Joe Biden, Democrats weaponizing FBI into their private army of Gestapo agents to target political enemies

Just the minute the FBI begins making recommendations on what should be done with its information, it becomes a Gestapo. - J. Edgar Hoover

America’s Gestapo: The FBI’s Reign of Terror | Tenth Amendment Center


The Gestapo: The Myth and Reality of Hitler's Secret Police de Frank McDonough

Since the protests on January 6th, Democrats have weaponized the FBI by turning the agency into their own private army of secret police to target their political enemies. One America's Pearson Sharp has more.




Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Do you get mail? Of course, you do. You have a mailbox for your house, apartment, or condo, or you have a post office box. Everybody gets mail. But does everybody get their mail monitored? Well, if you’re a Second Amendment supporter or you don’t like Joe Biden, you may have somebody watching your mailbox.

The Washington Times noted that Patrick Eddington of the Cato Institute obtained redacted documents showing that U.S. Postal Service inspectors monitored the mail of some American citizens. The impetus for the move? These people were gun rights activists and had issues with the election of Joe Biden. The office spied on gun activists who attended a gathering in Richmond, Va.,  what the Times calls “far-right” groups who went to D.C. after Biden’s election, and even those who gathered to protest the shooting of Breonna Taylor. This particular operation also included digital surveillance through the Internet Covert Operations Program. The documents Eddington obtained showed that the operation in question ran from September 2020 to April 2021. There were disclaimers on the reports that stated that the surveillance was not intended to infringe on anyone’s rights but to give law enforcement intel about potential violent or criminal activity. The post office inspector general said that the moves were outside the scope of law enforcement and may not have had legal approval. The inspectors disagreed. In the interim, the Postal Service has agreed to a full review and to make sure that future surveillance is properly authorized.

We need postal inspectors. Back in the wild west days of the internet, I covered cases in which postal inspectors played key roles in intercepting child pornography and working with local law enforcement to lock up offenders. But the gun-rights activists and politically active Americans who were recently monitored were not doing anything illegal. Distasteful to some, but not illegal.

Then there is the issue of the FBI raiding a business in Beverly Hills. Agents had a warrant because there was cause to believe that there was criminal activity going on, specifically drug trafficking and money laundering. But while agents were on-scene, they also broke into safety deposit boxes belonging to customers and seized the assets and money inside. The FBI maintains that everything was above-board, but the Post Millennial has information that the judge who issued the warrant was misled. Specifically, the warrant did not show that the agents intended to permanently confiscate everything in boxes that contained at least $5,000 in assets.

To learn more about the most recent and most damaging incident, please read Paul Bolyard’s THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA I KNOW: Dozens of FBI Agents Raid Home of Catholic Pro-Life Activist as Children Scream in Terror.

So why the seemingly never-ending parade of abuses of power? Why is the government doling out $5,000 worth of punishment for $5.00 “crimes?” As a former Leftist, I think I can shed some light on that.

Some of the people behind this are true believers. They see America as a cancer-ridden body that can only be saved by surgically removing multiple tumors, full-body radiation, and chemotherapy. Yes, it will be frightening, painful, and traumatic for you, but it is necessary. Trust us, when it is all over and we have ravaged and re-made the body, things will be better. Eventually. We promise.

Some just enjoy power and privilege, and people like Trump and even you represent a threat to that power, privilege, and especially money. These people have a lot on the line, and they need a pretty big hammer to protect themselves. And they are supported by various hangers-on who are still hoping for their invite to the after-party in Aspen.

And then there are those who are so ensconced in their closed universe that they have no concept of reality, and who genuinely feel like victims. And victims, of course, feel justified in doing anything they can to save themselves. Here is a case in point:

You may remember the government shutdown in 2013. During that time, the federal hissy-fit included keeping drivers from seeing Mount Rushmore.

When the shutdown began, I was approached by an acquaintance who worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She was absolutely livid and shaking with anger that she was being put on temporary leave, never mind the fact that she would be given back pay when things re-opened. She utterly disregarded the fact that people in her community were being forced into actual, permanent unemployment with no back-pay, because of the way the Obama administration had played havoc with the oil and gas industry. These people included a family in her church that had to move because the husband lost his job and they were facing foreclosure. In her mind, she, as a selfless public servant (with a great salary and a guaranteed retirement) should never be inconvenienced in such a way. How dare Republicans do such a thing by not cooperating with Democrats? She demanded I run some sort of op-ed she was clutching. I took the piece of paper but didn’t rise to the defense of her and her agency.

So ambition, mixed with indignation, ego, and a healthy dose of paranoia will allow things to happen in a country whose inhabitants could never have imagined such a situation just three years ago. If you are one of those people and are reading this, is what you are doing worth the price of your soul? Do you really think that you are “protecting democracy” by doing the things that totalitarians do? Or are you just telling yourself that you are only following orders to protect your pension? How many lives need to be wrecked for you to keep a pension? How much money will let you sleep at night? If you can’t or won’t answer those questions, then you are on your way to joining a long list of people whom history has come to despise.

No, we aren’t East Germany, Communist China, or Russia — yet. But we seem to be headed in that direction at an amazing speed.


You're Watching It Happen: Desantis, The Feds, and the Illegal Alien Showdown

What you BETTER KNOW Before Going to the Hospital

Flying People To Martha's Vineyard Is Abusive?! WHAT?! 

WHY It's Going to Be WORSE Than You Think: Inflation, Reset, and Global Order

Achtung, Baby! Your Historical Proof the Democrats Are Using the Nazi Playbook



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

We know Joe Biden has a history of plagiarizing but who knew he’d swipe Hitler’s libretto and unleash it on America? We the People should have known. The Democrats accuse Trump and/or the GOP of whatever skullduggery they themselves are up to, so when they called us “Nazis” for the past six years, we should probably have taken a closer look at what those Untermenschen were up to.

FACT-O-RAMA! “Semantic satiation” is the process of using a word so often that it loses its meaning, like calling us “Nazis” and whatnot.

I’ll get into the timeline in a moment, but let’s peep at some other similarities that are crucial to what’s going on — and what could happen — based on the Democrats’ increasing dedication to their Nazi-riffic leanings.

Thug Life

Hitler had a street thug army called the SA (also referred to as “Brownshirts” or “Storm troopers”) who would riot, break windows, and start fires. They frequently beat and sometimes killed people they considered ideological enemies, all with political impunity.

Today, the Democrats have Antifa, their non-binary, pan-transexual hermaphrodite army that throws a tantrum every time they get their gender-non-conforming undies in a twist. Antifa can frequently be seen attacking Christian outings or mob-beating journalist Andy Ngo.

Like Hitler’s Brownshirts, Antifa has the blessings of its bosses. Kamala Harris pimped a bail fund for the thugs, and Joe Biden dropped federal charges against those who weren’t among the 90% who had already had their charges dropped.

We could mention BLM here, too, but most of them have retired to their mansions and haven’t put down their Henri IV Dudognon Heritage Cognac Grande champagne long enough to wage war for the Democrats lately.

History Repeats Itself

Let’s take a look at the Nazis’ game plan for their first year or so in power compared to the Democrats and see if we can find any comparisons, shall we? Remember, the Nazis abhorred the Jews, much as Democrats hate the unvaxxed, along with any and all Americans who won’t obey them. Much of this historical info comes compliments of the Jewish Virtual Library.

Then: February 1933—the weekly pro-Nazi propaganda newspaper Der Sturmer becomes the official propaganda outlet for the Nazis.
Now: It’s hard to say when exactly CNN went all bootlicky for the Democrats. It could have started when Obama ran for president. By the time Trump came along, low-T Democrat toadies like Don Lemon were happy to go on the attack every night. By 2017, the tragic network was losing in the ratings to the likes of the Home Garden Network.

Then: March 21, 1933—The Nazis set up “special courts” to deal with people who dared to have differing political opinions.
Now: 2021-onward—So many people have been arrested on charges related to the January 6 fracas that cases are meted out to federal judges nationwide. Most of the alleged insurrectionists will be convicted of “trespassing.”

Then: March 22, 1933—The Nazis hold a grand opening for their first concentration camp, Dachau, intended to hold political dissidents.
Now: July 26, 2020—The Center for Disease Control (CDC) quietly updates its “shielding approach” (COVID camp) plans to deal with “high risk” people. This approach is based, in part, on information from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which the CDC may or may not condone.

NAZI-O-RAMA! A judge scrapped Rule 2.13, which gave New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s commissioner of health , Mary T. Bassett, the power to send anyone, sick or not, regardless of age (they could have snatched your kids), to a camp for as long as she wanted to. According to court documents, Rule 2.13 suggests “[t]he commissioner has unfettered discretion to issue a quarantine or isolation for anyone, even if there is no evidence that person is infected or a carrier of the disease. Further, the commissioner sets the terms, duration, and location of the detention, not an independent magistrate.” Like a good Nazi, Hochul is appealing the ruling.

Then: April 1, 1933—Hitler declares that no one will enter a Jewish business for one day.
Now: August 16, 2021—New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio mandates that no unvaccinated people (largely black folks) can enter a restaurant, bar, theater, etc., until further notice.

Then: April 7, 1933—Jewish government workers are required to retire.
Now: September 2021—Biden mandates vaccines for all federal employees, including the Armed Forces. Those who refuse to bend their knees and raise their sleeves will be fired.

Then: April 25, 1933—The Nazis ban Jewish kids from going to school.
Now: October 1, 2021—California becomes the first state to declare that unvaxxed kids cannot go to school.

Then: April 27, 1933—In an effort to annoy and possibly starve Jews, the Nazis ban kosher animal slaughtering.
Now: August 1, 2022—After spending years pretending cow farts are going to warp the atmosphere and allow the sun to bake us like gingerbread men (yes, I’m assuming gender), Democrats come up with an insane, $369 billion bill which, in part, takes aim at the beef industry. Meanwhile, billionaire Bill Gates suggests we eat bugs. Though the Nazis’ and the commies’ on-again-off-again relationship ended badly in 1945, today, they all agree on at least one thing: meat must go. Check out this poppycock from the bolshies at the Word Economic Forum (WEF).

Then: June 28, 1933—Hitler releases his journalistic requirements to everyone in the news media.
Now: September 2022—Intrepid PJ Media columnist Kevin Downey Jr. (whose paycheck is dependent on how many people read his articles, so click away, you sinful skanks!) takes a moment away from his tiki bar to report that Fauci has been in collusion with Big Tech about how to “cancel” people too smart to take 13 jabs of a fugazi vax. Granted, it comes well after his lovely associate, Stacey Lennox, broke the story about how the White House colluded with social media big-wigs, but who’s keeping score?

Related: Wake Up Patriots: The Commies Are Winning

Then: July 14, 1933—The Nazi party is declared the only political party in Germany. Dissidents are rounded up. By July 31, the Nazis will have captured 30,000 people, most of them political enemies.
Now: August 8, 2022—A government agency—that a well-dressed lad with a gorgeous crop of hair dares to call “the Democrats’ Gestapo“—raids the home of Donald Trump, the Republican most likely to run for president in 2024. One month later, Steve Bannon and roughly 35 other Trump associates are raided or subpoenaed by the FBI.

Related: New Poll: Most Americans Believe the FBI Is Now ‘Biden’s Gestapo’

Then: September 29, 1933—Hitler forbids Jews from farming.
Now: September 2022—Intrepid PJ Media columnist Kevin Downey, Jr. brushes off the alcoholic shakes and remembers that Zimbabwe almost starved their people into the grave by “canceling” white farmers.

YUM-O-RAMA! Let your farmers farm, and your people will always eat. It’s not rocket science, Nazi!

Then: October 24, 1933—Those blasted Nazis pass a law that would place “Habitual and Dangerous Criminals” (i.e., the homeless, unemployed, and alcoholics) in prison.
Now: September 2022—As such a law would incarcerate most of his family, intrepid PJ Media columnist Kevin Downey, Jr. roundly disagrees.

Then: 1933—Germany’s arrests for “sedition” are way up.
Now: 2022—Cracka, please!

The truth is, we could probably do this for days, but I think we can see more than a few reasons to think the Democrats are hacking the Nazis. Feel free to post more in the comments section. And don’t forget to share this with your liberal sister-in-law and her man-bunned boi(?)friend. Let the truth be known. Whether we call them commies or Nazis, the enemy is past the gate and well into the dining room by now. Thank God they won’t eat your steak.

Biden Takes More Than Just His Backdrop From the Nazis

Okay, Biden is Literally Hitler Now



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Back on March 23, 1933, before he became the world’s universal symbol for the embodiment of evil, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler spoke before the Reichstag, urging it to pass an Enabling Act that would give him dictatorial powers. He said that this was urgently needed in light of an imminent threat to the nation. Hitler claimed that in 1918, Marxist organizations had seized power in Germany, leading to “a time of boundless misfortune for Germany, that is to say, the working German Volk [people].” But he assured the Reichstag deputies that “the German Volk itself has increasingly turned away from concepts, parties, and associations which, in its eyes, are responsible for these conditions.” Does this sound familiar? It should. These are the same rhetorical notes Old Joe Biden sounded during his ominous Thursday night speech branding Donald Trump and his supporters as enemies of the state.

Probably more out of historical illiteracy than historical awareness, Biden’s handlers chose September 1 for Biden’s profoundly disturbing and un-American speech. That’s right, it was the 83rd anniversary of Hitler’s invasion of Poland when Old Joe stood before an ominous red and black backdrop and recalled Hitler’s demonization of his opposition, declaring that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

Of course, Joe hastened to assure us that he didn’t want to pitch every Republican into the gulag just yet: “Now, I want to be very clear — very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans.  Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans. But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.”

