This comes after months of protests, including the attacking of chocolate stores with butyric acid.
“In October, left-wing activists had attacked a Läderach store in Basel, Switzerland, using butyric acid. The strong smell of the acid may cause irritation of the respiratory system, as well as nausea and vomiting. Following the attack, the store in Basel had to close for two days. According to a report by German newspaper “Junge Freiheit,” vandalism took place at seven individual stores.”
“In December, homosexuals were standing in front of another store, hugging and kissing each other.”
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
ZURICH — Swiss International Air Lines recently decided to discontinue working with the prestigious chocolatier Läderach reportedly due to “negative press” and subsequent feedback about the company’s opposition to homosexuality and abortion.
The Swiss news outlet Beobachter reports that the airline had been gifting the chocolate to premium passengers for 10 years, but after headlines such as “Chocolate King Fights Against Abortion and Homosexuals,” some patrons and employees began to comment about the matter.
It was “clearly too much for the airline, which has many gay crew members,” Beobachter opined.
Läderach’s CEO, Johannes Läderach, is a Christian, and his father is the president of the local branch of the organization Christianity for Today, as well as a treasurer for the Switzerland March for Life.
The Swiss Broadcasting Corporation reports that some members of the public have lashed out at Läderach over its stance on life and marriage, as homosexual and abortion “rights” advocates have accused it of “funding hatred.”
“In October, a store in Basel had to be evacuated following a stink bomb attack,” the outlet explains. “In December, same-sex couples hugged and kissed outside a Läderach branch in Zug.”
In September, members of the socialist JUSO Graubünden held a protest in front of one store, releasing a statement decrying the company’s affiliation with “Christian fundamentalist circles” and its donations to such causes.
“The inciting of this hatred is unacceptable. Women hate and LGBTQ hate have no place in our free, democratic society, so we call for a boycott of Läderach,” it said. “Free development of life and self-determination of people are the cornerstones on which our society is built, and archaic, dusty thought patterns have neither space nor are they acceptable.”
But Läderach says that the chocolate manufacturer doesn’t hate anyone, as it never asks about a person’s sexuality in hiring and the majority of its managers are women.
“Because I fight for the unborn life, I’m accused of misogyny. But I’m not a misogynist,” he told NZ am Sonntag. “I understand it if people value a woman’s right to choose more than an unborn child’s right to life. But I ask for understanding for my opinion. I’m allowed to have a different opinion.”
The CEO states that the company has lost some customers due to the beliefs of its leadership, but other customers have begun frequenting its shops out of support for the Christian chocolatier. He said that the business continued to grow in 2019 despite the opposition.
Swiss International Air Lines has had little to say about the decision to drop the company, which will reportedly go into effect officially in April.
Läderach also has stores in the United States (New York and New Jersey), Canada and the United Kingdom. In 2018, Elias Läderach was named World Chocolate Master in a confection competition in Paris, France.


President Trump will deliver an “optimistic, inspirational, forward-looking” State of the Union address on the eve of the Senate’s final impeachment vote, according to presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway, who quipped that “success is the best revenge.”


on National TV!!!

Nancy Pelosi has a complete and total meltdown on national television; not even the Marxist media knew what to say about it. But we do! We know precisely why she had petulant temper tantrum in front of the entire world; it’s because she knows that Trump’s amazing State of the Union speech guarantees that she will soon be ex-speaker when the Democrats lose the House in a landslide. We’re going to look at the president’s speech and why Nancy Pelosi can expect to be out of power very, very soon.

Conway shreds Nancy Pelosi, calls her a child for ripping Trump’s speech

Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway blasts House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ‘petty, peevish and partisan’ behavior at the State of the Union on ‘America’s Newsroom.’

Scalise reacts to Pelosi ripping Trump’s speech at State of the Union

Steve Scalise, R-La., says it was ‘one of the most disgraceful things I’ve seen.’

Pence reacts to Pelosi’s ‘new low’ at the State of the Union

Vice President Mike Pence joins ‘Fox & Friends’ to discuss House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tearing up her copy of President Trump’s address and the upcoming final impeachment vote in the Senate.

