Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog
A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
In this episode of The Silent War, The Marxist Democrats seek to MAGA & wrong-think Whites in Federal Government & Military. No joke! 2nd Amendment death bill is being introduced! Updates on the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020-2021
“In their own words, for their world to live & thrive, America has to die."
Independent journalist Andy Ngo has spent the last four years studying and reporting on Antifa. Even though Andy Ngo’s been doxxed, harassed, and beaten by Antifa so badly he ended up hospitalized with a brain bleed, he still went undercover into CHAZ, the lawless autonomous zone that lasted for three weeks in Seattle last year.
Tonight, Andy Ngo breaks down the inner workings of Antifa, which he details in his new book “Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy.”
This is American Thought Leaders, and I’m Jan Jekielek.
BY SELWYN DUKE
SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/new-bill-in-congress-essentially-nullifies-the-second-amendment/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Leftists have made clear that they believe only the government should have guns, and a new bill proposed in Congress would be a huge step toward making this a reality.
Submitted January 4 by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act (H.R. 127) would, one observer warns, “end your 2nd Amendment rights permanently.”
The bill’s provisions are staggering, in fact, according to analysts who’ve tried to make sense of its technical language.
“First, HR 127 establishes a federal firearms registration system that will be accessible by federal, state, and local governments, including the military — even the GENERAL PUBLIC!” relates writer Howie Katz.
“The system will track the make, model, and serial number of all firearms, their owners, the dates they were acquired, and where they are being stored.”
Note that when The Journal News in Westchester County, New York, printed the names and addresses of registered handgun owners in its coverage area in 2013, it caused an uproar. And one point made at the time also applies to a universally accessible registration system: If someone wanted to rob you, he could know precisely how you were armed or if you were unarmed — and hence easy prey.
In fact, in that incident’s wake, the Rockland County Times “asked several former convicts what they thought about the publication of registration information,” related America’s 1st Freedom in 2016. “The convicts all agreed that it would be an outstanding list for burglars to use.”Moreover, making such records public can render you vulnerable to cancel-culture action in today’s political climate.
Worse still, H.R. 127 is retroactive, states author and blogger Michael Snyder. “Within three months, you would have to report to the government where you bought all of your guns, when they were purchased, and where they are currently being stored,” he writes.
Firearm owners “would also have to report the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to that individual,” adds Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms chairman Alan Gottlieb.
Of course, this makes it easy for the government to confiscate your weapons in the future. In fact, as in Australia, the historical pattern is for registration to precede confiscation.
Yet selective “confiscation” could occur long before the collective variety because H.R. 127 also requires licensing, inclusive of a psychological evaluation.
“The licensing requirement mandates that the license applicant undergoes a criminal background check, and then submits to a psychological evaluation to determine whether the person is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm,” as Gottlieb puts it. “Successful licensees must show they have an insurance policy which will cost $800.”
By the way, if a poll tax is illegal because it places an undue burden on the poor, why should what’s in essence a gun “tax” be allowed, especially since at issue is a constitutionally guaranteed right?
While Snyder points out that many guys wouldn’t want a government-approved psychologist assessing their mental fitness, more must be said. The reality is that the social sciences in general are a bastion of liberalism.
As Quartz wrote in a 2015 article titled “Social psychologists are almost all liberals — and it’s really hurting the field,” “In 2011, Professor Jonathan Haidt, of New York University’s Stern School of Business, asked a gathering of some 1,000 psychologists to raise their hands if they identified as politically conservative. Exactly three people did.”
Thus is it unsurprising that the social sciences have become what they are: the (pseudo)scientific arm of leftism. That is to say, liberals in politics make a claim, and social scientists provide a specious “scientific” basis for it.
Moreover, we’ve for years heard that conservatives are mentally ill. This columnist states that “Trumpism Qualifies as Psychosis,” for example, and Psychology Today has claimed that trump supporters generally have “5 key” negative traits and that they exhibit distortion of reality.
So what do you think the chances are that deviation from approved orthodoxy would be used, social-credit-score style, to deny gun licensing?
Yet there’s still more. According to Katz, “For the psychological evaluation, a licensed psychologist will interview individuals’ spouses and at least two other family members or associates to ‘further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms. Licenses will be denied to individuals hospitalized for issues such as depressive episodes; no duration for license disability is specified, and it does not matter whether the individual sought help voluntarily.”