That suggests what the next step will be. Will Biden and his henchmen try to force Republicans to join up with the uniparty pseudo-Republicans who allow the Democrats to implement their full hard-Left agenda, Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney and Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and Adam Kinzinger and all the rest, and to denounce and repudiate Trump and any idea of making America great again? If so, what will happen to those who do not? Will they be prevented from taking any Congressional seats to which they’re elected, and even arrested as enemies of “our democracy”?

Related: I Am a ‘Clear and Present Danger’ to the Biden Regime (And So Are You)

That’s what Hitler did with the Communists he blamed for Germany’s woes. In his Enabling Act speech, Hitler accused the Communists of “pillaging, arson, raids on the railway, assassination attempts, and so on–all these things are morally sanctioned by Communist theory.” He also declared that the German people were already in the process of defeating these great enemies. He spoke of “the necessity of thoroughly rejecting the ideas, organizations, and men in which one gradually and rightly began to recognize the underlying causes of our decay.” He added: “Filled with the conviction that the causes of this collapse lie in internal damage to the body of our Volk, the Government of the National Revolution aims to eliminate the afflictions from our völkisch life which would, in future, continue to foil any real recovery.”

Biden sounded the same notes, here again, declaring that the nation was bouncing back despite the best efforts of these internal enemies to destroy it: “American manufacturing has come alive across the Heartland, and the future will be made in America — no matter what the white supremacists and the extremists say,” as if America-First patriots, whom Biden was busy smearing as white supremacists and extremists, were against American manufacturing. “I made a bet on you, the American people,” Biden continued, “and that bet is paying off. Proving that from darkness — the darkness of Charlottesville, of COVID, of gun violence, of insurrection — we can see the light. Light is now visible.”

These resonances are real and ominous. For the first time ever in over two hundred years of American history, a president has declared that his primary political opposition stands outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse. The logical next step is the one Hitler took: he blamed one of his strongest adversaries, the Communist Party, for the Reichstag Fire, and outlawed it accordingly. With the Communist deputies barred from being present, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, and Germany’s unfortunate fourteen-year experiment with a representative republic was over.

But that couldn’t possibly happen here, could it? It would be as outlandish and frankly inconceivable as the prospect of a president of the United States standing in front of a couple of Marines and a strongly Naziesque backdrop and denouncing his legitimate political opposition as enemies of the state. Simply could not happen! Not in “our democracy”!




The Enabling Act-Holocaust Encyclopedia-

Hitler Enabling Act Photo in Color:




Who Are You Calling a Fascist, Mr. President?~Here’s What Biden’s Speech Tells Us About His Sinister Plans for Next Year~Biden’s Hitler-Esque Speech Was Even Too Much for CNN~I Am a ‘Clear and Present Danger’ to the Biden Regime (And So Are You)



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The other day, President Joe Biden accused voters of the opposition party of turning to “semi-fascism.” This is probably the first time in American history a president has openly attacked the opposing party’s constituents in this way. 

Then again, Biden, who once alleged that the chaste Mitt Romney was harboring a desire to bring back chattel slavery, is prone to stupid hyperbole. And it’s true that most people who throw around the word “fascist” fail to do so with much precision. These days, the word “democracy,” like “fascism,” has lost all meaning. According to Democrats, asking someone to show ID before voting is an attack on “democracy,” but so is the Supreme Court’s handing back power to voters on the abortion issue. When you have no limiting principles of governance, anything that inhibits your exertion of power is seen as anti-“democracy.” If students have loans to be paid, “forgive” them. If you can’t pass a bill, the executive branch should do it by fiat. If the court stops it, pack it. Power is only to be limited when the opposition holds it. 

A microcosm of this confused thinking can be found in the recent spate of hysterical media pieces about alleged Republican “book banning.” The use of “ban” by the media is more than a category error; it’s an effort to paint parents who use the very same exact democratic powers the left has relied on for decades as book burners. Public school curricula and book selection are political questions decided by school and library boards. Neither have a duty to carry every single volume on racial identitarianism or sexually explicit material simply demanded by some busybody at the American Library Association. 

Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center notes that fascists “believed that multiparty democracy weakened the nation and that competitive capitalism was wasteful and exploitative. Their alternative was a one-party state that guided the economy through regulation and sector-based accords between labor and business.”

Well, is it not the left that champions government intervention in the economy, with never-ending regulations, subsidies, and mandates that effectively allow for controlling the means of production? Leftists — some incrementally, some less so — are the proponents of nationalizing the health care system, the energy sector, and education. Again, if progressives have any limiting principles when it comes to intervention in our economic lives, I’d love to hear about them.

Related: The Left Should Be Happy With Biden 

Are the most vociferous defenders of “democracy” not the ones who sound suspiciously like they want a one-party state? Modern Democrats have stopped debating policy or accepting the legitimacy of anyone who stands in their way. They will pass massive, generational reforms using parliamentary tricks, without any input from the minority. And they don’t merely champion their work as beneficial; they claim these bills are needed for the survival of “democracy” and “civilization” — nay, the survival of the planet. Anyone who opposes saving Mother Earth is surely an authoritarian. There is nothing to debate. The villainization of political opponents isn’t new, but we are breaking new ground. 

Some may find it a bit fascist-y that the FBI feels free to instruct giant rent-seeking corporations to censor news to help elect their preferred candidate, as it did with Facebook. Or that the White House is in the business of “flagging” “problematic posts” and threatening corporations to “root out” “misleading” speech or be held accountable. One wouldn’t be off base seeing a “Disinformation Governance Board” that sifts through speech the administration dislikes or a Justice Department that treats those protesting authoritarian school boards as “domestic terrorists” as “semi-fascist.” 

It is curious, as well, that the same people who control basically all major institutions in American life — academia, media, unions, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, trade associations, public schools, publishing, the entire D.C. bureaucracy, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, not to mention the presidency and Congress — claim to be victims of budding authoritarianism. The only major institution free of progressives’ grip right now is the Supreme Court. And the left is engaged in a systematic effort to delegitimize the Court for doing its job and limiting the state’s power.

None of this is to say that the right is innocent. I often find myself debating the populist right on issues ranging from the free markets and the role of the state. Abuses of the Constitution should be called out no matter who engages in them. However, progressivism’s crusade to destroy the separation of powers, its attacks on religious freedom and free speech, its undermining of civil society, its binding of the economy to the state, and its fostering of perpetual dependency and victimhood are far bigger long-term threats to the republic than Trumpism — and far closer to the definition of “semi-fascism” than the Republican agenda.







Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

I must admit that I’m still trying to wrap my head around Biden’s primetime speech on Thursday evening. Who thought this was a good idea?

Biden’s message was bad enough—his political opponents are fascists, and if you don’t support him and the Democrats, you’re a fascist, too—but the staging felt like something from 1933 Germany, and the ominous red lighting in the background didn’t help.

The optics were so bad that even some at CNN were alarmed by the spectacle.

The use of the Marines behind Biden for such a blatantly political speech was criticized by the network’s chief national affairs correspondent, Jeff Zeleny.

“There’s nothing unusual or wrong with a President delivering a political speech — it’s inherent in the job description,” Zeleny tweeted. “But doing it against a backdrop of two Marines standing at attention and the Marine Band is a break with White House traditions.”

CNN’s Brianna Keilar agreed, saying it “flies in the face” of the notion that the American military is “supposed to be apolitical.”

“Whatever you think of this speech the military is supposed to be apolitical,” Keilar tweeted. “Positioning Marines in uniform behind President Biden for a political speech flies in the face of that. It’s wrong when Democrats do it. It’s wrong when Republicans do it.”

The overtly partisan nature of the speech also didn’t sit well with CNN contributor Scott Jennings. “This was a very, very partisan speech. His core message to me was if you don’t vote Democrat, we don’t have a democracy anymore, so that’s not going to land very well at all with any Republican voter, no matter what kind of Republican they consider [themselves to be].”

Of course, not everyone on the network had the same response.

CNN correspondent Eva McKend, for example, dubbed the speech “very, very patriotic.”

“And something else that really stuck out to me is that he almost seemed to be reclaiming patriotism. Often you hear Republicans argue that they are the pro-America party. The Democrats are not patriotic enough. But what was more pro-USA than this speech?” she asked. “And I think this is exactly what Democratic voters wanted to hear. We honor the will of the people, right? A nod to our democracy but also a nod to preserving reproductive rights. He is the president of all America. We are still at our core a democracy. I mean all of these things, it was a very, very patriotic speech, and I think that that is a lot of what Democratic voters across the country—they want to be patriotic, too. They want to be part of the American story, too. I think he spoke to that.”




Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

“Clear and present danger” aren’t words any president should use lightly because that’s when the big guns used to come out against the First Amendment — and might again.

Set aside for a few minutes the vaguely Nurembergesque optics of Thursday night’s historically divisive speech by Presidentish Joe Biden so we can concentrate on the content.

“MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger,” Biden angrily declared. “They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow lies together.”

“That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a ‘clear and present danger to our democracy.”

Ben Shapiro called it “the most demagogic, outrageous, and divisive speech” he’s ever seen from an American president because Biden “essentially declared all those who oppose him and his agenda enemies of the republic.”

Biden’s speech came just two days after he not-so-implicitly threatened [VIP link] millions of law-abiding Americans with military action. “For those brave right-wing Americans,” he sneered, “if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15. You need something little more than a gun.”

Ricochet’s Jon Gabriel said that Biden’s word choice was as “deliberate as it was divisive,” reminding readers that the C&PD doctrine was “created by the Woodrow Wilson-era Supreme Court to curtail the free speech of Americans.”

Biden, warned Gabriel, “floated a legal pretext to silence Republicans heading into the midterm elections.”

Already, social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have been revealed as willing stooges for government end-runs around the First Amendment, as our own Stacey Lennox noted just today:

On the heels of shocking comments by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the FBI’s role in censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, initial e-mails related to a lawsuit filed by Schmitt and Landry show even more evidence that the Biden administration is using Big Tech to do what it is not, allowed to do according to the Constitution.

Lennox wrote that “Further disclosures could demonstrate that Big Tech and the government are conspiring to censor information related to any number of issues.”

But back to Thursday night’s demagoguery.

MSNBC’s Eugene Robinson approvingly described Biden’s speech as an “urgent, wartime address.”

Recommended: Finger-Pointing Federal Reserve Admits They Can’t Tame Inflation, Blames Congress

Well, with whom is Biden at war?

Biden has met the enemy, and he is us.

Many on the Right, including my friend and colleague Stephen Kruiser, believe that Biden’s speech was a display of weakness, “the panic and flop sweat of every Washington power player inside the Beltway.” I don’t necessarily disagree, but let's at least consider that it might have been something else: A display of dangerously hubristic overconfidence in the administration’s own power.

Their power not to govern but to rule.

What else is there to call it when the Biden regime goes from surreptitiously silencing critics via social media back channels to openly floating a Wilson-era pretext for jailing us?

If this scheming mediocrity believes he can use his signature to transfer up to a trillion dollars from blue-collar Americans into the wallets of lawyers, doctors, and Trans Deconstructive Lit Theory majors and call it “debt relief,” why wouldn’t he think he can use the coercive power of the state to silence his critics?

I’ve been writing for PJ Media for over 15 years, but this is the first time I ever felt like the company, all of these voices, might not be here tomorrow.

I don’t know if the Swamp cabal running the White House will get away with it, but I’m sure as hell not going to be quiet about it — and neither will anyone else on any of the Townhall websites.

If you’d like to help keep us speaking up and speaking out on behalf of you and 72 million other clear and present dangers to this regime, I’d sure appreciate your VIP membership.

You can become a member right here, and don’t forget that VODKAPUNDIT promo code for a 25% discount here on PJ and all six Townhall sites.

If, for whatever reason, you can’t join us, at least please help share this message with your friends and family.

Forget “democracy” — our republic might depend upon it.




Yet another Muslim journalist working for the New York Times praises Hitler



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

What if Honest Reporting hadn’t revealed anything about Soliman Hijjy? Would he still be working for the Times? Sure. They’re only concerned about this kind of behavior when they get caught.

“Unearthed: Another Hitler-Praising New York Times Gaza Journalist,” by Ira Stoll, Algemeiner, August 28, 2022:

After the New York Times terminated its relationship with a Gaza-based journalist who said he favored killing and burning Jews “like Hitler did,” the newspaper is looking into additional reported instances of its journalists praising Hitler on social media.

The same watchdog group, HonestReporting, that unearthed the post by Fady Hanona also dug up a 2012 Facebook post by a Times videographer, Soliman Hijjy, who HonestReporting said wrote “How great are you, Hitler.” Hijjy also shared variants of the post again in 2018 and 2020, HonestReporting said.

HonestReporting also expressed concern about social media posts made between 2011 and 2018 by Hosam Salem, a freelance photographer whose work has appeared in the Times.

The Times told HonestReporting it reviewed the concerns and took “appropriate action.”…

And, at least in Hijjy’s case, a video he created for the Times, “Gaza’s Deadly Night: How Israeli Airstrikes Killed 44 People,” was denounced when it came out as a “shocking” “hatchet job.” So the issue isn’t just the social media posts, it’s the nexus between the social media posts and the hate-filled agenda that filters through into the New York Times journalism….



Crimes against humanity: Mary Holland of Children’s Health Defense says everyone who violated Nuremberg Code during covid needs to be prosecuted



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

(Natural News) At a recent Action Alliance event in Nuremberg, Germany, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland issued a call to action about not letting those behind the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) plandemic off the hook for their crimes against humanity.

Holland spoke about the importance of the Nuremberg Code, which was codified after World War II to prevent atrocities like the Holocaust from ever happening again.

