RINO Liz Cheney SURVIVES Leadership Vote as GOP Risks LOSING Their Base!!!


The RINO Never-Trumper Liz Cheney SURVIVES her Leadership Vote as the Republicans Risk LOSING Their Base! In this video, we’re going to look at the travesty that took place last night with the Republicans in House failing to oust Liz Cheney from her leadership position, how it reflects the continued and stubborn allegiance of the GOP to the permanent political class in Washington, and why such an allegiance may indeed cause the Republicans to suffer political extinction as a consequence; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

GOP Bites the Bullet and Supports Both Cheney and Greene


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/02/04/gop-bites-the-bullet-and-supports-cheney-and-greene-n1423067;

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

It was a party-defining moment for Republicans. Two members from opposite ends of the ideological universe were on trial for their statements and actions while Democrats watched with growing glee over the spectacle.

In the end, Republicans had little choice but to back both of them.

If the party were to be seen by voters as caving to the demands of Democrats to strip Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of her committee assignments it would have created a monstrous backlash among the party’s base. Crazy though she may be, she’s our crazy and Republicans should stand behind her, says the base.

Conversely, if the caucus had stripped Rep. Liz Cheney of her leadership position as House Republican Conference chair for her vote to impeach the president, it would have shown a certain intolerance for differing opinions — something the Democrats would have seized upon and attempted to define the GOP as the party of hate.

Most Republicans gave both Greene and Cheney a pass and dared the Democrats to make the issue of Greene’s craziness a partisan one. A floor vote will be held today to strip Greene of her positions on the Budget Committee and the Education and Labor Committee. It remains to be seen if any Republicans will side with the Democrats.

The meeting last night on Cheney was reportedly tense, with Cheney defending her vote to impeach as a “vote of conscience.” “I won’t apologize for the vote,” she told a meeting of the House Republican conference on Wednesday night.


The secret ballot vote took place after some Republicans argued that Cheney should be removed from leadership following her support for impeaching then-President Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection at the Capitol. In the end, however, Cheney prevailed by a wide margin. The vote was 145 to keep her in her position as House Republican Conference chair, and 61 to remove her, plus one member who voted present, according to several people in the room.

The outcome leaves the House GOP leadership structure intact and averts a major upheaval within the Republican conference, after weeks of criticism and attacks aimed at Cheney, including from some of her Republican colleagues and Trump.

“Votes of conscience” make history but in these hyperpartisan times, when the other side has a “take no prisoners” attitude, party discipline is essential. Removing Cheney from her leadership position would have sent a powerful message to the party that there’s no room for “votes of conscience” when you have a knife to your throat.

Greene’s case is different. Republican rank and file are far more supportive of Greene than many establishment Republicans are comfortable with. Indeed, a poll shows that Greene is thought of more favorably than Cheney.

But Greene apparently nailed her speech to the conference committee meeting and was able to avoid disaster.

The Hill:

Greene told her colleagues that she made a mistake by being curious about “Q” and said she told her children she learned a lesson about what to put on social media, according to two sources in the room.

She also denied that she knew what Jewish space lasers were and defended her comments that past school shootings were staged by stating that she had personal experience with a school shooting.

She received a standing ovation from some members of the caucus at the conclusion of her remarks.

It sounds like Greene was trying to play the Trump game of giving a wink and a nudge to extremists while maintaining her innocence. Is she saying that now she doesn’t believe in QAnon? Or “Jewish space lasers”? Maybe she was just kidding all along.

The people of her Georgia district should have the final say in her future. Democrats may seek to expel her. I hope they do. Nothing would do them more damage than using their partisan majority to change the outcome of a legal and fair election.



Critical Race Theory is How Democrats Plan to Win Elections

And that’s where a new Republican civil rights movement must rise.


SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/critical-race-theory-how-democrats-plan-win-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.

Liberal critics of critical race theory often act as if it’s a mysterious cult that emerged out of nowhere, while its conservative critics tie it to a history of academic Marxism. That’s true, but doesn’t explain why it has suddenly become so pervasively established in our culture.

Politics can be downstream of culture, but political culture is downstream of politics.

The resurrection of black nationalism and critical race theory are two faces of the same electoral strategy by a political movement now inextricably tied to black voters and white elites.