“Finally, HR 127 also criminalizes the possession of ‘large-capacity magazines’ (those carrying greater than 10 rounds) and ‘ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater,’” Katz also writes.
“There is no grandfathering clause in Jackson Lee’s bill,” he continues. “That means if you have an old rusting .22 rifle sitting in … one of your closets, you will have to comply with all the provisions of the bill or face a heavy fine and possible imprisonment.”
The good news is that H.R. 127 does not as yet have any co-sponsors. The bad news is that it absolutely aligns with Democrats’ aims. So we should expect something of its nature to pass the House in the foreseeable future.
As Snyder points out, all of this is happening at precisely the time crime rates are skyrocketing because of many Democrats’ refusal to enforce just laws and their releasing of criminals onto the streets. So it’s not enough for the leftists to throw a cat to the wolves — they want to declaw him as well.
Of course, all this means far more if we confuse the feds with feudal lords and government with God. These proposals don’t mean as much if we on the state level just say to the feds, “If you can nullify constitutional amendments, we can nullify you.”
America is in the midst of an “unfolding socialist revolution,” argues anti-communist activist, researcher, and filmmaker Trevor Loudon. And a number of the individuals and groups involved in this effort have connections to the Chinese Communist Party. This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek.
BY RICK MORAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Texas law enforcement authorities said that, with little fanfare, the Biden administration has reimposed the “catch and release” policy of releasing illegal aliens into the United States while they await their immigration proceedings.
The U.S. Customs and Border protection told local authorities of the coming changes last week.
Before being released, each illegal must be tested for the coronavirus. Charity organizations and illegal immigration advocates are scrambling to try and test the border-jumpers as quickly as possible so they can be released into their new homes.
McAllen Mayor Jim Darling on Tuesday told Border Report that city officials met with U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, who told them last week that family units — undocumented migrants traveling with children who cross into South Texas — are now being paroled into the United States as they await their asylum proceedings. This is what occurred during previous border security apprehensions known as “catch and release,” when migrants were allowed to remain in the United States during their immigration proceedings however many years that may take.
Biden on Tuesday also ordered a top-to-bottom review of the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols program, also known as “Remain in Mexico,” by his newly confirmed Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. Nearly 70,000 migrants seeking asylum since 2019 have been forced to remain in Mexico or other countries during their U.S. immigration hearing process under MPP.
Ending the MPP program invites unmitigated disaster. The migrant wave is building across the region as hope is kindled that Joe Biden will not only allow them into the United States but grant them amnesty and give them green cards to work.
There will be no order to the migration. U.S. authorities won’t be able to control it. Once they start coming, they’re not going to stop unless someone keeps them from coming. That’s what the MPP policy accomplished.
Ending it would result in chaos:
Darling said that adult migrants traveling with children who were apprehended illegally crossing the Rio Grande into South Texas were being released by U.S. Border Patrol agents at the bus station in downtown McAllen. After release, city officials are immediately taking the migrants across the street to the Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley’s Humanitarian Respite Center, where they are receiving a free COVID-19 test. Once cleared by the tests, the migrants are boarding buses bound for cities elsewhere with the promise of appearing for scheduled U.S. immigration court hearings.
“They are doing testing at the Respite Center before they get on buses,” Darling said. “We also have reached out to Greyhound and are working to get more buses because we expect a jump in numbers.”
The Biden administration is telling people to wait. A lot of good that will do. Trump’s deals with Mexico and Honduras are the only things standing in the way of a humanitarian disaster. Biden risks derailing his immigration plan before it even starts if he looks to end those deals.
Maintaining those agreements won’t sit well with his radical base that’s already celebrating the end of several Trump immigration policies. They won’t stop until the U.S. borders are imaginary lines on a map with no meaning and no purpose.
BY STACEY LENNOX
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
For reasons unknown, there are still raging debates over whether or not to reopen schools. Simultaneously, schools in states like Georgia and Florida have been open since the fall and managed to keep the children whose parents want them to attend school in person open most of the time. Where they have not been prohibited, private schools opened nationwide. Multiple studies in the U.S. have shown that transmission of COVID-19 is minimal in the school setting, supported by data across the globe.