Built on the medical and legal ethics established in Germany before the Nazi regime, the Nuremberg Code also laid the groundwork for how to deal with anyone who might try to impose another mass genocide, which is exactly what those behind the plandemic set out to do.

“For more than 75 years, the Nuremberg Code has been a beacon of light – all medical and legal norms have been based on it since 1947,” Holland said. “The Nuremberg Code is the foundation for modern medical ethics.”

“The code has been incorporated into U.S. federal and state law, and U.S. courts have recognized the Nuremberg Code as a universal, international legal standard – like the norms prohibiting slavery and piracy.”

Forcing people to mask in solitary confinement and submit to experimental “vaccines” violates the Nuremberg Code

Even if entire nations or continents decide to scrap the Nuremberg Code in practice – which is what most of them did by imposing wide-scale medical fascism – this does not nullify its tenets.

Every individual has the right to just say no to drugs, in this case, Fauci Flu shots, regardless of what the government says. Every individual also has the right to just say no to masks, which are an unproven and dangerous medical device.

“Tragically, in the last two-and-a-half years, we have witnessed a global assault on the Nuremberg Code,” Holland lamented. “Governments, medical establishments, universities, and the media have violated the very first principle and every other principle of the code’s 10 points.”

“They have coerced people into being human guinea pigs.”

Holland is committed to seeing every last person responsible for destroying people’s lives and livelihoods with plandemic tyranny brought to justice. It starts with calling them out, followed by actions such as lawsuits.

“We must stop this,” Holland said. “And we must ensure this does not happen again.”

Unfortunately for those who already took the jabs, no amount of justice will give them back their natural, healthy immune systems. Many of them will face a lifetime of illness or premature death as a result of their compliance.

“We live in dangerous times. If world governments and their collaborators continue to flout the Nuremberg Code and censor those of us who criticize ‘The Big Lie’ – we know where this leads,” Holland warned.

“It leads to atrocities. It leads to a legacy of ashes.”

Throughout the plandemic, these atrocities included children and teenagers becoming disabled or dying due to the jabs; adults and elderly people being denied life-saving treatments, and families being separated from one another in “quarantine camps.”

These crimes against humanity must stop. And people must take a stand and just say no to medical fascism whenever, and wherever, it rears its ugly head.

“It is in our power to say, ‘No more! Respect and uphold this code!'” Holland explained. “And let’s not forget: we are winning.”

“The narrative that these injections work is over. The narrative that we must lockdown is over. The narrative that we must test asymptomatic people is over. The narrative that our ‘leaders’ know what they’re doing is over. Let us let that sink in.”

More of the latest about efforts to hold those behind the plandemic accountable for their crimes against humanity can be found at

Sources for this article include:

VACCINE HOLOCAUST: More than 40 times the number of Americans who died in WWII are now dead from covid “vaccines”



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

(Natural News) There are varying educated opinions about the true number of deaths caused by Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” worldwide. According to Steve Kirsch, a conservative estimate is around 12 million people, a figure 40 times higher than the number of Americans who died during World War II.

Kirsch says a reasonable way to estimate covid jab deaths is to divide the number of doses by 1,000. Based on the 600 million doses delivered just in the United States, this amounts to 600,000 deaths, which he says “is right in the ballpark.”

An even more conservative calculation is to divide the number of doses by 2,500. This is the method Mathew Crawford used to conclude that 411 people die per one million doses of shot administered. (Related: Remember when the medical establishment was doing everything possible to avoid autopsying the bodies of people who took covid “vaccines” from the likes of Pfizer?)

As a type of independent peer review, Kirsch offered up a $1 million reward to anyone who is able to debunk Crawford’s figure. So far, nobody has even attempted to refute it.

Using Crawford’s conservative estimate, the global total of covid jab deaths is around five million, or only 16 times the number of Americans killed in WWII.

“We are approaching the 6M Jews killed in the Holocaust over a period of 12 years,” Kirsch writes. “But we are killing people worldwide at a rate at least 6X faster than the Germans did.”

“We are killing nearly close to 10,000 people every single day (the latest rate was roughly 8.46 million doses a day).”

Fauci Flu shots are a kiss of death

Since 385,000 babies are born every day, this killing spree can theoretically go on forever, Kirsch notes – even if the birth rate ends up dropping by 90 percent due to the long-term sterilizing effects of the shots.

No matter how you look at it, a lot of people are dying from these things. And governments have yet to acknowledge that fact, or the fact that covid jab deaths are far higher than actual covid deaths – assuming covid is even as real as the virus they claim it is.

“We are killing an awful lot of people, but world leaders are looking the other way and saying nothing while all of us watch the high number of death reports in the media of people who died ‘unexpectedly’ and hear no explanation from the medical community or the CDC,” Kirsch says.

“We are supposed to trust that they have things well in hand, even though they won’t appear on camera in front of anyone who doesn’t have scripted, pre-approved questions. The vaccine is never mentioned in any of these unexplained death reports.”

Oddly enough – or perhaps not to readers in the know – almost nobody who refused the shots is getting sick with “covid” anymore. The only people falling ill or dying are those who got “fully vaccinated,” “boosters” included.

“The CDC will not require medical examiners to do the proper tests to make the association,” Kirsch says. “They could easily do that. But they won’t. That tells you everything you need to know about the corruption.”

“So it will be an unexplained rise in unexplained deaths due to unknown causes because nobody in the mainstream media is ever going to admit they were wrong and ask a few unscripted questions.”

Kirsch also believes that Donald Trump is too afraid to speak out against the jabs, which somehow explains why he repeatedly promoted them while calling himself the “father of the vaccine.”

To learn more about the dangers and ineffectiveness of covid “vaccines” and other products from Pfizer, be sure to check out

Sources for this article include:

American Stasi: What police sirens blaring outside TRUMP’S Mar-a-Lago PROPERTY really mean.



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

Last Monday's shocking images of police sirens blaring outside Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald Trump's magnificent Palm Beach, Florida, estate, will not soon be forgotten.

Much has already been said and written about the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago that precipitated those sirens: "outrageous," "unprecedented," a "crossing of the Rubicon" moment. Regrettably, all of that is true. The siccing of the national law enforcement apparatus to execute a pre-dawn raid on a top partisan rival -- especially when that rival is the head of state's predecessor and perhaps-likely future opponent -- is a contemptible act of raw political bloodlust. It is an act far more befitting a crumbling hellhole like Venezuela, or a third-world country in sub-Saharan Africa, than it is the land that was to be, per Benjamin Franklin's alleged quip, "a republic, if you can keep it."

America, it seems, won the Cold War only to see its own federal law enforcement/national security apparatus morph into a version of the old East German Stasi -- and barely three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, to boot.

Attorney General Merrick Garland's Thursday press conference, remarkably defensive and defiant in tone, did not dispel any concerns or assuage any critics. (Those critics, incidentally, include even former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.) The scuttlebutt is that Trump was hoarding deeply secretive, classified information deep in the bowels of Mar-a-Lago, in violation of the Presidential Records Act. But the back-and-forth between the National Archives and Trump's personal legal team surrounding the boxes of material, entirely routine for an ex-president when it comes to things like establishing a presidential library, was by all accounts unfolding amicably: A subpoena was issued this spring, Trump's lawyers were cooperative and archivists had already recalled 15 boxes earlier this year.

Furthermore, the Presidential Records Act isn't even a criminal statute, and probable cause for the violation of a criminal statute is the necessary precondition for a magistrate to sign off on a search warrant. As the case may be, the magistrate who signed off on this particular warrant, Bruce Reinhart, is a Jeffrey Epstein-connected ex-defense attorney who just so happened to donate thousands of dollars in 2008 to then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. Go figure.

Many of the Biden Regime's apologists are out in full force, suggesting that the raid was necessary because Trump was obstructing the return of existentially vital documents. This is demonstrably specious.

First, whatever documents Trump may have had in his private Mar-a-Lago possession, there was absolutely nothing there that is new to Biden, Garland, and FBI Director Christopher Wray; Trump has been out of office for nearly 19 months, by now. Second, as a former president, Trump had unilateral, plenary authority to declassify any document that he wanted to declassify -- period. Without seeing the specific search warrant, then, it is impossible to know whether the documents the feds sought had already been declassified. Third, all ex-presidents receive various taxpayer-funded accoutrements, among them a staff with security clearances and secure facilities (SCIFs) for the maintenance of classified records. It simply beggars belief that any document at Mar-a-Lago was at risk of falling into the wrong hands.

The FBI, at this point, is also undeserving of any benefit of the doubt. We are now two years after former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty for lying to a court to obtain a FISA warrant against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The FBI under Wray's predecessor James Comey, of course, was complicit in the propagation of the bogus "Steele dossier" and the general Russia-collusion hoax, whose raison d'etre was solely to delegitimize Trump's presidency from the outset. That would be the same James Comey, incidentally, who let 2016 Trump challenger Hillary Clinton off the hook for -- you guessed it -- storing reams of classified documents on an unsecured personal server on the grounds that she merely exhibited "extreme carelessness."

Most recently, the FBI disgraced itself during the controversy surrounding the 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer -- a plot that bears all the markings of a nefarious Deep State entrapment scheme. Similar entrapment speculation remains about the role Ray Epps played during the Jan. 6, 2021, jamboree at the U.S. Capitol, although one is usually lambasted as a "conspiracy theorist" for this entirely reasonable inference.

There are three primary conclusions to draw from Monday's unprecedented raid -- an epochal moment in the history of American law enforcement, opening up a Pandora's box that will never be put back into place. First, it seems that Trump's fundraising and support metrics have only increased due to his perceived martyrdom, thus bolstering his prospects in his likely-impending 2024 Republican presidential primary. Since this "rally around the flag" effect was so easily foreseeable, it seems likely that this was a factor in Garland's decision to approve the raid. The Regime seems to think that, since it defeated Trump in 2020, it can do so again in 2024.

The other two conclusions are even more nefarious.

The second conclusion to draw is that every alarm conservatives have sounded over the past few years about the spiraling out of control of America's two-tier system of justice has now been vindicated. The Biden Regime is completely unapologetic about its targeting of political opponents -- just ask Peter Navarro, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, Steve Bannon, or even Project Veritas' James O'Keefe. The imperative for conservatives is to respond not merely by tsk-tsking but by recognizing "what time it is" in this ailing, late-stage republic and to demonstrate a willingness to counter the Left's brazen assaults with our own willingness to prudentially engage in escalatory, tit-for-tat, mutually assured destruction tactics. Sometimes, the only way out is through.

The third and final conclusion is the most terrifying: The Biden Regime has demonstrated its willingness, and indeed its eagerness, to take America to hitherto unprecedented depths of depravity -- and it has done so for the very simple reason that it can. For this was an act of power qua power -- an act of public humiliation intended to make a political opponent bend the knee once and for all before The Regime.

Welcome to the era of the American Stasi.

VIDEO: Vera Sharav: Preserving the Nuremberg Code

As the world is approaching the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code, it is becoming apparent that now, of all times, this achievement of humanity is coming under the greatest distress worldwide since it was written down. 

In this interview with The New American, Vera Sharav, a Holocaust survivor and a prominent human rights advocate, draws parallels between the ideologies and practices put in place in Nazi Germany and those practiced by the modern global elites. Both are rooted in the teachings of eugenics, which divide people into two categories: the elites and those considered inferior and not worthy of living. As a result, both the medical experiments carried out by Nazi physicians on Jews during the Holocaust and the mass vaccination campaign against Covid have a common goal: depopulation. 

The forces looking to depopulate the world are many and powerful. Yet it is within people’s power to defeat them, said Sharav. 

Vera Sharav is the founder and president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection.  


Leading Art Show In Germany Displays Antisemitic Work



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

For understandable reasons, the German government claims to be and sometimes is, acutely sensitive to displays, public or private, of antisemitism. Included in the internationally recognized definition of antisemitism is criticism leveled at Israel that is not leveled against any other country for similar behavior. And especially to be censured as antisemitic are the grotesque comparisons that are made between the IDF and the Nazis. Antisemitic exhibits were present at this year’s Documenta, held in Kassel, one of the two most important displays of contemporary art in the world (the other is the Venice Biennale). A report on this moral disaster is here: “Leading Contemporary Art Show Opens in Germany Amid Political Storm Over ‘Antisemitic’ Exhibits,” by Ben Cohen, Algemeiner, June 19, 2022:

The top official tasked with combating antisemitism in Germany has criticized a leading art show that was opened by the country’s president on Saturday for failing to deal with the accusations of antisemitism that have overshadowed its production.

Speaking to the German news outlet Bild am Sonntag, Felix Klein — the German federal commissioner for countering antisemitism — commented that the Documenta art festival, which opened this weekend in the city of Kassel, had failed to dispel the impression that some of the artworks now on display promote antisemitic tropes.

It wasn’t just that the Documenta organizers and some of its participants had ”failed to dispel the impression” that some of the artworks on display were antisemitic. This was no mere “impression,” but an absolutely clear manifestation, of antisemitism

Mounted every five years and regarded as the world’s leading contemporary art show alongside the Venice Biennale, the current edition of the Documenta festival has been curated by Ruangrupa, a collective of Indonesian artists which supports the ‘Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’ (BDS) movement seeking to isolate Israel politically, culturally and economically. The Bundestag, Germany’s federal parliament, passed a motion in May 2019 that decried the BDS campaign as antisemitic and urged the government to regard organizations advocating Israel’s elimination, or a boycott of Israel, as ineligible for state funding.

Indonesia is a Muslim country and Indonesians are, unsurprisingly, anti-Israel. This is not a secret. Once it had been understood by the German government that the 2022 show would be organized by a collective of Indonesian artists, did no one in the political echelon worry about what kinds of “artists” and “art” those anti-Israel Indonesians might select to appear in the Documenta festival?