When Obama beat Hillary, he didn’t just transform America, he shed the last vestiges of the Democrat working-class white vote and recreated the party as a coalition of urban elites, immigrants, and minority voters on the model of Tony Blair’s Labour Party in the UK. This “neo-liberalism”, as lefties like to call it, found its own Corbyn in the form of Bernie Sanders who put on a show of attacking the white urban elites who dominate a former working-class party.

Democrats use critical race theory to deter leftist insurgencies and police the middle class.

The Obama strategy traded the working-class white vote for increased black and minority turnout. Since Hispanic voters are much less politically reliable than white voters, the Democrat electoral strategy narrowed down to maximizing black voter turnout. When black voter turnout faltered, as it did in 2016, the Democrats took a beating. But in 2020, black voters made Biden the nominee over Bernie even though he was backed by a majority of white and Hispanic Dems.

Then they handed Democrats control of the Senate.

Obama had initially portrayed his candidacy in MLK terms as ushering in a new post-racial era of national harmony. Then, once in office, he pivoted to the old black nationalism of his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, using his office as a platform for falsely accusing America of racism.

The rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, under the guiding hand of the Obama administration, touched off race riots around election years to generate black voter turnout. Midterm elections usually bring out more white than black voters. The race riots were meant to change that by compensating for Tea Party populism with a new black nationalist movement.

The race riots manufactured a national racial crisis to boost voter turnout by making black people feel threatened and to silence the middle class and white lefties threatened by the steady flow of jobs out of the country, and the concentration of power in a leftist oligarchy.

Working-class concerns about open borders and immigration had been dropped by the Democrats even before they officially dropped the working-class vote. Bill Clinton, Blair’s political peer, bluntly told working-class Democrats that the jobs were not coming back, and that they needed to send their children to college, change their culture, and join the new elite.

But college was no longer a reliable ladder into a shrinking middle class. A generation had been told that they needed “computer literacy” to function in a new economy, but by the time “learn to code” became a taunt, the tech industry was offshoring and importing cheap immigrant labor.

By the end of Obama’s time in office, the American software engineer was on the same pathway as the American factory worker, tasked with training his foreign replacement before being fired.

The new economy was heavily administrative. It would cheerfully offshore manufacturing and engineering jobs, but not the diversity specialists and managers serving as political commissars. White male jobs that depended on skill and reliability became endangered, while jobs in which fitting in at an office was more important than traditional work skills became more reliable bets.

Critical race theory became the damoclean sword hanging over the heads of the suburban middle class. Like Orwell’s 1984, the members of this ‘middle party’ were bludgeoned with a campaign of political terror so that they wouldn’t have time to think about the system they were administering. The political enunciation of the administrative middle class had the same function in Orwell’s fictional dystopia and in the entirely real dystopias across the country.

The new elites are unconcerned with the proles laboring over the actual product, but deeply worried about the political reliability of the administrative class that is their means of control. They don’t care what the workers believe because they earn too little and there’s little leverage over them, but they are obsessed with maintaining their power through the administrative class.

Critical race theory had its moment at the perfect time to offer sinecures to its own organizer class who were being embedded into every workplace in the country. But it also warned the suburban middle class to avoid being seduced by President Trump’s economic populism. The political interrogations of the struggle sessions suppressed any questions about the country.

It also shut down the leftist insurgency. When Bernie Sanders first ran against Hillary, he rejected identity politics and open borders. After a campaign of harassment by black nationalist activists with puppet strings going back to the Democrat establishment, Sanders became an even bigger enthusiast of racial tribalism and illegal migration than Hillary had ever been.

That cut him off from the working-class white vote and cost him any shot at the White House.

The future of his movement was outsourced to the identity politics populism of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and the Squad for whom racial tribalism comes ahead of economic populism.

Intersectionality prioritizes racial Marxism over economic Marxism. Elements of the Left have rebelled against the political correctness and cancel culture of racial Marxism, but in a political culture where AOC is the face of the populist Left and Bernie gets to appear in memes, the audience for the non-racial Marxism of the alumni of The Intercept is limited to conservatives.

Meanwhile, critical race theory is doing what it’s supposed to do by polarizing America along tribal racial lines and along class lines among white people. White suburban moms attend book clubs discussing White Fragility and other critical race theory texts as a form of networking. Having the right politics is crucial to your career in a variety of fields. Not all of the signs asserting that in this house the inhabitants believe in science, love, and black nationalism, are voluntary statements of belief. They’re people flying the new post-American tribal flag to fit in.

Black turnout has been crucial in some races, but it hasn’t made up for Democrat losses. It’s why Democrats took such a beating in local races once again in 2020. Mark Zuckerberg and the Democrat donor class can throw a fortune at only some races. And without the massive infusions of cash, the Democrats are more likely to lose locally in much of the country.

Democrats weaponized critical race theory to play on the insecurities of a shaky suburban middle class. While manufacturing workers may fear that their jobs are about to be sent to China, suburban middle class office workers have come to fear being stigmatized for violating the confusing and incomprehensible dogma of the new antiracism.

The 2020 election pitted economic fears based on globalism against economic fears based on political correctness among the white middle class. And while President Trump won the white middle class, enough of those suburban moms reading White Fragility voted their new creed.

The secret of brainwashing is that the best way to feign belief in something is to believe it.

Republicans had won over working-class whites by taking on China’s economic warfare, open borders migration, and offshoring jobs. But the critiques of political indoctrination and cancel culture were largely limited to rhetoric. President Trump’s executive order trying to root out critical race theory from federal workplaces and federal contractors was mostly ignored.

An Obama judge blocked it and Biden reversed it, while calling for “unity and healing”.

Republicans have failed to reckon with critical race theory, not just as a set of ideas to rail against, but as an electoral reality. The Obama administration had understood that there would be a price to pay for jettisoning the white working class and replaced it with a new coalition. That new coalition depended on capturing the Republican suburban white base through political indoctrination and repression crowdsourced not just through social media, but workplaces.

The last two elections showed off the emergence of a new coalition between white elites and minorities which uses critical race theory as a ladder offering admission to the middle class.

Affirmative action and cancel culture are the twin doors governing access to the middle class.

Republican populism championed farmers, engineers and workers threatened by globalism, but it’s also going to have to take on the cause of a suburban middle class threatened by forces much closer to home, not with mere rhetoric, but with real policies and real consequences.

This is the new civil rights movement.

When black people were discriminated against, Republicans and some Democrats built a massive legal machine that brought almost every establishment in the country under the shadow of federal law. Much of the country is now being discriminated against, repressed, and threatened by a political system more national and even more overwhelming than segregation.

If Republicans rise to that fight, because it’s the right thing to do, they will also strike at the electoral axis of the new Democrat coalition with a new civil rights movement.

The Democrats haven’t built this weapon of political terror because they just felt like it. Nor did they decide to do all this because of something an academic once wrote in a book. It’s not a random ideology, but a sophisticated strategy for winning elections and controlling the country.

When President Trump took on immigration, he connected with millions of people who felt cut off and fueled a new Republican wave. But he didn’t do it just with talk, but with action. He promised to build a wall, to ban terror travel, and to implement specific policies and and results.

That’s what a new civil rights movement needs to connect with millions more who feel cut off.

Republicans took on open borders. That battle isn’t over. But if they don’t take on critical race theory, the Democrats will use their new coalition to turn America into Europe: a nation of sullen former workers in the Rust Belt, and frightened middle class urban workers, just trying to fit in, while remaining subservient to an expert class fighting ideological crises as the nation is destroyed.


Our Incoherent and Dangerous 'Diversity' Talk

At the expense of true diversity of opinion, thought and critical examination.

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/our-incoherent-and-dangerous-diversity-talk-bruce-thornton/


Greenfield Video: Incitement, Insurrection, and the Fascist Crackdown on Conservatives

Dems and media launch an unprecedented campaign to stifle dissent.

Trump’s Attorneys Shred Democrats’ Impeachment Claims

Trump’s Attorneys Shred Democrats’ Impeachment Claims


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/trumps-attorneys-shred-democrats-impeachment-claims;

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

It took President Trump’s attorneys just 14 pages to refute, rebut, and obliterate the House Democrats’ 80-page article of impeachment.

They made short shrift of the implicit argument that the effort to impeach the former president was somehow valid:

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”….

It is denied that [this] provision currently applies to the 45th President of the United States since he is no longer “President”….

Since the 45th President is no longer “President”, the clause “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for …” is impossible for the Senate to accomplish….

Thus the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio [void from the beginning; never legitimate or valid] as a legal nullity that runs patently contrary to the plain language of the Constitution.

Trump’s attorneys, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, tossed aside the House Democrats’ claim that Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States by issuing false statements about the results of the election:

The 45th President exercised his First Amendment right under the Constitution to express his belief that the election results were suspect, since … under the convenient guise of Covid-19 pandemic … states’ election laws and procedures were changed by local politicians or judges without the necessary approvals from state legislatures.

They likewise annihilated the House Democrats’ claim that, in his speech on January 6, he incited the crowd to violence:

It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to engage in destructive behavior. It is denied that [his words] “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore” had anything to do with the action at the Capitol.

They failed to mention that the crowd, infiltrated by Antifa, had been planning the attack days, if not weeks, in advance. They failed to mention that the crowd had been gathering long before the president made his allegedly incendiary remarks that allegedly touched off the attack.

They failed to mention the “pretty compelling evidence,” declared Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), “from a facial-recognition company showing that some of the people who breached the Capitol … were not Trump supporters. They were masquerading as Trump supporters, and in fact, were members of the violent terrorist group antifa.”

They emphasized the illegality of the impeachment move in the Senate when it was learned that Chief Justice John Roberts would not be presiding, as required by the Constitution:

Once the 45th President’s term expired … the constitutional mandate for the Chief Justice to preside … evidently disappeared, and he was replaced by a partisan Senator [vicious anti-Trump Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy] who will purportedly also act as a juror….

[This] effectively creates the additional appearance of bias with [his] long history of public remarks adverse to the 45th President.

The impeachment hearings, scheduled to begin on Monday, are a farce. It’s an exercise in projection, with the accusers charging President Trump with the very crimes of which they are guilty.

There is no chance whatsoever that the Senate will vote to impeach Donald Trump. Forty-five Republicans already voted in favor of a resolution that called the trial unconstitutional. The Senate Democrats, holding 50 votes with Kamala Harris providing the deciding vote, need two-thirds of the Senate to convict. That means they must somehow muscle 17 Republicans in joining them in this façade and charade.

It’s a show trial, designed to sully the person and record of Donald Trump as retribution for his efforts to expose the Deep State’s infestation of the halls of power.

Related article:

The Capitol Violence Wasn’t Surprising — and VERY Convenient for the Left

New York Times Calls for Biden to Create a “Truth Commission”; Appoint a “Reality Czar”


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/new-york-times-calls-for-biden-to-create-a-truth-commission-appoint-a-reality-czar;

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

Apparently unhappy with their tenuous grasp of the American public’s attention and trust when it comes to who to believe when it comes to the news, the New York Times is calling for President Joe Biden to take drastic measures against free speech in the United States. Technology columnist Kevin Roose amplified calls by left-wing ideologues for the president to address what he called the “hoaxes, lies and collective delusions” of some Americans by creating a “truth commission” and appointing a “reality czar” to his administration.

It’s all in the name of “national unity,” according to Roose: “How do you unite a country in which millions of people have chosen to create their own version of reality?” Roose lamented.

“I’ve spent the last several years reporting on our national reality crisis,” Roose wrote. “I worry that unless the Biden administration treats conspiracy theories and disinformation as the urgent threats they are, our parallel universes will only drift further apart, and the potential for violent unrest and civic dysfunction will only grow.”

In search of an answer, Roose consulted his own handpicked “experts” to explore a solution to this dire situation in which people have their own opinions. It’s a cliche to say that the solutions Roose’s experts came up with are Orwellian — cliché, but also quite true.

Joan Donovan of Harvard called for the president to create a “truth commission,” similar to the 9/11 Commission, whose job would be to do an in-depth search of the causes, planning, and excecution of the so-called siege that took place at the Capitol on January 6.

“There must be accountability for these actions,” Donovan said. “My fear is that we will get distracted as a society and focus too much on giving voice to the fringe groups that came out in droves for Trump.”

Nothing Orwellian about that at all.

This “truth commission,” Roose noted, should also meet regularly with Big Tech platforms such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter to assist those entities with policing of their platforms. Roose also suggests that such platforms receive “safe harbor exemptions” from the federal government, which would allow the tech sector to share data with the government without breaking any privacy laws.

Sure, because Big Tech in America is not protected enough under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Roose and his experts also suggested that the algorithms of Big Tech platforms be audited regularly to find out how and where conspiracy-minded people find each other. This will give the folks at the Southern Poverty Law Center and other such groups the tools they need to expose right-wing movements before it’s too late.

“We must open the hood on social media so that civil rights lawyers and real watchdog organizations can investigate human rights abuses enabled or amplified by technology,” Donovan said.