Even the CDC has recognized this data, citing “scant” transmission in the classroom. Yet nationwide, children are still learning remotely. Most often, continued closures involve irrational demands from teachers’ unions and teachers’ associations. This debate is raging in several counties in Virginia, where it is up to the individual school districts to decide how to provide instruction. One mother, Yael Levin-Sheldon, has had enough.
She has been coordinating a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to collect data on the negative impact these closures have had on children. Today, she released the data summary for emergency room visits for self-harm and suicide for children between 10 and 19 in her Central Virginia health region. The incidence of emergency room visits in this age group per 100,000 has gone up year-over-year in every single one of the seven counties. Some of the increases are startling.
In Henrico County, Levin-Sheldon’s home county, the rate went from 34.6 per 100,000 in 2019 to 180.8 per 100,000 in 2020. She was motivated to begin collecting data after advocating for schools in her district in June. In the process of her advocacy, she has been called a teacher-killer and a racist in public meetings and online forums. Levin-Sheldon said she is frustrated because all of the private schools in her area are open. Watching her own children’s behavior changes has been devastating.
Her two children were thriving students who loved school and received good grades. Now, she re-teaches them each evening after their remote learning classes to help them to maintain their grades. However, she has needed to seek professional help for both children. Her older child is exhibiting symptoms of OCD and has developed several compulsive habits, including obsessive handwashing. Her younger child has become emotionally labile, showing a wide range of behavior in short periods, from severe anger outbursts to inconsolable tears in minutes.
Levin-Sheldon says there is a school board meeting on Thursday, but the public is not allowed to attend. She expects no progress as the last teachers’ association demand was to fully vaccinate the teachers a month apart and wait the two weeks for effectiveness. The CDC director said today that that was not required. At any rate, it will not happen in Henrico County until the end of March in the best-case scenario. That is right before spring break, and at best, children may get a few weeks of in-person classes before school is out. Levin-Sheldon said:
I know a number of teachers and don’t blame them. Several are ready to return to school and are afraid to speak up. They are being bullied by the Henricho Education Association. I blame a lack of leadership from the school board and by Superintendent Dr. Amy Cashwell.
In Chesterfield County, Kristin Gladstone has similar frustrations. She has a special-needs high school student who is back to school in-person, only because of the small class size. These students are alone in the building, and the student is missing his regular classroom experience outside of the special education program.
Her freshman has attended school for precisely four days since the original shutdown. When they immediately went back to distance learning, her child looked at her and said, “Mom, I’m just losing hope.” This honors student struggled to get average grades last semester and ended up with two Ds. Now, the child is talking about dropping out of school and suffering from decreased appetite, insomnia, and wild mood swings.
Gladstone is functioning as a mother, teacher, and caregiver, taking care of her terminally-ill mother. It is a daily battle to get her freshman to log into remote class and attempt to complete his work — and hers. She is seeking therapy for her child but firmly believes a return to school would have prevented all of this. Just attending for four days in November started to improve her child’s appetite.
School closures have had devastating impacts outside Virginia, as well. On Tucker Carlson Tonight, attorney Laura Grochocki appeared to share the stories she has collected from clients and her community. She represents Lisa Moore, whose son Travis Till committed suicide during the school closure orders from Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. Grochocki is receiving death threats for taking on this case through her small not-for-profit Remember America Action organization. In the interview, she says Moore’s story is just one of the many she has heard, and the foundation cannot take all of the cases her team would like to:
Grochocki said Remember America Action would have filed hundreds of lawsuits across the county if her team had the resources to do it. She said this case was a simple Equal Protection case because Governor Pritzker allowed professional and college teams to play but teen athletes have been crushed by the restrictions.
It is long past time for our national and local leaders to end this madness. Not all private schools have invested millions in new ventilation systems and plexiglass. Most of the studies have used commonsense hygiene measures and cloth masks with additional cleaning requirements. The need for more federal spending is a ridiculous excuse at this point.
The disadvantages that children, even in good schools and without learning disabilities, will have compared to their peers in places where schools are open is unconscionable at this point. There is no way to know how long the gap will exist or the long-term effects of the mental health crisis. It is high time someone pulls a Ronald Reagan with the air-traffic controllers and tells these teachers’ unions and associations their members can be replaced in short order or they will start docking their pay. The future of too many children depends on it.
WATCH the full segment on Tucker Carlson Tonight. A call is played during the segment where obvious profanity is beeped out.