One of the artistic groups participating in the festival, the Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center, located in the West Bank city of Ramallah, has repeatedly expressed support for boycotts of artistic events in Israel. The center is named in honor of Khalil al-Sakakini, a Palestinian scholar who lived in Jerusalem prior to Israel’s creation in 1948 and was openly sympathetic to Nazi Germany.

It is the official policy of the German government to oppose BDS and to outlaw any attempts to promote it. But when it came to Documenta it was asleep at the wheel. When did it find out that one of the groups taking part in the festival – a very great honor, one proving most profitable, in the art world – was a Palestinian cultural center named after Khalil al-Sakakini, a prominent Arab scholar who had been a Nazi supporter during World War II. Sakakini believed that Nazi Germany could “liberate Palestine from the Jew.” He wrote that Adolf Hitler had opened the world’s eyes to Jewish world power and that Germany had stood up to the Jews and put them in their place. This is the man after whom that Palestinian “cultural center” was named, the same center now showing its “art” from June to September to millions of visitors expected at Documenta. It would have taken approximately one minute to learn all about the unsavory Sakakini, but no one in the German government bothered. No alarm bells, no curiosity, no worry about Indonesian sympathizers with antisemitic Palestinians choosing the exhibitors.

One of the artworks being exhibited at the show was produced by a Palestinian group calling itself “The Question of Funding.” A series produced by one of its artists, Mohammed Al Hawajiri, titled “Guernica Gaza,” depicts Israeli military operations in Hamas-controlled Gaza as akin to the bombing of the Spanish city of Guernica by the German Luftwaffe during the Spanish Civil War — an atrocity that was famously rendered in the painting “Guernica” by Pablo Picasso.

The message [of this painting]: Israel’s army is what the Nazi air force was,” responded Leonard Kaminski of the German Antisemitism Research and Information Center (RIAS) in a post on Twitter. According to the widely-accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, “comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” are antisemitic.

The Nazis, testing their new planes in 1937, bombed the Basque town of Guernica, where there were only inoffensive civilians, killing or wounding one-third of its inhabitants. The Israeli military, on the other hand, does everything it can to avoid harming civilians. The IDF sends warnings to people in buildings that are soon to be targeted, by every means possible – telephoning, emailing, leafletting, and making use of the “knock-on-the-roof” technique. Given that Hamas always hides its weapons in or near civilian structures – houses, apartment buildings, schools, hospitals – it is hellishly difficult to avoid all civilian casualties, but Israel makes great efforts to minimize them, even if it means allowing some Hamas fighters to escape.

Another artwork made light of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. A graphic assembled by the London-based artist Hamja Ashan shows the silhouette of a chicken on top of a machine gun, alongside the words Popular Front for the Liberation of Fried Chicken (PFLFC) — an allusion to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) which gained notoriety for airplane hijackings and gun attacks against civilians during the 1960s and 1970s.

Various Palestinian terrorist groups — the PLO, the DFLP (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine), the Abu Nidal Organization, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, and others less known, as well as Arab terrorists acting on their own. have killed 3,500 Israelis, and wounded 25,000, since the 1948 war. This unfunny graphic of the harmless “chicken” is meant to belittle and mock Israeli anguish over those deaths – see, the graphic says, the PFLP is about as threatening to Israel as a “chicken.” Those Zionists, always making a fuss over nothing. What fun.

In his interview with Bild, Klein [Felix Klein, the German federal commissioner for countering antisemitism] deemed that the allegations of antisemitism leveled at the Documenta festival could not be “credibly dispelled.”

Not “credibly dispelled” is bureaucratese for what should be expressed more forcefully: “the antisemitism in these displays at the Documenta festival is both obvious and nauseating.”

Added Klein: “I very much regret that, especially after the heated public discussion about this.”

In his Saturday address that opened the Documenta festival, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier expressed discomfort at the persistent charges of antisemitism that dogged the show’s preparation, saying that a “boycott of Israel is tantamount to denying its right to exist.”

Steinmeier denounced BDS as “a strategy of exclusion and stigmatization that cannot be separated from antisemitism.” He added that he regretted that the dispute could not be resolved through “a direct discussion between the representatives of the Global South [since when did Muslim states come to represent “the Global South”?], the Jewish community in Germany and Israel.”

By showing up to deliver a speech at the opening of Documenta, German President Steinmeier lent the event an undeserved respectability, when the exhibits I’ve mentioned above — and there were others similarly unpleasant — ought to be the subject of German shame and chagrin. He ought to have refused to appear, and instead explained that he could not in good conscience have anything to do with Documenta because of the clearly antisemitic exhibits it contained and that its organizers refused, after objections were made, to remove it.

Steinmeier’s appearance at the show was strongly criticized by Volker Beck, a former Green Party parliamentarian who now heads the German Israeli Society (DIG).

“It’s a bit pointless to lament now that a direct discussion between the representatives of the Global South and Documenta and the Jewish community in Germany did not come about,” Beck said. “Documenta didn’t want to invite representatives of the [Central Council of German Jews], just plenty of BDS representatives instead.”

Those meticulous Germans were apparently not meticulous enough to vet the exhibitors before the show opened when they might have pressured the organizers to remove the exhibits that displayed anti-Israel messages amounting to antisemitism. 

So what should the rest of us do? Let President Steinmeier’s office know of your deep unhappiness with certain exhibits that were part of this year’s Documenta festival. Make another statement by staying away from Kassel. Don’t visit Documenta, don’t review the exhibits at Documenta, don’t praise anything at Documenta, and don’t buy a damn thing that is now shown at Documenta. And five years from now, when Documenta, its hour come round again, at last, is being organized, make sure such an intolerable result is not repeated.


Antisemitic Muslim 'Cop Of The Year' Tweets Discovered in Cleveland, Ohio:

Cleveland ‘Officer of the Year’ Ismail Quran tweeted Jew-hatred, praise of Hitler



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

The book whose name Ismail Quran bears teaches that the Jews are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

“Cleveland ‘Officer of the Year’ Under Investigation for Anti-Semitic, Pro-Hitler Tweets,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, June 20, 2022:

Cleveland’s 2019 police officer of the year is under investigation for a series of anti-Semitic social media posts that include praise for Adolf Hitler and the Hamas terrorist organization.

Ismail Quran is under investigation by the Cleveland police internal affairs unit for posting “inappropriate social media content,” a department spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon on Monday.

Quran has posted several anti-Semitic messages on social media, including a “salute to Hitler the great” and messages threatening violence against Jewish people, according to tweets provided by Canary Mission, a watchdog group that tracks anti-Semitic activity online….

The Cleveland police department hired Quran in 2018, several years after most of the public tweets were issued. Quran was presented with a belated 2019 officer of the year award in November 2021, more than a year after Canary Mission first exposed many of Quran’s anti-Semitic posts. At the award ceremony, the department said “Officer Ismail Quran has truly embodied the community policing philosophy for the Cleveland Division of Police.” The Cleveland police department is facing allegations it tried to sweep the controversy under the rug and ignore Quran’s bigotry. The officer is “assigned to administrative duties” while the investigation is underway….

When asked for comment on Quran’s posts, a Cleveland police spokesman informed the Free Beacon that the officer is under investigation, though it is unclear what the repercussions could be….

In October 2015, he stated, “Lol bum ass Jew tried to intimidate me. … Don’t try that shit with me.”

“The Jewish lobby,” he wrote in August 2014, runs “the USA.”

Quran claimed in an August 2014 tweet that the Hamas terror group, which routinely kills Jewish civilians in terror attacks, is merely “defending their land.”

In a July 2014 tweet, Quran wrote, “Fuck that Jew” in response to a message wishing an Israeli basketball player good luck. Quran’s tweet included a picture captioned, “LET ME SALUTE TO HITLER THE GREAT. He said ‘I would have killed all the Jews of the world, but I kept some to show the world why I killed them.’”…

Most of these posts were active as of June 2022, though many were deleted when reports about Quran’s rhetoric began to emerge. Canary Mission has documented all of them on its website.



'Salute to Hitler:' Cleveland cop investigated for antisemitic posts - The Jerusalem Post


Cleveland ‘Officer of the Year’ Under Investigation for Anti-Semitic, Pro-Hitler Tweets


Cleveland’s ‘Officer of the Year’ Praised Hitler, Joined Facebook Group Honoring Bin Laden


Josh Sigurdson talks with Tim Picciotto, The Liberty Advisor about the shocking move to crash both the stock market and the economy on purpose in order to get us into the Great Reset agenda for a global technocratic cashless currency backed by the SDR at the IMF.
For the last two years, the establishment has worked hard to commit people to subservience and eugenics. Now we are witnessing the next part of the agenda. This will involve the destabilization of the global economy, supply chain, stock market, etc.
As Fauci, Birx, and Gates call for further restrictions, we're about to see a massive shift in the over-all narrative. And WW3 isn't out of the question either.


Between hyperinflation and World War III, most of humanity doesn’t stand a chance



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

(Natural News) As the world inches closer to another world war, food shortages, social unrest, and hyperinflation are following suit. And when all is said and done, much of the world’s population will likely not make it.

Ever since Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, the stability of the global economic climate has gone off a cliff. It was bad before that, of course, but things seem to have gone into hyperdrive since February.

The Great Recession Blog put together a broad picture of some of the most notable areas where either background inflation (rising producer costs) or consumer inflation is rising significantly, one of the big ones being oil.

“Oil, of course, impacts the price of just about everything, and there is no cavalry here that is going to come to the rescue for anyone, in spite of Biden’s biddings,” the blog explains.

Oil giants like Exxon are boasting massive profit increases due to the shortages created by Russian sources being taken offline, while consumers at the pump are paying higher prices than ever before in our nation’s history.

“Apparently shortages are good for business … at least for some businesses – the ones with their own ample supplies, who see gushers of profits in times like these,” the blog explains.

Will there be enough food to go around at this time next year?

Rising energy costs also directly affect the food sector, as is now being seen perhaps most prominently in Germany, where food prices are increasing 20 to 50 percent.

The United States is seeing glimpses of this as our own energy supplies have been hampered by Biden regime policies that once again made the country energy-dependent rather than energy-independent, which we were under Donald Trump.

The situation is getting so bad all around the world now that the prospect of widespread famine and starvation is becoming a reality. Energy costs the most, fertilizer is in shorter supply, and crop yields are already suffering in many places due to inclement weather – what else is next?

“Of course, financial aid doesn’t fill bellies in places where food doesn’t exist due to lack of fertilizer and/or due to crops not being planted in the major food-producing nations for the world as well as within those nations,” the blog explains.

“What helps is food shipments, and food shipped from the U.S. to other nations to prevent starvation inevitably means some food shortages in the U.S. on a smaller scale and certainly higher prices as people scramble to get their hands on the limited food that is available.”

If there is not enough food to share, however, then this scenario quickly becomes much worse, leading to riots and much worse the longer it persists.

“In a time when one calamity – the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis – hit the entire world (with the economic impacts largely due largely to our national responses to COVID) another calamity – war – hits the entire world (partially due to our global responses to it),” the blog further reveals.

“Each calamity, along with the baked-in inflation already fueled by years of central bank profligacy, weakens our ability to absorb the next one.”

It is almost expected that something new, big, and catastrophic is just waiting to be unleashed next, even as we hobble through the current nightmare. It is almost as if a perfect storm is ready to be unleashed when the time is right, tipping the entire global economy past the point of no return (if it is not already there now).

“I find myself wondering what global calamity after this will fly in like a black swan to take everything down because we have exhausted our resilience all over the world and seem hell-bent on continuing to do so with wars and sanctions no one can afford.”

The latest news coverage about the global economic implosion can be found at

Sources include:

Modern Day Brown Shirts Suppress Free Speech at Yale Law

Why the heckler’s veto is wrong and why universities must prevent its use.



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

Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.

As further confirmation that universities have devolved into islands of repression in a sea of freedom, some 120 Yale Law School students seriously disrupted a March 10th event. Sponsored by the Yale Federalist Society, the event featured Kristen Waggoner, lead counsel for the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), and Monica Miller of the progressive American Humanist Association (AHA), appearing together on the panel to discuss (ironically, it turns out) free speech issues. 

Yale’s LGBTQ students had already mobilized their opposition to the appearance of Waggoner, particularly because ADF, they claimed in a flyer they distributed, “is an organization designated by the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] as a hate group” and that the Federalist Society’s invitation to Waggoner provided “a veneer of respectability [that] is part of what allows this group to do work that attacks the very lives of LGBTQ people in the US and globally.” Once it has been predetermined that the organization for which Waggoner is lead counsel was anti-gay, it no longer mattered what she would say at the event. The moral scolds at Yale Law School had already decided she should be canceled and forbidden from giving her opinions about anything at all.

Preventing someone with opposing views to even speak, to make his or her opinions known and heard by the campus community, means that the disruptors are so sure of their beliefs, so positive that their perception is the valid one, the only true one, that they are comfortable with suppressing the alternate beliefs and ideology of those whose speech they seek to silence. Students, even graduate law students, are certainly not omniscient nor do they know the single truths about a range of topics guest speakers bring into debates. Their experience is insufficient to make them credible arbiters of what may be said, and what must not be said, on university campuses. 

They do not have the moral right or intellectual capacity to gauge what is bad speech and what is good speech. 

And they exert their unearned moral and intellectual superiority to silence ideological opponents because feckless administrators have tolerated this outrageous behavior, the use of what is known as the “heckler’s veto,” for too long now and are reaping the inevitable backlash. 

The heckler’s veto is an unethical tactic used the advance one’s own beliefs by defeating an ideological opponent’s argument by silencing him, instead of having to offer a compelling argument of one’s own; someone with alternate views has his speech canceled or, if it is held, shouted down, disrupted, and jeered at.

When students shout down a speaker with whom they disagree and refuse to even let that person voice their opinions—regardless of how abhorrent or aberrant the disruptors think them to be—they are acting both rudely and pretentiously, assuming that their opinions are so valid and powerful that someone with opposing ideas does not even deserve to have them aired and considered. And when law students behave in this manner, as they did in a similarly grotesque fashion recently at UC Hastings School of Law when they shouted down Georgetown’s Ilya Shapiro, one might question both their intellectual maturity and their ability to maintain suitable judicial temperament as future lawyers.

Additionally important, when a speaker like Waggoner is invited to the Yale campus, she is a guest of the entire law school, and it is neither the right nor role of a few self-selected students to censure speakers and decide—in advance—that the speaker has no right to even air his or her views. In most cases, speakers who have been shouted down and prevented from speaking are highly-educated, academically-accomplished, and appropriately credentialed individuals with many years of professional experience behind them, so their ideas are formed by far more education, accomplishment, and intellectual activity than the protesting college students themselves have, making attempts by activist students to suppress the speech of those whose intellects are superior seem not only discourteous and audacious but misguided.  

Waggoner, for example, was the lead counsel for the First Amendment rights case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which she argued before the United States Supreme Court. The law students who disrupted her speech at Yale may disagree with her position on whether a baker should be compelled to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, but her legal skills and knowledge are evident, as is the insight and perspective she brings to a debate over this current cultural issue.

The censorious Yale brown shirts, like their fellow travelers on other campuses, have created their own definitions of free speech, putting limits on it that are contrary to what universities say it is and should be, and classifying certain speech—that with which they disagree—as harmful, cruel, even “violent”—sometimes manifesting itself as “hate speech” because it might, in their minds, discomfort a member of a victimized identity group.

But the Constitution and most university speech codes do not contain those exemptions, nor should they. So-called hate speech is a political categorization, not a legal one.

And the notion that an LGBTQ student, real or imaginary, somewhere may find offense if Waggoner speaks at Yale is no justification for silencing her, regardless of how unacceptable some tendentious, intolerant students may think she and her ideas are.

It is neither the responsibility nor duty of universities to foreclose certain debates because the discussion may hurt someone’s feelings somewhere. And it is certainly not the right of self-selected moral scolds to censor the speech of which they disapprove and promote and allow only speech with which they agree. Such an approach violates both the letter and spirit of academic free speech precepts.

In fact, this very sentiment is defined in the concise but eloquent 2014 University of Chicago Statement on Freedom of Expression, commonly referred to as the Chicago Principles. “The ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict,” the statement reads, in words echoing Yale’s own version of a free speech declaration, the 1974 “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale,” commonly known as the Woodward Report. “But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility . . . concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.” [Emphasis added.]

Universities, including Yale, encourage vigorous responses by students and faculty to speech with which they disagree, including courteous protests outside the venue, the use of placards, sitting in silence at the event with armbands, or issuing flyers and other material encouraging attendees to avoid the event or read alternate information. But vocal disruptions—shouting, pounding on desks, jeering, using noisemakers, or otherwise interfering with a speaking event in a way that prevents attendees to hear the speech—all of those modes of behavior are specifically prohibited. Reports describing the Yale event, however, suggested that the pounding on desks, shouting, and vigorous disruption were so excessive that faculty and students in other rooms in the same building felt and heard the noise through the walls.

Freedom of speech, contrary to the thinking of some activists, does not mean freedom to suppress the speech of another by drowning out his or her speech with yours.

“Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus,” the Chicago Principles read, “and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.” 

Additionally, the university has a duty to ensure that any individual on campus is allowed to speak and present his or her views, and the university has an obligation to protect that right by enforcing, if necessary, cordial behavior and decorum and removing anyone who violates that expected behavior. “To this end,” the statement continues, “the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.”

In fact, Yale law professor Kate Stith, who moderated the event, can be seen in a video recording of the event struggling to read aloud Yale’s free speech policy, although the rude response from the demonstrators was that “this protest is free speech,” and her admonition was ignored.

Yale’s own Woodward Report rejected the idea “that speech can be suppressed by anyone who deems it false or offensive . . . [and] [t]hey make the majority, or any willful minority, the arbiters of truth for all. If expression may be prevented, censored, or punished, because of its content or because of the motives attributed to those who promote it, then it is no longer free. It will be subordinated to other values that we believe to be of lower priority in a university.”

Students must be told during orientation that disruptions such as the type discussed here will never be tolerated, are never appropriate, and will lead to punishment of the offending students, up to and including suspension or expulsion.

Assuming a speaker is the invited guest of a registered student group and is recognized by the university as such, all invited speakers must be treated with civility, courtesy, and deference. Attendance at an event like the Yale lecture was not mandatory, so if a guest speaker’s ideas are toxic or repulsive then a student can choose to not attend an event, but it is not the right of an individual student or group of students to decide that a speaker because his or her ideology is in opposition to the students’, should not be allowed to speak and deserves to have his or her event shut down.

After the outrageous Yale event, D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman suggested in an email to his fellow federal judges that the behavior of the law students involved in shutting down the invited speakers should rightly disqualify them from holding future clerkships, “that students who are identified as those willing to disrupt any such panel discussion should be noted. All federal judges,” he wrote, “should carefully consider whether any student so identified should be disqualified from potential clerkships.”

Whether that punishment is appropriate or just, the truth is that when they do become lawyers, these law students will have to hear competing arguments in a case, convince a judge and jury of their interpretation of an argument, and successfully argue for their client based on reason, facts, legal precedent, and intellectual ability. 

As future lawyers, they will not be able to pound on a table and suppress the speech of others in the courtroom, including opposing counsel and a judge. They will not be able to only present their side of a case without having the other side present theirs. And the university is a place where the same decorum and procedures for promoting views, developing intellectual arguments, providing facts and research to support one’s opinions, and inspiring academic inquiry and scholarly debate is fundamental to the advancement of learning. 

That is precisely why universities exist and why any attempts to suppress certain speech—because it is currently out of favor or novel or even controversial—are antithetical to what the university represents and why, either in a law school classroom or in a courtroom, unfettered free speech is paramount, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put it, even “for the thought that we hate.”

Photo: Washington Free Beacon YouTube 

Ukrainian President Zelensky delivers virtual address to United States Congress~DR. STEVE TURLEY: ZELENSKY CALLS FOR WORLD WAR THREE


Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelenskyy is calling for nothing less than World War III, and our feckless incompetent Republican leaders look like they’re ready to give it to him! I’m not going to beat around the bush at all in this video! Anyone who supports a so-called no-fly-zone in Ukraine enforced by NATO is calling for World War III, and potentially tens if not hundreds of millions of people will be killed because of it!

Robert Spencer vs. Joseph Puder: How Much Should We Get Involved in Ukraine?


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

Editors' note: Below is an exchange between Frontpage contributors Robert Spencer and Joseph Puder on Russia's invasion of Ukraine -- and what America and the West must do about it. We hope our readers will find this dialogue/debate between two of Frontpage's finest to be thought-provoking and enlightening.

Joseph Puder: The West Has Not Learned The Lessons of World War II.
We need a Churchill in the White House, not a feeble Chamberlain.

The scenes of the Russian invasion into Ukraine are reminiscent of 81 years ago when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in what was called “Operation Barbarossa.” Nazi troops stormed the Ukraine fields with thousands of tanks and Stuka dive bombers. Behind them was Hitler’s Einsatzgruppen, SS murderers set out to murder every Jew in the territories of Ukraine that the Nazi army occupied.  

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, has copied the same tactics. Claiming his armies were merely on military maneuvers and that he had no intention of invading Ukraine, on February 24, 2022, he ordered his armies with thousands of soldiers, tanks, and jets to invade Ukraine. In 1939, Adolf Hitler, who had committed Germany not to attack the Soviet Union under the Treaty of Non-Aggression known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement, broke the treaty and invaded the Soviet Union with massive force. And, like the murderous Nazi Einsatzgruppen, Putin sent a similar group of Chechen murderers to assassinate Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, and members of his government.   

Hitler, in the summer of 1941, already had Europe almost entirely under his brutal boot, but his “lebensraum” or living space concept, which he specified in his book, “Mein Kampf,” and speeches, required him, in his mind to remove the Slavic and other so-called non-Aryan peoples in Eastern Europe from their land and populate them with German people. So naturally, Hitler was not going to stop anywhere ‘while the going was good.’    

Let us be clear, Putin is not Hitler, he is not the sadist and antisemitic murderer that Hitler was. Nevertheless, he too has a dream of restoring to Russia the title of the super-power that the Soviet Union became after World War II. He is a Russian nationalist whose formative years in the Soviet Union were spent absorbing Soviet propaganda and subsequently becoming a KGB officer. It made him a staunch believer in Russian power. His father fought with the Red Army in WWII, and his native Leningrad suffered enormously during World War II. He also learned from the example that Hitler had provided, that when your potential enemies are weak, it is time to strike.  

Hitler had British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to deal with. An appeaser who desperately wanted to avoid war at all costs, and indeed, the costs were much higher for Britain and the world for not recognizing that evil can only be stopped by force and not by appeasement. Had the allies stopped Hitler early on in 1936 when he occupied the Rhineland, World War II would never have occurred. Even in 1938, before Hitler annexed by force the Czechoslovakian territory of the Sudetenland under the 1938 Munich Agreement, in which Chamberlain sold out the Czechs, and got in return World War II. Had the western powers used the military option, the German military High Command (the Wehrmacht) would have removed Hitler from power, as was revealed in later years.   

Putin, like Hitler, views US President Joe Biden as weak and feeble, just as Hitler saw Chamberlain. A person who refuses to use the military option with the radical regime of the Ayatollahs in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and would certainly not dare to challenge Russia’s military might. Putin figures that Biden and the Western leaders would scream ‘bloody murder,’ but won’t challenge him militarily, not even using a ‘no-fly zone’ over the Ukrainian civilian population, for fear of entanglement with Russia. Putin doesn’t want a nuclear war any more than Biden, Johnson, or Macron. He knows, however, that he is dealing with Chamberlains, not with Churchills.  

It is apparent to Putin that President Biden and the other major western leaders fear him enough not to challenge his actions other than with words and economic sanctions that hitherto have had little impact on Putin and his regime. He took Crimea in March 2014 from Ukraine, and the Obama administration’s reaction was so anemic that it only encouraged him to go further and initiate the separatist violent rebellion against the Ukrainian government in the Donbas region of southeastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine), less than a month later. As the case of the US imposed sanctions on Iran has proven, sanctions cannot alter the behavior of a radical authoritarian regime, and only the unpleasant choice of a credible threat of Military action will make Russia or Iran change its course.   

There was a time when the US did just that, using the military option. President John F. Kennedy did it during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis; he took military action after diplomacy failed. True, the Soviet missiles in Cuba posed an existential threat to the US… And yet, President Lyndon Johnson did it in the Middle East, when the Soviet Union threatened to send its troops to aid Syria against Israel during the Six-Day War of June 1967.  

Uri Bar-Noi, in a report for the Wilson Center dealing with the Soviet Union and the Six-Day War, had written his article based on revelations from the Polish government archives, “The Soviet Union military took practical steps to assist Syria in stopping the advance of Israeli troops into Syrian territory toward the end of the war. These steps included a naval landing, airborne reinforcement, and air support for ground operations. Military operations were, however, eventually aborted for fear of American retaliation.” President Johnson responded by putting American forces on standby, ready to respond to the Soviet’s moves.   

In today’s climate of near pacifism in the US and the western world, there are no Churchills to be found. There is however one inspiring Churchill-like person and that is the leader of Ukraine – President Volodymyr Zelensky. He alone has stood up to the bullying of Vladimir Putin with the determination of David facing Goliath, and that in spite of the odds facing him. He inspired his people and the world by taking on a nuclear superpower with its enormous military machine and an abundance of natural resources, particularly oil and gas. He alone put into deeds what it means to fight for freedom and human dignity. 

While Biden and others filled the airwaves with platitudes, they fear facing the Russian bear. Fortunately for Winston Churchill, he was able to, after Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) enjoy the benefits of the “Arsenal of Democracy,” Zelensky and Ukraine remain alone in fighting an unrestrained aggressor. Sadly, never has America needed a Churchill more in the White House than now. Instead, we have a feeble Chamberlain. 

Robert Spencer Responds: What Are the Real Lessons of World War II?
It’s true: we need a Churchill, but we don’t need a world war.
It’s interesting that Joseph Puder begins his article calling for the U.S. to stand up much more firmly to Putin than it is doing now by likening the Russian army’s actions in Ukraine to the German army’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Puder doesn’t mention the fact that many Ukrainians fought tenaciously on the side of the Nazis in that conflict; nor does he mention that fighting in Ukraine now against the Russians is the Azov Battalion, a gang of actual neo-Nazis, not the kind the establishment media sees whenever a guy goes out wearing a MAGA hat. Nor are they some outliers: in 2014, then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called them “our best warriors.”

This is not to say that Russia’s invasion is justified, or that Americans should not support Ukraine’s resistance; it’s only meant to illustrate that sometimes matters are much more complicated than meets the eye, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a quintessential example of that.

Puder is correct that Neville Chamberlain “desperately wanted to avoid war at all costs,” and appeasement failed before World War II and will fail to stop Putin. He is also correct that Putin, like everyone else on the face of the earth, sees Old Joe Biden as “weak and feeble, just as Hitler saw Chamberlain.” According to Puder, Putin “figures that Biden and the Western leaders would scream ‘bloody murder,’ but won’t challenge him militarily, not even using a ‘no-fly zone’ over the Ukrainian civilian population, for fear of entanglement with Russia.” He sees Putin’s statement that this would be considered an act of war as an empty threat: “Putin doesn’t want a nuclear war any more than Biden, Johnson, or Macron. He knows, however, that he is dealing with Chamberlains, not with Churchills.”

It is undoubtedly true that Putin sees Biden as weak. It is less certain that if the U.S. sets up a no-fly zone in Ukraine, the Russians will not see it as a casus belli and start World War III. And as odious as Putin’s actions in Ukraine are, they aren’t our fight. Volodymyr Zelensky, for all his heroism, is tied into the World Economic Forum cabal. Ukraine is a corrupt kleptocracy with still-unexplained ties to the Biden family; it was a Ukrainian energy firm that gave Hunter Biden a high-paying job for which he was completely unqualified, in an obvious case of buying influence. Except for brief periods, Ukraine was part of Russia for a thousand years, until 1991. Putin may go on from Ukraine to menace NATO states, and that could be a legitimate casus belli, but Ukraine is no hill to die on or to start a world war on. It is not actually the United States’ responsibility to solve the problems of all the people in the world, and there will always be tyrants, invasions, and occupations. We can’t fix them all, especially with our woke military spending time on gender theory that it could be spending on learning to fight.

In this connection, it is important to recall that even as the Nazis stormed across Europe in 1939, 1940, and 1941, swiftly conquering Poland, Norway, France, and more, the United States did not enter the war. President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted very much to get into the war, but he could not sell to the American people the idea that it was the responsibility of the American people to fight for Poland, Norway, or France. It was much more widely understood then than it is now that the United States of America is not the world’s policeman or repairman, and will only expend its resources fruitlessly when it tries to act as such (see, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan).

Roosevelt didn’t enter the war, in fact, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11. It was at that point, and not before then, that World War II became our fight. Roosevelt had given all manner of aid to the British before Pearl Harbor was bombed, and Biden’s handlers, if they have any spine at all, should do the same in this case, but the idea that, as Puder says, “only the unpleasant choice of a credible threat of Military action will make Russia or Iran change its course” runs the risk of provoking a real war, one that could be far more catastrophic than any war the planet has seen up to now.   

There is no doubt that Puder is right: America needs a Churchill in the White House. But when Churchill became prime minister of Great Britain, the war in Europe had already been raging for eight months. He didn’t start the war by reckless actions in a conflict that did not involve his country. We need a prudent leader of his type now, one who will know how much is enough and how much is too much in dealing with Putin. As it is, our feckless State Department and dementia-ridden president are foolishly writing checks their woke military can’t cash.

*Joseph Puder Responds: Evil, If Not Stopped, Will Swallow Us All.

If Vladimir Putin wants a global nuclear war, he could choose multiple reasons to serve as a casus belli and wage war. If pressed hard by western sanctions, including the cutting off of his oil and gas revenues, he is as likely to consider it a casus belli, and turn against the NATO allies. Putin, I have no doubt, feels just as intensely about his economic strangulation as he does about a no-fly zone in and around Lviv, to protect the fleeing Ukrainian refugees, should the US and NATO allies consider imposing it.

Robert Spencer is correct about Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis, and I should add the rabid antisemitism on the part of many Ukrainians during WWII, and even to some extent today. Naturally, there were some Ukrainians who saved Jews as well. My own parents escaped being murdered by Ukrainians during WWII. My mother’s courage and Russian troops nearby saved them from certain death. Modern Ukraine is different, it seeks to be democratic, and share western values, and Volodymyr Zelensky is not Petro Poroshenko. In the late 1930s or 1940s, the thought of a Jewish president in Ukraine would have been impossible. Today, Ukraine looks to the west – not to the east, and it should be embraced.

Spencer isn’t exactly accurate when asserting that “Ukraine was part of Russia for 1,000 years.” In fact, Russia, as we know it today has its roots in Kiev – Ukraine’s capital. The Kievan state existed until the year 1240 when the Mongol hordes crushed it. Actually, Putin has claimed Ukraine for historical and religious (Russian Orthodoxy) reasons. He forgets however that Kiev was the cradle of what we know as Russia. Kiev originated the Cyrillic alphabet and Russian Orthodoxy.

Let’s be clear, I am not advocating a military and possibly a nuclear confrontation with Putin’s Russia; understandably, such a conflict could lead to World War III and an end to life as we know it. We must however understand that Putin is not some crazy monster who is set on incinerating the west, and his Mother Russia. He is though, succeeding in intimidating the west. When he took Crimea and effectively tore the Donbas region out of Ukraine, the Obama administration and its western allies whimpered, and condemned, but did nothing. And when Obama set up a “red line” against the Syrian dictator upon his use of chemical weapons on his people, he pathetically let it slide…President Joe Biden’s responses to foreign aggression is even more pathetic, as we have seen last year in the Afghanistan debacle.  

Putin believes that Russia has some justified reasons to fear the expansion of NATO eastward, and at the same time, he seeks to recreate the former Soviet Union. A child of Soviet propaganda, Putin envisions a superpower Russia with all the natural resources of its former republics such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc. In a 2014 interview with the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, he (Gorbachev) stated that he thought that the NATO enlargement and incorporation of former Warsaw Pact countries was a “big mistake,” and a “violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made in 1990.

All of the above notwithstanding, Ukraine held democratic elections, and elected Volodymyr Zelensky as president. The Ukrainian people, moreover, have the right to determine their future, a right Putin does not have. And, if the people of Ukraine choose to join NATO, or the EU, as a sovereign state they have the right to do so.

The real question is where will Putin stop? Will he be satisfied with subjugating Ukraine against the will of most of its people? Poland, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary, all of them border Ukraine; will he push further into these states to punish them for supporting Ukraine? Putin is obviously not deterred by the likes of Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Emanuel Macron, or Olaf Scholz. He recognizes the near pacifism in the western world, and he is not frightened by western economic sanctions, since they have not hitherto impacted him personally, or for that matter, Russia.  

Spencer is correct about FDR wanting to fight Nazi Germany but he could not sell the American people on entering the war to save Poland, France, or other conquered nations. There is a difference however this time around. Article 5 of the NATO charter specifies that the US is committed to fight against any aggression committed against a fellow NATO member. True, Ukraine is not yet a NATO member, and therefore the US has no legal obligation to protect it. But the American people today are far less isolationist than in the 1930s or the period just before Pearl Harbor. Most Americans see it as a moral obligation to defend innocent civilians, and they are aghast by Russia’s naked aggression. I agree with Spencer that “America is not the world’s policeman,” but we must also realize that evil, if not stopped will swallow us all.

While acknowledging Joe Biden's desire for world peace and avoidance of war is understandable, warning Putin with a credible military option against further Russian expansion is essential. At some point, a no-fly zone will become imperative. Sadly, America needs a Churchill in the White House right now. Instead, it seems, we have a Chamberlain.

*Robert Spencer Responds: There's a Fine Line Between Strength and Provocation.

Joseph Puder is certainly correct that if Vladimir Putin wants war with the United States, he could start it now, trumpeting any number of actions by the U.S. and its allies, from expanding NATO ever eastward to arming Ukraine and more, as the reasons why he had no choice but to declare war. It is clear by now that he doesn’t want a world war, which would almost certainly be a nuclear war of unimaginable devastation, any more than Joe Biden and his handlers do. But Puder believes, not without reason, that Biden’s handlers can and should present a much stronger front to Putin, and that doing so would deter the Russian from continuing to pursue his expansionist goals. While strength is always to be preferred to appeasement of a tyrant, however, the current regime of socialist internationalists and spineless dreamers cannot be trusted to know what constitutes a reasonable show of strength and what constitutes an unwarranted provocation.

Take, for example, the expansion of NATO. In his February 24 speech announcing the invasion of Ukraine, Putin said: “In December 2021 we once again made an attempt to agree with the United States and its allies on the principles of ensuring security in Europe and on the non-expansion of NATO. Everything was in vain. The US position did not change. They did not consider it necessary to negotiate with Russia on this important issue for us, continuing to pursue their own goals and disregarding our interests.”

If this is true, it is not hard to imagine Antony Blinken and his team too concerned with making sure the State Department had the right number of racial minorities and proper instruction in Critical Race Theory to concern themselves with Putin’s overtures. They could have and should have known that Russia considers the expansion of NATO into former Soviet republics to be an unacceptable attempt to encircle Russia, as Putin explained in his speech: “I am referring to the expansion of the NATO to the east, moving its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders. It is well known that for 30 years we have persistently and patiently tried to reach an agreement with the leading NATO countries on the principles of equal and inviolable security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we constantly faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts to pressure and blackmail, while NATO, despite all our protests and concerns, continued to steadily expand. The war machine is moving and, I repeat, it is coming close to our borders.”

One doesn’t have to accept Putin’s argument or consider his invasion of Ukraine justified to see that his characterization of Biden’s imperious, elitist State Department is entirely plausible. It is important to point this out now, after the invasion, because the same ham-handed, blinkered, pseudo-intellectual Leftists whose short-sightedness and wrongheadedness let the invasion happen in the first place are still in charge. If a show of strength to Putin can be bungled, they can be counted upon to bungle it.

As for Puder’s claim that it is not accurate to say that “Ukraine was part of Russia for 1,000 years,” he actually demonstrates that it is accurate by noting that “Russia, as we know it today has its roots in Kiev – Ukraine’s capital.” One may quibble over whether Kievan Rus was Russian or Ukrainian, but the telling fact is that it was both and that throughout history the two have been more one people than two. The fact that, as Puder claims I forgot but which was actually the basis of my argument, it is true that “Kiev was the cradle of what we know as Russia,” and that is precisely why Putin believes he has a claim to it. This is not to say that Ukraine should not be independent unless one wishes also to argue that Austria and Germany should be one state, a proposition I am not at all disposed to favor.

Puder says that he is “not advocating a military and possibly a nuclear confrontation with Putin’s Russia,” but the weak and feckless socialist policy wonks who inhabit Biden’s State Department and entire administration have never demonstrated anything comparable to the judiciousness and wisdom of Churchill or anyone else who ever brought a major war to a successful conclusion. Puder is in effect asking that Biden’s gang of arrogant, miseducated children, with no understanding of history, culture, religion, or economics stand up to a canny, unscrupulous, utterly ruthless authoritarian. The consequences of their miscalculation and the hopeless Blinken is certain to miscalculate, would be, as Puder says “World War III and an end to life as we know it.” Putin may not be, as Puder says, “some crazy monster who is set on incinerating the west,” but the foreign policy establishment is a bunch of self-infatuated grad students with no understanding of how the world works; he can and would take advantage of their attempts to draw some “red line” that both he and they would know from the outset was spurious.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is a corrupt kleptocracy that gave Hunter Biden a high-paying job in a field in which he had no experience, in an obvious attempt to curry favor with Joe Biden. It was a phone call with Zelensky that got Trump impeached, in an obvious partisan witch-hunt, the first time. This is not to say that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was justified, or that Putin is not a scoundrel, or that the Ukrainians are not noble in resistance, or that Zelensky is not courageous. But once again, this is not our fight, and making it our fight could so easily spiral out of control that it is imperative that we keep a cool head amid all the prevailing war fever. Haven’t we learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan yet?

Puder admits that Ukraine is not in NATO and so we have no obligation to defend it, but thinks that we should anyway, for “we must also realize that evil, if not stopped will swallow us all.” Well, yes. But that’s why NATO has members and non-members. We are bound, for better or worse, to defend NATO’s members. If this means that we have an obligation to fight evil anywhere else in the world that it may appear, we might as well bring every country in the world into NATO, so that it is clear that we are obligated to fight for them all and to combat evil wherever and whenever it may break out.

That may be a wonderful sentiment, but it is utterly impracticable. Our resources are not infinite, and our self-serving, corrupt leaders are already pouring out our substance for all manner of boondoggles that benefit the American people not a whit. At some point, the gravy train is going to run out. What we really need is a strong America-First president, who would have made clear to Putin from the outset that his adventurism would have terrible consequences, and who would have always acted in the best interests of the American people. If only there were someone on the scene like that.

How a Trial in Finland Could Have Worldwide Effects on Government Persecution of Religion

Finnish Lutherans under investigation for upholding biblical teachings on sexuality ...

Prosecution against Diocesan Dean Juhana Pohjola, ThD - Mission Diocese



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

‘If the prosecution wins, the ability of pastors to preach the gospel is effectively over in Finland, without criminal sanction.’

The trial of two Finnish Christians for publicly stating mainstream religious teachings that reserve sex only for heterosexual marriage is heading towards a judgment scheduled for March 30. The case could end up hitting Finland’s Supreme Court and even the European Court of Human Rights, which means its outcome could affect the rights of religious believers and political dissidents across the world.

Members of Parliament Paivi Rasanen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola have been prosecuted now for nearly three years after Rasanen tweeted a picture of Bible verses in June 2019. Complaints about this tweet led to her prosecution under Finland’s “hate crimes” laws.

The government investigation of Rasanen’s tweet uncovered a theological pamphlet she wrote and Pojhola published in 2004, for which they have both been charged. The booklet states classic Christian teachings about sex as reserved only for marriage, and defines marriage as comprising only one man and one woman for life.

“The teachings concerning marriage and sexuality in the Bible arise from love to one’s neighbor,” Rasanen said in a Feb. 17 statement. “This case is about whether it is allowed in Finland to cite the Bible and to agree with it in topics that go against the tide and challenge the current ethos and thinking.”

Oral arguments in the case wrapped up this week on Valentine’s Day. On Feb. 17, a Finnish court also heard a related request from the prosecutor to force a Finnish radio show to take offline a two-minute audio clip of Rasanen speaking about marriage in 2019.