Such a “truth commission” would need to be careful about who they labeled domestic terrorists and who are just cranks that bear watching, according to Roose.

“A paranoid retiree who spends all day reading Qanon forums isn’t the same as an armed militia leader, and we should delineate one from the other,” Roose pointed out. Both are problems, of course, but the armed militia leader is a more immediate problem.

Roose failed to mention either Antifa or Black Lives Matter, two groups that contributed greatly to the violent riots that occurred throughout 2020.

Also needed, according to Roose, would be a Cabinet-level position, which he refers to as a “reality czar.” The reality czar would be responsible for centralizing the federal government’s response to “disinformation and domestic extremism,” which Roose termed “haphazard and spread across several agencies.”

So, the “reality czar” would presumably hold wide discretion across federal agencies to determine what is reality and what is conspiracy. It sounds like a big job for one person — determining the entire nation’s reality.

Free speech and political discourse no longer matter to the Left in America. Such things only cause trouble, and authoritarian governments don’t like trouble — they smash it. The real fear is that the executive order-crazy Biden administration — whoever is in charge of it — might actually consider ideas such as these. They can’t have people thinking freely, after all.

Former CIA top dog Robert Grenier: We should hunt down pro-Trump Americans as we hunted down al-Qaeda members


SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/02/former-cia-top-dog-robert-grenier-we-should-hunt-down-trump-supporting-americans-as-we-hunted-down-al-qaeda-members;

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

“Yes. And that is that, you know, even at the seeming height of the crisis immediately after 9/11, there really weren’t that many members of al-Qaida in Afghanistan. And the thrust of our campaign there was, yes, to hunt down al-Qaida, but primarily to remove the supportive environment in which they were able to live and to flourish.”

That means Grenier doesn’t just want to destroy Trump (as he explains in the section not reproduced below) and hunt down those who actually committed crimes at the Capitol. He wants to crush legitimate political dissent and hunt down Americans who oppose the far-Left agenda as if they were terrorists. This has been a long time coming. But only now is it being repeated at the highest levels by people with power and influence.

“Former CIA Officer: Treat Domestic Extremism As An Insurgency,” by Mary Louise Kelly, NPR, February 2, 2021:

When it comes to domestic extremists such as those who stormed the Capitol, a longtime CIA officer argues that the U.S. should treat them as an insurgency.

That means using counterinsurgency tactics — similar in some ways to those used in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Robert Grenier served as the CIA’s station chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001. He went on to become the CIA’s Iraq mission manager and then director of the CIA Counterterrorism Center from 2004 to 2006.

“We may be witnessing the dawn of a sustained wave of violent insurgency within our own country, perpetrated by our own countrymen,” Grenier wrote in The New York Times last week. And without national action, he argues, “extremists who seek a social apocalypse … are capable of producing endemic political violence of a sort not seen in this country since Reconstruction.”

In an interview with All Things Considered, Grenier discusses what that national action would mean.

As someone who has watched many violent insurgencies unfold in various countries around the world, what felt the same to you? What felt different?

I don’t want to be one to suggest that somehow the United States is going to in any way resemble Iraq or Afghanistan at the height of violence. But what I think is useful is to have some way of thinking about the problem and thinking through the elements of the solution. So I think as in any insurgency situation, you have committed insurgents who are typically a relatively small proportion of the affected population. But what enables them to carry forward their program is a large number of people from whom they can draw tacit support. And that’s what I’m primarily concerned with here. I think what is most important is that we drive a wedge between those violent individuals and the people who may otherwise see them as reflecting their interests and fighting on their behalf….

You were station chief in Islamabad on 9/11, which meant it suddenly became your problem to find and kill or capture Osama bin Laden and other senior al-Qaida leaders. Without comparing American citizens to al-Qaida, are there lessons that you take from that?

Yes. And that is that, you know, even at the seeming height of the crisis immediately after 9/11, there really weren’t that many members of al-Qaida in Afghanistan. And the thrust of our campaign there was, yes, to hunt down al-Qaida, but primarily to remove the supportive environment in which they were able to live and to flourish. And that meant fighting the Taliban. And I think that is the heart of what we need to deal with here. Hunting down people who are criminals, that is something that which U.S. law enforcement is very well capable of doing and doing while preserving fundamental civil rights. That’s in some ways the easiest part of the problem. The difficult part of the problem is affecting the environment within which violent elements otherwise would be able to thrive.

Senator Tester Destroys Biden’s Keystone Pipeline Executive Order


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/02/03/watch-democrat-senator-destroys-bidens-executive-order-axing-the-keystone-pipeline-n1422774;

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

Senator Jon Tester, the Democrat from Montana, ripped Joe Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday.

“I’ve been a supporter of the Keystone pipeline. There have been two caveats and they’ve been basic caveats: you do it to the safety standards and you respect private property rights. I think the Keystone pipeline folks could have done a better job getting the Fort Peck Tribe on board and they need to continue working to do that. But, in the end I think it’s a good project,” Tester explained. “I believe in climate change but I also think this one pipeline isn’t going to turn it around—isn’t going to turn our climate around. It’s not going to make it a markedly worse situation.”

Tester insists that his belief in man-made climate change and his support for the pipeline do not contradict each other. “These might sound like two different philosophies butting heads but I’ll tell you, in my real life, I’m a farmer,” he said. “And we’re not where we need to be in this country for, you know, replacing diesel fuel with something else, in a tractor, for example, or a semi that’s going down the road. We will get there, but it’s going to take some good policies from Washington, D.C., and it’s going to take some money invested in R&D.”

Still waiting for the middle-of-the-road governance from Biden that we were promised.

Matt Margolis is the author of Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trumpand the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on TwitterFacebookParlerGabMeWeHeroesRumble, and CloutHub.

France: Le Pen, now at record high in polls, proposes ban on ‘totalitarian, murderous Islamist ideologies’


SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/02/france-le-pen-now-at-record-high-in-polls-proposes-ban-on-totalitarian-murderous-islamist-ideologies;

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

Marine Le Pen has long been a target of the worst elements of globalism as she sought to restrict France’s suicidal immigration policy that saw crime rates skyrocket and no-go zones appear in France, as well as violent Islamic antisemitism. But ever since the beheading of teacher Samuel Paty, French citizens and leaders alike have been shaken to the core. President Emmanuel Macron has cracked down on jihad preaching and the mosques where that teaching takes place and has continued to do so in defiance of charges of “Islamophobia.” Now Le Pen has “proposed a ban on Muslim headscarves in all public places” as she soared to a record high in a poll, “putting her almost neck-and-neck with President Emmanuel Macron.”

Le Pen views the hijab as a symbol of female inferiority in Islam, and indeed, Islamic tenets hold that women are indeed inferior to men.

In the words of well known Somali-born ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who once wore the veil: “The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and a Muslim veil blinkers both your vision and your destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race but of a sex.”

Marine Le Pen’s soaring popularity is now creating panic in the EU, as insiders are predicting an “enormous revolution” by populists in Brussels.

“Riding high in the polls, France’s Le Pen proposes hijab ban”, France 24, January 30, 2021:

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen proposed a ban on Muslim headscarves in all public places on Friday, seeking to build on a record recent poll putting her almost neck-and-neck with President Emmanuel Macron.

The hijab policy, which would be contested in court and almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional, saw the 53-year-old return to a familiar campaign theme 15 months from the country’s 2022 presidential election.

“I consider that the headscarf is an Islamist item of clothing,” Le Pen told reporters at a press conference where she proposed a new law to ban “Islamist ideologies” which she called “totalitarian and murderous.”

Since taking over France’s main far-right party from her father, Le Pen has run twice for the French presidency, losing badly in 2017 to political newcomer Macron in a defeat that she took months to recover from.

But recent polling shows her closer than ever to her ultimate prize and has led to a rash of new speculation about whether the anti-EU, anti-immigration populist could finally enter the Elysee Palace.

Despite recent setbacks for fellow ideologues such as Donald Trump, and Matteo Salvini in Italy, a survey reported earlier this week showed her within striking distance of Macron.

The poll conducted online by Harris Interactive suggested that if a final-round presidential run-off were held today Le Pen would garner 48 percent while Macron would be re-elected with 52 percent, Le Parisien newspaper reported.

“It’s a poll, it’s a snapshot of a moment, but what it shows is that the idea of me winning is credible, plausible even,” Le Pen said at the Friday press conference.

The prospect of a tight race set off alarm bells in the French political mainstream as the dual health and economic crises caused by the coronavirus pandemic sweep across the country.

“It’s the highest she has ever been at,” said Jean-Yves Camus, a French political scientist specialised in the far-right, while adding that it was “too early to take the polls at face value”….

Social Media Bias Just Got Even More Orwellian


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2021/02/03/want-to-know-what-conservative-media-is-up-against-check-out-this-chilling-new-report-on-social-media-bias-n1422313;

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

A study by the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, titled “False Allegation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Censors Conservatives,” is downright chilling—and it tells you everything you need to know about the dishonesty of those who purport to be arbiters of truth in modern American society.

The researchers didn’t waste any time getting to the crux of their preposterous charges. The report declares at the outset: “The claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy large-scale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests.”

Not only are we accused of lying on social media anytime we have the audacity to share an opinion that does not conform to left-wing orthodoxy but now they say we are lying about being lied about! This nonsense is why it was essential to launch PJ Media’s VIP membership program last year. More on that later.

You would think such a bold claim would be backed up by reams of data to prove the thesis. Alas, the researchers proffer no such proof. You have to scroll all the way down to page 20 of the report to learn that:

The question of whether social media companies harbor an anti-conservative bias can’t be answered conclusively because the data available to academic and civil society researchers aren’t sufficiently detailed. Existing periodic enforcement disclosures by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are helpful but not granular enough to allow for thorough analysis by outsiders.” [Emphasis added.]

So, the question “can’t be answered” because there is not enough available data to support a conclusion one way or another. Nevertheless, the researchers felt confident declaring that charges of bias are based in “falsehood” or “disinformation.”

Twitter Silences Focus on the Family for ‘Hate,’ That Is, Telling the Truth About Biology

If this NYU report is any indication—and I have no doubt that it will be used far and wide as justification to further silence us—we will henceforth be accused of trading in “disinformation” any time we dare to complain about anti-conservative media bias—based on the flimsiest of arguments and data that the researchers admit is inconclusive and not “granular” enough.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so diabolical. Not only do we have to deal with media bias—where a small group of “official” “fact-checkers” determine what’s true and what’s not, in accordance with their own biases—but now we’re not even allowed to speak above a whisper about the biases. The Ministry of Truth sees and hears all. And don’t even think about believing your lying eyes when they tell you what the actual words of the report say or mean:

By many measures, conservative voices —including that of the ex-president, until he was banished from Twitter and Facebook—often are dominant in online political debates. Compare user engagement with Trump’s Facebook page versus Joe Biden’s page during the peak of last year’s presidential campaign, from September 3, 2020, to Election Day. The total number of likes, comments, and shares was 307 million.

The “researchers” from NYU are admitting, right out in the open, that President Trump “was banished” from the two largest social media platforms, yet they strenuously insist that there is no bias. Nothing to see here. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and two plus two does indeed equal five.

As Winston’s co-worker Syme told him in George Orwell’s 1984, “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

Is Google Working with Liberal Groups to Snuff Out Conservative Websites?

The range of thought on social media grows narrower by the moment.

When we launched PJ Media’s VIP subscription program a little over a year ago, it was because we saw all of this coming. Our hope was that our regular readers would be willing to support us as Big Tech continued to silence conservative speech. What we didn’t anticipate was the rate at which the censorship would escalate. We’re being attacked from all sides—by Facebook, Twitter, Google, ad vendors, and more. Our VIP subscribers are helping us fight back so we can continue to hold the Biden administration’s feet to the fire, documenting the incredible damage they’re doing to our beloved country and warning readers about what’s ahead. Moreover, your support enables us to control our own destiny, free from censorship. We can speak directly to you, our dear readers, without third-party fact-checkers and social media bullies interrupting the conversation.

To those who have partnered with us in this important mission, we extend our deepest gratitude. If you’re not yet a VIP member, you can sign up here. I’d encourage you to sign up for our VIP Gold program, which gives you the most bang for your buck. Not only will you have access to exclusive VIP articles, podcasts, and live chats with our writers, but you’ll also get access to the same from the entire Townhall Media family—Townhall, RedState, Hot Air, Twitchy, Bearing Arms, and, of course, PJ Media. Join VIP today.

With Your Help, We Can Stop the Left in Their Tracks
The All-Out Assault on Conservative Thought Has Just Begun
VIP: How We Fight Back Against Leftist Groupthink and Big Tech Censorship
Disagreeing With Biden’s Transgender Policy Is ‘Incitement’ Now? Facebook Says So…