18 U.S. Code § 2071.Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

prev | next

Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Twitter has suspended UK’s courageous freedom fighter Katie Hopkins, who had a million followers on the platform, and one thing is certain: she will not be the last foe of jihad violence and Sharia oppression who is banned from Twitter. It’s all about silencing “hate,” you see. But the banning of Katie Hopkins illustrates yet again that for the Left, there is good “hate” and there is bad “hate.”
According to the UK’s Independent, “Twitter said that Ms Hopkins had been temporarily locked out of her account for violating the site’s hateful-conduct policy, which bans the promotion of violence or inciting harm on the basis of race, religion, national origin or gender identity.”
Twitter has erased all but a handful of Hopkins’ tweets, so it’s impossible to tell what the offending tweets were, but it is abundantly clear at this point that for Leftist guardians of acceptable thought nowadays, virtually any dissent from the Left’s agenda will be read as “the promotion of violence or inciting harm on the basis of race, religion, national origin or gender identity.” While “promotion of violence” is fairly easy to spot, “inciting harm” can be seen in any critical word. And then the offender has to go.
The crusaders against “hate” in this case were once again the usual suspects. According to the Independent, Twitter suspended Hopkins at the insistence of a Leftist/Islamic coalition of enemies of the freedom of speech: “The move came a little over a day after Rachel Riley, a co-presenter of Channel 4’s Countdown and an anti-racism campaigner, met Twitter representatives calling for them to review and remove Ms Hopkins’ account. The meeting was organised by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) campaign group, which called for Twitter to permanently delete the account.”
CCDH’s chief executive, Imran Ahmed, commented in the condescending tones of a man who knows the world is at his feet: “We are pleased that preliminary action appears to have been taken by Twitter against the identity-based hate actor, Katie Hopkins following productive discussions with Twitter’s UK office. There is a long road ahead before social media is made safe for dialogue, information exchange and the formation and maintenance of relationships.”
However, “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” said Ralph Waldo Emerson, and even though he is that most useless and contemptible of creatures, a dead white male, Twitter agrees with him. Rachel Riley was pleased at the forcible silencing of Hopkins, but noted that Twitter had not done her bidding to her complete satisfaction. The Independent continued: “Ms Riley said she was ‘pleased to see that action appears to have been taken’, but added that she had also called for the removal of George Galloway’s account, which remains online.”
It isn’t hard to see why this is so. Galloway, unlike Hopkins, is a fervent Leftist. According to Discover the Networks, Galloway is an “admirer of Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mao Zedong, and Joseph Stalin.” He is also the founder of Viva Palestina, touted as “a fundraising project for the Palestinian people,” which “since its inception…has given millions of dollars, as well as much non-cash assistance, directly to Hamas.”
So it is clear. Twitter claims to be against “hateful conduct,” but it really only hates some hateful conduct, not all of it. Katie Hopkins opposing jihad violence and Sharia oppression? Why, that’s hateful conduct! She must be banned! George Galloway aiding a jihad terror group that targets Israeli civilians and celebrates when those civilians are murdered? Why, that isn’t hateful conduct, not at all, at least according to Twitter’s guardians of acceptable opinion. As far as Twitter is concerned also, hating Katie Hopkins, and showering her with abuse, is perfectly fine – I’ve witnessed it myself many times on that platform. But if someone uttered a cross word to George Galloway, it is certain that he or she would soon be free of the burden of limiting one’s utterances to 280 characters.
That is the lesson of the Twitter suspension of Katie Hopkins. If you also hold opinions that are unacceptable to the elites, you’re next. Twitter won’t tolerate “hate,” you see, which means it won’t allow anything but statements aligned with the views of the Leftist political and media elites. Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out, and at Twitter, it does look as if they’ve already slipped their chain.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 19 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 The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook he