“Being criminally charged for voicing my deeply held beliefs in a country that has such deep roots in freedom of speech and religion feels unreal,” Rasanen told The Federalist.

Prosecutor Seeks to Ban Christian Speech, Including From Pastors

On Feb. 14, Pojhola’s lawyer Jyrki Anttinen argued “if the prosecution wins, the ability of pastors to preach the gospel is effectively over in Finland — without criminal sanction,” said Lorcan Price, a lawyer assisting the case for Alliance Defending Freedom International who attended the Helsinki hearing. An Irishman, Price listened with the aid of a Finnish translator.

The Finnish prosecutor who brought the case is seeking a fine of one-third of Rasanen’s annual income, the public erasure of documents and audio she’s made on the subject, and a financial penalty against the small religious organization Pohjola runs, the Luther Foundation. If the two Christians are convicted, the steepest possible penalty could be two years in prison.

“I’ve been to his headquarters, the Mission Diocese of the Lutheran Evangelical Church,” Price noted. “It’s fairly utilitarian. It’s not luxurious — there’s no marble foyer with a fountain and receptionist. There’s a kitchen and a communal area and Bishop Juhana’s office.”

“They’re a breakaway from the main Lutheran church,” Price continued. In fact, Pohjola was expelled from the state church in 2014, also for affirming classic Christian theology about differences between the two sexes. He was elected bishop by his growing missionary congregations last year. “The main church abandoned the teachings but got to keep all of the buildings. That’s what we have here. He’s in fairly basic accommodation, let’s say. I think anything of their income is outrageous.”

Attempt to Expand Government Censorship

It’s not clear Finland’s hate crimes law even bans controversial speech, but Finland’s top prosecutor is arguing that it does. If the prosecutor wins the case, it would mark an unprecedented expansion of identity laws that exist in most European countries, many U.S. cities and states, and that U.S. Democrats are trying to make a nationwide law in The Equality Act.

“The prosecutor believes the law means you can’t preach the gospel in public, but some believe it means you can’t directly incite violence,” Price noted.

The charges against the two Christians include an attempt to criminalize statements they made years before the law being used to prosecute them passed. That’s the only charge against Pohjola, and one of three charges against Rasanen.

“The fact that Bishop Juhana is even in this trial is Kafkaesque, it’s insane,” Price said. “He’s being charged with something he did as the head of a charitable foundation, the Luther Foundation, that publishes theological documents, for a document he didn’t write that expresses mainstream, orthodox Christian teaching… Finding that Bishop Juhana as a publisher broke the law would damage the rights of publishers to publish things that are controversial and as a church leader [would] damage his ability to publish and evangelize and disseminate in public Christian teaching.”

The Federalist interviewed Pohjola in person in November, and Rasanen via Zoom last week. As their case concluded arguments this week, U.S. members of Congress reiterated their public concerns about its implications for human rights both worldwide and in the United States.

Case Likely To Set International Precedents

It’s likely their case won’t be over even after the court decision likely out at the end of March, said Price. That’s because both parties are likely to appeal if they lose.

If the court convicts Rasanen or Pohjola, or both, their lawyers will “definitely” appeal, Price said. The Finnish prosecutor also seems likely to appeal if the two Christians are not convicted, as she has appealed similar cases attempting to criminalize politically incorrect views, he said.

The Finnish legal system allows prosecutors to appeal if they don’t win a conviction in their first-round at court. In common law countries like England and the United States, usually, only those convicted of crimes can appeal, not their prosecutors, except under unusual circumstances, Price said.

“I think that’s very burdensome for those accused,” he noted. “So you can go through multiple levels of the court and be vindicated at each level and the prosecutor can keep dragging the accused through the courts.”

All this means Rasanen and Pohjola’s cases could very well end up in Finland’s Supreme Court, where if they lose they could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, from where Price spoke to The Federalist by Zoom on Tuesday. That means their case could affect how all of Europe treats Christian doctrines and free speech more broadly.

Like the United States, Europe has been increasingly restricting political and religious speech, especially in international courts against countries seen as unfashionably conservative, such as Hungary and Poland, Price said. This case, therefore, comes at a crucial time as speech rights are receiving less government support than has been long-standing in the West.

Silencing Attempt Backfires

Before this case, Rasanen and Pohjola’s theological booklet was printed years ago in a few hundred copies and mostly used within tiny Lutheran churches. Their prosecution has caused it to be distributed around the world and translated into several other languages, Price said.

“This obscure little pamphlet has made its way around the world thanks to the efforts of the prosecutor to shut it down,” he noted.

Being targeted for their faith has given Rasanen and Pohjola a global platform for preaching the Christian message of forgiveness for all sins and the deep importance to Christians of the Bible as the very Word of God. Rasanen told The Federalist that because of her case, European media are quoting Bible verses and people are debating their meaning. She says she’s received emails from people saying her case has prompted them to start reading the Bible, which the pastor’s wife and grandmother of nine says she’s read repeatedly since age 16.

Rasanen spoke to the huge worldwide audience of Fox News this week about her case. Political and religious leaders around the world have also expressed support for Rasanen and Pohjola’s rights to free speech and religious exercise, which are legally recognized in European human rights agreements.

“Many people and journalists around the world regularly ask me: ‘What keeps you going, from where do you find the courage to speak up?’” Rasanen told The Federalist. “My motivation comes from the Bible and from my will to have an impact on society. A conviction based on the Christian faith is more than a [superficial] opinion. The early Christians did not renounce their faith in lions’ caves, why should I then renounce my faith in a courtroom? I believe it is my calling and honor to defend the foundational rights and freedoms at this point of my life.”

While some people have been scared into silence about their beliefs because of this prosecution, Rasanen said, it’s also prompted 1,000 Finns to stand in front of Parliament holding their Bibles up to “collectively show strong support for the freedom of God’s Word.” The Finnish Association for Freedom of Speech and Religion was also founded last June to support the legal defense for this case and possibly others.

“In one sense the prosecutor has frightened part of the population into being quiet and in another, it has drawn huge attention to the issue,” Price said. “We can’t underestimate the chilling effect of these prosecutions. She [the prosecutor] cannot but regard this as at least a partial success that sending a tweet about the Bible could result in the police coming to your door. Not everyone has the grit and determination of Paivi.

“That’s our concern with these hate speech laws. It denudes society of the opportunity to hear something that can be shocking and provocative but is also a different perspective and for Christians founded on a fundamental truth of scripture.”

Stunning video shows Canadian PM Trudeau ADMITTING his favorite country is China because it’s a “dictatorship”



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

(Natural News) If “democratic” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s authoritarianism in dealing with the Freedom Convoy trucker protest caught you by surprise, a video clip that surfaced recently will show you there’s really no surprise there. He is a tyrant in waiting.

The clip dates back to Trudeau’s initial campaign against then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a conservative MP who led Canada from 2006-2015. The Sun News clip shows Trudeau addressing a smallish group at a sort of town hall-style event in which he was asked which country he admired most.

The logical answer would have been “Canada” but it wasn’t. It was China. And why? Because China’s leaders are Communist authoritarians.

“There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China, um, because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say ‘we need to go greenest fastest, we need to start investing in solar,” he told the crowd.

He then tried to play off his lust for authoritarianism on his then-opponent, Harper.

“There is a flexibility that, I know Stephen Harper must dream about, of having a dictatorship that he can do whatever he wanted, that I find quite interesting” Trudeau added.

Again Stephen Harper did not profess his love for China’s dictatorship, Justin Trudeau did, his sleight of hand and wordplay notwithstanding.

And we have seen his lust for tyranny in his recent words and actions involving the Freedom Convoy truckers.

For example, in recent days, Trudeau also admitted that the only protests he approves of are those he agrees with, meaning, those that empower him and his authoritarian “Liberal” Party.

In remarks regarding the Freedom Convoy, he said: “I have attended protests and rallies in the past. When I agreed with the goals, when I supported the people expressing their concerns and their issues, Black Lives Matter is an excellent example of that.”

“But I have also chosen to not go anywhere near protests that have expressed hateful rhetoric, violence toward fellow citizens. And a disrespect, not just of science, but of the frontline health workers and quite frankly, the 90 percent of truckers who have been doing the right thing to keep Canadians safe, to put food on our tables. Canadians know where I stand. This is a moment for responsible leaders to think carefully about where they stand and who they stand with,” he added.

Got it? Black Lives Matter wokeism helps him politically so he “agrees” with it. Freedom Convoy protests are a pushback on his ridiculous vaccine mandate, so those can’t be allowed.

He has also blasted the convoy as being composed of a “small fringe minority” of people who hold “unacceptable views.”

“What we are hearing from some people associated with this convoy is completely unacceptable,” he added at the time.

Those comments drew mocking and derision from others, including liberals.

“It would appear that the so-called ‘fringe minority’ is actually the government,” billionaire SpaceX founder Elon Musk tweeted.

“If the government had the mandate of the people, there would be a significant counter-protest. There is not, therefore they do not,” Musk said in a follow-up tweet.

Trudeau Isn’t Hitler, But…



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

Everyone Leftists don’t like is a Nazi, and it has become a hallmark of lazy political discourse to accuse someone of being just like Hitler. But that doesn’t mean that no one in the modern world has any ideological or practical resemblance to the Führer. When he invoked Canada’s Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, Justin Trudeau invited comparisons to March 23, 1933, when Hitler administered the coup de grace to democracy in Germany with the Enabling Act, which gave him dictatorial powers. There are similarities (and differences), and they’re enlightening.

Trudeau based his case on the claim that the Freedom Convoy was “not a peaceful protest,” which was flatly false and ironic in light of his bland response to the burning of churches and toppling of statues in Canada last summer. He claimed that the Freedom Convoy was hurting the Canadian economy: “at the borders in different places in the country, the blockades are harming our economy and endangering public safety. Critical supply chains have been disrupted. This is hurting workers who rely on these jobs to feed their families.”

The Emergencies Act authorizes the government of Canada to “take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times.” These include “the regulation or prohibition of any public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.” Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland gave the Act more teeth than that, announcing that the Freedom Convoy’s bank accounts would be frozen: “the government is issuing an order with immediate effect, under the Emergencies Act, authorizing Canadian financial institutions to temporarily cease providing financial services where the institution suspects that an account is being used to further the illegal blockades and occupations.”

In his address, Trudeau made an important promise: “the scope of these measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.”

Adolf Hitler said many similar things in arguing that he needed dictatorial powers. On Feb. 27, 1933, just four weeks after Hitler became Chancellor, the Reichstag, the German parliament building in Berlin, caught fire. The culprit was a Dutch Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, who apparently had acted alone, although many charged that the whole thing was a Nazi false flag to enable them to institute a dictatorship. Hitler, however, insisted that the Communist Party, which was a considerable force within the Reichstag, had set the fire, and pressed German President Paul von Hindenburg to approve of an emergency law suspending civil liberties. Communist leaders, including the Communist members of the Reichstag, were hunted down and arrested.

The Enabling Act allowed Hitler to enact laws without Reichstag approval and with the same dispatch that Trudeau once admired about Communist China: “Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement unless they prescribe a different date.”

Like Canada’s Emergencies Act, all this was supposed to be only temporary; the Enabling Act was set to expire on April 1, 1937. Once Hitler had consolidated his power and destroyed all the opposition parties, however, there was no question that the Enabling Act would continue: it was renewed by Hitler’s rubber-stamp National Socialist Reichstag in 1937 and 1939, and by decree in 1941 and 1943, the latter time without a time limit.

In his March 23, 1933 speech, Hitler spoke of “the necessity of thoroughly rejecting the ideas, organizations, and men in which one gradually and rightly began to recognize the underlying causes of our decay.” He stated that “the program for the reconstruction of the Volk [German people] and the Reich is determined by the magnitude of the distress crippling our political, moral and economic life. Filled with the conviction that the causes of this collapse lie in internal damage to the body of our Volk, the Government of the National Revolution aims to eliminate the afflictions from our völkisch life which would, in future, continue to foil any real recovery.” Hitler accused the Communists of “pillaging, arson, raids on the railway, assassination attempts, and so on–all these things are morally sanctioned by Communist theory.”

Hitler claimed that the rule of the iron fist was needed in order to revive Germany’s economic fortunes: “To deal with the economic catastrophe, the following is necessary: 1. an absolutely authoritarian leadership at home to create confidence in the stability of conditions; 2. safeguarding peace on the part of the major nations for a long time to come and thus restoring the confidence of the people in one another; and 3. the final triumph of the principles of common sense in the organization and leadership of the economy as well as a general release from reparations and impossible liabilities for debts and interest.”

Related: Bill Maher Says Trudeau Sounds Like Hitler, and He’s Right

Hitler, like Trudeau, promised that his use of the Enabling Act would be limited: “The Government will only make use of this authorization insofar as this is requisite for the implementation of vital measures.”

It would be facile and unfair to say that Hitler’s Enabling Act and Trudeau’s Emergencies Act are one and the same. Despite the soundness of Bill Maher’s observation, Trudeau is not Hitler and is not likely to become a bloodthirsty despot. However, the Enabling Act shows the pitfalls of what Trudeau has now done in Canada, and how easily an Act that allows a government to bypass ordinary procedures designed to protect the rights of citizens can be abused.

Both Hitler and Trudeau situated the need for their Acts in the context of a pressing national emergency that could not be dealt with any other way. Chrystia Freeland claimed that “These illegal barricades are doing great damage to Canada’s economy and to our reputation as a reliable trading partner.” Trudeau and Freeland were clear: the Freedom Convoy was entirely responsible for these alleged economic setbacks, and thus had to be ended for the good of the people. For his part, Hitler claimed that his Enabling Act was necessary to break the power of “criminals” who were destroying Germany’s economic and cultural life.

