There is nothing short of a mass UPRISING in the GOP! RINO Establishment leaders are Getting PURGED as more and more pundits are indeed seeing the potential rise of a PATRIOT PARTY! In this video, we’re going to take a look at the latest examples of the MAGA grassroots getting rid once and for all of their neocon leadership, how Republicans in DC are panicking that an impeachment trial in the Senate could destroy their party, and why more and more pundits are seeing the very real possibility of a Patriot Party permanently replacing the feckless and cowardly GOP! You are NOT going to want to miss this!

Biden ‘Fueling Next Illegal Immigration Crisis’ by Halting Border Wall Project, CBP Chief Warns

New administration kills border wall on day one


SEE: https://www.newswars.com/biden-fueling-next-illegal-immigration-crisis-by-halting-border-wall-project-cbp-chief-warns/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Biden administration is already fueling a new migration catastrophe by stopping construction of the border wall, former Customs and Border Protection chief Mark Morgan has warned.

Morgan, who served as chief of Border Patrol under President Obama and most recently as acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection in the Trump administration, blasted President Biden over his decision to suspend the wall project on his first day in office.

“Our country is less safe today than it was the day before because of President Biden,” Morgan told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo.

“By doing this … the border patrol agents defending it are less safe. It’s outrageous. And I hope every American citizen in this country pays attention to what’s coming next.”


‘In the Strong Name of Our Collective Faith’? Closing of Inauguration Benediction, LACKING IN JESUS’ NAME, Refuted by Pastor




Matthew 24:10 - And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

Matthew 24:12 - And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

2 Timothy 3:1-5, “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these,”

2 Timothy 4:3-4, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.”

John 14:13-14 and John 16:23-24 are some of the most powerful verses in all of scripture related to prayer. In fact, when most of us pray we conclude with the phrase, "in Jesus' name."

But what does it mean to pray in the name of Jesus? When we pray in Jesus' name

1. We are admitting the bankruptcy of our own name.

When I pray in Jesus' name I come boldly before God because of the power of his name. It would be like a bride coming from abject poverty to marry a wealthy husband. At that point the woman takes the name of her husband and all that entails. She no longer acts in her name, but in his.

2. We identify with the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus has literally given us his name. When I use that name, I am confessing that he is mine and that I am his. It is like going to the bank of heaven, knowing I have nothing deposited. If I go in my name I will get absolutely nothing. But Jesus Christ has unlimited funds in heaven's bank, and he has granted me the privilege of going to the bank with his name on my checks.

3. We pray in his authority.

We are like the child who picked up a policeman's hat, wandered out onto a busy intersection and began to direct traffic. The people in the cars followed the child's direction because they respected his position of authority. To pray in his name is to ask by his authority; and to ask by his authority is to ask in accordance to his will as revealed in his word.

4. We submit to his will.

Jesus' authority rested with his submission to the Father, so our authority rests with our submission to him. To ask in his name is to ask according to his nature, and his nature is one of submission. This, by the way, is why prayers that ask for things contrary to the Word of God will never be answered.

5. We are representing him and his interests here on earth.

It is much the same as the legal arrangement known as the power of attorney. In such matters one person may represent another in his absence. They act in their behalf. Jesus has given every believer unlimited and general power of attorney in all matters and with the right to use his name in every situation.

6. We pray expectantly.

When we pray in Jesus' name, we may expect the answer in accord with the value of his name. So we can pray with great and excited expectation.


SEE: https://christiannews.net/2021/01/21/in-the-strong-name-of-our-collective-faith-closing-of-inauguration-benediction-refuted-by-pastor/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

WASHINGTON — “In the strong name of our collective faith, amen” was how Silvester Beaman of the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Delaware ended his benediction on Wednesday during the Biden-Harris inauguration. His avoidance of using the name of Jesus in the prayer was noted by at least one pastor, who refuted Beaman’s choice of words online.

“It must be said: there is no such name,” wrote Mike Riccardi, the pastor of Local Outreach Ministries at John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California.

“And even if there were, that name would not be the only name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12),” he noted. “It would not be the name above every name — the name to which every knee will bow and every tongue will swear allegiance (Phil 2:9-11). It would not be the name of Christ, in whom alone are the promises of God yes and amen (2 Cor 1:20).”

Beaman, a longtime friend of the Biden family who participated in the funeral for Beau Biden in 2015, had been asked by Joe Biden to close out the inauguration ceremony with prayer.

“Joe Biden is a man whose life experiences have taught him to seek the face of God,” Beaman told NBC News. “He’s had some dark times in his life. And he’s someone who is naturally a person of faith. He prays and listens to God.”

“We need a president who is after the heart of God,” he continued. “In these terrible times, if anybody can bring healing and reconciliation to a divided country, if we give him room to work, Joe Biden can be that person.”

On Wednesday, Beaman asked for God’s favor on Biden and Harris, controversial figures who were opposed by Christians in the election primarily because of their support for homosexuality, transgenderism and abortion “rights.”

“God, we gather under the beauty of your holiness and the holiness of your beauty. We seek Your face, Your smile, Your warm embrace,” he said. “We petition you once more in this celebration. We pray for divine favor upon our president, Joseph R. Biden, and our first lady, Dr. Jill Biden, and their family.”

“We further ask that you would extend the same favor upon our vice president, Kamala D. Harris, and our second gentleman, Doug Emhoff, and their family,” Beaman continued. “More than ever they and our nation need You.”

In keeping with the theme of unity, he spoke of realizing the common humanity, which compels one to have compassion for the sick, poor, elderly and oppressed. In brevity, Beaman also mentioned confessing sin and seeking forgiveness.

“In you, O God, we discover our humanity. And in our humanity, we discover our commonness, beyond the difference of color, creed, origin, political party, ideology, geography and personal preferences,” Beaman stated, remarking that men should “make friends of our enemies.”

He also touched on the nation’s stain of slavery, noting that slaves had been used to build the U.S. Capitol building.

“Let us all acknowledge from the indigenous Native American to those who recently received their citizenship, from the African American to those whose foreparents came from Europe and every corner of the globe, from the wealthy to those struggling to make it, for every human being — regardless of their choices, that this is our country,” he proclaimed.

“As such, teach us, O God, to live in it, love in it, be healed in it, and be reconciled to one another in it, lest we miss kingdom’s goal.”

Beaman then ended the prayer with, “To Your glory, majesty, dominion and power forever. Hallelujah. Glory, hallelujah,” the latter of which when literally translated means, “Praise Yahweh.”

But then he said, most likely to again incorporate the theme of unity, “In the strong name of our collective faith, amen.”

View Beaman’s benediction in full here or watch the video below.


Riccardi shared his thoughts about the prayer on social media Wednesday evening.

“We do not petition the Father in the name of our faith. Our faith is worthless apart from the object in which it trusts,” Riccardi wrote. “To come before God in the name of our faith is to come before God in our own name, which is blasphemous, idolatrous, and hopeless for those who do not possess the infinite righteousness required for fellowship with God.”

He said that God accepts nothing less than coming to Him in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ.

“Instead, those who would hope to receive anything from the Father must come to Him in the name of Christ His Son, for all the promises of God are yes in Him alone,” Riccardi outlined. “And coming before God in the name of Christ — who has accomplished the infinite righteousness required for fellowship with God — in union with Him we are heard for Christ’s sake.”

“Our prayers before the Father — the holiest of which are laced with enough sin to damn the entire human race for eternity — are thus sanctified in the sweet name of God’s dear Son, and received as a sweet-smelling aroma of the sacrifice of His own precious blood,” he said.

“Solus Christus.”

Read Riccardi’s post in full here.

1 Timothy 2:5 states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Psalm 96:5 also teaches, “For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens.”

The late Anglican preacher J.C. Ryle also once said, “Live a courageous life. Confess Christ before men. Whatever station you occupy, in that station confess Christ. Why should you be ashamed of Him? He was not ashamed of you on the cross.”

“He is ready to confess you now before His Father in Heaven. Why should you be ashamed of Him? Be bold. Be very bold. The good soldier is not ashamed of his uniform. The true believer ought never be ashamed of Christ.”



At the close of his prayer at the inauguration, Dr. Silvester Beaman concluded, “To your glory, majesty, dominion and power forever. Hallelujah. Glory, Hallelujah. In the strong name of our collective faith, amen.”

It must be said: there is no such name.

And even if there were, that name would not be the only name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). It would not be the name above every name—the name to which every knee will bow and every tongue will swear allegiance (Phil 2:9-11). It would not be the name of Christ, in whom alone are the promises of God yes and amen (2 Cor 1:20).

We do not petition the Father in the name of our faith. Our faith is worthless apart from the object in which it trusts. If we came before the throne of God solely in the name our faith, we would be cast into hell, for our faith has nothing in it that is virtuous or meritorious before God.

To come before God in the name of our faith is to come before God in our own name, which is blasphemous, idolatrous, and hopeless for those who do not possess the infinite righteousness required for fellowship with God.

Instead, those who would hope to receive anything from the Father must come to Him in the name of Christ His Son, for all the promises of God are yes in Him alone. And coming before God in the name of Christ—who has accomplished the infinite righteousness required for fellowship with God—in union with Him we are heard for Christ’s sake. Our prayers before the Father—the holiest of which are laced with enough sin to damn the entire human race for eternity—are thus sanctified in the sweet name of God’s dear Son, and received as a sweet smelling aroma of the sacrifice of His own precious blood.

Solus Christus.

Little children, guard yourselves from idols (1 John 5:20).


Biden Signs Order Directing Admin to Ban Discrimination Based on ‘Gender Identity,’ ‘Sexual Orientation’


SEE: https://christiannews.net/2021/01/21/biden-signs-order-directing-admin-to-ban-discrimination-based-on-gender-identity-sexual-orientation/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

WASHINGTON — Within hours of taking the oath of office, President Joe Biden signed an order on Wednesday directing his administration to review all existing federal orders, policies, regulations and guidance documents and see whether they should be revised to comply with his new policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of so-called gender identity and sexual orientation.

His order seems to suggest that “transgenders” will be permitted to use their preferred restroom and locker room, and play on the sports team that corresponds with their “gender identity.”

“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports,” the order, entitled “Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation,” reads.

“Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes,” it continues. “People should be able to access healthcare and secure a roof over their heads without being subjected to sex discrimination.”

Biden’s order asserts that the aforementioned rights of transgenders and homosexuals are “reflected in the Constitution,” which requires equal protection of the laws.

It also points to last year’s Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the court ruled 6-3 that a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, known as Title VII, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex, among other traits, may be read to include homosexuals and “transgenders.”

The order deduces that the ruling would consequently also apply to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Fair Housing Act, and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Biden then declares, “It is the policy of my administration to prevent and combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, and to fully enforce Title VII and other laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.”

It consequently directs every agency within his administration, “as soon as practicable and in consultation with the attorney general,” to “review all existing orders, regulations, guidance documents, policies, programs, or other agency actions” and “consider whether to revise, suspend, or rescind such agency actions, or promulgate new agency actions, as necessary to fully implement statutes that prohibit sex discrimination.”

Agencies have 100 days to come up with a plan to make federal policies and guidance come into alignment with his executive order.

Read the order in full here. 

The religious liberties organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing three girls in Connecticut who state that they lost opportunities for advancement in high school track as they were bested by two biological males, lamented Biden’s move.


“Unfortunately, the Biden administration wasted no time in demanding policies that gut legal protections for women by denying female athletes fair competition in sports, ignoring women’s unique health needs, and forcing vulnerable girls to share intimate spaces with men who identify as female,” remarked Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb in a statement.

“This isn’t equality, and it isn’t progress,” she said. “President Biden’s call for ‘unity’ falls flat when he seeks to hold those receiving federal funds hostage if they don’t do tremendous damage to the rights, opportunities, and dignity of women and girls.”

Holcomb expressed additional concern about how the order will be enforced, noting, “Where similar policies have already been enacted through state or local laws, they’ve also repeatedly been used to force Americans to celebrate events and speak messages that violate their core beliefs.”

Psalm 94:20 states, “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?”

American theologian Albert Barnes once said in expounding on the passage, “Such laws — such purposes — ‘cannot’ be in accordance with the laws and authority of God; or, in other words, God does not sit on the same throne with those who authorize and by law sustain [sin]. There can be no partnership here.”

“It is an insult to God to suppose that He has ever appointed legislators or magistrates for the purpose of making or upholding such enactments.”


Rep. Mary Miller on US Capitol Breach & Teaching Our Children Good & Evil-American Thought Leaders

In this episode, we sit down with newly elected Illinois Congresswoman Mary Miller, to discuss her experience of the events of January 6th, her response to criticism she received for a recent speech she gave to a mothers’ group, and her vision for America.

A Deep Dive Into “Critical Social Justice” & How It Took Over the Humanities-New Discourses

An American-born author, mathematician, and political commentator, Dr. James Lindsay has written six books spanning a range of subjects including religion, the philosophy of science and postmodern theory. He is the founder of New Discourses and currently promoting his new book "Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody."

Why Schools Are Teaching Our Kids “Social Justice”


SEE: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/10/schools-teaching-kids-social-justice/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Woke have a very specific conception of the world and a very specific mission that has everything to do with that conception. Most of us, going about our daily lives and getting hit with Critical Social Justice — the ideology that leads one to become “woke” — don’t understand this. We mistake what is, in fact, an entire worldview for a set of fringe ideas dealing with socially important issues like racism, sexism, and transgender rights. Most of us see “Wokeness,” in other words, as something that’s probably mostly good or, at worst, well-intentioned and benign.

When it comes to our children’s schools, then, many of us will conclude that it’s necessary and important in our modern, progressive world for our children to learn about these sorts of issues, and we trust our educators to communicate important truths about them so our kids can keep doing the good work of building a better society.

This kindly liberal view, borne from a combination of good intentions and being too busy to learn otherwise, misunderstands the Critical Social Justice ideology at the most fundamental level, however. It therefore completely misses the specific mission woke people—and woke educators—have for our society and our children. The crux of that mission is hiding in plain sight in the word “woke” itself, and it has everything to do with why we should be opposed to seeing these ideas featured in our educational system.

The mission of Critical Social Justice, to use its right name, is to “awaken” people to the so-called “realities” of systemic oppression in society, as it defines it—thus, “woke.” People who are woke are people who have been trained to see systemic oppression in a particular way, which has been outlined in an otherwise obscure branch of philosophy known as Critical Theory. Speaking formally, the Woke are people who have developed a “critical consciousness” about the identity-based systems of power that are alleged to permeate and define all of society, creating profound and almost intractable injustices that must be “disrupted and dismantled” to achieve “liberation.” The goal of “anti-racist,” “culturally aware,” and “social justice” approaches to education is to awaken a critical consciousness in our children so that they will grow up not to think critically but to think in terms of Critical Theories.

To understand why this isn’t just a problem but an incredibly alarming one requires understanding how the Critical Theories in Critical Social Justice see the world. That is, you have to understand what your kids will be “woke up” to in their classrooms.

To take the issue of race, Critical Race Theory begins with the assumption that racism is ordinary in our societies and present in all interactions and social and cultural phenomena, and it is up to the Critical Race Theorist—using a Woke critical consciousness—to “make it visible” and “call it out.” In Critical Race Theory, the question is not “did racism take place?” but rather, “how did racism manifest in that situation?”

Rather than learning how to do mathematics, then, your children will be taught to ask questions like how mathematics is used to maintain racial oppression—for it must, according to Critical Race Theory. This is precisely the sort of curriculum that we already see in the Ethnic Studies program in the state of Washington and its “ethnomathematics” project. Rather than focusing on the mechanics of mathematics, students will be taught to focus on the ways they can explore topics like racism and oppression through mathematics, or leaning on math as a foil that facilitates discussions on important topics—like “who it benefits” to focus on getting right answers in mathematics.

