Hitler’

Canadian truckers protest organizer denied bail, judge cites ‘safety of the public’

‘We Need To Be Honest’: Biden Suggests US Gas Prices Will Increase Because Of His Russian Sanctions

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

The Joe Rogan affair is not about ‘misinformation’ but narrative control

Only time will tell if Rogan’s critics have the last laugh and see him gone completely.


Comedian Joe Rogan is the biggest name in podcasting. His show, the Joe Rogan Experience, attracts an estimated 11 million listeners per episode. Since 2020, Spotify has enjoyed an exclusive deal with JRE for an estimated US$100 million. With three to four episodes per week, each of which run for hours at a time, he has a lot of influence — and a lot to lose.

And don’t his detractors know it!

“I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform,” Neil Young wrote to his management team and record label last week. “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both.” Spotify sided with Rogan — and then removed Young’s catalogue from their service.

Young’s decision followed the release of an open letter, penned by a 270-strong “coalition of scientists, medical professionals, professors, and science communicators,” who called Rogan out for “misinformation” and “promoting baseless conspiracy theories”. They were particularly referring to his recent interviews with Drs Robert Malone and Peter McCullough.

(As it turns out, fewer than 100 of the signees were medical doctors, most of whom work at universities and do not practice medicine. The remainder included teachers, psychologists, engineers, podcasters, a dentist, and a vet.)

Others have since followed the lead of Rogan’s frontrunner critics. Singer-songwriter Joni Mitchell soon announced she would remove her music from Spotify, followed by guitarist Nils Lofgren.

According to the Los Angeles Times, there are rumours that the Foo Fighters, Barry Manilow, and Prince Harry and Meghan Markle “will be the next to walk”. Indeed, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex released a statement denouncing a “global misinformation crisis” and telling of their heroic efforts to hold Spotify accountable.

More recently, even the White House has urged Spotify to tighten the screws of censorship, first amendment be damned.

While Joe Rogan is a giant, he is certainly not uncancellable. And Spotify is no charitable organisation. Shareholders and company executives factor profits into any major decision — which may be why Spotify has already quietly cancelled over 40 past JRE episodes. They have also announced their decision to add a content advisory label to any podcasts that discuss Covid-19.

It may not end there. Only time will tell if Rogan’s critics have the last laugh and see him gone completely.

Just what is so threatening about this former UFC commentator and psychedelics enthusiast?

Decorated journalist Glenn Greenwald — whose centre-left libertarian outlook closely aligns with Rogan’s — minces no words on the controversy:

Censorship — once the province of the American Right during the heyday of the Moral Majority of the 1980s — now occurs in isolated instances in that faction. In modern-day American liberalism, however, censorship is a virtual religion. They simply cannot abide the idea that anyone who thinks differently or sees the world differently than they should be heard.

Warns Greenwald: the woke’s focus until recently was to “expand and distort the concept of ‘hate speech’ to mean ‘views that make us uncomfortable,’ and then demand that such ‘hateful’ views be prohibited on that basis.” Now, he says, their target is “misinformation” or “disinformation” — terms that “have no clear or concise meaning”. And the lack of definition is deliberate. “Like the term ‘terrorism,’ it is their elasticity that makes them so useful,” he writes.

To prove the point, Greenwald provides a laundry list of clear-as-day misinformation that outlets like CNN, NBC, The New York Times and The Atlantic have disseminated through the Trump era. He cites the Russiagate hoax, the bounties on the heads of US soldiers in Afghanistan hoax, and the Hunter Biden emails are Russian disinformation hoax, among many.

“Corporate outlets beloved by liberals are free to spout serious falsehoods without being deemed guilty of disinformation,” Greenwald notes, “and, because of that, do so routinely.”

It’s not Rogan’s alleged “misinformation” that worries these outlets. It’s their loss of control over the narrative being believed by the masses. They too have much to lose — and they are losing. Rogan’s stats dwarf the viewership of America’s popular cable news channels, even in primetime.

For further proof that “misinformation” is not Joe Rogan’s crime, consider that Neil Young previously released an entire album, The Monsanto Years (2015), which sowed major popular distrust towards genetically modified cropping.

Young released a short anti-GMO documentary, and he went on tour “amplifying misinformation about GMOs to large mainstream audiences”. He was also interviewed by Steven Colbert on The Late Show, where he warned of “the terrible diseases and all of the things that are happening” to people who eat genetically modified products.

To Joe Rogan’s credit, he released a nine-minute video via Spotify in which he graciously addresses his critics, admits various failings, and clarifies that he is no expert but enjoys hearing from experts across the ideological divide. His message would disarm all but the most dedicated censorship enthusiasts.

In the video, Rogan addresses the hot potato that is ‘misinformation’, and makes a good case for why his show deserves to stay up:

The problem I have with the term ‘misinformation’ — especially today — is that many of the things that we thought of as misinformation just a short while ago are now accepted as fact.

“Like for instance, eight months ago if you said, ‘If you get vaccinated you can still catch covid and you can still spread covid,’ you would be removed from social media. They would ban you from certain platforms. Now, that’s accepted as fact.

“If you said, ‘I don’t think cloth masks work,’ you would be banned from social media. Now that’s openly and repeatedly stated on CNN.

“If you said, ‘I think it’s possible that Covid-19 came from a lab,’ you would be banned from many social media platforms. Now that’s on the cover of Newsweek.”

Precisely. “Misinformation” is whatever the cultural imperialists decide it is at any given moment, until they change their mind or the truth catches up with them.