Both Freeland and Hitler promised ruthless action against those whom they cast as enemies of the people. No one expects Canada to act as ruthlessly as National Socialist Germany did, but there is no doubt that Trudeau and Freeland have embarked upon an extremely dangerous road, and one that lends itself, as the history of Nazi Germany proves conclusively, to all manner of human rights abuses. Once one’s political opponents have been blamed for all the ills the nation is suffering, and one is freed from the need to obtain court orders or respect due process, what remains to restrain the unscrupulous?

The Enabling Act and the Emergencies Act both streamline their governments by freeing them from having to deal with such legal niceties. But whether or not Justin Trudeau ever really abuses such powers, someone could, and there would be nothing in place to restrain him. This is how republics die.

The Only Ones Banning Books are Critical Race Theorists

When censors pretend to be free speech activists.



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.

After spending the last few years banning Dr. Seuss and literally burning copies of Harry Potter novels in bonfires, and denouncing classic children’s literature like Little House on the Prairie and Mary Poppins as racist, leftists are now accusing conservatives of “banning books”.

When a Minnesota school district removed The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird from its curriculum because it made students "uncomfortable", the NAACP, which has been trying to ban Huck since at least the 50s, cheered. So did the media which celebrated the effort to remove "racist language" that “triggered students of color” from the classroom.

The removal of Mark Twain's authentically anti-racist masterpiece was carried out by anti-racists in school districts from Burbank, California to Lawrence, Kansas. In 2016, a Virginia school district, now at the center of media fear-mongering about book bans after parents succeeded in reclaiming schools from CRT bosses, banned both books because of all the "racial slurs".

Now the censors want to reclaim the mantle of free speech. The media, which described school districts “removing” or “replacing” books on reading lists when leftists were doing it, now calls the removal of books, whether they’re racist critical race theory texts or Maus, as “bans”.

Much like erstwhile liberals went from celebrating Jefferson and Lincoln to toppling their statues, their educational counterparts who had once vocally championed Huck and Mockingbird, and shouted down any effort to keep them out of the classroom, now just as vocally want them out and replaced with the deranged hateful ravings of Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi.

Yet instead of being honest about that (or anything else), they duck into a phone booth, doff their censor togs and dress up as free speech crusaders, and then rush back and throw off their free speech tights to go back to burning books. Even by the standards of a movement that is so pathologically Orwellian that it describes protests against vaccine mandates as “authoritarian”, this is a bit much. But the only books they believe should be in school are those whose politics they like, at any given moment, before deciding that they’re hate speech and purging them.

Removing books from a school curriculum isn’t a ban. If it is, then lefties have been banning books forever. It’s not just Huck Finn, there’s hardly a single classic book that hasn’t been denounced for thought crimes. The Wind in the Willows? Racist. Narnia? Islamophobic. The Lord of the Rings? Also racist. Any book written by a white man? Systemically racist.

Recently, a university added a trigger warning to 1984 by George Orwell.

The worst offenders are the proponents of critical race theory, now suddenly crying about censorship, when they had been urging schools, publishers, and readers to stop buying, publishing, and displaying books by white men in the name of racial and gender equity.

A few years ago they were touting a proposal that every racist illiterate stop reading books by white men for a year. You can still find headlines like, "I Read Books by Only Minority Authors for a Year" from the Washington Post, and more explicit posts at book sites like, "Why I'm No Longer Reading Books by White Men", "A Year of No White Men", "The Year I Stopped Reading White People". The crybullies at Goodreads, which is to young adult books what TikTok is to videos of crying teens changing gender on camera, bullied publishers into canceling books and forced writers to unpublish their own books to the wild applause of the media.

Now lefties are subjecting us to their self-righteous pearl-clutching about censoring books.

Parents have a right to determine what their children are reading in school. They have an absolute right to reject the real racism of Ta-Nehisi Coates or Ibram X. Kendi, who dehumanize white people as a group, or, for that matter, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, if they don’t want their children reading racial slurs, or Maus, if they don’t want them exposed to curse words. Parents don’t need a ‘good reason’ to keep a book off the reading list. Being the parents of their children is good enough to give them veto power over what their children are taught.

But there is a world of difference between taking a book out of a school and banning it.

When you harass publishers and authors into removing a book from sale, you’re banning the book. When you pull classic books from sale and then ban their resale, as the Seuss Foundation did, under pressure, and eBay chose to do on its own, that is an actual book ban.

People who believe that men can become women by wishing hard enough have the right to burn their own copies of Harry Potter, but there’s no mistaking the message of hate and intimidation that sends. There’s a reason the Nazis loved burning books. It’s an act of violence that serves as a temporary substitute for destroying the authors and readers behind them.

Anyone can and should be able to read any book they want. The proponents of critical race theory are the biggest opponents of that idea. They don’t just want books they dislike out of schools, but they want them removed entirely from existence. That’s why they don’t just refuse to read them, or even just burn them, they pressure publishers into eliminating them.

They don’t just do this because they hate the books themselves but as a show of power.

Books have been banned for a whole lot less than racial slurs or accurately describing the world as it was at the time. Beloved classic children’s books like Wind in the Willows had messages read into them. Racial lenses have been placed over classics like Lord of the Rings. And contemporary teen books were forced out of existence for the mere crime of having ‘black’ or ‘slave’ in the title even when they were set in fantasy kingdoms and had nothing to do with race.

This Salem Witch Trial of literature isn’t even about the context of the text, but the hateful power of the social justice censors who are getting high on the fumes from the burning paper.

After all this, the book burners, statue topplers, and crowdsourced censors suddenly want to act like they’re the champions of free speech because parents don’t want critical racist texts, underage pornography, and the other garbage that the Left currently champions (before deciding a decade from now that it also needs to be banned) taught to their children.

The old liberals of the ACLU had some personal credibility when attacking censorship, the postmodern identity politics leftists who live and breathe censorship have less than none.

Much of lefty politics is built on wearing liberal skins and echoing liberal ideas in between illiberal bouts of destroying everything they don’t approve of and demanding that everyone swear allegiance to their politics. Sometimes it fools the declining population of Boomer liberals.

Just ask Obama.

The very last people who should ever don the mantle of free speech are critical race theorists who believe that everything is racist and should be banned unless it was made by them. They are obsessed with “whiteness” in architecture, art, and literature the way the Nazis were obsessed with finding trace elements of Jewishness in Einstein’s theories and Strauss waltzes.

Banning books isn’t just something you do: it’s central to how you think of the world.

Parents trying to determine what books their children are exposed to aren’t trying to control the world, but critical race theory is concerned not with individuals, but all of society. Leftists believe that they should control not just what they read, but what everyone reads and believes.

This is the authoritarian totalitarian impulse that moves them to both ban and compel books.

Reading to them is not an individual choice, but a collective one. The mass production of books and the transformation of reading from a public activity to a private one made individualism possible. Even in totalitarian societies, people smuggled books and read them secretly. In those stolen hours, seeing words by candlelight, they won the freedom of the soul.

Today, Big Tech and their Big Publisher allies want people reading on Kindles and on digital platforms where books are not truly owned, but allocated by digital rights management lurking in the cloud which can delete any book at any time, making its words and the ones and zeros behind them disappear. Turning a private act into a public one, controlled by monopolies, and policed by the politically correct is a technosocial ecosystem that destroys individual reading.

Critical race theory proponents are coming for our books, they’re coming for our culture, and our souls, and even as they burn and loot our intellectual heritage, they claim to be the victims.

In a perversity that would have stunned even Orwell and Swift, the book burners claim that they’re fighting censorship, the censors insist that they’re defending themselves against painful words, and the racists declare that they’re imposing racism in the name of anti-racism.

And if you doubt that they’re the victims, they’ll burn you too.



Illinois Democrat demands concentration camps for anti-vaxxers and those who refuse forced government medications


— Chicago Sun-Times


President Barack Obama (2016) ● Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi ● Senator Tom Cullerton


Sierra Club ● Associated Fire Fighters of Illinois ● Illinois National Organization for Women  ● Planned Parenthood ● Personal PAC ● Illinois Federation of Teachers ● Stand for Children IL ● Equality Illinois ● AFSCME Chapter 31 ● INA-PAC ● AFL-CIO  ● SEIU Local 73 ● Fraternal Order of Police ● IUOE Local 150 ● UFCW 881 ● United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) ● IEA


On April 27, 2017, HB 3502 introduced by Chief Sponsor, Deb Conroy, passed with unanimous support. This bill's purpose was to set up an advisory council with the goals of developing recommendations and an action plan to address the barriers to early and regular screening and identification of mental health conditions in children, adolescents, and young adults in Illinois.[12]

Throughout her career as a state representative, Deb Conroy has shown her support for same-sex marriage and enforcement of equality laws by co-sponsoring the SB 10 (Authorizes Same-Sex Marriage) and the SJRCA 75 (Ratifies the Equal Rights Amendment), which were both passed. Conroy has also voted in favor of HB 217, which prohibits sexual orientation conversion therapy for minors and was executively signed into law on August 20, 2015.



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

(Natural News) Of course, it’s a female Democrat lawmaker from Illinois. Rep. Deb Conroy (D), 46th District, has proposed a new law (HB 4640) that would empower the State of Illinois to round up anti-vaxxers at gunpoint and throw them into state-run concentration camps for an indefinite period of time. This is entirely consistent with the authoritarian lunacy of Democrats and especially female Democrats who have become raging, power-hungry “mask Karens” who seek to rule over everyone.

Here’s the official Illinois General Assembly link to the status of the bill.


Villa Park State Rep. Deb Conroy (Democrat) wants to “isolate or quarantine persons who are unable or unwilling to receive vaccines, medications, or other treatments.”

HB 4640 is scheduled to be heard in the Illinois House Human Services Committee on February 2 at 9:00 AM.

If HB 4640 were to become law, persons exposed to an infectious disease could be placed under Public Health Department observation, only possible in a contained atmosphere with Department watch guards, some suggest such as a concentration camp.

The bill says:

To prevent the spread of a dangerously contagious or infectious disease, the [Public Health] Department may, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (c) of this Section, isolate or quarantine persons whose refusal to undergo observation and monitoring results in uncertainty regarding whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a dangerously contagious or infectious disease or otherwise poses a danger to the public’s health.

Here’s the Democrat pushing this: Rep. Deb Conroy:

The proposed law would also allow any local Illinois “official” (i.e. criminal government goon) to access the vaccine status of all individuals as a pretense to rounding up the unvaccinated and throwing them into covid concentration camps.

From the description at

Amends the Department of Public Health Act. Provides that emergency access to medical or health information, records, or data shall include access to electronic health records, provided that the local health authority shall be unable to alter the electronic health records.

There are currently 12,634 “witness slips” filed in opposition to the bill, as seen at this link on

The number of proponents in support of the bill is 81.

Your government is the terrorist

It appears that Rep Deb Conroy has not yet sufficiently terrorized the people of Illinois to get them to agree to be rounded up and taken away to concentration camps. No doubt the psychological operations programs will have to be ramped up to achieve that goal.

Here’s a link on how to contact Rep. Deb Conroy. She’s a member of the Illinois House Democratic Women’s Caucus and — no surprise — was also a District 205 School Board member. If you contact her, be polite. Don’t fall into the trap of becoming what she is.

If you ever wondered what an actual vaccine Nazi looks like in modern-day America, get a good look at this Karen. This is what the Holocaust looks like in America: Power-hungry lunatic left-wing women demanding that men with guns round up all their political opponents and throw them into concentration camps. Conroy would have felt right at home in Nazi Germany, circa 1939.

It’s no surprise, then, that Conroy is the Chair of the House Mental Health Committee. Never forget how the Nazis declared their opponents to be mentally deficient so they could throw them into insane asylums and have them exterminated. It seems like it’s always the people running the mental health sectors of society who are the most insane and power-hungry, doesn’t it?

Here’s Rep. Conroy with her “mental health” award placard:

Finally, if you live in Illinois, you should probably consider exiting that bankrupt state anyway, as the financial picture for the State of Illinois is nothing short of disastrous. Even with covid bailout money, Chicago and St. Louis are beyond bankrupt. The city of Chicago currently owes $43,700 per taxpayer, reports

Fiscal watchdog Truth in Accounting’s July 2021 report showed the Windy City’s pension-fueled debt rose by $2.3 billion from 2019 to 2020 despite receiving substantial federal aid during the pandemic.

Maybe vaccine Holocaust pusher Deb Conroy should spend more time worrying about how Illinois is going to pay its bills than hounding citizens over vaccine compliance and wasting money on guards for covid concentration camps.

Also, note that it’s only Democrat-controlled states that are pushing concentration camps. This insane nonsense does not fly in red states.

In any case, if you contact Rep. Conroy, be polite and state your case firmly and calmly. Better yet, just vote tyrants like this out of power in the 2022 mid-term elections. The way to end tyranny is to stop supporting it, obviously.

For those Illinois citizens who keep voting Democrat, you are getting the tyranny you deserve.

Get full details on this story and much more — including the North Carolina fertilizer plant fire — in today’s Situation Update podcast:


Horrific CIA Experiments & Programs Exposed by Victim

The Central Intelligence Agency has been conducting horrific programs involving mind control, sexual abuse, psychological terrorism and more, author and self-declared survivor of these schemes Dr. Juliette Engel tells The New American magazine's Alex Newman in this interview from the Red Pill Expo. Dr. Engel, who said she was sucked into this world by her father, explained that the "satanic" programs and experiments such as MK Ultra have roots in Nazi Germany and the New World Order. Later, after Engel broke free from the evil, she moved to Russia and helped rescue human-trafficking victims.

1 2 3