Other subjects will be similar, if not worse. A Critical Theory approach to studying American history will be dedicated to making students woke to all of the ways the United States, from its founding, has been an unjust, oppressive nation that systemically oppresses certain identity groups. This shouldn’t be understood to be part of a balanced program that reckons honestly with the darker aspects of our national past as framed against the liberal promises that eventually—and painfully—have won great freedom and equality to our diverse citizenry. It will be a sustained program of teaching our children how America is a horrible nation that has never been able to or even wanted to live up to its promise of all men having been created equally, as individuals. “Whiteness is property,” they will instruct, and that property is theft—slogans we have heard repeated as justifications for race-based riots throughout this ugly summer.

Indeed, many such programs will claim that the United States was founded intentionally on genocide, slavery, and a principle of white supremacy and anti-Blackness that has never been repaired. Its legacy is white privilege and white comfort that must be challenged at every opportunity if we are ever to achieve racial equity. Already, at least in the state of California, a proposed – although rejected – curriculum would teach these lessons not as history but as “hxrstory,” where “his” has been replaced by an explicitly “non-binary” formulation of “her,” so that maleness and cisheteronormativity won’t accidentally be centered in the term. (By the way, “his-story” isn’t even the genuine etymology of the word history, but Critical Theory looks for oppression hidden in unlikely symbols, even when it doesn’t make sense.)

Bringing Critical Social Justice into our educational systems is therefore not beneficent or benign. It is a deliberate attempt to try to program our children to think in an explicitly cynical, pessimistic, and falsely sociological way about all matters relevant to identity in every possible subject, including our history and even science and mathematics. The goal is to make our children woke, to give them a critical consciousness with which they will, unlike their parents, know that the point of understanding society is to change it in a very narrow and increasingly divisive way.

Editor’s Note: This article has been revised to clarify that a proposal to rename “history” “hxrstory” in California was rejected.

This article was originally published at Roca News.


SEE ALSO: https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/what-is-critical-race-theory/

AND: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/11/why-your-organization-should-not-do-diversity-training/



James Lindsay sits down with American Thought Leaders host Jan Jekielek to discuss Critical Social Justice, the Grievance Studies project, and neo-Marxism in education and culture at large.

From American Thought Leaders:

To “expose the political corruption that’s taken hold of the university,” James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose made headlines in 2018 with a series of hoax papers that were accepted in peer-reviewed journals. Since then, Lindsay has made it his life’s mission to understand the ideas and theories underpinning what they dubbed “grievance studies.” Just how are these identity-oriented academic fields rooted in deeply flawed methodologies? And how has neo-Marxism and what Lindsay recently named “critical social justice” permeated the education system in America? Lindsay documents his work on his website “New Discourses”, where a constantly updated “Social Justice Encyclopedia” can also be found.

Peter Boghossian: How Social Justice Silences - New Discourses

In October of 2019, we held a conference in the heart of London with the simple mission of starting to “Speak Truth to Social Justice,” a conversation that we can all plainly see now was, even by then, long overdue. Among the eight talks given that day to address the subject, Peter Boghossian addressed the important issue of the ways that the Social Justice ideology stifles free speech. In this passionate talk, he outlines many of the speech-stifling actions that have been made against himself and others when they have dared to speak up about something they believe in when it goes against the “prevailing moral orthodoxy.” For Boghossian, and now many of us, that moral orthodoxy is the ideology calling itself Critical Social Justice.

Boghossian outlines seven different ways that the Critical Social Justice ideology stifles free speech and discusses each with poignant examples. Its advocates call names. They brand unwanted speech as violence. They assert policies of “inclusion” that are meant only to allow viewpoints they agree with. When people who hold ideas that challenge their growing hegemony are invited to speak about those views, its advocates see to it that they’re disinvited. Speech is stifled further in institutional settings that take up “Bias Response Teams.” They also, quite famously now, engage in a bullying tactic reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution of China that goes by the name “cancel culture.” Lastly, they justify all of this through “idea laundering,” a process by which they provide false legitimacy to these ideas and the other tenets of their ideology by getting them published in their own corners of the academic literature and mainstream journalism. These seven methods combine to stifle speech and even free thought in an incredible fashion.

Join Dr. Boghossian as he walks you through these points, speaking truth to “Social Justice” and fighting back for freedom of speech and cognitive liberty.

Watch Peter Boghossian’s subsequent presentation from this conference here. The audio version of this presentation is available on SoundcloudApple PodcastsGoogle PlaySpotifyStitcher, and RSS.

(Higher) Education Is Destroying America-New Discourses


SEE: https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/higher-education-destroying-america/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

“[Y]ou offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they … seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.” – Plato’s Phaedrus

“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University,” conservative icon William F. Buckley notoriously remarked. I have always thought of his oft-quoted quip as just that: a clever quip. But we have reached the point today where, given the choice Buckley was contemplating, I would vote for the 2,000 Average Joes over the 2,000 professors in a heartbeat. Even in a firmly Democratic-blue city like Boston, where the politics of ordinary citizens might resemble the professors’ political preferences far more than they would resemble mine, I wholeheartedly believe that those 2,000 random names would bring to the task of governance more common sense and more diversity of opinion. They would ultimately create a healthier, more vibrant and more livable society. And I strongly suspect that I am increasingly far from alone in that view.

Consider this apparent paradox: commanding, as they do, behemoth corporate entities, the media, the entertainment industry and the social media and tech hubs of Silicon Valley, the educated today arguably wield more power, influence and ubiquitous social control than they have ever wielded in American history, and yet they are also as scorned and distrusted as they have ever been. The prevalence of loony conspiracy theories on the political right notwithstanding, less educated people have their reasons for feeling conspired against and for distrusting those who are ostensibly their betters. They distrust the educated contingent’s claims to knowledge and expertise because they both consciously and instinctively know that such “experts” can no longer be trusted, that knowledge claims by the educated elites now routinely come packaged with liberal doses of barely concealed political prejudice. Experts are the ones who tell us that Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden will defeat Donald Trump in a blowout and that Democrats are set to pick up significant gains and take control of both houses of Congress in the 2020 election. Experts are the unelected backroom technocrats at Twitter and Google who take it upon themselves, despite having transparent political biases and no obvious qualifications for such roles, to intervene on the side of “Truth” in complex political and factual debates — inevitably citing as backup for their decisions some of their favorite sources, such as CNN or The Washington Post — and then proceed to label, take down, bury and censor competing claims and their conservatives or contrarian sources. Experts are the ones who issue confident pronouncements about Covid-19, only to issue inconsistent but equally confident pronouncements a few weeks or months later, the ones who tell us masks don’t help to protect healthy individuals only to completely reverse that guidance, the ones who command us that frequenting religious services, Trump rallies, restaurants, hair salons or family gatherings poses a mortal risk to our health while turning a blind eye to or even throwing full support behind massive #BLM protests or disregarding their own edicts and going unmasked into chic hair salons or large parties at expensive French restaurants. And, as I’ll have reason to discuss in more detail below, the kind of “expertise” that emanates from the mainstream media or the educational establishment is egregious in its political biases.

The reason for the problem is simple: the “educated” have become a stale, stagnant monoculture, a culture within which groupthink reigns, within which prejudice predominates, bad ideas go unchallenged and the worst ideas get insulated from scrutiny by strictly enforced taboos. In fact, the more “elite” the quality and quantity of the education people receive, the more herd-minded, prejudiced and intolerant of dissent they become. The danger of this predicament is not just one for political conservatives to bear; when a diversity of ideas is choked out by years of ideological indoctrination and enforced conformity when thought police patrol our public and private spaces and factual claims and ideas remain untested in the crucible of free and open debate, the resulting harm is borne by all. As I will explain in what follows, the ultimate issue springs from a tectonic shift in the complexion of our educational institutions. It will not be solved until those institutions are shaken to their very foundations and remade from the ground up.

Driving Polarization

In recent studies, education — the very thing that is supposed to open minds — has repeatedly been found, instead, to create closed-minded filter bubbles. A 2019 study by the polling and analytics firm PredictWise, retained by The Atlantic for the purpose of analyzing partisan prejudice, found that a high level of education was strongly correlated with political intolerance. The Atlantic reported as well on prior research from University of Pennsylvania professor Diana Mutz that had concluded that “white, highly educated people are relatively isolated from political diversity” and that “people who went to graduate school have the least amount of political disagreement in their lives.” Mutz’s explanation was that such people are less likely to talk with those who disagree with them.

A 2019 study by the “More in Common” project that analyzed the accuracy of people’s perceptions about their ideological opposites reached similar conclusions. Among its notable findings was that “the more educated a person is, the worse their Perception Gap” — their distorted view of and tendency to attribute extreme positions to those on the “other side.” But the “one critical exception” to this finding is that it applies only to Democrats, not Republicans:

[W]hile Republicans’ misperceptions of Democrats do not improve with higher levels of education, Democrats’ understanding of Republicans actually gets worse with every additional degree they earn. This effect is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree.

Why does this differentiation exist? The “More in Common” research echoes Diana Mutz’s conclusion: “Highly educated Democrats are the most likely to say that ‘most of [their] friends’ share their political beliefs.” While the political composition of Republicans’ circle of acquaintances does not correlate with education, for Democrats the correlation is very direct: the more education they receive, the less likely they are to associate with anyone who disagrees with them. And there is good reason to believe that the composition of those with whom one pals around play a causal role in creating polarized groupthink: as research by Cass Sunstein, David Schkade and Reid Hastie has demonstrated, when people spend time discussing issues with like-minded others, their views predictably become more extreme.

Education’s Left Turn

Has education always cooked up an over-saturated brew bubbling over with an overpowering flavor of left ideological extremism? No. Pew Research Center findings from 2016 show a widening ideological gap between 1994 and 2015 among those who are more versus less educated. One metric examined the extent to which people’s views have become monolithically down-the-line liberal or conservative over the years. In 1994, one percent of those whose educations stopped after their high school graduation or even earlier leaned “consistently liberal,” while that number was four percent for those with “some college,” five percent for college graduates and seven percent for post-grads — a small upward progression but, all in all, not a massive difference. By 2015, however, the educational divide had become a gulf: five percent of those in the high-school-or-less category were consistently liberal in their views, but those numbers were 12% of those with some college, 24% of college graduates and 31% of post-grads. No similar pattern obtained for those who were “consistently conservative.” Both in 1994 and in 2015, the percentage of down-the-line conservatives hovered between six percent and 11 percent across all education categories, with no particular correlation with education to be found. The massive growth in the consistently liberal-minded over the course of these two decades had not come at the expense of conservatives, but rather, largely at the expense of those with less partisan and more “mixed” political views. While 53% of the “high school or less” crowd had held ideologically “mixed” views in 1994 and 48% held mixed views in 2015, among post-grads, that number had declined from 38% in 1994 to 24% in 2015. The conclusion: something has shifted dramatically over the course of the past 20 years to yield a direct correlation between how many years of education we have had and the extent to which we are immersed in an across-the-board liberal monoculture.

What changed is education itself. Beginning in the late 1980s — not long before the political opinions of the “educated” began to veer sharply to the left — education itself went from being a universally touted pathway to personal enlightenment and professional advancement to becoming a one-sided purveyor of political ideology. Belying any notion that university professors are inherently liberal-minded mainly because liberals are simply more curious and open-minded than their conservative brethren, not so very long ago, a fairly even split in political affiliations could still be found: in 1984, 39% of college faculty identified as left/liberal, while 34% identified as right/conservative, as reported in a 2005 paper from Stanley Rothman et al. A massive sea-change materialized over the course of the ensuing decade-and-a-half, according to the same paper: by 1999, 72% of faculty (and 81% among humanities faculty) identified as left/liberal, and 15% identified as conservative. By 2018, the situation had become still more dire, especially at the most elite universities. A comprehensive National Association of Scholars report from April 2018 headed by Mitchell Langbert of Brooklyn College, which tracked the political registrations of 8,688 tenure-track professors at top liberal arts colleges, found that “78.2 percent of the academic departments in [his] sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.” At the leftward end of the spectrum were the newly emerged ideological fields, such as gender studies and Africana studies, in which there was not “a single Republican with an exclusive appointment.” Again, casting serious doubt upon any notion that academics are overwhelmingly liberal simply because liberals are better suited to be eggheads, the political affiliations of university administrators are now similarly skewed far to the left. A 2018 survey of 900 college administrators by Samuel J. Abrams of Sarah Lawrence College revealed that 71% identified as liberal, and only 6% identified as conservative.

I have explored the causes of this seismic shift at length elsewhere, and suffice it to say here that the gradual replacement of a highly literate elite by a techno-financial elite dislodged the academic humanities from their once-vaunted perch in which they had served a pragmatic economic function (not a function that I believe true higher education should serve in any event, as I will make clear later). This change opened the door for a takeover of these departments by 60s radicals entering their 40s and 50s and positions of peak influence in the mid-to-late 1980s and 1990s. These original culture warriors succeeded in repurposing the humanities (dragging other university departments behind them to greater or lesser extents), deflecting them from the tasks of education, enlightenment and career prep and re-orienting them to the mission of social critique. The academic humanities, having been displaced from their prestigious mission of preparing a new generation for elite careers, found a new way of clawing back what they had lost by adopting a less practical but, in their eyes, still more critical mission: preparing a new generation of those who could claim elite status by virtue of their ability to stand in judgment over the rest of us. They spawned a new array of ideological victimology departments within academia and a market for diversity consultants and sensitivity training within corporate America and for hysterical and sensationalized media coverage of alleged oppression and persecution of “marginalized” and “vulnerable” minorities of every sort.

Distorted Academic Priorities

It is the lack of ideological diversity, not liberal bias per se, that presents the bigger challenge. I would not want universities or other institutions to be dominated by conservative groupthink any more than I want the current alternative. Thoroughgoing conservative bias at universities that are supposed to cultivate out-of-the-box thinking and groundbreaking research would, I assume, result in stagnation. But this is not the reality with which we are dealing. What we have is overwhelming liberal bias, not conservative bias. And liberal bias at institutions principally intended to instill a love of learning, an appreciation of a great tradition and the pursuit of lux et veritas creates its own specific problems.

A recent study from SUNY New Paltz’s Glenn Geher et al. — a study, it should be noted, that the authors had trouble publishing because of its politically explosive conclusions — building upon the prior work of prominent NYU psychologist Jonathan Haidt, found that the profound liberal bias in much of academia today is not without consequence. The researchers surveyed 177 academics in a variety of universities about their political orientations and personality characteristics as measured on the “Big Five” model of personality and then asked them to assign weights to five possible priorities: academic rigor, academic freedom, student emotional well-being, social justice and the advancement of knowledge. What they found is not surprising, but it is disturbing: liberal professors were significantly more likely to place a higher value on social justice and student emotional well-being than were their conservative colleagues, who tended to place a higher value on academic rigor and the advancement of knowledge. While many modern-day liberal academics — whether following in the tradition leading back to the prominent mid-20th century liberal Columbia sociologist C. Wright Mills or of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci ­— believe in activist scholarship, few of us would disagree that if academic rigor and the advancement of knowledge are not at the very forefront of university professors’ priorities, the reputation and reliability of scholarship suffers, and mass skepticism of the politicized professoriate starts to seem justified. Still more concerning is that these researchers found that, of the academics surveyed, those who taught in schools of education — the places that teach the teachers to whom our kids are handed over for instruction — were the most likely to hold social justice and student emotional well-being in highest esteem. Indeed, we are seeing pre-college education today becoming both radicalized (with 79% of teachers leaning left, including 87% of high school teachers and 97% of English teachers, and becoming increasingly hostile to religion, so much so that they are one of the primary causes of its decline) and racialized (with school systems throughout the country beginning to teach The New York Times’ discreditedahistorical and hate-filled “1619 Project” as actual history).