Rather than censoring him, Rogan’s critics would do well to listen to his podcast. By doing so, they may even learn what their future opinions will be.

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 TWEET:

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

The Truth About Liberal Policies

Many thanks to Laser List member Jeff Walyus for this fantastic rhetorical approach.  I have found it enormously helpful on many occasions.


The truth about liberal policies is that they hurt people.  Let’s look at just the latest examples.

The New York Times made an astounding admission in November. Democrats run the show in Illinois, California, and New York, and have for decades, but blue states are doing worse than red states in many key respects: lack of affordable housing, disparities in education funding, rising economic inequality – all things liberals and Democrats profess to care about and for which they claim to have all the answers.  The New York Times was brutal in its assessment of blue state results:

… blue states are the problem.  Blue states are where the housing crisis is located.  Blue states are where the disparities in education funding are the most dramatic.  Blue states are the places where tens of thousands of homeless people are living on the streets.  Blue states are the places where economic inequality is increasing most quickly in this country.  This is not a problem of not doing well enough.  It is a situation where blue states are the problem.

Let’s take a closer look at one of those blue states, Washington, out on the Left Coast.  America’s schools are following in the footsteps of Seattle to indoctrinate students on racial equity. But Seattle’s efforts to teach racial equity and ethnic studies have been marked by animus, lies, and worsening results.  Academic achievement as measured by state test scores went down after instruction on “power and oppression” was emphasized over math in 2018.  Pass rates for whites and blacks both dropped.  The response of the schools?  More ethnic studies and less math.  Despite having equity programs for decades, Seattle schools had one of the worst black-white student achievement gaps in the nation, as of 2017.  Liberal policies did not make things better.  They made them worse.

Another admission comes from a liberal book author who worked on progressive causes in San Francisco.  Like other west coast cities, San Francisco adopted policies that enabled homelessness, drug dealing, and crime.  All the problems he set about to solve got worse, instead.  He pins the blame on the liberal mindset that labels people victims and makes excuses for their destructive behavior.  San Francisco is where Walgreens closed 15 stores because shoplifting there is so bad and the penalties for it have been reduced.  Do you suppose the people who walked to those stores for their prescriptions are better off now?

Liberals have pushed Child Tax Credits, food stamps, and super-sized Obamacare subsidies, but a recent report shows people can make more from these programs than from work.  These programs disincentivize work and allow people to stay home and not return to the work force.  Maybe, if you’re a Democrat politician, you like the idea of making people more dependent on government and, thus, on you.  But any normal person can see this is not a healthy development and it’s unsustainable.

Democrats want to massively increase federal spending on transportation which they view as systemically racist.  But more mass transit and fewer cars will hurt the poor.  A study found that cars provide urban households with better access to jobs and economic opportunities than other forms of transportation.  Cars reduce neighborhood poverty exposure by 3 to 4 percent.

Liberals love the teachers unions, but collective bargaining agreements for teachers produce worse outcomes for students, especially minority students.  Liberals also love rent control, but it’s well-known rent control produces housing shortages because it destroys the incentive to build new housing.

Rising homelessness.  Out-of-control shoplifting.  Worse educational outcomes.  Fewer economic opportunities.  Not only do liberal policies not work, they actually hurt people.  In their impulse to make a perfect world and end all human suffering, liberals end up making things worse.  This is why you should not support them, no matter how good they make things sound.  They might be good at dazzling rhetoric, but they’re terrible at good governance.  Which would you rather have?

Visit The Daily Skirmish

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

England Ends Mask and Vaccine Mandate, Czech Republic Does Too, But US Democrats WANT MORE HARSH MANDATES

England ends mask mandates, working from home and vaccine passports. But in many countries, draconian restrictions still apply. So we must continue to campaign to end the mandates, restrictions and vaccine passports in other countries.

 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson ends mask and vaccine requirements in England

By Karen Curtis | WFTL January 19, 2022

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has scrapped his Covid-19 Plan B in England, no longer requiring face masks in school or working from home, signaling the beginning of the end of coronavirus.

Johnson also ended the use of Covid-19 passports.

Boris Johnson’s announcement followed a “welcome decrease” in the number of coronavirus infections throughout the UK.

“The numbers in intensive care not only remain low but are actually also falling.”

England will go to “Plan A”, on January 26th and the PM told the House of Commons that soon, self-isolation rules for people who test positive will be scrapped as well.

Will President Biden follow suit in the US? The president will speak today and take questions from the press about the COVID surge on this one year anniversary of his presidency.

England’s Covid Plan B restrictions including work-from-home guidance will be scrapped, the Prime Minister has announced.

Boris Johnson told MPs that people are no longer being asked to work from home and, from Thursday next week when Plan B measures lapse, mandatory Covid certification will end.

The Government will also no longer mandate the wearing of face masks anywhere from next Thursday and they will be scrapped in classrooms from tomorrow.

The Prime Minister also confirmed the intention to end the legal requirement to self-isolate when the regulations expire on March 24 and said the Government may move that date forward. (The Independent)

And in the Czech Republic:

Meanwhile, in barking mad left-wing America:

England ends mask mandates, working from home and vaccine passports. But Democrat America wants harsher measures still, including taking away your children…

RELATED ARTICLES:

CDC Finally Admits Cloth Masks Don’t Work

INSANE: Poll Shows 45% Of Dems Approve Sending Unvaccinated To ‘Designated Facilities’

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

VIDEO: Biden Isn’t Joe-King with Mandate

Attorneys general in 24 states sent a letter to President Biden yesterday, threatening legal action if he follows through on his threat to mandate private companies with more than 100 employees to require their employees either take the coronavirus vaccine, submit to weekly testing, or be fired. One of those attorneys general, Dave Yost of Ohio, explained further on “Washington Watch.”