BY STEPHEN KRUISER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Happy Thursday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends. Anyone know where I can get a used submarine in good condition?
The Republican party’s Biden-era adjustment period is a bit all over the place, to put it mildly. We knew that there would be more than a few adjustments to be made after Donald Trump left Washington for the sunshine of Florida, but it’s turned out that there are more than that.
Naturally, most of the party drama involves D.C. Republicans. Too much time inside the Beltway infects even the best people with a severe case of the drama queens, so that’s to be expected. Even the ones you want to like eventually end up not being able to get out of their own way while trying to knock someone else over trying to get to a camera. Expect the worst, and the Beltway Republicans will never disappoint you.
Most of my conservative friends and colleagues prefer not to dwell on this hot mess too much and dream of better days, like 2024. I’m not a big fan of getting too far ahead of ourselves like that, and I’ll be writing a column about that in the next day or two. Still, it’s a useful coping mechanism for many and fleshing out a partial plan is never a completely bad idea.
Whenever the hopes for 2024 are discussed, the name of Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida comes up a lot. There are a lot of Trump supporters who would like to see him return and run again. Among those people, DeSantis seems to be the favorite to run if Trump doesn’t decide to put himself through that again.
It’s easy to understand why DeSantis would be so popular with conservative Republicans who aren’t in the mood for the GOP to backslide and start capitulating to the Democrats all the time. He doesn’t do much of that.
OK, any of that.
Throughout this plague, DeSantis has heeded his own instincts rather than react to the shrieking of the Democrats and their hysterical flying monkeys in the media.
That’s precisely what the Republican party needs — leaders who don’t fall for the false promise of respect from the mainstream media. It was bad enough before Trump won in 2016. The MSM hacks would dangle carrots for witless Republicans. If the Republicans in question did what they were told — like backstab other Republicans — they’d be treated slightly less awfully in the press. As soon as their service was no longer required, it was back to crap treatment as usual.
All of the biased media malpractice was more veiled and coy before Trump made everyone involved rip off their masks and expose themselves for the cancer that they are. That the insidiousness of their ways is now a fully known commodity and there are still so many Republicans who want to play into their hands is rather disturbing to those of us who found Trump’s media battles such a refreshing change of pace. Decades of watching Republicans like Mitt Romney and George W. Bush gleefully submit to being whipping boys for the MSM had left us searching for reasons to stick with the party.
Trump changed all that. If the GOP wants most of those 74 million votes Trump got last year to stick around it better not fall in line behind squishes who are saying, “Thank you sir, may I have another?” while being embarrassed by the likes of CNN.
Speaking of media, we saw social media wield real bias and power in the 2020 election, and all of it for the Democrats. To date, the only pushback Republicans in Congress have managed has centered around strong finger-wagging during sham hearings.
DeSantis and his legislature are working on some actual pushback, which Bryan wrote about on Tuesday:
A new proposal expected to be filed Tuesday would prohibit companies from suspending the account of a political candidate and be subject to a fine of $100,000 for each day the account of a statewide candidate is blocked, or $10,000 a day for other office seekers.
The proposal would also allow consumers to sue if they have been treated unfairly and would authorize the state attorney general to take on the country’s largest tech companies because of anti-competitive practices. Social media companies would be required to reveal how they became aware of any content they censor.
That might not be a complete fix, but it’s more concrete than anything the D.C. GOPers have attempted.
Ignore the mainstream hacks, push back legally against the social media barons when possible. If only DeSantis could impress that attitude upon his fellow Republicans. Some are getting the vibe — South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem comes to mind — but a lot more need to get with the program or the GOP will be relegated to a double-masked Democrat mandate hell forever.
Or until China occupies the United States.
JOHN MATZE, EX-CEO & REBEKAH MERCER, BOARD MEMBER/PART OWNER OF PARLER:
BELOW: Rebekah Mercer and her father, Robert Mercer, have funded conservative causes in the past, and were among the most influential backers of President Donald Trump in 2016.
BONGINO'S DIFFERENCE OF OPINION:
★★★ THE POPULIST REVOLT HAS JUST BEGUN ★★★
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!
BY RICK MORAN
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 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.
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.
In this interview we discuss The Control Group's efforts to block vaccine mandates nationwide through groundbreaking litigation.