Finally, the study found the Big-Five personality trait of “agreeableness” to be positively correlated with a preference for social justice and student emotional well-being and negatively correlated with academic rigor and advancement of knowledge. While the researchers’ proffered explanation for that result is that agreeable people are more likely to be “inclined to help students with issues that are not strictly academic,” my interpretation of their data would be different: agreeableness is known to be correlated with “conformity to social norms and expectations,” while disagreeable people are less concerned with what others think. Because liberal pro-social justice dogma is unquestionably an ascendant orthodoxy at universities, while dissent requires real intestinal fortitude, it makes total sense that those who are most agreeable are most likely to follow the herd. From this standpoint, therefore, the disturbing aspect of the role of agreeableness in these research results is that it signals that many academics are not so much joining a dominant consensus due to their own independently reasoned conclusions as they are, for fear of bucking the tide, reflexively hopping aboard a bandwagon — and, in the end, adding dead weight to what is fast becoming a sinking ship.

Sowing Ignorance and Stifling Debate

As I have already begun to suggest above, the impact of this comparatively rapid transformation in the core complexion of university staff upon the rest of society has been monumental and remains one of the great under-reported stories of the past few decades. Today, nearly three-quarters of students enrolled in U.S. News & World Report’s top ten colleges identify as liberal, while only 15% identify as conservative. Far from cultivating any spirit of open-minded inquiry of the sort one might expect to be the outcome of a university education, however — but consistent with the findings of the Glenn Geher et al. research profiled above — those top universities are leading the anti-intellectual crackdown against “disfavored” viewpoints. Here, according to FIRE’s survey of 20,000 students from a variety of American universities from earlier this year, are some of their attitudes concerning measures they think may appropriately be taken with respect to speakers with whom they disagree:

Students from Universities Ranked 50 or Below Students from Top 10-Ranked Universities
Okay to tear down speaker flyers/announcements 60% 73%
Okay to block entrances to speaker events 37% 50%
Okay to use violence to stop speakers 17% 21%

These numbers, as a whole, will be disturbing to anyone who values open-minded intellectual inquiry, but the numbers from top-ranked universities are especially alarming, showing a pronounced inability on the part of our purportedly “best and brightest” to abide opposing views.

More evidence concerning the unrepresentative and muddle-headed beliefs of the highly educated comes from the large 2018 “Hidden Tribes” demographic survey of political attitudes. The survey found that the left-most grouping — those who could be described as “Progressive Activists” — are the wealthiest and most educated subgroup in America, with 59% of this overwhelmingly white subgroup having completed college, as contrasted with a 29% average in the general population. Such people are far more likely to be politically engaged (73% as compared to a general-population average of 35%) and, for that reason, “have an outsized role in political debates.” Such people are also obsessed with what they perceive to be racism, sexism and other identity-based discrimination, and a whopping 69% of them (as compared to 24% of all Americans) are “ashamed to be American.”

Zach Goldberg’s 2019 discussion of data pertaining to such white liberals documents the fact that their leftward shift in beliefs is of relatively recent vintage but largely predates Trump’s Presidency and is, thus, not attributable to him or his policies. Among the highlights:

  • The percentage of these liberals who thought anti-black discrimination to be a “very serious” problem did not change much between 1996 (27%) and 2010 (25%), yet it shot up to 47% in 2015 and to 58% in 2016.
  • In 1995, 2000 and 2007, white liberals were evenly split among those who thought the criminal justice system fair to blacks and those who thought it biased against them. But by 2014, there was a 70%/20% gap in favor of those who thought the system biased.
  • 29% of white liberals perceived there to be “a great deal” of discrimination against immigrants in 2000; in 2013, that number had risen to 57%. The percentage of liberals feeling “very sympathetic” to illegal immigrants rose from 22% to 42% between 2006 and 2014.

Notably, in each of these cases ­— and especially in the cases of racial issues, with our first black President having still been in office through the end of 2016 — there was no obvious, relevant real-world change for the worse that would have spurred the very significant attitudinal change reflected in these numbers. It is the skewed content of their education, not rational considerations spurred by real-world changes, that is getting these highly educated liberals to alter their views.

At least four more of Goldberg’s conclusions with respect to these white liberals merit attention:

  • The attitudes of these liberals on race issues and immigration issues are significantly to the left of the attitudes of the very minorities they claim to represent.
  • These white liberals have recently developed a significant pro-outgroup bias, meaning that, by a significant margin, they prefer other racial groups to their own. Goldberg calls such an unusual bias “unprecedented,” and of course, no other group — blacks, Hispanics, Asians or non-liberal whites — exhibits such a bias.
  • Their “lack of awareness of how fast and far their attitudes have shifted fosters an illusion of conservative extremism,” whereas the data indicates that “[i]n reality, the conservatives of today are not all that different from the conservatives of years past.”
  • Consistent with the conclusion of the “Hidden Tribes” survey, Goldberg observes that while “[w]hite liberals make up 20-24% of the general population, … [they] exert an outsize political and cultural influence. They are more likely to consider themselves activists, are more active on social media, and, significantly, they are one of the most affluent groups in the country.”

That last point, in particular, merits further reflection. Rich, university-educated white liberals are precisely the kinds of people who rise to prominent and influential positions in what used to be called “media” but what, at this point (for much the same reasons professional wrestling is now commonly known as “sports entertainment”) should rightfully be called the “infotainment industry” — combining, as it does, the likes of formerly white-shoe, traditional media publications that have long since buttoned down and given themselves over to unvarnished advocacy, shameless scandal-sheet propagandists, social media “influencers,” Silicon Valley tech authoritarians, moralizing musicians, woke jocks and other species of shrill B-list celebrities.

“Educated” Infotainers

As The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf has written, “The New York Times, New York, The Intercept, Vox, Slate, The New Republic, and other outlets are today less ideologically diverse in their staff and less tolerant of contentious challenges to the dominant viewpoint of college-educated progressives than they have been in the recent past.” Predictably, the role of the infotainment industry in broadcasting out to the masses the messages our politicized educators have taught them cannot be understated. The “Perception Gap” research of the “More in Common” project that I discussed above reaches this conclusion about the depressing role of the media in driving distorted perceptions of reality:

You might think that people who regularly read the news are more informed about their political opponents. In fact, the opposite is the case. We found that the more news people consumed, the larger their Perception Gap. People who said they read the news “most of the time” were nearly three times more distorted in their perceptions than those who said they read the news “only now and then.”

Zach Goldberg reaches similar conclusions in an August 2020 article fittingly entitled “How the Media Led the Great Racial Awakening,” in which he presents a treasure trove of data convincingly demonstrating that, in a word, the media was in the cockpit of our careening craft. In a few short years, beginning roughly around 2010 (thus, again, well before Trump appeared on the national stage as anything other than a vulgar television personality), the media — with The New York Times leading the charge — began to racialize America, vastly expanding its coverage of race and racism, immeasurably expanding its definition of what counted as “racism” or “white supremacy” to encompass anything and everything that, regardless of the reason, did not produce total and utter demographically proportionate equality and, in the end, getting us all to believe, regressively, that “‘color’ is the defining attribute of other human beings.” The opinions of these infotainment industry thought leaders were quickly adopted by their liberal readers, viewers, listeners and followers, leading, finally, in the summer of 2020, to nationwide protesting, looting and rioting due to the mass adoption of a wildly delusional belief that black people are dying every day at the hands of racist white killer cops — the truth, as FBI data and numerous studies have shown, being that cops do not kill unarmed blacks at higher rates than the crime data would predict and, more importantly, that in all of 2019 (the last year for which there is full data on record), 14 unarmed black people, as well as 25 unarmed white people, were killed by police, as compared, for the sake of maintaining perspective, to 20 (presumably unarmed) people killed by a lightning strike in the same year. As Goldberg documents, the black victims of police shootings generated huge waves of sensationalized media coverage, while the white victims were largely met with the chirping of crickets. What the infotainment industry is doing to our perceptions of race and racism, in other words, might best be characterized as a never-ending, omnipresent Willie Horton ad driving us into irrational paroxysms of racialized mass hysteria.

What emerges from the data I have advanced thus far is a picture in which a massive leftward lurch in the composition of university faculty and administrators beginning in the late 1980s and continuing on through the ’90s and ’00s created, some years down the road, a massive leftward lurch among infotainment industry elites, leading together, in turn, to a massive leftward lurch among the “educated” public as a whole and resulting, finally, in the formation of a fissure between the educated and their less-educated peers. This is why the main axis along which pro-Trump versus pro-Biden voters were divided in 2020 is not the media’s favorite bugaboo of race, but rather, education. Trump’s many obvious faults aside, we should not mistake the joyful tears of the talking heads on our screens and the delighted yelps of urban bobos, yuppies and hipsters in the streets on that Saturday when the media called the election for Joe Biden for anything other than what it was: the relieved cry of the educated elites that the most organized mass propaganda campaign this side of Stalin had succeeded in toppling the crude, unhinged, nationalist-populist championed by the deplorable underclass and installing the easily puppeted, doddering career politician favored by the wealthy, the powerful and the educated. For this reason, as well, the Biden administration is expected to be chock-full of college faculty, a straightforward case of dancing with the ones that bring you to the dance.

Credential Inflation

So education today, and especially elite higher education, is systematically polarizing us, driving misperceptions of the “other” side, fomenting an escalating race war and skewing the composition of the electorate, all while replacing the pursuit of knowledge with politicized groupthink. But is it at least doing a good job of discharging its practical function? Are nominally great universities at least giving us our money’s worth in educating a highly qualified workforce? Not exactly. A recent study demonstrated that when 28,339 graduates from 294 universities — representing universities around the world ranging from the top 50 to 10,000 spots down — were evaluated on various facets of their job performance, for every 1,000 spots lower on the university rankings, the graduates exhibited a performance decline of a measly 1.9%. The starting salaries these students commanded, however, exhibited a far wider gap: while graduates of universities at the top of the rankings had average starting salaries in the high $80,000s or low $90,000 bestowed upon them, graduates 1,000 spots down got average starting salaries in the high $40,000s or low $50,000s, a difference of about 45%. The moral of the story for employers: save your money, and hire the kid from the university a thousand spots down on the list, the one who’ll do almost as good a job but without the political headache and petulant demands the top-tier grad is likely to bring to the job. The moral of the story for the rest of us: highly ranked universities might be paying off financially for some of their graduates (assuming they monetize their credentials rather than pursuing their passions), but they’re not paying off for society as a whole.

What such universities may be producing, in lieu of better qualifications, is what is known as “credential inflation” (a type of phenomenon likely to be especially prevalent during a pandemic-driven recession), in which jobs that never used to — and still technically don’t — require a college education go to college graduates, while jobs that require no more than a college degree go to graduates of the more elite colleges. What happens when we are all reflexively told to go to college is mass underemployment, with, as of September 2020, over half of college graduates and just under half of recent college graduates underemployed, holding down jobs that do not require a college degree. In fact, as a recent Hechinger Report article concludes, college grads could often have gotten similar or higher salaries (without incurring the national average of $28,950 in four-year college loan debt) had they pursued lucrative professional or associate’s degrees in fields such as nursing, construction management or dental hygiene.

Social Instability

What universities may also be producing today is social unrest, not only by miseducating and radicalizing the public, as I have described at length above, but also by contributing to what the U. Conn. scientist and cultural evolution researcher Peter Turchin has dubbed “elite overproduction,” the phenomenon that occurs when a society manufactures many individuals who would appear to have some claim to elite status — such as by virtue of their educational credentials — without there being enough actual elite job slots to go around to satisfy their inflated self-conceptions. In such circumstances, Turchin argues, history repeatedly shows that these individuals become troublemaking malcontents. They begin to comprise a “counter-elite” that lays the groundwork for revolution by fulminating against their own society, its ruling class and the legitimacy of its governing principles, e.g., against the very notion of American meritocracy. Revolutions, in this empirically driven conception, are not made by Marx’s romanticized immiserated proletarians having reached their breaking point, but rather, by aspiring status-seekers and would-be intellectuals stymied by structural roadblocks that prevent their advancement through acceptable, conventional routes. Consistent with Turchin’s thesis, terrorism — the ultimate outlet for malcontents — is also normally not driven by ignorance or poverty, but rather, by a “lack of adequate employment opportunities for educated individuals.”

That social instability is generally summoned up by alienated elements within the “thinking classes” is something prophetic writers like Dostoevsky understood some time ago: his “commoners” tend to be preternaturally virtuous or preternaturally vicious, but it is various disaffected thinkers — students and the like — who tend to become possessed by dangerous ideas. As Adam Garfinkle has written in an article on the decline of deep literacy published in National Affairs earlier this year, superficial education not vivified by a habit of lifelong learning and deep reading, largely serves to make people ideal victims of and disseminators of propaganda. Such “scantily educated” individuals, emboldened by the official sanction of university credentials and enabled by social media, “contribute scantily supported opinions about things they don’t really understand, validating the old saw that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing” and bringing into being the kind of “distributed mob … the ancient Greeks warned against.” I would add to Garfinkle’s diagnosis just one more proviso: with education configured as it currently is, more does not equal better. In fact, more education will only make the problem worse, adding more dug-in groupthink, more unwarranted self-assurance and more specialized steeping masking deep ignorance.

For all these reasons, fewer people going to college — and especially to high-price-tag, uber-politicized elite colleges — today is a win-win-win, a win for employers who can pay significantly lower salaries without a comparable drop-off in performance quality, a win, paradoxically, for employees, provided they make strategic choices to go into in-demand fields that pay almost as much as or even more than they would have made without incurring crushing debt in the process and a win for society as a whole, which will be saved much of the polarization, systematically skewed politics and social instability associated with contemporary education.

A Higher Calling

But what of education for its own sake? After all, don’t we want people to aspire to the enlightenment that knowledge itself confers? Yes, absolutely. I am far from being one of those philistine conservatives who value only that which can be monetized. I believe firmly that all of us who are truly willing and able to study “the best which has been thought and said” should have that opportunity … but that is certainly not what universities are teaching today. Contemporary universities are little more than social clubs and credentialing degree mills where kids get to stave off the responsibilities of adulthood for four years while insulating themselves (unless they happen to be conservative) from true challenges and discomforts and learning, repeatedly, the pat PBS children’s moral that everyone (except, perhaps, white male heterosexuals) is great exactly as they already are.

There is, moreover, no reason for those intent not on the pursuit of knowledge but on lucrative careers as doctors, lawyers, financiers and techies to waste four unproductive, costly years suffering through classes in elite universities in which they will get little more than some inadequately considered radical politics and an admission ticket into the intolerant American intelligentsia. Just like nurses, auto mechanics or electricians, such careerists should go straight from high school into their professional training schools and not be invited to delude themselves into believing that they are informed aristocrats merely by virtue of their elite credentials and resulting compensation packages. It is only when we take the ruse of career prep out of higher education and reserve such education for those few who want to be working their way, line by line, through the glories of Shakespeare or musing about the wildest implications of quantum mechanics that we will have any chance of purging the universities of the unintellectual students not up to the task and the anti-intellectual academics who thrive by giving those very students the sour-grapes license they need to reject our finest traditions.