 How the NY Times, the Pulitzer Foundation and America’s cultural elite have aimed a dagger at America’s heart.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
Editorial Note: It’s time to recognize that the current ideologies of the progressive Left and the Democrat Party – Cultural Marxism and Identity Politics – pose existential threats to America’s survival.
America is unique among nations in being founded on a set of ideas and values rather than having a shared “identity” based on “blood and soil.” The founding of America during the revolutionary era 1776 – 1787 was based on principles that provide the sinews of our national identity. They are what create a unity out of the diverse peoples that have settled and occupied this country since its founding. They have been the inspirational force that enabled America to abolish slavery, become a global symbol of freedom, and provide the world’s chief bulwark against global tyrannies.
It is this inspirational memory that the political left has set out to erase and destroy. The most disturbing manifestation of this sinister aggression is the so-called “1619 Project,” the brainchild of a staff writer at The New York Times, named Nikole Hannah-Jones. It is supported by The Pulitzer Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution and the nation’s cultural elite. Six months after its launch, the “1619 Project” Is already a curriculum in 3,500 public high schools in all 50 states.[1] Given the extreme leftwing nature of the teacher unions and the public education establishment, while disturbing this is hardly surprising.[2]
The “1619 Project” is described by Times editorial board member Mara Gay in the following words: “In the days and weeks to come, we will publish essays demonstrating that nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery.”[3] In a formal statement, the Times editorial board elaborated: “The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”[4]
In other words, in its very conception, the 1619 Project is an historically illiterate lie, whose self-evident purpose is to erase the actual foundation of the nation born in 1776 and memorialized by Lincoln as a “new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
The creator of the 1619 Project, an African American Times staff writer, and pro-Castro leftist, has written an introduction to the project called “America Wasn’t a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One.”[5] The title reveals the thinly veiled racist attitudes of both the author and her project by suggesting that Blacks wrote the Declaration of Independence, created the abolitionist movement, drafted and financed the Union army, sacrificed 350,000 lives to win the Civil War, wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, created and financed the NAACP and other civil rights organizations without major support from whites, and wrote and passed the Civil Rights Acts. Of course these are absurdities, and the only reason they are even entertained is because anti-white racism is so fashionable among the nation’s cultural elites at this troubled moment in our history.
Hannah-Jones’ explanation of the project to make 1619 America’s Founding instead of 1776 or 1787, describes the event in these words: “In August 1619, just 12 years after the English settled Jamestown, Va.,… the Jamestown colonists bought 20 to 30 enslaved Africans from English pirates. The pirates had stolen them from a Portuguese slave ship that had forcibly taken them from what is now the country of Angola. Those men and women who came ashore on that August day were the beginning of American slavery. They were among the 12.5 million Africans who would be kidnapped from their homes and brought in chains across the Atlantic Ocean in the largest forced migration in human history until the Second World War.”[6] [Emphasis added.)
This description is a tissue of fictions beginning with the insinuation that 12.5 million Africans were shipped to America in the Atlantic Slave Trade. The proper figure is 330,000 – bad enough – but a sign that American slavery even in the Western Hemisphere was significantly less than Hannah-Jones and her enablers would like it to be. More strikingly, the statement that this was “the beginning of American slavery” is false on its face. It was a continuation of English – not American practice. And the 20 Africans brought to Virginia in 1619 were not slaves.
As the distinguished African-American Princeton historian, Nell Painter, observed in a critique of the 1619 Project, the Africans brought to Virginia in 1619 were indentured servants, meaning that they would be free within a set number of years, usually five to seven.[7] In fact the majority of laborers in the Virginia colony were indentured servants, almost all of them white. Moreover, neither the 20 indentured servants who arrived in Virginia in 1619 nor the vast majority of actual slaves who came later were “kidnapped” by white Englishmen or any other whites. They were bought at slave auctions centered in Ghana and Benin from black African slave owners. The 20 indentured servants who arrived in Virginia in 1619 had been captured and indentured by black African warlords as spoils of war.[8] All of these facts undermine the Times’ attack on America’s founding, so Hannah-Jones omits them.
The ideological character of the 1619 Project is manifest in the subtitle of Hannah-Jones’ historically illiterate introduction: “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.”[9] This claim is based first of all on a grammatical misunderstanding of the word “ideals,” and then on an extravagant distortion of the historical record. “Ideals” are by their very nature aspirations not facts. The Founders’ ideals were actually commitments they made which they and their heirs did carry out.
In the second place, Hannah-Jones characterization of the founders as pro-slavery in her introduction is just an offensive slander. In the words of C. Bradley Thompson’s scholarly study of the founders attitudes, America’s Revolutionary Mind: “Not a single revolutionary leader ever publicly praised slavery as a positive good. Benjamin Franklin, speaking as president of the Pennsylvania Society of Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, described slavery as ‘an atrocious debasement of human nature.’ George Washington, a slaveholder, told a friend, ‘There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery].’ At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison told his colleagues, ‘We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.’”[10]
Hannah-Jones’ claim that the Founders led a revolution to protect slavery is also   transparently false. The year 1787 saw the passing of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which established settlement of the region that would become Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. It was a geographical area as large as the existing 13 states. Article IV outlawed slavery in this unsettled land. What rationale would the allegedly pro-slavery founders have for doing that?