Don't miss!
Find their website at https://informedconsentdefense.org/
And that’s where a new Republican civil rights movement must rise.
BY 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.
______________________________________________________________________________
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/
_____________________________________________________________________________
Dems and media launch an unprecedented campaign to stifle dissent.
BY BOB ADELMANN
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
BY JAMES MURPHY
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.
BY ROBERT SPENCER
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.
BY MATT MARGOLIS
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.”
Democratic Sen. Jon Tester on the Keystone XL pipeline: "I believe in climate change, but I also think that this one pipeline isn't going to turn our climate around." pic.twitter.com/xGi14QKm0h
— The Hill (@thehill) February 2, 2021
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 Trump, and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter, Facebook, Parler, Gab, MeWe, Heroes, Rumble, and CloutHub.
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
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”….
BY PAULA BOLYARD
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.”
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.”
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.
Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis, takes up the fight against censorship by Big Tech. Republicans had 4 years in Washington to fight against Big Tech censorship and did nothing, DeSantis is making his mark in the political arena.
America First Governor shows us what real leadership looks like in an era of total corruption and lawlessness.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Alex Jones breaks down Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ bold measures to hold the Big Tech oligarchs accountable for stripping away Americans’ free speech rights.
SEE: https://banned.video/watch?id=601a038bf3dc2e1edca4746f
SEE: https://banned.video/watch?id=601a01fdf3dc2e1edca43563
While Big Government isn’t doing anything about Big Tech censorship, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is proposing new legislation that actually addresses the problem.
★★★ THE POPULIST REVOLT HAS JUST BEGUN ★★★
The Impeachment Officially BACKFIRES as the Trump COMEBACK Begins! In this video, we’re going to look at the latest polls from battleground states that show that impeachment has become an albatross for the Democrats, how those RINO Republicans that supported it are already virtually all getting primaried, and why many believe that President Trump’s political comeback has already begun; you are NOT going to want to miss this!
BY TYLER O'NEIL
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Last week, Twitter locked the account of The Daily Citizen, Focus on the Family’s news outlet. What heinous crime did The Daily Citizen commit that justified this ban? It reported on President Joe Biden’s decision to nominate transgender Pennsylvania Health Secretary Rachel Levine (born Richard Levine) for assistant secretary of health at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The outlet went on to describe Levine as “a man who believes he is a woman.”
“On Tuesday, President-elect Joe Biden announced that he had chosen Dr. Rachal Levine to serve as Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of HHS. Dr. Levine is a transgender woman, that is, a man who believes he is a woman,” the tweet read.
Twitter flagged the message, claiming it violated the platform’s standards against “hateful conduct.” The Daily Citizen has been locked out of its account until the outlet deletes the offending tweet.
The Daily Citizen appealed the case, but Twitter denied the appeal.
Focus on the Family President Jim Daily defended the tweet, warning supporters that Twitter will likely silence others for expressing the truth about biological sex.
“Our comments in The Daily Citizen were not hateful or politically motivated in any way. They simply reflected an understanding of gender that has been recognized and embraced for millennia. This view is not only supported by Scripture, but by centuries of biological science and a commonsense consensus of what it means to be male or female,” Daily insisted.
A large coalition of pro-family groups spoke up on Focus on the Family’s behalf. The Family Policy Alliance started a petition that reads:
Dear Twitter:
You recently banned Focus on the Family’s The Daily Citizen from your platform for stating a biological fact: A biological male is a male.
I stand with Focus on the Family. So, if you are going to ban them, are you going to ban millions of others like me who believe that biology is reality—and that freedom of speech matters in America?
If your censorship continues, Twitter will become a stagnant echo chamber.
The American College of Pediatricians, the American Principles Project, and Family Policy Councils from more than two-dozen states also signed a letter urging Twitter to reconsider.
Unfortunately, Twitter’s rules are clear on this issue. In October 2018, the platform redefined “hateful conduct” to include “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”
“Misgendering” involves referring to a biological man who identifies as a woman as male, or referring to a biological woman who identifies as a man as female. “Deadnaming” involves referring to a transgender person who changed his or her name by their original name, contrary to their wishes.
Twitter’s rules amount to an effective endorsement of transgenderism and a ban on any disagreement with transgender identity as “hateful.” Even though males who identify as transgender are still male — down to their DNA — and vice versa, Twitter has officially taken the position that the expression of that biological truth constitutes “hate.”