To say this another way, the bottom-line problem is that when we made the mistake of trying to open higher education to everyone, we opened the campus gates to people who neither had any interest in learning “the best which has been thought and said,” nor the ability to breathe that rarefied air. We then found ourselves in the position of facing and acceding to strident calls of elitism, racism and other -isms and began to dumb our education down to meet people where they were. A wise observation from T.S. Eliot’s mid-20th-century compendium of essays published as Notes Toward the Definition of Culture puts this point better than I could:

[W]hether education can foster and improve culture or not, it can surely adulterate and degrade it. For there is no doubt that in our headlong rush to educate everybody, we are lowering our standards, and more and more abandoning the study of those subjects by which the essentials of our culture — of that part of it which is transmissible by education — are transmitted; destroying our ancient edifices to make ready the ground upon which the barbarian nomads of the future will encamp in their mechanised caravans.

Eliot’s essay also contains this absolutely critical observation: “A high average of general education is perhaps less necessary for a civil society than is a respect for learning.” While I will leave it to those more qualified for that task to debate whether or not a trickle-down approach works in the realm of economics, in the realm of culture and education, such an approach is exactly what we need. A society in which higher education is reserved for the few who actually crave the precious gifts it confers is one in which higher learning remains an appropriately lofty and difficult arcana unadulterated by the need to condescend to a mass audience. In such a society, elite educated mandarins and, more importantly, the knowledge they command are held in high esteem because they serve as its protectors, keeping it sacrosanct. Then knowledge retains its luminescence, a polestar towards which would-be-initiates will aspire and a guiding light towards which even their less capable brethren among the masses will incline. Lit up by the glow at the top, an entire society is haloed over.

When, instead, the seal is broken, when higher education is instrumentalized in the service of financial rewards or bastardized to avoid bruising the fragile egos of second-rate students, then sacred syllables and profound mysteries are de-solemnized and set adrift in a generalized sea of indifference in which every crown jewel will be lost and every drop of holy water will be diluted. The more open to the barbarian hordes are the gates of our ivory towers, the more closed will remain the minds of those who scramble in their unimpeded headlong rush to the top. When the unreconstructed barbarian resurfaces at the tower’s very apogee and peers down from his newfound perch upon those he now thinks are his inferiors, he may be shocked to find that, far from inspiring the kind of reverence he had imagined came with the role, he will see gazing up from below slightly more ungroomed and unpolished — though also less haughty and more grounded — versions of himself, a sea of expressions betraying skepticism of his claims to expertise and mirroring his own scorn. And when he flings boulders down in disgust to crush dissent, he will find them hurled unceremoniously right back at him.


HOMESCHOOLING: America’s Broken Education System; Leigh Bortins Talks Classical Education, Homeschool

As we enter 2021 and contemplate new beginnings, we sit down with homeschooling expert Leigh Bortins, founder of the curriculum company Classical Conversations, to discuss how American public education has declined in the past century, the responsibility of parents in educating their children, and how classical education can enrich the lives of America’s next generation. This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek.

This Congresswoman Just Filed Articles of Impeachment On Joe Biden

Newly-elected Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is looking forward to impeachment of His Fraudulency Biden

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/freshman-house-member-files-articles-of-impeachment-against-joe-biden


Newly elected Representative Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) released a statement the day after Joe Biden was inaugurated president that she was filing articles of impeachment against him.

She claimed:

President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the Presidency. His pattern of abuse of power as President Obama’s Vice President is lengthy and disturbing. President Biden has demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family’s pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies.

She said that the case against Biden is “vast and detailed”:

  • He abused the power of the Office of the Vice President;
  • The evidence … is clear and compelling;
  • Many State Department officials repeatedly registered reservations about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a corrupt [foreign] company … [but they] were intentionally not investigated or [were] covered up;
  • The financial transaction which Hunter … engaged in illustrates serious counterintelligence and extortion concerns relating to Hunter Biden and his family; and
  • Through blatant nepotism, [Biden] enabled his son to influence foreign policy, and financially benefit as a result of his role as Vice President.

It Begins. Biden Halts Wall, Guts Travel Ban, Issues 100-Day Deportation Moratorium

It Begins: Biden Halts Wall, Guts Travel Ban, Issues 100-Day Deportation Moratorium.


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/it-begins-biden-halts-wall-guts-travel-ban-issues-100-day-deportation-moratorium/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The immigration lobby isn’t losing time.

On the same day he was installed in the White House, Joe Biden halted construction of President Trump’s border wall and issued a 100-day “pause” on the deportation of illegal aliens as part of a sweeping suite of actions on immigration on his first day in office.

At Biden’s direction, Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary David Pekoske signed a memorandum to review immigration enforcement policies. That includes a 100-day pause, starting Friday, of “certain noncitizens ordered deported.”

“The pause will allow DHS to ensure that its resources are dedicated to responding to the most pressing challenges that the United States faces, including immediate operational challenges at the southwest border in the midst of the most serious global public health crisis in a century,” DHS said in a statement.

The move is in line with promises Biden made during the campaign, when he vowed to implement a 100-day moratorium that would apply to any non-citizen with a final order of removal, with very limited exceptions.

The moratorium ostensibly excludes any illegal alien who has engaged in terrorism or espionage or who poses a danger to national security, as well as those who were not present in the United States before November 1, 2020, those who agreed to waive the right to remain, and those whom the ICE director individually determined need be removed by law.

Biden’s pause on construction of the wall along the southern border is apparently in effect while the administration studies whether it can redivert money that has been assigned to additional wall mileage.

Also on Wednesday, Biden signed a memorandum to protect Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protects aliens brought to the country illegally as children from deportation. President Trump tried to end the program but was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Biden’s memorandum orders the DHS secretary to take appropriate lawful action to keep the program in place.

In addition, Biden signed an executive order ending President Trump’s temporary travel ban on people coming from terror hotspots (the so-called Muslim Ban).

Other orders include one to revoke the Trump administration’s plan to exclude non-citizens from the census and the apportionment of congressional seats, and another to extend the Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) designation for Liberians in the country until June 2022.

To truly open the floodgates of mass migration, Biden will need more than executive orders. He’ll need legislation. Luckily for him, he now has Democrat control of both houses of Congress to work with. 

A legislative proposal unveiled by the Biden transition team this week would provide a path to citizenship for at least 11 million illegal aliens. The legislation has drawn criticism from conservatives and those favoring a more responsible approach to immigration.

“The amnesty bill that Reagan signed in ’86, as well as the two big amnesty bills that failed, in 2007 and the Gang of Eight bill in 2014, all were presented as a grand bargain of amnesty for people who were already established, but enforcement measures to supposedly ensure we wouldn’t have to be having another amnesty debate a few years down the road,” Mark Krikorian, director of the pro-restriction Center for Immigration Studies, told the Washington Free Beacon. “This bill rejects that concept altogether, and is essentially just an amnesty bill with no enforcement.”

The Biden immigration bill would boost visa quotas across all categories, including the diversity visa lottery quota; allow approved family visa beneficiaries to come to the United States and reside temporarily until a green card becomes available, extending residency to nearly 3.5 million people currently in the backlog; and end the three- and 10-year bans on reentering the United States legally if an applicant was previously an illegal alien.

But it would make only token gestures toward stricter border enforcement, such as enhanced drug-screening equipment and pouring $4 billion over four years into Central American countries to target the “root causes” of migration.

Biden has the support of the Big Business lobby. On Wednesday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a statement that told Biden he can create more jobs for Americans by pushing through his immigration plans so that corporations can hire “the world’s most talented and industrious people” from other countries — a contradictory proposition.


Fauci Proudly Announces US Will Stay in and Fund WHO Under Biden, Walking Back Trump Withdrawl

Fauci Proudly Announces U.S. Will Stay in and Fund WHO Under Biden, Walking Back Trump Withdrawal


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/fauci-proudly-announces-u-s-will-stay-in-and-fund-who-under-biden-walking-back-trump-withdrawal/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to the president, was pleased to tell the pro-China World Health Organization (WHO) on Thursday that the United States will remain in it after Joe Biden reversed President Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the scandal-plagued outfit.

“I am honored to announce that the United States will remain a member of the World Health Organization,” Fauci said while speaking at a World Health Organization Executive Board meeting.

At the gathering, Fauci called WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus “my dear friend.”

Tedros is an actual communist who does not even have a medical degree. He landed his UN job with backing from Communist China. Before setting up shop at WHO, he played a leading role in the murderous Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) in his native Ethiopia. This Marxist terror organization declared war on other ethnic groups. Tedros served as a top member of TPLF’s Politburo Central Committee.

The U.S. government designated TPLF a terrorist organization for its history of murder, kidnapping, and other violent acts, including attacks on religious figures, journalists, and private citizens. In fact, the Global Terror Database still lists it as such.

Fauci then announced that Biden had signed a letter retracting former President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from WHO — and assured those present that the United States will continue to fund the organization.

“I join my fellow representatives in thanking the World Health Organization for its role in leading the global public health response to this pandemic,” Fauci said.

The NIAID head made no mention of the WHO’s failures during the COVID-19 outbreak, during which it allowed China to lie and downplay the nature of the disease until it had spread to much of the world.

It was because of the WHO’s failures and its favoritism toward China that President Trump withdrew the United States from it in July 2020.

“China has total control over the World Health Organization despite only paying $40 million per year compared to what the United States has been paying, which is approximately $450 million a year,” Trump said in July 2020. The country was scheduled to withdraw from the organization in July 2021.

“The Biden Administration also intends to be fully engaged in advancing global health, supporting global health security and the Global Health Security Agenda, and building a healthier future for all people,” Fauci declared in his speech before the WHO Executive Board.

Fauci further announced that Biden will reaffirm the United States’ commitment to join COVAX, a WHO program to push vaccine acceleration and distribution while subsidizing vaccine access in poorer countries.

Tedros was grateful to know the United States will be remaining in his organization.

Fauci was often at odds with President Trump on COVID-19 policy, but the NIAID director appears eager to form part of the Biden administration.

In November, in fact, Fauci appeared in a livestream with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in which the tech baron said he would work closely with the new administration to “push around authoritative information on vaccines.”

On his second day in office, Joe Biden is expected to sign an executive order mandating the use of masks or face coverings in airports and on commercial planes.

This would come right after his Wednesday order that all federal employees and contractors wear masks, as well as anyone in federal buildings or on federal lands.

“Put simply, masks and other public health measures reduce the spread of the disease, particularly when communities make widespread use of such measures, and thus save lives,” reads Wednesday’s order.

The expected Thursday order would extend to modes of public transportation such as trains and intercity buses.

These moves have the support of the unions.

As Fox News notes:

Airlines for America, a trade organization with members including most major U.S. carriers, has previously and repeatedly championed masks in both airports and on airplanes since the start of the pandemic. Most recently, the group lauded the Federal Aviation Administration’s decision to implement a new “zero tolerance” policy for passengers who refuse to comply with the airlines’ mask policies, or exhibit unruly behavior. While not a federal mandate — the airlines are currently responsible for setting and enforcing their own face-covering policies — the FAA will impose steeper fines and penalties for passengers who refuse to comply with the carriers’ rules.

… “We will no longer adjudicate certain of these unruly passenger cases with counseling or warnings,” FAA Chief Steve Dickson told Reuters, outlining fines of up to $35,000 and possible jail time. “We’re going to go straight to enforcement.”

Joe Biden’s America truly will be one long “dark winter” unless patriots step up to stop him.

Biden Kills Thousands of Jobs, Hurts Environment, and Harms Relations With a Close Ally on His First Day in Office


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2021/01/21/biden-kills-thousands-of-jobs-hurts-environment-and-harms-relations-with-a-close-ally-on-his-first-day-in-office-n1400579;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Joe Biden used an executive order to kill the Keystone XL pipeline permit on his first day as president. The move, which was expected because Biden said he would do it, drew sharp criticism from Texas, where the pipeline would have ended in the Houston area.

The “working class party” is just fine with killing thousands of union jobs.

Anything to appease the radical left and their pseudo-environmentalism. https://t.co/9LU0VQQwgd

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) January 19, 2021

Michelle Michot Foss, a Ph.D. fellow in energy, minerals, and materials at Rice University’s Baker Institute said the extension would have benefitted the Houston region.

“This project is one of those great security blankets. We have that delivery of crude from Canada. It comes right into the refining complex here, which provides roughly 30 to 40% of U.S. fuel supply and would help to keep prices affordable as everybody engages in economic recovery,” said Foss.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) also inveighed against the move. Unions and most Democrats — about 62% — opposed the cancelation. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also weighed in against the move. Canada is now said to be considering some type of sanction against the United States. Biden’s move affects workers in both countries; it kills about 12,000 jobs in the United States and another 2,000 in Canada as both countries are still reeling from the COVID pandemic’s destruction of jobs.

It’s how a Democrat president treats not only an ally, but American workers as well.

Canceling the Keystone XL also hurts the environment. The pipeline would have moved between 800,000 and 830,000 barrels of oil per day safely, off our roads and rails, from where it’s produced to where it can be refined. That was to be Texas, which leads the world in the clean and safe refining of oil into products the modern economy depends on every single day. So some of the jobs lost were in Texas, about which Biden will not care, as Texas did not vote for him.

With the pipeline canceled, Canada will find other customers for its oil. That’s likely to be China and India, two of the world’s fastest-growing and most energy-hungry economies. Instead of being transported safely via the Keystone XL pipeline, the oil will be transported by trucks and ships — both of which emit far more gunk into the atmosphere than pipelines, and both of which are far more prone to accidents and spills. It’s likely to be refined outside the United States, where standards do not match U.S. EPA standards.

Joe Biden killed thousands of jobs, hurt relations with a close ally, and hurt the environment on his first day in the job, while also violating his promise to put science first.

Anti-Trump Reprisals

Allies and supporters of the 45th president won’t be safe.


SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/anti-trump-reprisals-matthew-vadum/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

As Joe Biden, an illegitimate president, was sworn in at a funeral inauguration ceremony surrounded by thousands of U.S. troops, Democrats were busy plotting and scheming and planning reprisals against Republicans for doing nothing other than supporting his duly elected predecessor.

These anti-democratic Democrats have been driven to utter madness by the events of January 6 even though what happened that day does not compare with the months of Antifa and Black Lives Matter murdering people and burning down cities to protest the Fentanyl-caused death in police custody of George Floyd, a drug-addicted career criminal who resisted arrest.

Even the claim that five people were killed January 6 is a lie that the Left is using as propaganda against Orange Man Bad and his backers.

Three of the people –Trump supporters— who died during or after the rally died of medical emergencies.

Kevin Greeson, 55, from Alabama, who had high blood pressure, experienced a heart attack “in the midst of the excitement,” his family said. Benjamin Phillips, 50, from Pennsylvania, had a stroke. Media reports indicate Roseanne Boyland, 34, from Georgia, was trampled by the mob but it is unclear what actually happened. A purportedly authentic redacted police incident report in case #21002749 states that Boyland “was witnessed to collapse during the protest demonstrations at about 1700 hours. … Despite all lifesaving efforts, SUB-1 died and was pronounced dead by Dr. Pyle at 1809 hours.”

Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, 35, from California, was shot to death under suspicious circumstances by a police officer inside the U.S. Capitol. Another police officer, Brian David Sicknick, 42, reportedly died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher but an investigative report by National File’s Patrick Howley suggests the event didn’t happen and that the policeman succumbed to a preexisting medical condition.

But lies in the service of social justice are noble and justified, according to the Left.

The same goes for violence committed in the name of social justice.

As everyone knows, punishing people for doing bad things is not part of the Democratic Party’s agenda. Violence against disfavored individuals and institutions is condoned and even praised because it is simply part of retail politics for the Left. They don’t go after their friends.

This explains why Democrats have shown no interest in going after Black Lives Matter (which the DNC officially endorsed) and Antifa as the two movements’ activists assaulted Trump supporters and firebombed courthouses and ICE facilities. They don’t care that leftists attacked and threw fireworks at Trump supporters around “Black Lives Matter Plaza,” the fake public square D.C.’s Democrat mayor installed outside the White House that honors the terrorists and murderers of the BLM movement, on November 14 after the Million MAGA March. They’ve already forgotten about Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson who came close to assassinating Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) at a congressional baseball game in 2017.