Inspired by their commitment to equality and liberty, the American founders immediately began dismantling the institution of slavery in the northern states, which were soon referred to as the “Free States,” a process completed by 1804. So why didn’t they simply abolish slavery throughout all the United States? An obvious, compelling reason was that they feared the catastrophe of a civil war which eventually did kill more Americans than all of America’s other wars to the present day combined. But there was an even worse prospect for them to consider. If the founders had attempted to abolish slavery in the Slave South in 1787, the South would have joined forces with the British – the greatest empire in the world, whose soldiers managed to burn the White House in the War of 1812. Such an alliance would likely have defeated the free states of the North, and the victorious South might have extended the reign of slavery for who knows how long. So they sought to delay a bloodbath that might result in an extension of slavery, believing it was a backward economic system that was bound to fall of its own weight.
Because of their racist attitudes against whites, neither Hannah-Jones nor the Times editors even bother to ask the serious question of why the anti-slavery signers of the Declaration of Independence might have reason to compromise with the Slave South. For them the only possible answer is white hypocrisy, white perfidy and white racism.
The real purpose of the 1619 Project is revealed in Nikole Hannah-Jones baseless claim that, "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country.”[11] This was a slander infamously voiced by Barack Obama and other anti-American leftists some years earlier.[12] James Oakes, himself a leftist, was also one of four major American historians to sign a joint statement challenging the historical distortions and ideological nature of the 1619 Project: “These are really dangerous tropes,” he warned. “They’re not only ahistorical, they’re actually anti-historical. The function of those tropes is to deny change over time…. They say, 'look at how terribly black people were treated under slavery. And look at the incarceration rate for black people today. It’s the same thing. Nothing changes. There has been no industrialization. There has been no Great Migration. We’re all in the same boat we were back then. And that’s what original sin is. It’s passed down. Every single generation is born with the same original sin…. There’s nothing we can do to get out of it. If it’s the DNA, there’s nothing you can do. What do you do? Alter your DNA?”[13]
The obvious point of the DNA metaphor is that racism rather than liberty and the proposition that all men are created equal are the essence of America’s democracy. This is a transparent incitement to destroy what these determined enemies of America’s actual democracy are intent on portraying as a hypocritical, racist, sham.
But the actual history of slavery in America refutes this claim and tells an opposite story. In City Journal, the American historian Allen Guelzo dismissed the Times project as a “conspiracy theory” developed from the “chair of ultimate cultural privilege in America, because in no human society has an enslaved people suddenly found itself vaulted into positions of such privilege, and with the consent—even the approbation—of those who were once the enslavers.”[14] 
Even more powerful scholarly testimony comes from Orlando Patterson, a man of the left and a renowned African American Harvard sociologist who has written award-winning books on  slavery and race. America, in Patterson’s words, “is the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protections of minorities than any other society, white or black; offers more opportunities to greater numbers of black persons than any other society, including those of Africa.”[15]
The anti-American animus of the 1619 Project is not inspired by the history of American slavery and emancipation, but by the anti-capitalist and anti-white racism of the projects’ authors. This is evident from the actual articles that make up the Project and its curriculum, which do not examine the facts – complex as they are - of what took place in August 1619, but use slavery as a brush with which to tar every aspect of American life.
The 100-page special issue of The New York Times Magazine which launched the Project tells one all one needs to know about its purpose. The issue includes the following articles (and only these): “America Wasn't a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One,” “American Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation,” “Why Is Everyone Always Stealing Black Music?,” “How Segregation Caused Your Traffic Jam,” “How False Beliefs in Physical Racial Difference Still Live in Medicine Today,” “The Barbaric History of Sugar in America,” “Why Doesn't America Have Universal Healthcare? One word: Race,” ‘Why American Prisons Owe Their Cruelty to Slavery,” “How America's Vast Racial Wealth Gap Grew: By Plunder,” and finally one that overtly displays the relentless political agenda – ‘What the Reactionary Politics of 2019 Owe to the Politics of Slavery,”[16] In other words the Trump administration is a legacy of slavery.
The 1619 Project is an outrageous, racist, falsification of American history. A metastasizing curriculum in America’s schools, it is a dagger aimed at America’s heart, at its self-esteem and self-understanding, at its national pride. It aims to destroy America’s shield against its real world enemies. These enemies are legion because tyrannies around the globe hate democracy in general and America in particular, as the most tolerant and most inclusive nation among all nations with large internal minorities. For comparison, there is not a black, brown or Asian nation that has elected as its commander-in-chief a white countryman the way white American majorities elected Barack Obama - not once but twice.
As a result of Nikole Hannah-Jones’ role in creating this racist, anti-capitalist and historically illiterate attack on a country that has given her extraordinary freedoms and privileges, she has been showered with awards and prizes by the cultural elite - including a $624,000 MacArthur “Genius Award.” This is the real danger embedded in the 1619 Project: It has the support of America’s disloyal, seditious elites. These are the privileged, mis-named “liberals,” who for three years have sabotaged a duly elected president through witch-hunts, beginning with a thinly veiled attempted coup by the nation’s intelligence agencies.
Inspired by Identity Politics, and leftist pie-in-the sky promises, the Democrat Party supports a pro-terrorist, Jew-hating caucus in the House, promotes lawlessness at the country’s borders, casually tolerates anti-white racism, and anti-male bigotry, and sponsors presidential candidates who want to criminalize free speech, rule by executive diktat and confiscate private wealth - and who are plausibly described as Rip Van Winkle Marxists whom the Communist horrors of the 20th Century seem to have passed by unnoticed.
David Horowitz is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the author of Blitz: Trump Will Smash the Left and Win, to be published by Humanix books later this year.
[1] [2]