In 2018, Miriam Ben-Shalom, the first lesbian to be reinstated to the U.S. Army after getting kicked out for her sexuality (not usually an ally of conservative Christians), denounced Twitter’s policy as reminiscent of the anti-free speech dystopia of George Orwell’s 1984.
“Twitter, like so many other places, has drunk the Kool-Aid and actively engages in suppression of thought and civil discourse, allowing only the words of those who are delusional, at best,” Ben-Shalom told PJ Media at the time. “Weep for the demise of freedom of speech and free discourse. Welcome ‘Back to the Future’ of 1984.”
Twitter has applied this restriction on the expression of biological reality to a broad swath of speakers. In May 2019, the platform blocked a Ph.D. psychologist who helped write the official psychological position on transgender identity because he expressed his opinion informed by clinical experience. That same month, Twitter blocked the Heritage Foundation’s director of media, Greg Scott, for “misgendering” a biological male who identifies as a woman and competes in women’s powerlifting.
In perhaps the most egregious example, Twitter blocked Kaeley Triller Harms, a co-founder of the Hands Across the Aisle Women’s Coalition, for warning about the biological man “Stephanie” Hayden. Harms claimed that Hayden had been stalking Roman Catholic writer Caroline Farrow. Farrow’s opposition to transgender activism met with a torrent of harassment that extended to her children, her husband, and even her ex-husband whom she divorced 13 years ago.
“I’ve just got a team of people, they seem to attach so much importance and so much weight to what I say and they’re just determined to shut down my point of view,” Farrow told PJ Media last month. “They feel that they can be as abusive as they like: they can target my family, target my children, and I deserve it because I’m full of ‘hate’ because I believe that men can’t become women.”
She has received online harassment involving pictures of “enormous disgusting sex toys” and misogynistic slurs, and one website even discusses whether or not to disfigure her face — and the faces of her children — with acid.
Yes, Twitter stood up for a biological male reportedly involved in that harassment.
Twitter’s rules on this issue are disgusting and terrifying, but as a private company, Twitter has the right to set its own rules. The company has decided to leverage its position to silence opposition to transgender identity, even though that opposition is based on biological reality.
Tragically, there is a growing movement to demonize conservative Christians as “hateful” because they disagree with LGBT activism. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) brands conservative Christian organizations “anti-LGBT hate groups” because they support the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and because they support biological sex over transgender identity. Biden himself has demonized those who disagree with LGBT activism.
Even Americans who support transgender identity should be horrified by Twitter’s restriction on speech and the broader movement to demonize those who dissent from the Left’s agenda.
Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.
BY TYLER O'NEIL
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
On Tuesday, former President Donald Trump’s lawyers Bruce L. Castor Jr., and David Schoen released Trump’s answer to the Democrats’ article of impeachment accusing him of “incitement of insurrection.” Trump’s response breaks the Democrats’ impeachment article into eight separate allegations and responds to each claim. In a nutshell, the former president argues that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to remove a president when he has already left office and that he is innocent of the Democrats’ charges.
Trump asks the Senate to “dismiss Article I: Incitement of Insurrection against him as moot, and thus in violation of the Constitution because the Senate lacks jurisdiction to remove from office a man who does not hold office. In the alternative, the 45th President respectfully requests the Senate acquit him on the merits of the allegations raised in the article of impeachment.”
The Senate already voted to take up the impeachment, with five Republican senators joining 50 Democratic senators in holding the matter constitutional. However, 45 Republican senators voted not to hold the trial, given constitutional concerns. This vote signified that the Senate is not likely to convict Trump.
The former president makes a few extremely salient arguments against the Democrats’ impeachment article. In addition to the claim that the Senate cannot convict a former president on impeachment, Trump argues that the Democrats violated his free speech and due process rights in rushing to impeach him and that the article of impeachment is deceptively drafted in an unfair manner. Trump also claims that disqualifying him from office would constitute a “bill of attainder,” which has been broadly interpreted to mean a legislative act against a class of people that inflicts punishment on them without a judicial trial.
Trump argues the article of impeachment is “facially and substantively flawed, and otherwise unconstitutional, and must be dismissed with prejudice.”
Trump splits the article of impeachment into eight claims, providing a response to each one.