Pushing the demonstrable falsehood that the 45th president of these United States incited a January 6 riot at the United States Capitol in order to derail the congressional certification of Electoral College votes and usher in a Trumpenreich or something, left-wingers on Capitol Hill and across America are screaming for blood.

These incipient persecutions emanate from the very top.

Biden, who, even before his installation as president refused to halt a divisive, pointless, fact-free second Trump impeachment, questioned the patriotism of the U.S. troops now occupying Washington, D.C., and sparked a new immigration crisis at the border by signaling an amnesty, recently compared Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels because they objected to Electoral College votes from states Biden supposedly won.

“They’re part of the big lie,” Biden said.

“It's one thing for one man, one woman to repeat the lie over and over and over again,” Biden said. “By the way, Trump said that before he ran, if you say it enough, I'm going to convince you, I'll say it enough: ‘the press is bad, the press is bad, the press is bad, the press is bad.’”

“If he's the only one to say that that's one thing, but the acolytes that follow him, like Cruz and others, they are as responsible as he is,” he said.

Biden said there were “decent people” in the U.S. “who actually believe these lies.”

“The degree to which it becomes corrosive is in direct proportion to the number of people who say it. And so it's interesting to me, and I was pleased to hear some more prominent Republicans say to me that the Ted Cruzs of the world are as responsible in terms of people believing the lies, as –not as responsible— but similar responsible like Trump.”

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) demanded Hawley and Cruz resign, but interestingly enough, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected calls to punish the two senators and defended their right to object to presidential electors.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and some of his colleagues want Hawley and Cruz to be censured, but also want the other Republican senators who objected to certification to be disciplined. Those other six GOP lawmakers are Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Rick Scott of Florida, and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama.

At least 60 lawyers have signed a formal complaint asking the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel at the Missouri Supreme Court to investigate Hawley, an attorney, for his electoral objections, according to The Hill.

The erratic, perpetually fence-straddling Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) wants to use the 14th Amendment to expel Hawley and Cruz from the Senate.

“That should be a consideration,” Manchin said in an interview when asked if the 14th Amendment should be invoked. “He understands that. Ted’s a very bright individual, and I get along fine with Ted, but what he did was totally outside of the realm of our responsibilities or our privileges.”

The thin reed Manchin relies on is a section of the 14th Amendment that states no lawmaker holding office “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” 

Meanwhile, paranoia is setting in among Democrat lawmakers as they try to get Republican lawmakers investigated and expelled from Congress for outrageous acts of treachery such as –wait for it— giving constituents tours of the Capitol.

Offering zero evidence of actual wrongdoing, Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) smeared her GOP colleagues, accusing them of abetting an alleged Trump-led conspiracy by showing people around what Nancy Pelosi called the people’s “temple of democracy.”

The malicious j’accuse Sherrill hurled at her opponents is what until recently left-wingers called “McCarthyism.”

"I also intend to see that those members of Congress who abetted him — those members of Congress who had groups coming through the Capitol that I saw on Jan. 5 for reconnaissance for the next day — those members of Congress who incited the violent crowd, those members of Congress that attempted to help our president undermine our democracy, I'm going see that they're held accountable," Sherrill said, according to Politico.

Sherill was one of 34 House members who signed a January 13 letter addressed to Timothy Blodgett, Jennifer A. Hemmingway, and Yogananda Pittman, respectively the acting House Sergeant at Arms, acting Senate Sergeant at Arms, and acting Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police urging action be taken against their as yet unidentified Republican colleagues.

Sherrill and others are also calling for the punishment of Republicans who exercised their free speech rights. She wants those who supposedly delivered incendiary remarks and argued Biden lost to face legal consequences.

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) wants a commission to investigate the events of January 6 and has introduced legislation to prevent Trump supporters who attended “Stop the Steal” events from obtaining security clearances.

“Even if it does not constitute a criminal offense, attendance at an event designed to overturn the results of a presidential election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power raises serious questions about an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance,” she said in a press release.

One of leftists’ favorite targets –the First Amendment-guaranteed advocacy rights of their opponents— is under attack.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), likely the incoming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, wants to weaponize the IRS against nonprofit groups that organized the “Save America” pep rally that took place January 6. It was only a few years ago, by the way, that Lois Lerner of the Obama IRS targeted conservative nonprofits.

Wyden does not mention any groups by name in his hyperbole-strewn January 15 letter to IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig but he cites media reports that do. Among the groups mentioned in those reports are Women for America First, Turning Point Action, and Rule of Law Defense Fund.

“Last week a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol sought to block certification of President-elect Biden’s Electoral College victory, in one of the darkest episodes in American democracy since the Civil War,” Wyden gravely intones about an unfortunate incident few reasonable people would characterize as an insurrection.

Freshman Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) wants GOP lawmakers who supported the electoral certification challenges to be investigated. “All options” for dealing with her colleagues, including, presumably, expulsion from the House, should be on the table, she said.

“I think that any person of any party in any chamber should be held accountable,” she said Jan. 17 on CNN. “They should be investigated to the fullest extent of the law.”

Even lawyers who merely represented the Trump campaign are being targeted.

Trump campaign attorney John C. Eastman, who spoke alongside the president at the January 6 rally, was forced out of his position as a law professor at Chapman University in California for challenging the suspect Pennsylvania election tallies in court.

Chapman University President Daniele Struppa excoriated Eastman for engaging in constitutionally protected free speech, accusing him of playing “a role in the tragic events in Washington, D.C., that jeopardized our democracy.”

“Eastman’s actions are in direct opposition to the values and beliefs of our institution. He has now put Chapman in the position of being publicly disparaged for the actions of a single faculty member, and for what many call my failure to punish and fire him.”

On January 13, Struppa announced a settlement had been reached with Eastman and that his departure would be “effective immediately.”

Eastman accused members of the university’s board of trustees of publishing “false, defamatory statements about me without even the courtesy of contacting me beforehand to discuss.”

“Had they bothered to discuss the matter with me, they could have learned that every statement I have made is backed up with documentary and/or expert evidence, and solidly grounded in law.”

Intimidating lawyers is gaining in popularity among leftist thugs.

Look at the grifters of the execrable Lincoln Project, a pro-Democratic super PAC, which harassed attorneys for providing legal services to the Trump campaign.

In November it vowed to blow at least $500,000 on advertising undermining the law firms of Jones Day and Porter Wright Morris and Arthur for representing Trump and the Pennsylvania Republican Party, it was reported.

“These firms are architecting Donald Trump’s unwarranted and dangerous attacks on our democracy … Their employees should resign in protest,” the group wrote on Twitter.

The Lincoln Project doxxed attorneys from both firms on Twitter, posting their LinkedIn pages and the names and contact information for lawyers acting for Trump.

On January 3, the Lincoln Project urged Twitter users to call respected Republican attorney Cleta Mitchell’s Milwaukee “home office” because she participated in the conference call with Trump “when he threatened & pressured [Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger] to overturn the will of Georgia voters.”

“How does that make you feel? Tell them,” the tweet continued.

In reality, the president didn’t demand that Raffensperger, a Republican, do anything inappropriate with election results or threaten him. A leaked recording of the January 2 telephone call showed Trump just told the state official how many votes he needed to make up to secure Georgia’s electoral votes.

“I just want to find 11,780 votes,” Trump said on what was a legally privileged call initiated in hopes of settling ongoing litigation.

Mitchell was driven from her law firm, Foley and Lardner, where she was a partner.

The New York State Bar Association is looking at disbarring Trump lawyer and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Democrats also want pro-Trump attorneys Sidney Powell and Lin Wood disciplined.

And leftists are now planning to punish –including with acts of physical violence— Trump supporters outside the world of elected officials and lawyers. Some want to “reeducate” and “deprogram” Trump supporters, while others want South African-style truth and reconciliation commissions, or worse.

Democrats are not celebrating their election victories, Tucker Carlson notes.

“In fact, no one in the Democratic Party seems happy,” he says. “Instead of taking victory laps, they are plotting revenge against the people they just beat. They're thinking of new ways to injure, humiliate and degrade their political opponents, make it impossible for them to work again, throw them in jail, and destroy their lives.”

“The leaders of the Democratic Party have now decided that 74 million Trump voters weren't just wrong or misguided. They didn't simply back the wrong guy or have incorrect opinions or fail to see obvious truths. No, the threat they pose is graver and more serious than that. These 74 million Trump voters are, in fact, terrorists. They are a looming physical threat to the rest of us, and must be dealt with in the way that you deal with threats like that. “

And so a new, grim chapter in American life begins.


Biden Rescinds Trump’s ‘Muslim Travel Ban’ as ‘Inconsistent with American Values’

Even as most of the nations on that list have just appeared on another more troubling list.


SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/biden-rescinds-trumps-muslim-travel-ban-raymond-ibrahim/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

No sooner did Joseph Biden enter the White House on January 20, 20201, before he began rescinding some of his predecessor’s strong immigration policies.

In early 2017, for example, Trump issued travel restrictions into the U.S. from various nations.  They are currently eight: Chad, Iran, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.  Although North Korea and Venezuela have nothing to do with Islam, in an effort to present Trump’s policy as “Islamophobic,” then and now his enemies refer to it as a “Muslim Ban.”  Or, in the words of the Biden White House, it was “rooted in religious animus and xenophobia.”

In reality, Trump banned entry from those eight nations because they were all to various degrees either state sponsors of terrorism and/or posed a serious security threat to the U.S; most or all of them regularly appear on the State Department’s list of “countries of particular concern,” while others are known state sponsors of terrorism.

Interestingly, and perhaps even more tellingly, most of these eight nations appeared on another list just a few days ago.  On January, 18, 2021, Open Doors, an international human rights organization that annually ranks the 50 worst nations that persecute Christians, published its latest findings.  Six of the eight nations affected by Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban”—that is, 75 percent of them—are on this list.

North Korea (#1) is the worst: “Being discovered as a Christian is a death sentence.”  The other nations—Somalia (#3), Libya (#4), Yemen (#7), Iran (#8), Syria (#12)—are not much better.  As with North Korea, they too, as part of the absolute worst 12, are all categorized as nations where “extreme persecution” occurs.  

For the record, Open Doors, which compiled this list, is critical of Trump, i.e., its findings are not politically motivated.

Of course, you may not be nor care much about what happens to Christians; even so, rest assured that these aforementioned nations that persecute Christians do so less because they know or care about Christianity, and more because they simply hate “the other”—that is, you, if you’re not Muslim.

Despite all this, Biden has denounced Trump’s strict travel measures against these eight nations as “inconsistent with American values.”  Moreover, and as one of his very first acts, Biden has just issued an order that “instructs the State Department to restart visa processing for affected countries and to swiftly develop a proposal to restore fairness,” as well as to increase “information sharing” with foreign governments and nations.   

Only time will tell what the ramifications of this ease on travel restrictions will be.

By the way, and in closing, that six of the eight nations on Trump’s “ban” are Muslim—and that nearly 80 percent of the nations that persecute and maul Christians and other minorities are Islamic—is and always has been less a reflection of “Islamophobia” and more a reflection of why fear of Islam exists in the first place.


Hail to the Thief BIDEN: Democrats celebrate a “victory for democracy” with barbed wire, soldiers, and political terror.


SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/hail-thief-daniel-greenfield/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

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

On a cold, windy day with a small group of spectators watching from behind barbed wire,

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. swore another in a long series of false oaths before his motorcade passed between a long row of soldiers with their backs to him looking outward for threats.

No inauguration has been this empty in a century of American history. And at no inauguration have the spectators been outnumbered by a raw display of armed force. American presidents have been inaugurated in wartime and during actual national emergencies with a better turnout.

Through world wars and wars on terror, Washington D.C. has remained a national capital where the hundreds of millions of taxpayers who labor to pay for its grand edifices, free museums, and lavish lifestyles could briefly come to enjoy a little of the life lived by the ruling class in the Imperial City. Now the ruling class has made it clear that it doesn’t want peasants entering D.C.

Even as Biden’s team prepped the executive orders that would end the national emergency at the border and shut down construction of the wall, new walls topped by razor wire were rising across the imperial city. The new Fortress of Government sealed off two miles of the National Mall and parts of downtown D.C. and filled it with more soldiers than are deployed in Iraq.

The Secret Service designated green and red zones. Some 25,000 National Guard members were dispatched from Vermont, Maine, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Colorado to prepare for a fake invasion that never came. But the armored vehicles and heavy weaponry did come. President Trump had wanted a military parade that would show America’s strength to the world. Biden held his own military parade to intimidate his fellow Americans.

Democrats had deployed more soldiers in D.C. than they had in Iraq and Afghanistan while authorizing them to use lethal force and investigating their politics before the deployment. The radical leftists who had resisted using the military to fight terrorism or secure the border from invasion were eager to deploy the military against the people of the United States of America.

The handfuls of ordinary people who arrived, as Americans always do, to attend the inauguration of a new president were confronted with heavy weapons and barbed wire.

D.C. had become a Baghdad and Berlin of checkpoints, choking off access to much of the city, closing roads, bridges, and metro stations. Soldiers could be seen on every corner, and the 25,000 troops were bolstered by 4,000 Marshalls, and a motley crew of local forces, including 200 members of the NYPD, 40 members of the Chicago police, New Jersey and Maryland state troopers, Miami-Dade cops, and other law enforcement officers who were needed back home.

24 people were shot in Chicago this weekend and murders are already up 125% this year in New York City. Those officers could have done more good at home, but Democrats don’t care about murder victims in urban areas, instead redeploying officers to D.C. in a show of force.

Biden took office in a city under military occupation whose businesses were closed and boarded up. The D.C. government had tried to force hotels to shut down. The hotels didn’t close, but there were hardly any people. Instead the hotels were filled with soldiers tramping through their lobbies. Any tourists that did come found nothing to see except barricades and barbed wire.

Sometimes what you don’t see is more important than what you do see.

Filling D.C. with soldiers meant that no one was going to measure Biden’s crowds. The only crowds were heavily armed and had been ordered to come. The complete lack of enthusiasm for the new one-party state that was getting its Mussolini on was the dog that didn’t bark.

Questioning Biden’s election has been deemed to be incitement. It’s enough to get you censored, de-platformed, and fired by the companies standing behind him. The election challenges have been used as the pretext for a military occupation of Washington D.C. But the cloud of a disputed election, like the winter clouds overhead, still hung over the inauguration.

There were no crowds, just soldiers. After the military and police contingent, the second largest group there for the inauguration weren’t Biden’s civilian supporters, but his propagandists. With few people, the media had to work twice as hard to manufacture the illusion that this was a popular leader taking office instead of a usurper imposed by Amazon, Google, Facebook, and the rest of the political, cultural, and economic oligarchy which owns the media on America.

CNN, a subsidiary of AT&T, had already gushed about, "Joe Biden's arms embracing America". MSNBC, a subsidiary of Comcast, compared Biden to God. "He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds." The only wounds being bound up were those of the ruling class which had temporarily lost electoral power to an army of flyover country workers and peasants, only to reclaim it with sedition, wiretapping, abuse of power, billions of dollars, and soldiers in the street.

Popular leaders, elected or unelected, might have troops in their cities, but they also have adoring crowds to cheer them on. Biden’s only cheers were coming from employees of huge corporations whose jobs depend on praising him as the greatest thing since SuperPACs.

Biden couldn’t manage the cheering crowds that greeted even the most mediocre presidents on their arrival. The band might as well have struck up a rousing chorus of, “Hail to the Thief.”

Jokes like that are all but illegal these days even though they were ubiquitous during the Bush and Trump administrations. But jokes only need to be banned when they’re too close to the truth. The hysterical fascist theater with troops in the streets and fawning praise on the lips of the press are all efforts to overcompensate for the hollow man taking a false oath on a bible.

This isn’t the pageantry of Stalin or Hitler. It’s the weary theater of Brezhnev, a senescent leader of a decaying regime being propped up by desperate threats of force by the nomenklatura. Even though the media has told us more about Biden’s dogs than it has about any of the Americans killed by Islamic terrorists enabled by the open borders that Biden just reinstated, no one cares.

Biden isn’t a charismatic leader. He isn’t moving the cause forward. He’s a placeholder for a ruling class that wants homes in Dupont Circle that it buys by selling out America to China, by ruining our economy with environmental consulting gigs and racial contract quotas, and for all the manifold ways which the swamp is coming back as Biden’s wetlands restoration project.

“Hail to the Thief” is as much their anthem as it is Biden’s. They fought to keep hold of D.C., the center of their power base not because they care about its history or that of this country, but because it’s where they network, collaborate, and do their dirty little deals at our expense.

The troops in the street are their warning to the rest of the country about who is really in charge.

And it isn’t Joe Jr, who, along with his criminal family, will be allowed to dip their beaks in cash and cocaine until they’re sopping wet, along with every aide, staffer, and associate. Biden will be fawned over, his idiot wife will be dubbed a doctor, and the investigations involving his son and brother will be swiftly dropped. And when the time is right, Kamala Harris will step into his place.

When the Soviet Union was entering its last days, one leader quickly made way for another. The parade of old Communist hacks in their dotage became a procession of political funerals. Generations after the revolution and the purges, the only thing anyone in Moscow believed in was the power and decadence of the ruling class. That and the threat America posed to them.

These are still the only three things that Washington D.C.’s ruling class believes in anymore.

Democrats and their media claim that this charade is a “victory for democracy”.

"We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it, would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy. And this effort very nearly succeeded. But while democracy can be periodically delayed, it can never be permanently defeated," Amanda Gorman, the Harvard youth poetess, sonorously recited her tin-eared Maoist verses at the inauguration.

But where is this democracy? Where are the adoring crowds, the joyous mobs celebrating and the people cheering the tremendous victory of the democracy of Google, Facebook, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast and their D.C. lobbyists and associates over the Rust Belt and the flyovers?

Biden and the Democrats celebrated their democratic victory with barbed wire, troops in the streets, political terror, and the threat of even more political repression to come.

"There is a broader societal issue that is going to take years to detox the disinformation," Ben Rhodes, the Obama adviser who had boasted of creating a media echo chamber, ranted on Comcast's MSNBC. On that same state TV news network, John Brennan warned that "because of this growth of polarization in the United States" members of the Biden team would be "moving in laser-like fashion" to "root out an insidious threat to our democracy".

Democracy is in a state of permanent emergency that requires locking down D.C., filling it with soldiers, walls, and barbed wire, and investigating political crimes. And D.C. will do everything it can to end the threat that Americans pose to democracy even if its ruling class has to live in its green zone surrounded by troops and barbed wire until democracy is saved from Americans.

Biden, we are told by the political interests and corporations advocating this, is incredibly popular. But the crowds of his devotees can’t be allowed to come to Washington D.C. Anyone who doubts that Biden is incredibly popular is inciting violence and will have to be rooted out as an insidious threat to our democracy. The more people doubt Biden’s popularity, the longer D.C. will have to be under military occupation until finally no one doubts his legitimacy in office.

Hail to the Thief.


KATIE HOPKINS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.: I Watched Biden’s Inauguration First-Hand~Haunted and numb in a horribly sanitized city.

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/i-watched-bidens-inauguration-first-hand-katie-hopkins/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

As I grabbed some coffee before heading to the Capitol Building to watch the 46th President of the United States of America take his title, the lovely lady behind the counter told me she had never seen anything like this in D.C. in her life.

And all I can say as I stand here now in the freezing cold with a handful of others is that I hope America never has to see anything like this again. Nothing is as it seems. It is just horrible, in every sense.

There is no one here. And I am not saying that in the weird competitive way people talk about crowd sizes as a measure of popularity. Remember the endless quarrel over the size of Trump's inauguration crowd versus Obama's?

What I mean is that there is literally no one here. Even pressed up to the gates within sight of the Capitol Building there is barely a handful of Biden supporters -- alongside a small gaggle of media, scratching about, trying to find something to film.

Residents with the means to do so have moved out. Others stay locked in their homes. And visitors heeded the fear-mongering and stayed away. I was called ‘a moron with a death wish’ for traveling here to document this event. And even though it is perfectly safe, no one is here to bear witness to this event.

This should be an historical moment for the country. Instead, it feels like an illusion, fabricated for the TV, right down to the made-for-TV flags and columns of light on the mall.

Not only is the city completely abandoned by ordinary Americans, but it feels like a military garrison, courtesy of 25,000 National Guard troops, police, and Secret Service posted at every intersection. Many of them are sleeping at my hotel and I couldn’t wish for better roommates.

But their frustration is obvious. These good men and women have left their homes, families and jobs to be here, but to what end? We can all see there is no threat to be faced. Fake news is relying on repeating their footage of the riot at Capitol Hill to perpetuate the myth that this is a city under siege to domestic terror.

D.C. now feels like one giant stage built entirely for a drama of the Democrats' own creation. I’d argue the troops are being used as bit-part actors, for crowd scenes and effect. If you wanted to create the illusion that the Trump administration turned America into a war zone, what better way than to make D.C. a green zone, build ramparts and blockades, and fill it with troops, trucks, and men with weapons?

Bizarrely, even in this militarized zone, Black Lives Matter still gets a free pass.

Republicans, particularly white Republicans, are now tarnished with the label ‘domestic terrorists’ and are all policed as such. I can feel the eyes of the plainclothes officers on me as I move about in D.C. One photographs my face, then slips away.

And yet on Black Lives Matter Plaza, just a block or two from the White House, BLM protesters seem to enjoy special privileges. The entry point to this place remains relatively open and welcoming, their music system gives the place a party feel, and there are no National Guards visible here.

How did we end up at a place where Republicans and Democrats are policed differently, even inside a militarized zone?

I feel some pity for the media crews wandering around the lonely streets desperate for something to feed back to their bosses' funding of their trip. They know they have to film something, but when there is nothing, what are they supposed to do? Predictably, they resort to yet another closeup of the National Guard. It is soul-destroying stuff.

It feels numb here, like watching surgery on your own hand when you are anesthetized against the pain, but can still see the knife cutting flesh and watch your own blood flow. That’s exactly what it is like in D.C. Without people, there is no emotion. And without emotion, no one can feel anything. And just like surgery, it feels unreal.

It is emotion that makes these events matter. And there is none to be had here. This is a sterilized inauguration in a city sanitized by a garrison of troops. All you can feel is numb.

Biden stepped up to the podium, on an empty stand, addressing a mall void of life and spoke of his hopes for unity:

This is our moment of crises and challenge. And unity is the only path forward… Let’s start afresh. Let's start to listen to one another, see one another, hear one another.

I look around at all the facemasks and muted mouths. And feel my eyes roll in their sockets.

We must reject a culture in which facts are manipulated and manufactured.

I remember those suitcases of ballots being hauled out from under tables in Pennsylvania, and the statistically improbably vote dumps in the swing states, and wonder how this old man is not choking on his words.

America has to be better than this. Just look around. Here we stand in the shadow of the capitol dome. We endured. We prevailed.

I look around just as he asks us to do, and I see how barren it all is. This man is all but alone with his lies. Nothing has prevailed here, not joy, not emotion, and certainly not the will of the American people.

As I walk back to my hotel, feeling about ready to sit with the homeless man and share his cheap whisky, I meet a woman who has traveled from Texas to be here because of her love for Biden -- and because she was here four years ago for the pussy marches in which she had such a fantastic time.

She can't believe she is all alone and that the city is so deserted. Not only that, but she can't get close enough to see or hear anything. So much for Biden’s plea to ‘see each other, listen to each other, hear each other’. This poor woman has not seen another soul.

She tells me she just feels really, really disappointed.

I hug her and tell her I feel it too. Biden asked for unity. Perhaps this is it. His supporters and I are united in our disappointment.

Evangelical Leaders Rejoice in Communist Takeover of America

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2021/01/21/evangelical-leaders-rejoice-in-communist-takeover-of-america/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

January 20, 2021 marked the death of America as we know it. The funeral service, with America’s new Chinese Communist Party-controlled priest, Joe Biden, preaching the service, was held in honor of America’s history as Biden announced his intentions to move the country further away from its founding Judeo-Christian roots and bury her alongside dead bodies of Western Civilization, ingenuity, and superiority.

While the funeral service — also referred to as Joe Biden’s “inauguration” — barely had any attendees save a few media outlets and global elites, the “new administration” had an unlikely fan base found primarily in the left-wing of the Southern Baptist Convention (TGC) and The Gospel Coalition (TGC).

If you’ve followed Reformation Charlotte for any amount of time, you’re probably aware of the leftward drift of the Evangelical Church — primarily, the Southern Baptist Convention. We’ve covered the phenomenon for years. Leftists, like Russell Moore of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and various other seminary leaders have either actively promoted or turned a blind eye to the influx of cultural Marxism taking over.

Now, all blindfolds are off and there should be no doubt about who supports this movement and who is against it.

In the wake of the inauguration of Joe Biden, the country’s first fully Communist president, many of these Evangelicals rejoiced. Of course, there were the obvious; Thabiti Anyabwile, Lecrae, Jemar Tisby, to name a few. But the leftist outlets pretending to take a neutral stance to politics can no longer pretend.

For example, Brett McCracken, a prominent TGC contributor, gave glowing accolades to the Pagan performance put on by the new American Communist Party during the inauguration.

A lovely and dignified ceremony. Poetry. Pageantry. Prayer. Peace. All in a pandemic.

I oppose much of Biden’s policy, but I’m grateful for this moment and pray his leadership brings more goodness, truth, and beauty to America in the years to come. #InaugurationDay

McCracken, whose material is promoted in Southern Baptist and Evangelical Churches all around the nation and who pastors look to and read almost daily, referred to the ceremony as “lovely” and “dignified.” The ceremony, the poetry, the pageantry, the prayer, and the peace came from some of the most God-hating people in the world — including the disgusting and filthy, foul-mouthed musician, Lady Gaga.

We have seen McCracken’s version of false peace played out over and over in Scripture proclaiming “peace, peace, where there is no peace.” (Ezekiel 13:10Jeremiah 6:14, etc.) The false peace and false unity McCracken proclaims is demonic, evil, and should trouble the spirit of any discerning, Bible-believing Christian.

But he isn’t the only one. Of course, there is Beth Moore, the Southern Baptist Convention’s very own lady gaga who, in turn, promotes the false peace and unity of the new Communist takeover of our once-great nation. Instead of seeing the sickness of this demonic ritual for what it is, Beth Moore is able to drool over these wicked murderers.


And then, as Biden proclaims he’s going to be the president for “all Americans,” Beth Moore — who, along with the new American Communist Party — apparently does not believe that unborn children are Americans, or even people for that matter, continues her drool fest all over these wicked people.


While true Christians would mourn at the loss of life and judgment of God being unleashed on this nation, leftists masquerading as Christians rejoice. Russell Moore, head of the ERLC says “some things that President Biden has committed to do should please Christians.” And Thabiti Anyabwile, a Southern Baptist pastor, says that Joe Biden’s pick for health secretary — a transgender who can’t even figure out his own sex by looking in the mirror — is qualified and competent to execute the nation’s health policy.

While Joe Biden’s itinerary for his presidency reads like the antithesis to the Ten Commandments, these leftists want us to stand with the enemies of the Church. It is time for true Christians to stand up and begin purging these false prophets and God-hating ministers of darkness from the ranks of the Church. True Christians do not rejoice in wickedness.



Beth Moore Says God is Judging His People Because They “Sinned Grievously” By Supporting Trump


SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2021/01/19/beth-moore-says-god-is-judging-his-people-because-they-sinned-grievously-by-supporting-trump/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Beth Moore is the Southern Baptist Convention’s top lady-preacher and prime merry-andrew of Evangelicalism. Beth Moore, like her spiritual brother, Russell Moore (no relation), has lead the charge in opposing conservative policies in the political realm, primarily railing against the evil orange man, daily.

Today, she has what she’s been asking for.

Moore has repeatedly lambasted conservative Evangelicals who supported Donald Trump while giving approval to those who support the pro-sodomy, pro-abortion anti-religious freedom political party. The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, stand for everything that God is against. In fact, the Democrat party platform is like the antithesis to the 10 Commandments. Yet, Beth Moore, like the growing swaths of leftist Evangelicals, are increasingly encouraging “political diversity” and giving approval to leftists.

Now, Beth Moore says that God is judging his people because so many Christians supported Donald Trump. In a series of tweets, she writes, “God’s got this thing about pride. He does not let it go unchecked. When his people continue in arrogance after multiple warnings, he is going to bring them down.”

While she doesn’t exactly explain what she means by “bring them down,” one can only assume that she means that God is punishing them. Today, the world finds out that the incoming Democrat president plans to unleash upon the nation a depraved, confused, sexually immoral person to lead the nation’s health policy. In the words of John Calvin, “when God wants to judge a nation, He gives them wicked rulers.”

Of course, repentance, she says, is what we should have done.

Repentance, instead of what? Repentance, instead of “doubling down,” apparently. Because, apparently, in Beth Moore’s simplistic and feeble mind, Republicans — especially Donald Trump — are pro-death for everyone except straight, white men.

Therefore, God is judging the Church for sinning “grievously” by “wedding evangelicalism to a political party.” Because, it wasn’t about protecting religious freedom — that we all know is now gone. It wasn’t about protecting unborn life — that we now know will be in greater danger. It wasn’t about protecting the consciences of people who don’t want to be forced to deny reality when it comes to sex and gender.


It’s all about “power.”

Therefore, since so many Christians supported Donald Trump — cause, you know, all those white trailer park trash are all about maintaining their positions of power — God is releasing his judgment and the only way out is repentance.


In Arrears, Iran Loses its Vote in the UN


SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/01/in-arrears-iran-loses-its-vote-in-the-un;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The most amusing, if not necessarily most important story to come out of the Middle East this week: Iran turns out to be the biggest deadbeat in the UN, owing that body $16.2 million that it has been unable to come up with. Once Iran wallowed in wealth, suffering from an embarrass de richesse, the oil money came in torrents, and in the good old pre-Khomeini days Iran’s rich would fly in catered meals from Fauchon and Hediard in Paris – surely the most expensive version of GrubHub ever invented. The Shah spent hundreds of millions of dollars on celebrating the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian Empire in October 1971. But that was then, and this is now, and Iran has fallen on hard times. The UN has just announced that for failure to pay its dues, Iran will lose its voting rights in the General Assembly. One less vote in the Kangaroo Court of the UN General Assembly against Israel, one giant step for mankind. What was once an embarrassment of Iranian riches has become, in a time of economic collapse in Teheran, merely an embarrassment. The report on Iran’s empty pockets is here: “Iran loses UN voting rights over unpaid dues, blames US sanctions,” by Lahav Harkov, Jerusalem Post, January 18, 2021

Iran and six other countries lost their right to vote in the UN General Assembly, because they have not paid their dues, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Monday.

Iran blamed US sanctions for blocking the Islamic Republic from paying its required contribution to the UN.

Guterres wrote a letter to General Assembly President Volkan Bozkir of Turkey that the countries in arrears to the UN will have their UNGA voting rights suspended in accordance with the UN charter, which calls for the suspension of voting rights if a member state fails to pay its fees for more than two years.

Iran owes $16.2 million, more than any other country.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said the funds designated for UN payments are frozen in two South Korean banks, due to US sanctions. He said the Islamic Republic has a total of $7 billion in those banks.

Khatibzadeh demanded that the UN guarantee the payments are safely transferred without using US banks.

“Given that the United States has encroached upon Iran’s international assets before, the Islamic Republic of Iran insists that the UN not use an American intermediary bank to receive our country’s membership fee, or that this organization guarantee the financial transfer channel,” Iran International News quoted Khatibzadeh as saying.

Blaming the Great Satan for your inability to come up with $16.2 million is absurd. There are many ways to pay that UN bill without being forced to use an American bank. The Iranians could, if they wished, use a Qatari bank to transfer funds – Qatar is, as of this writing, still friendly with Iran. It hasn’t yet succumbed to the blandishments of the GCC, that has ended its blockade of Qatar and welcomed the waddling Emir with open arms. Here’s an even better suggestion: why not use a Russian bank? Surely Vladimir Putin would be glad to help out his friends in Tehran. What a marvelous way for Putin to join the Supreme Leader in jointly thumbing their noses at the Great Satan. And if Iran wants to do something really daring, why doesn’t it pay its UN bill with Bitcoin or some other up-and-coming cryptocurrency? And finally, what about the tried-and-true Suitcase Method? Just as Qassem Soleimani once delivered an even larger sum — $22 million – in bags of cash to Hamas delegates at the airport just before they left Tehran in 2006, nothing prevents the Iranian government from scraping together $16.2 million in cash – I’m sure the Supreme Leader can come with that amount from his petty cash; after all, the business empire Ayatollah Khamenei controls is worth $250 billion. That sum can be neatly placed in a few suitcases, and then Foreign Minister Javad Zarif can hand-deliver those suitcases stuffed with cash to U.N Secretary-General Guterres.

But while Iran will then be given back its right to vote in the General Assembly, it can’t undo the fact that in not paying its dues for more than two years, it has cut a sorry figure on the world stage, a seeming – albeit temporary – deadbeat, trying to pin its failure to pay the UN on the US sanctions, when there are plenty of ways to deliver that $16.2 million.

But even if Iran settles up, the world knows now that for two years it could not, or would not, out of some blend of spite, economic distress, and desire to find one more reason to blame the US, come up with what is, in international transactions, a trivial sum. This provides an embarrassing image – poor Iran, standing on a crepuscular street corner under a streetlight, one hand held out in Eleemosynary Position #1, as it quietly sings “Brother, can you spare a dime?” — that the Islamic Republic, so defiant of both the Great and the Little Satan, a braggart warrior that keeps hinting it is ready to roll, wants to be quickly forgotten. I don’t think it will fall in arrears again.


Biden Is Already Rewarding Failure


SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/01/biden-is-already-rewarding-failure;

AND: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/01/17/biden-is-already-rewarding-failure-n1390614

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

When Sundown Joe takes office on Wednesday, the old gang will be back in the saddle again: the foreign policy establishment hacks who have done nothing but fail, fail, and fail again, and in response keep getting rewarded not with dismissal and a forced return to private life, but with honors, awards, and promotions. AFP reported Saturday that Biden has appointed Wendy Sherman, whose chief claim to fame is negotiating the notorious Iran nuclear deal, to be deputy secretary of state. It’s a classic example of failing up.

Biden said of Sherman and anti-Russia career diplomat Victoria Nuland, whom he named undersecretary for political affairs, that they “have secured some of the most defining national security and diplomatic achievements in recent memory. I am confident that they will use their diplomatic experience and skill to restore America’s global and moral leadership. America is back.”

Well, that may be overstating the case, but there is no doubt that the disastrous State Department “experts” are back. Sherman is getting her promotion nearly two years after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled 55,000 pages of documents and 183 cds demonstrating that “Iran did not come clean about its nuclear program,” and that it pursued a program “to design, produce and test five warheads with 10 kiloton of TNT yield for integration on missiles.”

When Iran’s leaders denied that they intended to construct nuclear weapons, Netanyahu said, they were “blatantly lying.” He charged that “Iran lied about never having a secret nuclear program. Secondly, even after the deal, it continued to expand its nuclear program for future use. Thirdly, Iran lied by not coming clean to the IAEA.”

Wendy Sherman’s Iran nuclear deal was, according to Netanyahu, “based on lies based on Iranian deception.” The Islamic Republic’s Fordow nuclear plant was, he said, “designed from the get-go for nuclear weapons for project Amad…We can now prove that project Amad was a comprehensive program to design, build and test nuclear weapons. We can also prove that Iran is secretly storing project Amad material to use at a time of its choice to develop nuclear weapons.”

The head of project Amad was a nuclear scientist named Mohsen Fakhrizdeh.

In the two intervening years, Netanyahu’s presentation has been mocked, derided, or ignored altogether, but it has never been disproven. Even aside from it, as The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran shows, the deal was foredoomed in the first place, and had no chance of being effective to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The deal runs out in 2025. What about after that? Nothing. Apparently, at that point, Iran would be free to build nuclear weapons with no objections from anyone.

Even worse were the deal’s provisions for verification. It contained the provision that Iran could delay requested International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections for up to 24 days — ample time to clean up for the inspectors. The return to the deal will also be accompanied by a removal of sanctions that will get Western cash flowing once again into the Islamic Republic. What did Iran’s mullahs do with the billions Barack Obama showered upon them? They financed jihad terror groups around the world. What will they do now with their Biden money? Almost certainly the same thing.

What’s more, the deal, in its 159 pages, went into tremendous detail about the Iranian nuclear program and how it was to be temporarily restricted in various ways. It also expatiated at length on exactly which sanctions were to be removed. But it was conspicuously lacking in specifying penalties for Iran’s not holding to the agreement. There was vague talk about the sanctions being reimposed, but no concrete guidelines about how that was to be done, and nothing said about recovering money given to Iran in the interim.

These and other terms were, obviously, absurdly easy on Iran. What exactly did the rest of the world get out of this agreement when it was originally concluded? Only a newly flush and increasingly bellicose Iran, thanks to Barack Obama. And now Joe Biden is rewarding the chief architect of this mess with a promotion for her incompetence. Nor is Wendy Sherman alone: the entire foreign policy arm of the Biden administration is set to be staffed by these failures, phonies, and frauds. But with the establishment media doing everything it can to put the best possible face on the coming fiasco, most Americans will have no idea of what is going on, or why.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Biden Inauguration Emphasizes Unity and Democracy


Biden Inauguration Emphasizes Unity and Democracy


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/biden-inauguration-emphasizes-unity-and-democracy/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Inauguration addresses — traditionally delivered after a president has taken the oath of office — usually are more thematic rather than specific, and the speech delivered by President Joe Biden on Wednesday was no different.

The twin themes of the day were “democracy” and “unity.”

The inauguration of Biden marked the 59th presidential inauguration in American history — the first was that of George Washington on April 30, 1789 in New York City — and everyone since the first has marked a peaceful transfer of power. Usually, the outgoing president shares the stage, and is lauded in some way by the incoming president. Despite all the emphasis on unity, Trump’s name was never spoken during the entire ceremony. He was not there, having flown home to Florida this morning.

In 1801, John Adams, the first president to be defeated for reelection, took an early morning stage out of Washington, D.C., rather than attend the inauguration of the man who had defeated him, Thomas Jefferson.

From the beginning of today’s ceremony, Americans were told that we are a “democracy,” almost to the point of sounding religious. In fact, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who co-chaired the Inauguration Committee with Senator Roy Blount (R-Mo.), even said that they were all standing in front of the “temple of our democracy.” In his remarks, Republican Blount repeatedly called the United States a democracy, rather than a republic.

The only time the word “republic” was uttered was during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Of course, the Founders would have recoiled. James Madison, for example, specifically rejected the word “democracy” to describe the form of government the Constitution had created, because he believed the purpose of government is to defend life, liberty, and property, rather than to allow the majority to trample those rights.

Lady GaGa delivered a good rendition of the National Anthem, and Garth Brooks concluded the festivities with a reasonable interpretation of “Amazing Grace.” Jennifer Lopez also sang a medley of songs, including “This Land Is Your Land,” and “America the Beautiful.” Lopez is probably unaware that “This Land Is Your Land” was written by Woody Guthrie, who was a regular contributor to an official newspaper of the American Communist Party, at a time when it was recognized as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union. Guthrie’s song was partly an attack on the concept of private property.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was lauded as the first “Latina” to administer the oath of office to a vice president, Kamala Harris. Harris herself was praised as the first African-American and the first woman to take the oath as vice president.

Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to Biden, and his speech continued the theme that America was a democracy, with such opening lines as, “This is democracy’s day,” speaking of “the cause of democracy,” and that “democracy has prevailed.”

Biden mentioned the ravages of the coronavirus pandemic, saying that as many Americans had now died from the virus as died in World War II. He also cited the economic consequences of the virus, with jobs lost and businesses closed.

He only lightly touched on political issues, but he did say that the planet is crying for survival, and that white supremacy and domestic terrorism must be defeated.

Biden turned to the theme of unity, calling for Americans to unite together to fight our common foes of lawlessness, joblessness, and extremism. He said that Americans should not see each other as “adversaries,” and instead should “lower the temperature” in the country.

He affirmed the right of peaceful dissent, and pledged to work as hard for those who did not support him as those who did. In his effort to promote the theme of unity, Biden said we must end the division of red versus blue, and set aside politics to fight the virus.

Of course, a Biden speech would not be complete without a gaffe. In his effort to emphasize unity, he mentioned Roe v. Ervin. Of course, the Supreme Court case of 1973 that declared abortion to be a constitutional right was Roe v. Wade.

Next, in a probable slap at Trump’s “America First” agenda, Biden vowed to “engage the world again,” by being not an example of our power, but leading by the power of our example.

He concluded his address by saying, “I give you my word to defend the Constitution, our democracy, and our America.”

Chris Wallace of Fox News, who has proven to be a friend of Biden and certainly no friend of Trump, called it the greatest inaugural speech he had ever heard, specifically saying it surpassed that of John F. Kennedy and his famous, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country” and of Ronald Reagan, who said, “In our present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

Despite the theme of “unity” that pervaded the inaugural address, it appears that Biden’s fellow Democrats are in anything but a mood of unity, with some calling to put those who worked for President Donald Trump on some sort of jobs blacklist, and questioning whether white national guard troops could even be trusted to protect Biden and the other dignitaries at the event.  

Dana Perino noted that Biden was planning on signing 15 executive orders on his first day, most countering the policies of the previous administration. Apparently, unity means falling in line with the agenda of the Left, from abortion to climate change.

With a Senate divided equally between Democrats and Republicans, and a House of Representatives almost equally divided, it remains to be seen just how much “unity” there will be in our nation’s Capitol. For those who desire to see limited government, the best we can probably hope for is gridlock.

Mismanaging Crises (Real and Imagined): A Primer to Biden’s First 10 Days in Office


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/mismanaging-crises-real-and-imagined-a-primer-to-bidens-first-10-days-in-office/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

President Joe Biden plans to hit the ground running, according to a memo for incoming White House staff released on Saturday by Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain. The memo outlines what the staff and America, in general, can expect in the first 10 days of the new administration and beyond.

Klain alleges that America is facing “four overlapping and compounding crises,” which he describes as the “COVID-19 crisis; the resulting economic crisis; the climate crisis and a racial equity crisis.”

“In his first ten days, President-elect Biden will take decisive action to address these four crises, prevent other urgent and irreversible harms, and restore America’s place in the world,” Klain wrote.

The White House may want to invest in some good analgesic ointment because the president will be at real risk of suffering severe writer’s cramp from all the executive orders he’s expected to sign.

In keeping his plagiarized pledge to “Build Back Better,” President Biden will sign dozens of executive orders, presidential memoranda, and directives to Cabinet agencies meant to keep those promises.

“These executive actions will deliver relief to the millions of Americans that are struggling in the face of these crises. President-elect Biden will take action — not just to reverse the gravest damages of the Trump administration — but also to start moving our country forward,” Klain explained.

In between giving his inaugural address, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and dancing with new First Lady Jill Biden at the Tom Hanks-hosted prime-time special in the evening, President Biden will sign roughly a dozen executive orders meant to address the four crises Klain describes on day one of his presidency.

“As previously announced, he will ask the Department of Education to extend the existing pause on student loan payments and interest for millions of Americans with federal student loans, re-join the Paris Agreement, and reverse the Muslim ban,” Klain warned.

Biden will also launch his “100 Day Masking Challenge” on the first day. The new president will issue the first federal mask mandate by requiring masks on all federal property and during all interstate travel, which Klain describes as “part of a critical effort to bend the curve on COVID.”

In addition, on day one, Biden is expected to “take action to extend nationwide restrictions on evictions and foreclosures and provide more than 25 million Americans greater stability, instead of living on the edge every month.”

And that’s just the first day of the Biden presidency. Such a celebration cannot be limited to only one day, of course.

“In order to highlight the actions the president-elect is taking, we are spreading these initial executive actions over a ten-day period,” Klain wrote.

Day two and three belong to COVID, as Biden is expected to aggressively address the virus and its effects on American citizens. According to his chief of staff, Biden is expected to act Thursday on safely opening schools and businesses, expand COVID testing programs, and establish “clear public health standards.” On Friday, the new president will order his “Cabinet agencies to take immediate action to deliver economic relief to working families bearing the brunt of this crisis.”

After a well-deserved weekend off, Biden will begin anew on Monday.

“Between January 25 and February 1, the president-elect will sign additional executive actions, memoranda and Cabinet directives,” Klain advises.

But beyond Monday the 25th, Biden’s actions are less clearly defined, with Klain claiming that the new president will “take action” to advance equity in communities of color and other unnamed underserved communities and reform the criminal justice system. He will also “take steps” to expand healthcare, especially for low-income women and women of color. He will also begin fulfilling his promise to “restore dignity” to our immigration system.

Biden will also “sign additional executive actions to address the climate crisis with the urgency the science demands and ensure that the science guides the administration’s decision making.”

Klain further notes that the list of actions scheduled for those first 10 days is not “comprehensive.” So, we can expect other announcements on all types of subjects going forward.

President Biden has been around Washington long enough to know that the ship of state doesn’t simply stop on a dime and change course. However, this administration — with help from the mainstream media and the Big Tech thought police — are determined to make it seem that it does.


Antifa? Infiltrators? Eyewitness account of what happened at the US Capitol on Jan. 6


What a veteran of many other Trump rallies saw and heard that day –

very disturbing. It was clearly a setup.


SEE: https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21a/Eyewitness-account-at-US-Capitol-Jan6/index.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Richard Howell, a resident of Massachusetts and a long-time friend of MassResistance, traveled to Washington, DC on Jan. 6 to hear President Trump’s speech near the White House and then attend the scheduled pro-Trump rally outside the US Capitol building.

What he saw was quite different than what most Americans have heard from the media (much of which are outright lies) – and certainly different from any other conservative rally. Since then, many reports have appeared in conservative media of intense infiltration by Antifa there that day (see here and here and here) to create trouble.

Here’s what Richard told us a few days after he returned:


President Trump’s speech at the Ellipse

We’re all hearing that Trump’s speech that day riled the people to attack the Capitol. That’s a complete lie. If anything, his speech was so subdued people were walking away early because they weren’t hearing enough fire from him. I’ve never seen that happen at a Trump speech ever before. And I remember looking at the guys I was standing with and saying to them, “I don’t know what he’s doing, but there has to be a reason he is doing this the way he’s doing it.” I left just when his speech was concluding..

Walking to the Capitol

I’m walking up Pennsylvania Ave. from the President’s speech at the Ellipse. It’s about a 40-minute walk, but I was in a rush to get there and made it in 25 minutes. I’m hungry. I’m thirsty. And I’m wondering where our people are – that’s what’s on my mind. The White House grounds are completely blocked off, which is normal. So I’m walking up and behind me I see a throng of hundreds of thousands of people packed together. They were our supporters coming up, and I’m glad I’m here. They’re probably five or ten minutes behind me.

As I’m walking, I notice a policeman in an SUV, and he’s taking pictures of the crowd like everybody else.  I went up to him and I said, “Yeah, you too huh?” I’m joking with him and he started to laugh. And he was the last policeman I saw.

Arriving at the Capitol

I get over to the end of Pennsylvania Ave., right where the Capitol circular drive starts. And I see nothing but our people there, large numbers of them. And I didn’t see one police officer of any stripe – Capitol police, Capitol building police (which is under the control of Speaker Pelosi), or any others. The people were just standing where they were. You had to work your way through that crowd. A lot of people were doing that, but many were standing still.

As I’m working my way through the crowd – it’s not quite one o’clock – and as I’m approaching the building, I’m hearing people saying, “Wow, I can’t believe this, we have a good spot here.” And I thought, “You know, they’re letting people be very close to the building.” Now, I haven’t seen that in a couple of decades. The Capitol building is usually a fortress, and those grounds are cordoned off with barriers and policemen all over the place. If you’ve been there, you’ve certainly seen that.

In fact, the last few times I was down there, they were even kicking people off the Supreme Court grounds next to the Capitol, which was ridiculous. People weren’t anywhere close to the Capitol building but the police were kicking them out.

So this time we’re wide open to the Capitol building, and we’ll be able to get a good spot there. But it was a little hard to get there, because there were some people standing still and not moving, and other people were trying to work their way through, like me!

Things began to happen

Then in the background, somewhere, I don’t know where, I hear whiz bang, thud, whiz bang, thud, whiz bang, thud.  I’m like, what was that? Who’s shooting? It sounded as if there were some kind of canisters. I don’t know who was shooting them or what. I presumed it was the police, but I didn’t know. At first I thought it was maybe some kind of troublemaker, maybe an Antifa guy or BLM guy, doing that. I thought, “This is odd.”

And then I get closer to where there’s a brick plaza, the last long stretch of territory before you get to the columns in the south portico. I only get to the edge of that, as there was no need to go further. As I’m looking around, nothing big is happening. There are people that are trying to move forward.

Suddenly I’m hearing some people in back of me shout, “Oh, go forward, go forward fellow patriots!” I’m saying to myself, “I don’t know these idiots, I know where I need to go, I don’t have to listen to these imbeciles.” I just thought these guys were trying to be hotshots.

Tear gas

I’m at that area for probably five or ten minutes and I smell smoke and I see people streaming back. There are a lot of people in front of me and they’re coming back and their eyes are watering and they’re covering their faces. I said, “My God, that’s tear gas.” So I back off. I retreat back to just before that area. And I said, “Something’s happening. This is trouble. And I can’t believe these are our people. Our people just don’t get into that.”

People are streaming back and they’re holding their eyes. And then, when it cleared up – it might have been another five or ten minutes – I go back again.

The lie about wanting to go after Pence

As I’m going – this is probably about 1:15 pm – I’m hearing a guy not far away making an announcement, “Pence just certified, Pence just certified.” People are saying, “What! My God, that can’t be true!”

I pulled him aside and said, “Where did you get that information?” And I think he said, “Oh, I got it off of NewsMax or One America.” Whatever he told me, it seemed credible and I wasn’t shocked. Then there was a guy with a bullhorn standing on one of the concrete retaining walls nearby, and he’s saying, “Yes, it looks like the Vice President has betrayed us, it looks like he has certified. But that’s preliminary information. Does anyone have any information to the contrary?” 

Nobody really knew what Pence had done. So lie number two was that people were there to hang Pence. Nobody had a clue what was going on; people weren’t thinking about that.

Guys up on the scaffolding

Then I see more tear gas and more people coming by. I tried to phone my buddies who were somewhere in the crowd, but our cell phones were not able to communicate. I wouldn’t be surprised that they were jamming the phone signals. But I finally was able to I hear one of them say, “There are guys on the staircases now,” but the signal was lost again.

Then I looked up and saw some guys were on the scaffolding (that’s there presumably for the inauguration ceremonies). So, I’m thinking, “What are these guys in the scaffolding for? This is crazy. You’re going to be surrounded and apprehended by security.”

But I don’t see any policeman anywhere. Normally (pun intended) it’s a capital offense if you get to the building and you’re not supposed to be there. They’ll rush you down, they’ll shoot you. They’ll bind you up and take you away. But the Capitol police were nowhere to be found.

The guys in the scaffolding, who looked like they were trying to breach the building, were just standing there with goofy smiles on their faces. It was just very tacky, which is another thing that really looked weird. They certainly didn’t seem like our people at all.

The guys on the scaffolding began waving American flags, and the people in the crowd didn’t know who they were – some were cheering and some were just looking at them, and some people were saying, “Why are they doing that?”

But tear gas was still going off – you could see the smoke – and blowing back to the crowd from the front, which by now disturbed a lot of people. It seemed as if police somewhere were doing this, and the people were getting upset. They’re saying, “We’re here, exercising our rights, and they’re firing on us. Why are they doing this?”

I said to someone, “If we were Antifa or BLM, they wouldn’t be doing this.” and the guy said, “Yeah they certainly wouldn’t be.” That was the sentiment. So people really were dismayed that they were being treated this way. It’s also likely that Antifa was doing the tear-gassing – which I’ll get to.

A few police show up

Finally, for the first time all day, I see six Capitol policemen, scurrying down a metal staircase right near that scaffolding. They are pointing at one of the guys up there – there may have been 3 or 4 there, I couldn’t see them all because there was a tarp in the way. One of them was pointing back at the police officer. Now the voices can carry, and I was close enough to hear some of what was said. The police were saying, “Get out of there now!” And the guy was saying, “No! We’re not getting out of here!” 

And, I don’t know where it came from, but all of a sudden a canister of tear gas came out from the scaffolding into the crowd of policemen. One of them got hit in the face. And the other five police had to carry him away.

No police came back! Normally when you assault a policeman like that or you’re in the middle of that, even if you’re defending yourself, you’re going to have a platoon come down and take you out. If six guys couldn’t take those guys out they’re going to send 21 down to stop them, right?  But nothing, zero.

Man shot by rubber bullets

And at this time I see this man who was shot, by rubber bullets. His jacket was shredded, he was being helped by three people, two men and a woman. And he’s sitting in a corner.

Meanwhile, my friends texted me and said they were on the other side of the building near where the Supreme Court faces.  So I said, “OK, I’ll see you in a minute.”

But first I wanted to see if this other man was going to be OK.  And he went into shock, the medics came and got him, and I don’t know what happened with him after that. He didn’t look like he was particularly quarrelsome. The only thing I remember is that he had cowboy boots on. Other than that he seemed like a clean-cut, middle-aged fellow. His temple was grazed by a bullet. He looked like he was also shot in the chest. He was bleeding from the hands and was bandaged there. Maybe also shot in the arm and leg, I don’t know. Once he was out of there I figured, OK, I’m leaving now, because I want to find my friends on the other side of the building.

Shouts of “Go into the building!”

But then I saw a group of guys directing the other people there to go into the Capitol building. They were shouting, “Come on patriots, go in! This is our house! Yeah! The second American Revolution!”  I was shaking my head saying, ”This is a trap, this is crazy.”

But there were guys going in! Now, some of them looked to be guys that would have been our guys. They were dressed the right way, they were acting the right way. In other words, they were people that I was convinced were actually Trump constitutionalist supporters that were just getting carried away.

But the guys leading them in there were different. I thought, “Something’s wrong. This is insane.”

So I backed off.  I wanted to go to where my friends were. So I walked around the building to the west portico. And I could see some officers around the corner, but not many.

At the other side of the Capitol building

The west portico faces the Supreme Court building. And the two wings – the House and the Senate, and also the middle wing – all had our people on the staircases, all the way to the top. On the landing of each wing there was a police corps in there, of I don’t know how many policemen altogether, but 30 at least. (It’s not a continuous building, it’s sectioned off. You have a portico in each one of the entrance ways.)

In each one of those cases, I could see that the police and our guys were probably a meter apart. Nobody was in anybody’s space. It was pretty calm. You know, some of the guys were talking with each other, some guys were chanting a little bit, but not too much. And that was the case in each one of those three staircases there. And I am thinking to myself, “Why didn’t they do this at the south portico?” Well of course the answer is obvious, there were activists looking to stage something on the south portico. There is no doubt in my mind.

Nancy Pelosi controls the Capitol security and the Capitol police in the building. Mayor Muriel Bowser also controls the Capitol police. And there was no doubt in my mind they were setting things up. There is no other explanation for it and that’s what turned out to happen.

After that point, we left to go to our metro stations to get to our rides back.

A few more observations

When I was at the front side, the south portico, I could see activity right up front, but I couldn’t see what was happening up in the wings. I didn’t see any windows being broken.

One interesting story after the scaffolding incident: Some of the guys crawled all the way up to the top balcony in the portico. And I’m thinking, “What are they doing? They’re really asking for trouble now.”

Once we're up there, I could hear people saying, “The doors are open! The doors are open!” Not like they broke them in or somebody else broke them in, they were surprised the doors were open. 

I thought, “That can’t be, these people are delusional. There’s no way the doors can be open.” Somebody asked me if I thought they got in. I said, “There’s no way. I just can’t see them getting in the building.” But I was wrong. Clearly, they did get in!


There was no doubt that there was something very strange going on. But I didn’t think much about it till afterwards. One incident in particular now stands out.

As I mentioned, earlier there were people streaming by me that had tear gas in their eyes. And there were two fellows in particular I remember, a white man and a black man. They were stocky men, lightly dressed even though it was freezing out. And I said to them, “Are you all right?” because their eyes were watery and they looked different than the other people walking by. They just looked very different. And they ignored me. And I said to them again, because they were walking slowly by me, they couldn’t run by me. I said, “Hey, are you all right?” And they ignored me again. I said, “I asked you if you’re all right.” They blurted out, “Yeah, yeah.” And they looked at me in a hostile fashion. I believe those men were probably the Antifa/BLM infiltrators or deep-state/FBI operatives and ran into their own tear gas.

Final thoughts

Another thing that went through my mind afterwards: I definitely think this was some kind of planned operation to orchestrate this whole mess, with the authorities in collusion. My friend on the west side of the portico told me that they saw helmeted men coming by, and they definitely looked to them like the Antifa crowd who we used to face off against back home in Boston. And when the crowd was trying to interact with them, they were very hostile and standoffish to them, and made it very clear they didn’t want any part of them. Those aren’t our people.

Just the way it went off, not to mention the damage that was done, this was definitely not what our people would do. That’s all a BLM/Antifa/deep-state move. It looked like they were doing to us what they had been doing to Trump. They were setting us up and trying to make us look bad and creating an incident that we didn’t create but they created, and were blaming us for it. That’s what it came down to.

No sooner did I leave the Capitol grounds on was on my way to the Metro that I was messaged about ten times. There was an edict by Mayor Bowser that she would be shutting down the city at 6:00 pm. All our people would be out at 4:00 or 4:30 anyway, so that was not a big deal. But it was still strange.

Then the Capitol police started showing up in force! There were suddenly all of the cars that you’d normally see there. The Secret Service had their baton and shield crowd out, and some of them looked like overweight females. It was weird. But they were well-armed and weaponized.

In fact, the vast majority of people that were there – 99% of them – didn’t get very close to the Capitol building. And most of the people, I could see their faces, most of them did not move from where they were, they wanted to stay put.

As I said, there were only 6 police officers that I remember seeing the entire time there was trouble at the south portico, the main entrance. There were zero there for the first half hour I was there. Zero. There was nothing to stop people.

I have to hand it to the other side’s organizers. There’s no question that they pulled off a masterful stroke. Nobody on our side could see it coming. Nobody was thinking about this. Our guys weren’t talking about doing anything inappropriate. You know, how long have we been doing these kinds of rallies, and nothing bad has ever happened? Personally, I’ve been at hundreds of Republican or conservative events over the past decades without incident.

And the funny thing is, if you look at the video, which I saw after the fact, you could see that our guys that went in were on the rotunda taking pictures like tourists. And they were walking properly through the purple ropes, where you’re not supposed to go to your right or your left. That’s quite an insurrection, isn’t it? And, the police were in there were taking selfies with these guys, they’re interacting with them. They were standing around letting these guys walk all over, no problem.

So much for the riot and insurrection narrative. Those people – Pelosi, Bowser, and the other DC authorities – are complicit as hell.

MassResistance needs to get the word out about what really happened.

Trump Seriously Considers Starting a PATRIOT PARTY!!!


President Trump Considers Starting a PATRIOT PARTY! That’s right; in this video, we’re going to look at the latest reports revealing that President Trump is already speaking with his closest aids about starting a third party, we’re going to look at precisely what the prospects are for such a move with the rise of European populists parties as our model, and we’re going to see why no matter what President Trump has planned, the Republican Party will never be the same!


Trump Reportedly Wants to Create a New Political Party. Should He?


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/01/20/trump-reportedly-wants-to-create-new-political-party-should-he-n1398062;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

President Trump wants to create a new political party after leaving office, says the Wall Street Journal. According to the report, “President Trump has talked in recent days with associates about forming a new political party, according to people familiar with the matter, an effort to exert continued influence after he leaves the White House.”

According to sources, President Trump says he would want to call his new political party the “Patriot Party,” but the White House refused to comment.

It is not known just how serious Trump is about starting a new political party. As the WSJ notes, to do so “would require a significant investment of time and resources,” and third parties “have typically failed to draw enough support to play a major role in national elections.” But President Trump is perhaps the most uniquely positioned person to do such a thing, as he has a huge base of supporters, many of whom were not heavily involved in the Republican Party.

Aside from the question of whether or not he can or will start a new political party, the real issue here, I think, is whether he should.

I’ve seen many Republican friends express disappointment with the GOP in recent weeks for their failure to fight for President Trump and his priorities, as well as their criticism of Trump in the wake of the Capitol riots following the false narrative that he incited an insurrection. In fact, Republican wobbliness preceded President Trump’s term in the White House. The corrupt Obama-Biden administration spent eight years violating the Constitution without significant pushback from the Republican Party. Aside from the refusal to give Merrick Garland a hearing upon his nomination to the Supreme Court, the GOP was an ineffective check on the abuses of the Obama-Biden administration, which culminated with the spying on Trump’s campaign in 2016.

As a registered Republican—the party of Lincoln and Reagan—I’d hesitate to leave the GOP, but at the same time, what good is a political party that doesn’t fight at least as hard as the Democrats do? But I’m also a realist. Should Trump do this, he risks fracturing the conservative vote in elections. This would be like ceding power to the Democrats automatically. We can’t have that. If Trump started the Patriot Party, I might actually register as a Patriot, but I would not condone the running of a Patriot Party candidate against a Republican in any race where such a thing would result in a Democrat victory. Perhaps this is an unlikely thing to wish for.

Maybe the answer is the formation of a Patriot Caucus in the Republican Party. Give Republican voters the opportunity to see who in the party is going to fight the swamp and threat of socialism, and which ones will capitulate to the left at every opportunity.

Obviously, the only reason we’re even discussing this is that the Republican Party has proven itself to be ineffective against the Democratic machine. I hope Trump’s goal here is really to send a signal to the Republican Party that they have to step up their game. We should all be on the same side. We have to take our country back before it’s too late.

1 2 3 459