“What the president said he wanted to do,” said Yost, “seems clearly beyond his authority.” President Biden plans to define coronavirus as an occupational safety hazard to be enforced by the Department of Labor, a step clearly outside the intended purpose of the law, the letter argued.

“Congress writes the laws, not the president. He doesn’t get to govern by dictate,” said Yost. “The difference between a democracy and a monarchy or a dictatorship is that in a democracy laws have to be written by a representative body, a congress or a parliament. In a monarchy or a dictatorship, one executive decides what the rules are and they enforce them. That is just fundamentally opposite our constitutional order.”

Not only is President Biden circumventing Congress’ authority to write laws, said Yost, but he is interfering with health issues which are properly considered “part of the police power that belongs to the states.” (Thus, to date, the CDC has issued only recommended guidelines, which state health departments have adopted, modified, or rejected. Mask mandates and lockdowns were widely issued by state governors, but the federal government only issued a mask mandate covering areas of federal jurisdiction, like federal property and air travel.)

Everyone, even the Biden administration, understands the president lacks the authority for such a mandate. “They know they don’t have the legal authority,” Yost explained, “but they do it knowing it’ll be in the courts forever.” President Biden’s strategy seems strikingly similar to one he employed only weeks ago, when he unilaterally extended an illegal moratorium on evictions, in direct violation of a Supreme Court ruling. Then, Biden admitted his action was illegal, but he was simply buying time for his policies. He said he sought the “ability to, if we have to appeal, to keep this going for a month at least. I hope longer.”

In striking down Biden’s eviction moratorium, the Supreme Court stated clearly that the Constitution “does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.” They added, “we expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of ‘vast economic and political significance.'” It seems President Biden is simply calculating he can force many businesses to comply with his diktat before the Supreme Court obliterates it.

Yost said the attorneys general would likely ask for a temporary restraining order — when the administration actually produces a regulation. “Right now, it’s not in effect.” (Some private companies have begun requiring vaccination as a condition of employment, but that is their own decision.)

The silver lining of President Biden’s brazen lawlessness is that it serves to highlight the checks and balances of America’s federal system. When you don’t live in a monarchy ruled by King Joseph the First. When 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue overreaches, it triggers a reaction across town at the Supreme Court. But it also triggers a larger wave of resistance from those governments outside the Washington beltway that actually listen to the American people.

COLUMN BY

Joshua Arnold

Media Coordinator. As media coordinator, Joshua serves under the Vice President of Communications in a number of ways, including coordinating interview requests, editing op-eds and press releases, and assisting in various capacities with the Washington Watch radio show.

Joshua hails from Clemson, South Carolina, where he was homeschooled with his five siblings. He graduated from Patrick Henry College with a B.A. in Government and a special emphasis in American Politics and Policy. He later attended the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and graduated as valedictorian with a Master’s in Public Policy, emphasizing Economics and American Policy. Before joining Family Research Council, Joshua also worked for the National Pro-Life Alliance and parentalrights.org, as well as interning in the White House Office of Speechwriting.

Joshua is passionate about policy research and analysis, specifically about developing innovative solutions to the day’s greatest policy challenges from a biblical perspective. He enjoys participating in the life of his local church and exploring a variety of nerdy hobbies ranging from strategy board games to sci-fi television and book series.

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

Reporters Claim a Democrat Bias is Just a Bias to Facts!

After you stop reading and laughing at the heading of this blog read the rest of the insanity coming from the mouths of so called reporters and journalists, the majority of which have no right to call themselves either.

The MSM has become, to all extent and purposes, a mouth piece for the New Socialist Democrat Party.

Everyday we see examples of this, from CNN town halls with mentally incompetent Sniffer Joe and the insane leftist Don Lemon to NBC news anchor, Lester Holt stating that “ fairness is overrated” adding “it’s not necessary to always give two sides equal weight and merit.”

Wow!

Nikole Hannah-Jones from left wing New York Times magazine stated “ all journalism is a form of activism.”

PBS NewsHour White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor stated “ it is my duty as a journalist to bend the moral arc towards justice.”

Left-wing White House reporter April Ryan stated “ I will no longer be objective” after President Trump entered the White House.

The MSM a long time ago had morals, principles and standards that have long been jettisoned in favor of joining in the huge propaganda campaign from the extremists of the New Socialist Democrat Party, especially since that traitor and testosterone challenged Barrack Hussein Obama was in office. They have done nothing but lie about anything contrary to the drive to create the breakdown of the USA and the birth of the Socialist States of America, their dream.

I guess it is good that these liberal, lying, no good, overpaid and useless so called journalists are coming clean. That they see themselves as puppets of the administration now in power.

Their political ambitions cover a wide gamut from local politics to international, with Israel being the target of many of them. Recently a letter signed by hundreds of these so called journalists was published far and wide claiming Israel was an oppressive, violent apartheid state. They used the language of treasonous members of the House like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. I have copied a list of some of the publications represented by these sick people and they include the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, BuzzFeed, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, ABC News, NBC News, NPR, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, and the Chicago Tribune.

Not too many surprises here huh?

Jake Tapper, a particularly obnoxious reporter with the Communist News Network otherwise known as CNN stated he would never have anyone on his show who had supported, still supported or may support the huge lie that the 2020 election was stolen! He called them election liars.

As per the heading of this humble blog many reporters state that their reporting is not a bias towards the Democrats but a bias towards facts!!

Really??????

Further they stated “We are biased in terms of facts. We in the media are biased in terms of we support vaccines. We in the media hire LGBT employees. We are biased against bans against trans or gay people.”

You knew it would not be long before LGBTQI etc. or race were bought into the argument.

Washington Post columnist Perry Bacon Jr. stated “So if we can be honest about those biases … That’s why journalists behaved the way they did when Trump – we are in favor of the person who won the election being president.” Huh??? Great comment Perry! Those English classes didn’t really work for you!!!

They all lied about the lab leak of the China virus mocking and blocking all who thought it was at least plausible.

They all mocked President Trump when he stated he would get the vaccines developed and manufactured in a year. They said they couldn’t trust them. He was lying. Don’t take the vaccine.

How things changed when the election was stolen. Now it’s all about the Biden success in getting the Chinese coronavirus under control. What a joke but wow – what a group of plain disinformation lies.

It is apparent that approximately 85% of the media bends left. Most not just left leaning but bent over left. The First Amendment gives them the right to speak, say and write what they want, but their code of ethics states they should not take everything as given but check, check and check again. Tell the unbiased truth regardless of where it goes. That, sadly, had nothing happened for years and is steadily getting worse. It is important for any socialist state to have a compliant media and this has been achieved.

It is a sad day every day in American and world journalism.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

U.S. borders open to any and all, including jihad terrorists — but not Cubans fleeing Communism

Recently the Cuban people did an almost unheard-of thing. Risking life and limb, they took to the streets to protest their horrific treatment under the Communist regime that has kept the nation in slavery since the putsch that put the Castro brothers in power in 1959. Today, the Cuban people have had enough as the failed Communist economy denies them even life’s most basic necessities. “There’s no food, no medicine, there is no freedom. They do not let us live,” one protester told the BBC.

While this was happening, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made a stunning statement. Directly addressing the Cuban people, he said, “Allow me to be clear: If you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States.”

What makes this even more amazing is that Mayorkas himself is a Cuban immigrant. He knows, or should know, just how bad the Cuban people have it. And while he overtly denies entry to Cubans that may consider fleeing that nation for their own survival, the Biden administration has flung the borders wide open to all but those with a clearly legitimate reason to seek asylum in the U.S.

In another astonishing statement to the House Homeland Security Committee earlier this year, Mayorkas claimed that “the border is secure and the border is not open.” Meanwhile, we have learned that not only is the border surge unprecedented in numbers, with the administration doing nothing to stop it, but Tucker Carlson recently cited irrefutable evidence that, with the explicit complicity of the U.S. military, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is utilizing Laughlin Air Force base in Texas to covertly fly illegal aliens to communities throughout the U.S. in the dead of night.

Most, if not all of these illegals are not legitimate asylum seekers; they are economic migrants. In an interview with Dinesh D’Souza, TV commentator Steve Cortes stated, “They are coming from troubled countries, yes. Places like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras; but those countries, while they are tough neighborhoods, they are not places of systemic political persecution.”

He is exactly right. Refugees and asylum seekers fit under a very specific definition that requires “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Few, if any, Central American migrants meet this standard. The government’s own statistics prove it. For the first nine months of Fiscal Year 2021 (which started October 1, 2020), a total of 191 refugees have been admitted from Latin America and the Caribbean under the State Department’s refugee admittance program.

Even that doesn’t tell the whole story. The State Department no longer provides access to its daily refugee tracking statistics, which provided up-to-the-minute resettlement statistics, including refugee religion and other useful information. Why did they stop?

The Trump administration reduced annual refugee numbers to a trickle. In FY 2020, that total was 11,814, the lowest in the program’s history. Yet despite the Trump ban on immigration from countries of terrorism concern, 25 percent of all refugees came from Islamic countries known to harbor terrorists, as shown in the table below.

Refugee Resettlement
Muslim Nations 2020
Afghanistan        604
Eritrea        475
Ethiopia        116
Iran        137
Iraq        537
Pakistan        169
Somalia        149
Sudan        254
Syria        481
Subtotal     2,922
Total Refugees   11,814
Muslim Nations 25%

The table may not paint a complete picture. A portion of the 2,115 refugees from Burma (Myanmar) resettled in 2020 were likely Rohingya Muslims. While they represent less than two percent of Burma’s population, they comprise 42.7 percent of the population of Myanmar’s Rakhine State. They are considered pariahs throughout the nation and are not recognized by the government. The Rohingya joined the pan-Islamic movement in the 1970s, but have engaged in an insurgency since Myanmar declared independence in 1948.

Increasing numbers of Rohingya Muslims have been resettled to the United States in recent years — about 15,000 since 2009. The State Department formerly banned resettlement of Rohingya Muslims, but today, State seems intent on resettling the most problematic populations throughout the world. And because State no longer provides real-time tracking statistics, it is impossible to know the demographic breakdown of Burmese refugees — there is little doubt, however, that it is substantial number.

The Biden administration lifted President Trump’s FY 2021 refugee cap from 15,000 to 62,500 and promises to raise that number to 125,000 in the next fiscal year, but so far has been unable to replicate the massive refugee program pushed by President Obama. Through June 30, 2021, a total of 4,780 refugees have been admitted for FY 2021. This, however, excludes the Special Immigrant Visa program (SIV), which provides resettlement to Iraqi and Afghan interpreters and others who worked with the U.S. military and other agencies during the conflicts in those nations.

On its face, the SIV program would seem appropriate. Those who assist the U.S. military risk death at the hands of our enemies. During the Vietnam War, we left millions to fend for themselves after we abandoned South Vietnam in 1975. The Vietnamese Communists persecuted many and continue persecuting Vietnam’s indigenous Montagnards because of their assistance to U.S. forces during that war.

Following the Biden administration’s abrupt exit from Afghanistan in the middle of the night, fears mounted, justifiably, that Biden would leave many behind to face firing squads or worse at the hands of the Taliban. Biden has now promised to resettle Afghans (and their families) who worked for the U.S. military — as many as 50,000 or more.

Refugee resettlement expert Ann Corcoran has pointed out however, that 70,000 SIVs have already been admitted to the U.S. “How many interpreters can there be?” she asks.

Over the past four years alone, 43,523 Afghanis have been come to the U.S. under the SIV program.

According to Mary Doetsch, a former State Department employee who worked the refugee program for many years, much of the refugee resettlement program, including the SIV program, is fraught with fraud. Authorities are currently reviewing over 104,000 cases of possible Iraqi refugee and SIV fraud.

Never mind the question of how many actually qualify as “interpreters,” it is impossible to know how many of these may have terrorist intentions, or pose some other security risk. In 2011, two Iraqi nationals granted refugee status were discovered trying to supply terrorists. They were also implicated in IED explosions in Iraq that claimed American lives. That discovery slowed down the SIV program until vetting was improved.

But more generally, European nations have begun to discover the problem with the large Afghan populations now living there. Rampant crime and especially rape have become epidemic, forcing some municipalities to stop accepting any refugees. The mayor of the Austrian city of Tulln, who initially supported the influx of refugees, said, “We’ve had it.”

In 2020, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service processed 706,000 naturalization applications of 970,900 received. This was down from 2019 due to COVID, but the U.S. has been granting legal permanent residence to approximately one million people every year. So our nation is being inundated with refugees and immigrants, some of whom have questionable motives at best.

Yet it is still not enough. The Biden administration wants to import as many illegals as possible. In a little-reported development on this front, the Democrats intend to insert an amnesty provision in the latest budget reconciliation proposal that would fund government operations for the coming year. If successful, that change would provide a path to citizenship and voting for 22 million or more illegal aliens currently residing in the U.S. This is twice the number touted by the Census Bureau for the past decade. Because most would likely vote Democrat, this would guarantee Democrats a monopoly of political power for the foreseeable future. If you think what is happening in Cuba is bad, just wait to see how bad it will become here.

The Democrats earlier attempted to pass H.R. 1, the horribly misnamed “For the People Act,” which would have federalized elections and outlawed most efforts, like voter ID, to prevent vote fraud. Because current Senate rules require a 60/40 vote to overcome a filibuster, this bill fortunately did not pass. But never to be discouraged, Democrats are now proposing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. This proposal, named after civil rights icon John Lewis, is yet another example of the Democrats misleading use of language.

The kind of support it is receiving tells you all you need to know about what they hope to achieve. It was recently touted on the Indivisible website. Indivisible is the extremist group initiated with a manual written by Democrat Congressional staffers calling for people to resist the newly elected Trump administration. Indivisible personified the #RESIST movement during President Trump’s term. Like most overtly partisan leftist groups, Indivisible was granted tax-exempt status by the IRS in 2017 and received millions from the radical Left Tides Foundation and others.

Democrats continue to raise the specter of abolishing the filibuster — which is one of the few arrows in our quiver preventing Democrats from ramming through such unethical, and clearly self-serving legislation. Without a clear path forward for this legislation as long as the filibuster remains in place, Democrats are now looking to amnesty to deliver them the totalitarian power they seek. This is the primary reason Biden has flung the borders open, and why despite almost universal opposition to this nationwide crisis, they will not lift a finger to stem the flow.

Budget reconciliation only requires a simple majority vote. However, it also has some stops that can prevent amnesty from sneaking through. The current Parliamentarian issued a restrictive ruling before, keeping a federal minimum wage out of a previous reconciliation bill. The Byrd Rule prohibits extraneous matters from being included in reconciliation bills. Senators can raise a point of order to enforce the Byrd Rule. It’s up to us to make sure they do. The reconciliation bill includes $126 billion to create a pathway to citizenship for certain categories of illegal aliens. We need to make sure the GOP Senate does its job by preventing this from getting through.

The endless trickery, lies and misinformation peddled by the Biden administration, Democratic legislators and their media propagandists, coupled with their radically destructive agenda, are enough to make one’s head explode. But as I explained in my latest book, Who Was Karl Marx?, this is their intention. The Left has pulled out the stops in its latest power grab. Part of the strategy is to make life intolerable, while at the same time marginalizing anyone who expresses any kind of opposition. The purpose is to push citizens to two extremes, revolt or submit. Neither are acceptable.

Revolt, as the Cubans have now found, will result in a crushing response. Yes, even here in the U.S. The January 6 “insurrection” which was almost certainly set up by the Democrats, as Rep. Louie Gohmert claimed at CPAC Texas this week, is the canary in the coal mine. It demonstrates how viciously the institutional Left are willing to treat opponents under the thinnest of pretexts. Hundreds remain jailed without charge, almost all of whom did little more than enter the Capitol once the doors were open.

A Daily Mail report listed the abuses faced, including solitary confinement, assaults and degrading treatment by jail guards and other abuse. One attorney was quoted as saying, “The DC Central Detention Facility has become Guantanamo Bay for American citizens.”

One claimed to have been “savagely beaten” by guards.

Violence has never been an option. To suspect Trump supporters of engaging in it defies reality. The only organized violence witnessed in this country over the past year has been instigated by the Left, often with the concurrence of Democrat leaders. Submission, however, is not an option either. It would simply grant Democrats the absolute power they seek. And that would not end the pressure. Americans would find that the pressure only increases, as the Left used its newfound power to fleece our nation of every resource we have and ruthlessly punish anyone who objects.

While our eyes are averted, this theft has already been occurring. Much of the trillions in spending already authorized for COVID has actually gone to bail out Democrat spendthrift states and line the pockets of Democrat allies. But other sleazy maneuvers have accomplished similar outcomes.

As of June, 23 states have joined a law suit targeting Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone pipeline. Biden did this as part of the effort to reverse the Trump administration’s success in making America energy independent. It has cost thousands of jobs. Most people are unaware, however, that Biden did not cancel the competing “Line 3” pipeline being constructed by Canadian oil and gas firm Enbridge that traverses indigenous lands in Minnesota. Domestic policy advisor Susan Rice owns millions in shares of Enbridge and convinced Biden to keep that one open, despite broad opposition from the Left. This kind of bottomless corruption and hypocrisy is endemic within the Democrat Party.

Democrats seek absolute power and the wealth that goes with it. The only viable alternative to this overt power grab is overwhelming victory at the polls in 2022 and 2024. We are already seeing a building momentum as citizens across the nation respond to public education’s efforts to indoctrinate our children to the divisive Critical Race Theory and horrifically destructive transgender agenda. Governors in Florida, South Dakota, Texas and other red states are taking action, offering attractive alternatives.

Citizens are voting with their feet to find these islands of sanity, and as this has shown, the Left’s destructive agenda is wildly unpopular. Yet with most media, the education establishment and other institutions of culture in their grip, too many people remain ignorant. Our only option is to fight at every level to maintain the freedom that has made America a lantern to the world for centuries. We cannot go silent into this good night.

COLUMN BY

James Simpson is a bestselling author, investigative journalist, businessman and economist. His latest book is Who Was Karl Marx? The Men, the Motives and the Menace Behind Today’s Rampaging American Left.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer Video: Who Collected the Qur’an?

Can the Hamas-Linked AP Any Longer Be Considered a News Source?

Nigeria: Senate passes bill proposing 10 years prison for using ‘hate speech’ to ‘stir up religious hatred’

Germany: Economics Ministry advisory board wants to eliminate freedom of the press, criminalize criticism of Islam

Algeria: Muslim athlete withdraws from Olympics to avoid facing Israeli opponent

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

The Vague Grounds of ‘Systemic’ Racism

David Carlin: Is “systemic racism” real?  Or is it an abuse of language, stretching the meaning of the word “racism” beyond its legitimate bounds?


The issue of equality is almost always on the American national agenda. It was so from the day the Declaration of Independence was signed; it’s been so again and again in the years since 1776. And today it is prominent as Americans once again consider how to reduce inequalities between men and women, between native-born and immigrants, and above all between whites and blacks.

The idea that “all men are created equal” wasn’t discovered in Philadelphia in 1776. For a precise time and place for its beginning, think of Athens around 300 B.C.  For that was the approximate year when Zeno of Citium founded the Stoic school of philosophy in the city that was the philosophical capital of the Greek world.  Stoicism taught that all humans are equal in that they possess reason, a godlike attribute; and that reason is the best of all human things, better than wealth, health, strength, fame, good looks, etc.  In other words, that all humans are equal is what is most important.

This was a great theoretical breakthrough, though it didn’t have much immediate practical effect.  In the immediate aftermath of this great Stoic discovery, slaves were still slaves; rich people could still lord it over poor people; men could still push women around, etc.

The coming of Christianity was another great leap forward in the spread of the idea of universal human equality, for a number of reasons.

(1) Christianity was a universal religion, that is, a religion open to any and all humans, regardless of race or nationality or sex or wealth or status as slave or free.  This made it a very different thing from the many local religions found in the Roman world, including the Jewish religion.  It did however require initiation (Baptism), but this initiation was open to all who were willing to subscribe to the basic Christian articles of faith.

(2) Christianity regarded God as a universal God, as the Creator and Father of all human beings, regardless of race, nationality, etc.

(3) Christianity held that that Jesus Christ had suffered and died in atonement for the sins of all human beings. Centuries later John Calvin and his followers held that Jesus had not died for all, but only for some, namely the Elect.  But this notorious Calvinist doctrine is a deviation from ancient Christian orthodoxy.

(4) The great Christian sacrament of the Eucharist was open to all Christians without regard to wealth or power or sex or social status. It was no less open to a slave than to a king, no less open to a homeless person than to a multi-billionaire, no less open to a woman than to a man, no less open to a Greek than to a Jew.

(5) Christianity taught that the rules of morality are the same for all human beings; that all humans should abstain from murder, adultery, theft, lying, and so on; and that all humans should love their neighbors.

(6) Christianity taught that all humans have the potential for becoming saints; that is, for enjoying eternal happiness in the company of God.

(7) Of course sanctity, according to Christianity, is not possible without the assistance of the grace of God; but Christianity also taught that this saving grace is available to all humans.  Again, Calvinists disagreed; they held that God’s saving grace is available to the Elect only.

It was inevitable that this religious or spiritual equality would eventually, if slowly, spill over into the secular realm. By the 18th century, equality in the eyes of God had evolved into the idea that all humans are – or rather, should be– equal before the law. This meant that nobles would have to lose their legal privileges, and it also meant that slavery would have to be done away with.

But in a post-slavery world, further inequalities remained, most notably the great gap between rich and poor, a gap that grew greater as capitalist modernization proceeded.  In the United States, we have tried to justify this gap with the idea of “equality of opportunity.”  To the degree that all runners have an equal chance of winning in the great and universal American race for social and economic prizes, we consider the resulting inequalities to be fair.  At the same time, we as a society have a duty to reduce or eliminate whatever might prevent an equal start in this great race – we must, for instance, reduce discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, class, religion, etc.  And to a great extent, we have done this. Impartial surveys such as the one here show America and other developed countries to be among the least racist in the world.

In recent years, however, many loud and increasingly influential voices have shouted, “Equality of opportunity is not enough; besides, it is impossible to bring about.”  Instead, we are told, our national equality slogan should be, “Equality of outcome.”  This is especially true when it comes to comparisons between whites and blacks.  When blacks (on average) are worse off than whites (on average) in income, wealth, education, arrests, imprisonment, drug addiction, residential quality, life expectancy, and so on, these inequalities are the results (so we are told by these clamorous voices) of “systemic racism” or “structural racism.”

One of the great merits of Catholic colleges in the old days, when these colleges weren’t very good academically in comparison with their secular peers, was that they made students take a course in elementary logic, a course that usually placed a strong emphasis on the nature and importance of definition.  Catholic colleges nowadays, far more up-to-date than they were when I was young, don’t worry much about elementary logic courses.  Too bad.  For before Catholics with a strong social conscience rush into battle against the evils of systemic racism, they should pause for a moment to ask for a definition.

Is systemic racism a kind of racism?  Or is it (as I suspect) an abuse of language, stretching the meaning of the word “racism” beyond its legitimate bounds?

COLUMN BY

David Carlin

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

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

Did Rashida Tlaib Just Commit Treason?

My latest in PJ Media:

The noble and patriotic Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Gaza) has a big new idea: defund not only the police, but Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Why? Because they engage in terrorism, of course. The Democrat effort to scapegoat and criminalize all opposition to the Leftist agenda in response to their imaginary January 6 “insurrection” is gathering steam, and now Tlaib wants to take it even farther, treating organizations dedicated to defending the United States as if they were enemies of the state. In the Left’s new America, that’s exactly what they are.

An interviewer asked Tlaib what she thought of Biden’s handlers’ proposal to try to bring the border fiasco under control with new technology. Tlaib took the opportunity to advance her modest proposal: “Look, the simple answer to that question is we must eliminate funding for CBP, ICE and their parent organization, DHS. Time after time we have seen it as advocates on the ground, as human services agencies on the ground continue to see over and over again, that these agencies are inept to humanely guiding migrants through our immigration system and instead they further continue to terrorize migrant communities located within our communities.”

Insofar as these agencies “terrorize migrant communities,” Tlaib likely considers them to be among the “white supremacist” domestic terrorists that the Biden administration has vowed to go after. And since they’re engaging in terrorism against “migrant communities,” giving them improved technology is the last thing Biden’s handlers should be considering doing. “This approach,” Tlaib declared, “is something that many, especially the new members of Congress, are coming with full force and pushing back against this idea.”

The very idea of trying to improve border security is (what else?) racist: “They rename this kind of militarization or targeting in a very inhumane way of our immigrant neighbors, but when it comes down to it, it is the same thing — which is targeting communities of color in a way that to me very much violates human rights and dignity for so many of our communities.”

Instead of new technology at the border, Tlaib said we need reform of our immigration laws, which is true, but not in the way she thinks: “This is a distraction to what is really needed, which is full comprehensive immigration reform policies in our country. We are far from even getting to that conversation because people are distracted with these for-profit, corporate greed approaches that are coming to experiment on our immigrants and our border. And I say enough.”

So in Rashida Tlaib’s ideal world, the United States would have new immigration laws that would presumably remove whatever restrictions that still remain on entry into the United States, as well as any remaining penalties on illegal entry. Meanwhile, she would defund the police, the border and immigration enforcement agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security.

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Renowned Islamic preacher Zakir Naik defends capital punishment for homosexuals

Global Islamic leaders join wanted preacher Zakir Naik to build center to spread Islam in Norway

Sunday’s rally against anti-Semitism will barely scratch the surface

US Islamic scholar: Elites ‘have to bring down this country, to get all the Jews to go to Israel’

France: 11 Muslims convicted of threatening and tormenting teen who criticized Islam online

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

Nancy Pelosi, High Priestess of the Left’s Cult, Gives Thanks to Floyd Her Savior

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Smirnoff) has been getting a lot of heat, as Matt Margolis detailed, for thanking George Floyd for being good enough to die “for justice.” But amid all the scorn and ridicule Pelosi is justly receiving, a key point is being overlooked: While her words may have sounded mawkish, maudlin, and incomparably tone-deaf to outsiders, to true believers in the left’s new secular religion, everything she said was entirely appropriate. In her capacity as high priestess of this religion, Pelosi was performing a hieratic role and giving thanks to the new savior.

The priestess began by giving thanks to the deity for his salvific sacrifice: “Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice.” Then she recounted a bit of sacred history for the edification of the believers: “For being there to call out to your mom — how heartbreaking was that — to call out for your mom, ‘I can’t breathe.’” She concluded by explaining to the faithful how much they owed to the savior: “Because of you and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will always be synonymous with justice.”

Pelosi is ostensibly a Catholic, and this statement closely follows the pattern of the Catholic Mass, which contains texts giving thanks to the Lord, recounting the institution of the Holy Eucharist, and explaining how Jesus gave his life for the salvation of the world.

In the left’s new religion, racism, or whiteness, is the original sin. This sin manifests itself in all sorts of “systemic” ways, most notably in the alleged police double standard for blacks and whites. George Floyd, in Pelosi’s clouded vision, sacrificed himself just as Jesus did. In Christian thought, Jesus submitted to death in order to destroy it and enable human beings to enjoy eternal life; now George Floyd submitted to racism and police brutality in order to destroy them and enable Americans to enjoy racial justice.

Pelosi’s statement thanking Floyd is thus not only a religious one, but it’s a Christian heresy, a twisting of Christian doctrine for nefarious ends, in this case substituting Floyd for Christ in an effort to sanctify the left’s race-baiting and dangerously irresponsible ratcheting-up of societal tensions by means of hysterical false charges.

While Pelosi is a high priestess of the Floyd cult, she is not its founding prophet. That honor goes to some anonymous spiritual seer in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where last June, according to Dr. Reza Parchizadeh, a political theorist and analyst, “the Iranian regime has turned the late #George_Floyd into Saint George, Shiite-style!” Parchizadeh posted a painting of Floyd depicting him in the way Shi’ite Muslims often depict their holy figures: in a green robe and surrounded by an aura of holy light. As incongruous as the image was, it was perfectly fitting: Floyd, whose murder touched off the rage for destruction that is still afflicting America today despite the conviction of Derek Chauvin, is the perfect symbol for the Iranian Islamic regime’s oft-repeated aspiration: “Death to America.”

Now that Pelosi has endorsed this cult, expect it to grow further, even exponentially. The inconvenient details of Floyd’s life have already been glossed over for months. Never mind the fentanyl, never mind the convictions for robbery, theft, and drug dealing, never mind the pistol he held to a woman’s stomach while robbing her – none of that matters or besmirches Floyd’s salvific mission in any way. Basketball great Magic Johnson tweeted Tuesday: “Great speech by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison describing George Floyd as a father, family man, and beloved member of his community. It was beautiful and sent chills down my body! If you didn’t see it, I encourage you all to watch it.”

That’s a big miss for me, Earvin, but you’ll have to pardon me, you see, I am not an adherent of your religious faith. Don’t be concerned, however; many people are, and their numbers are growing every day. Now that Derek Chauvin (aka Satan) has been driven out, a new messianic era of racial justice will dawn, in which the faithful will gather together joyfully to sing their praises to the savior, the one who died to give them life. In this glorious year of Our Floyd, our racial redemption is finally at hand.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Algeria: Islamic scholar criticizes child marriage, gets three years in prison for ‘offending Islam’

Biden’s handlers recognize Armenian Genocide

Austria: Police find ‘enemies list’ in raids on members of Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas

Czechia: Muslim cleric gets prison for financing jihad terror, says he is not a terrorist and what he did was right

UK prison chaplain admits he may have been ‘conned’ by jihadi who showed remorse and then killed two people

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

House Passes Democrat Bill Criminalizing Private Gun Sales

Like the Nazis, the Democrats wish to disarm the citizenry. Gun control has never been about guns. It’s about control.

“Every episode of genocide in the past century has been preceded by assiduous efforts to disarm the victims first. Turkish Armenia, The Holocaust, The USSR, Soviet Occupied Poland…”

“….totalitarian governments are the most likely to perpetrate mass murder. Part IV argues against the complacent belief that any nation, including the United States, is immune from the dangers of being taken over by a murderous government. The historical record shows that risks are very broad.

THE RECORD ALSO SHOWS THAT GOVERNMENTS INTENT ON MASS MURDER PRIORITIZE VICTIM DISARMAMENT. SUCH GOVERNMENTS CONSIDER VICTIM ARMAMENT TO BE A SERIOUS IMPEDIMENT TO MASS MURDER AND TO THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF, AS DESCRIBED IN PARTS V AND VI.

Finally, Part VII consider the efficacy of citizen arms against mass murdering governments. Citizen arms are most effective as deterrents. If a regime does initiate mass murder, rebellions seeking regime change usually fail. However, even without changing the regime, the historical record shows that armed resistance can accomplish a great deal, including the saving of many lives.” David B. Kopel, “Fewer Guns, More Genocide: Europe In The Twentieth Century”

House Passes Democrat Bill Criminalizing Private Gun Sales

The U.S. House of Representatives passed universal background check gun control Thursday, criminalizing private gun sales conducted apart from an FBI background check.

By: AWR Hawkins. Breitbart News, 11 Mar 2021:

The legislation, H.R. 8, sponsored by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), passed by a vote of 227 to 203.

H.R. 8 would expand retail point-of-sale background checks so as to cover private points-of-sale. This will criminalize an individual who sells a 5-shot revolver to a lifelong neighbor, unless that neighbor first undergoes a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check, conducted by the FBI.

On Wednesday, bill sponsor Thompson claimed, without evidence, his bill is supported by “90 percent of the American [people].”

H.R. 8 was passed by the House in early 2019 as well, but never taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate. Democrat gains in the current Senate suggest the legislation will be discussed this time around.

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.