His first response claims that the impeachment power does not apply to him because he is no longer president. “The constitutional provision requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached. 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, and thus the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity that runs patently contrary to the plain language of the Constitution.”
Trump also argues that the Constitution does not allow the Senate to disqualify a president from future office unless that president has first been removed from office due to impeachment. “Since removal from office by the Senate of the President is a condition precedent which must occur before, and jointly with, ‘disqualification’ to hold future office, the fact that the Senate presently is unable to remove from office the 45th President whose term has expired, means that Averment 1 is therefore irrelevant to any matter before the Senate.”
Importantly, Trump denies ever having “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.” He also denies ever having “engaged in a violation of his oath of office.”
While the article of impeachment condemns Trump’s statements challenging the 2020 election results as “false,” Trump defends those statements. He claims he exercised his First Amendment right “to express his belief that the election results were suspect, since with very few exceptions, under the convenient guise of Covid-19 pandemic ‘safeguards’ states election laws and procedures were changed by local politicians or judges without the necessary approvals from state legislatures.”
“Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th President’s statements were accurate or not, and he, therefore, denies they were false,” Trump argues. “Like all Americans, the 45th President is protected by the First Amendment. …. the Constitution and Bill of Rights, specifically and intentionally protect unpopular speech from government retaliation.” [Emphasis added]
Trump acknowledged that he spoke at the Ellipse on January 6 before the Capitol riot, but he insisted that Democrats twisted his words in claiming that he had incited an insurrection.
“It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to engage in destructive behavior. It is denied that the phrase ‘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 as it was clearly about the need to fight for election security in general, as evidenced by the recording of the speech,” the legal defense reads.
Trump claims that he did not intend to interfere with the counting of Electoral College votes. He notes that Democrats in Congress challenged Electoral College votes in 2017 and that Republicans did so in 2021, in each case to no avail. He argues that Congress’s duty “was not just to certify the presidential election” but also “to first determine whether certification of the presidential election vote was warranted.”
Trump does not mention the fact that he encouraged Vice President Mike Pence to overstep his constitutional bounds in rejecting Electoral College votes, a move that undermines his claim that he did not intend to interfere.
Trump also denies having made “any effort to subvert” the 2020 election in asking Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R-Ga.) to “find” votes. Trump claims that the word “find” was appropriate in context because he was expressing his opinion that an accurate count would “find” the votes required to put Trump over the top.
Finally, Trump denied having “ever endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government.” He denied having “threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch Government.”
After addressing the article of impeachment, Trump presents arguments in his defense.
He claims the Senate lacks jurisdiction to try a removed president for impeachment “because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, and the Constitution limits the authority of the Senate in cases of impeachment to removal from office as the prerequisite active remedy allowed the Senate under our Constitution.”
He argues that if the Senate acts on this impeachment, “it will have passed a Bill of Attainder in violation of Article 1, Sec. 9. Cl. 3 of the United States Constitution.”
He argues that the article of impeachment violates his right to free speech under the First Amendment and that the House deprived him of the due process of law “in rushing to issue the Article of Impeachment by ignoring it own procedures and precedents going back to the mid-19th century.”
“The lack of due process included, but was not limited to, [the House’s] failure to conduct any meaningful committee review or other investigation, engage in any full and fair consideration of evidence in support of the Article, as well as the failure to conduct any full and fair discussion by allowing the 45th President’s positions to be heard in the House Chamber.”
Trump warns that if the Senate does not rule in his favor, it would set a precedent that “such persons as the 45th President similarly situated no longer enjoy the rights of all American citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.”
“There was no exigency [requiring a fast impeachment], as evidenced by the fact that the House waited until after the end of the President’s term to even send the articles over and there was thus no legal or moral reason for the House to act as it did,” Trump argues. “Political hatred has no place in the administration of justice anywhere in America, especially in the Congress of the United States.”
Trump also claims that “by charging multiple alleged wrongs in one article, the House of Representatives has made it impossible to guarantee compliance with the Constitutional mandate in Article 1, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 that permits a conviction only by at least two-thirds of the members.”
By “interweaving different allegations rather than breaking them into counts of alleged individual instances of misconduct,” the article of impeachment muddies the waters in debate. If the Senate votes to convict Trump, “it would be impossible to know if two-thirds of the members agreed on the entire article, or just on parts, as the basis for a vote to convict.”
Finally, Trump notes that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has announced that he would not to preside over the impeachment trial, and Democrats picked Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) to preside. “Once the 45th President’s term expired, and the House chose to allow jurisdiction to lapse on the Article of Impeachment, the constitutional mandate for the Chief Justice to preside at all impeachments involving the President evidently disappeared, and he was replaced by a partisan Senator who will purportedly also act as a juror while ruling on certain issues,” Trump argues.
The former president presents a very strong case in his defense. Not only does he make salient arguments for his innocence of the specific charge of “incitement of insurrection,” but he also warns against the dangerous precedent this impeachment would set for free speech and for due process.
The impeachment trial is scheduled to begin next Monday, February 8.
Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.
"FOR GOD & COUNTRY":
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
FORT HOOD, Texas — An Army chaplain in Texas is under investigation after he posted a comment on social media opposing Biden’s order to lift the ban on transgenders in the military.
“How is rejecting reality (biology) not evidence that a person is mentally unfit (ill), and thus making that person unqualified to serve?” Maj. Andrew Calvert wrote under the article, posted to Facebook last week.
“There is little difference in this than over those who believe and argue for a ‘flat earth,’ despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary,” he said. “The motivation is different, but the argument is the same. This person is a MedBoard for mental wellness waiting to happen. What a waste of military resources and funding!”
The article had mentioned the support of new Defense Secretary Gen. Lloyd Austin, who said during a hearing, “If you’re fit and you’re qualified to serve and you can maintain the standards, you should be allowed to serve.”
As previously reported, Biden lifted the Trump administration’s ban on transgender service in the military last Monday, allowing men who identify as women and vice versa to serve in the nation’s Armed Forces if they are otherwise qualified.
“[W]hat I’m doing is enabling all qualified Americans to serve their country in uniform, and essentially restoring the situation as it existed before, with transgender personnel, if qualified in every other way, can serve their government in the United States military,” he said moments prior to signing an executive order.
Calvert, a unit chaplain with the 3rd Security Force Assistance Brigade, commented on the matter under the Army Times report, stating that he feels those who struggle with their gender are mentally ill and therefore not qualified to serve.
One lashed out against him, “You’re a chaplain in the Army, charged with the nurture of the living, care for the wounded and honor of the fallen. To have extremist views against a group of people, especially voiced in public on social media, is deplorable and disgusting. I feel awful for the soldiers and families you are entrusted to provide counseling and mentorship to. You should be ashamed.”
The Brigade has now confirmed that Calvert’s comment is under investigation. It posted to social media on Tuesday, “Always remember to ‘Think, Type, Post’ when it comes to engaging in conversation on social media platforms. We are soldiers 24/7 and that means always treating people with dignity and respect.”
“We are aware of the recent comments posted to the Army Times Facebook in regard to the ban being removed on transgender service members. This incident is under investigation,” it advised.
“The Security Force Assistance Command Enterprise fully supports the Commander in Chief, Secretary of Defense and all DoD policies. The United States Army has a strict standard against any form of discrimination based on gender identity.”
Some defended Calvert.
“Disagreeing about whether a particular lifestyle is healthy doesn’t mean we’re not treating people with dignity and respect or that we’re being hateful,” one commenter wrote. “The incident shouldn’t be under investigation. The man is a chaplain. His first allegiance is to what God taught, and he has a 1st Amendment right to voice his opinion.”
“Saying something that goes against currently popular PC speech is not automatically hateful. The PC police are willing to punish those of us who don’t agree with their agenda. That’s not American or Christian. Don’t let them shame you into submitting to their will.”
“Hey SFAC how about not telling us soldiers what to believe or what to say on social media,” another remarked. “You must have a tremendous amount of free time to waste it harassing a chaplain or anyone else that doesn’t agree with whatever ideology our current commander decides to propose.”
The co-founder and president of the 39-year old non-profit charity National Vaccine Information Center founded announces the opening of the October 2020 Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination: Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century for free viewing online. She responds to the publishing of false and misleading information about the conference, which features video presentations by 51 speakers from the US and other countries. The written commentary is anchored with more than 90 references and can be read at nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/January-2021/vaccination-and-censorship.aspx
SEE: https://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/January-2021/vaccination-and-censorship.aspx;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes: