American Resistance To Empire

ALL Human Lives Matter…Even Palestinian Lives

Can Palestinian Lives Matter?

George Floyd’s death penetrated the American imagination. Now Palestinians fight for the right to be human. Will the world see them?

People walk past a mural showing the face of George Floyd, an unarmed handcuffed black man who died after a white policeman knelt on his neck during an arrest in the US, painted on a section of Israel's controversial separation barrier in the city of Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank on March 31, 2021. - The teenager who took the viral video of George Floyd's death said on March 30, at the trial of the white police officer charged with killing the 46-year-old Black man that she knew at the time "it wasn't right." Darnella Frazier, 18, was among the witnesses who gave emotional testimony on Tuesday at the high-profile trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Chauvin, 45, is charged with murder and manslaughter for his role in Floyd's May 25, 2020 death, which was captured on video by Frazier and seen by millions, sparking anti-racism protests around the globe. In the video, Chauvin, who was subsequently fired from the police department, is seen kneeling on the neck of a handcuffed Floyd for more than nine minutes. (Photo by Emmanuel DUNAND / AFP) (Photo by EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP via Getty Images)

A woman and child walk past a mural of George Floyd painted on the side of Israel’s separation barrier on the occupied West Bank side of Bethlehem on March 31, 2021.  Photo: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images

I WAS 19 the first time someone told me I didn’t exist. I was in college, standing near a display about civilian deaths in the occupied Gaza Strip during an Israeli assault. I can’t remember the face of the student who accosted me, although I remember the sneer in their voice, the way it sliced into my unguarded chest. I was not prepared to be erased.

“Palestinians don’t exist,” they said. With time this moment would blur, but not fade, mingling with innumerable interactions in which strangers would likewise inform me of my nonexistence. In that moment, though, it was a wholly new experience. I felt the brief flicker of a laugh before the sick sense of outrage landed in my gut. Before I could find the words to respond, the accuser was gone.

How strange, to tell a living, breathing human being, to their face, that they are “unreal.” And what would be the proper defense? How does one reply to a delusion?

Of course, it’s not true, that I don’t exist: I have a body, made of flesh and blood. Yet in many ways, that stranger was right.

Because something happens at the mention of that word — Palestinian. In the moment it is uttered, I become something more, and so much less, than human.

PALESTINIANS, AS A people, are visible but rarely seen. We do not “exist” as others do; we have neither a formal country nor any economic or military power to speak of. We have a history and culture, but these are eroded and appropriated more with every passing year. Mostly, we are collectively obscured by what people think they know, what they think we are: threats, troublemakers, terrorists.

This is how we can be in so many headlines and yet die such endless deaths. We die, in part, because that is what the world expects of us. Our name is invoked only in connection to brutality and strife, which are presented as inevitable, our natural state. Reports read like weather reports: The “climate” “heats up” then “boils over” into “another wave of violence.” Our casualties are like the seasons — a crop of dead every few years, usually in Gaza.

Public images of us reveal a world of dust, tanks, and soldiers. These stark, menacing streets mingle in the Western imagination with sand-colored reels of other deaths — Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians — further obscuring all of us. Clichés wrap individual tragedies in generic repetition, an endless archive of the unremembered.

TOPSHOT - An Israeli soldier takes aim with a tear gas launcher at Palestinin protesters during clashes following a demonstration along the border fence east of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on November 8, 2019. (Photo by SAID KHATIB / AFP) (Photo by SAID KHATIB/AFP via Getty Images)

An Israeli soldier aims a tear gas gun at young Palestinian protesters during clashes following a protest against Israeli occupation along the border fence east of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on November 8, 2019.

Photo: Said Khatib/AFP via Getty Images

All this because we are among the world’s disposable people. What kills us is not only Israeli state violence but the international community’s collective failure to imagine us as human beings. It is the same failure that has allowed so many Black bodies to be murdered in the broad daylight of viral videos, with so little systemic change. As Elizabeth Alexander has written, “Black bodies in pain for public consumption have been an American national spectacle for centuries.” With such a violent collective memory, it’s no wonder white Americans have been so egregiously slow and equivocal in responding to anti-Black violence. For who is more visible in the U.S. than a Black person? Yet who is the most seldom seen?

This is the lethal contradiction that generations of Black intellectuals and activists have worked to dismantle. The “problem of the color line,” as W.E.B. DuBois called it, will only be solved when the U.S., as a whole, grasps the full humanity of Black people, who have been systematically dehumanized. There can be no going forward, in short, until the U.S. internalizes the most basic truth that Black Lives Matter.

In this way, the U.S. and Israel confront a similar moral failing: Years of intentional disenfranchisement, abuse of and theft from a people in the name of another group’s supremacy — in one case, under the banner of whiteness, and in the other, Zionism. Both have gambled on their ability to suppress these peoples’ efforts to resist their oppression, through the means of mass incarceration, state violence, and legal discrimination. And both have seen that even the most brutal crackdowns cannot squelch the human spirit forever.

WHEN I WAS a senior in college, after I’d lost track of the times I’d been told that I didn’t exist, I had an especially menacing run-in with a drunk stranger, who happened to know me as a Palestinian. He grabbed my arm, forcing me to join a circle of his friends, and proceeded to taunt me for my belief “that Arabs and Jews are equal” and that “Palestinians should have rights.” His harassment deteriorated into sexual threats, all of which his friends seemed to find hilarious. Yet, after I finally slipped out of his grip, what haunted me most was how silent I had been in the face of his tirade. Why did I always freeze?

TOPSHOT - Relatives of Palestinian Hussien Hamad, 11, mourn during his funeral in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip on May 11, 2021. - Israel and Hamas exchanged heavy fire, with 22 Palestinians killed in Gaza, in a dramatic escalation between the bitter rivals sparked by unrest at Jerusalem's flashpoint Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. Nine children were among those killed in the blockaded Gaza Strip that is controlled by the Islamist movement and 106 people there were wounded, local health authorities said. (Photo by MAHMUD HAMS / AFP) (Photo by MAHMUD HAMS/AFP via Getty Images)

A Palestinian girl and other relatives mourn the killing of 11-year-old Hussein Hamad during his funeral in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip on May 11, 2021.

Photo: Mahmud Hams/AFP via Getty Images

There is a particular, stultifying effect that comes with having one’s humanity denied outright. In that instant, the specificities of a life — the loves and fears and hungers, the family histories and secret hopes — are erased. It can leave a person speechless, shaken, losing grip on one’s sense of power. My drunken accosters did not ask me to debate policy; they questioned the very legitimacy of my existence. That moment cut to the hidden heart of the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict”: Do Palestinian lives matter?

The statement “Black Lives Matter” was birthed in the wake of the Ferguson uprisings and the brutal police response — events which Angela Davis remarked reminded her of the streets of Gaza. The idea — that Black lives have worth — is powerful because it seems obvious but forces us to confront all the material realities that contradict it. If Black Lives Matter, why are Black men 6 times more likely to be incarcerated than white men and 3 times more likely to be killed by police? If Black lives matter, why the vast racial disparities in resources, wealth, and health? In this way, the simple statement dares to unmask the forces of anti-Blackness and white supremacy in the very foundations of this nation.

Similarly, the material realities of Palestinians make clear that the Israeli state places little value on their lives. It would rather we weren’t there at all. The nation itself was founded on the violent displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, including my family, in 1948 and expanded through subsequent wars and the ongoing dispossession and settlement of areas such as the West Bank and Jerusalem. Those who remain have their existence denied daily, through intentionally dehumanizing encounters with the Israeli state, from arbitrary checkpoints to extrajudicial violence to economic exclusion to a prison-industrial complex that captures thousands of Palestinians, including minors, each year.

THE RECENT “ESCALATIONS” in Jerusalem only confirm the unreality of my people. News outlets report the events with a tone of clinical accounting, unaffected by the vast incongruencies of injured and dead (as of Thursday morning — the first day of Eid — over 1,000 Palestinians injured and at least 83 dead, including at least 17 children, with seven Israeli deaths). Commentators like sportscasters placing bets on Hamas’s next move, Thomas Friedman cracking wise about Palestinian youth and TikTok. Rock-throwing youth and lethal military forces portrayed like equal adversaries, or worse, a reverse David and Goliath, the civilized against a rabid, brown-skinned crowd.

They will never tell you how each one of us breaks and bleeds uniquely, how specific each individual’s suffering and resilience are. You’ll never hear, as I did on the phone with Jerusalem this week, the details that make this such a human drama. One Sheikh Jarrah family who can’t bear to lose their garden, filling my WhatsApp chat with snapshots of trees rooted decades ago. Another young man who couldn’t let go of what he’d seen in Al Aqsa Mosque: not the bloodshed or his now-blinded companions, but all those soldiers’ shoes, stampeding sacred ground. Their shoes, their shoes, he moaned. Their dirty shoes.

The beloved garden of a Palestinian family in Sheikh Jarrah who will be forced to leave it.

BLACK AMERICANS HAVE shown us, again and again, that they will not allow themselves to be made unreal — and this last year, many more people seemed to listen. For Black Americans who routinely face state violence, the murder of George Floyd was tragically unsurprising. Yet this particular death seemed to penetrate the larger American imagination, managing, somehow, to puncture the gloss of indifference with its sheer visceral force, its specificity. Floyd was seen as an individual, a human being, and his name became a movement. “Black Lives Matter” had a resurgence, thanks in part to the sudden recognition by white Americans of a particular Black life, and death.

Palestinians were quick to respond to the George Floyd movement, protesting in solidarity, drawing parallels between their own experiences of mass incarceration, militarized law enforcement, legal discrimination, knees on civilian necks. Floyd’s face decorated stretches of the Israeli barrier wall, alongside murals of Palestinians killed by Israeli police and soldiers, including Iyad Hallaq, an unarmed man with autism, shot on his way home from school. Floyd’s death also prompted discussions in the Palestinian and wider Arab communities about their own anti-Blackness. This internationalism is not new: For years, Palestinian activists have looked to the American civil rights movement, the South African struggle against apartheid, and others for inspiration. They have also offered their solidarity and support to movements abroad, including the Standing Rock protests and other efforts for Indigenous rights.

Hundreds of Palestinian citizens of Israel protested in the city of Haifa, Israel, on Tuesday, 2 June, 2020 against the Israeli police killing of an unarmed autistic Palestinian man just days earlier. Israeli police shot and killed Iyad el-Hallak in Jerusalem on 30 May, 2020 as he made his way to his special needs school. The Palestinian protesters also expressed support for American citizens protesting the police killing of African American man George Floyd on 25 May, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Photo by Mati Milstein/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Hundreds of Palestinians protest against the Israeli police killing of an unarmed autistic Palestinian man in Haifa, Israel, on June 2, 2020. The Palestinian protesters also expressed solidarity with American citizens protesting the police murder of George Floyd.

Photo: Mati Milstein/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Palestinians drew on these experiences in the weeks leading up to the recent “escalations.” In the presence of mobs shouting “Death to Arabs,” police violence at the holy grounds of Al Aqsa Mosque, and the flagrant encroachment of settlers in Sheikh Jarrah, Palestinian protests remained “largely peaceful,” reported Amnesty International. This long suffering was obscured by the increasingly brutal “scuffles” around Al Aqsa Mosque, in which Israeli armed forces deployed concussion grenades and rubber-tipped bullets against worshippers, injuring over 1,000, including 170 at a single Friday prayer during the holy month of Ramadan.

Now, with the involvement of Hamas providing justification for Israel to unleash its world-class arsenal, the particular moral stakes of the events have dissolved into the familiar, generic narrative: Israel defends itself, Palestinians die. The headlines, for most readers, will become interchangeable; the death tolls will be packaged in the sanitizing language of military calculations and diplomatic jargon.

Meanwhile, defenders of Palestinians’ right to resist will be inundated with “what abouts” and demands to denounce violence — questions to which the Israeli military, infinitely more powerful, will never be subjected. On the contrary, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted this week that the killing in Gaza was “just the beginning. We’ll hit them like they’ve never dreamed possible.”

Throughout, detractors will use any casualties or property damage on the Israeli side to discredit the entire movement, just as the labels of “outside agitators” and “rioters” have been used to discredit Black activists from the 1960s to today. The fundamental illegality of the occupation will go unmentioned. Negotiators and journalists will demand that Palestinians pledge themselves to nonviolence, never acknowledging the years of peaceful resistance they’ve sustained against all odds.

While commentators recycle “both sides” rhetoric, the death toll will, as always, surge exponentially on one side. The decimation of Gaza will be excused as necessary to stop “terrorism,” the obliteration of dozens of civilians, including children, notwithstanding. Eventually, there may be talk of “conditions” for a cease-fire — a pause in Palestinian death must always have conditions. No one will assume that Palestinian lives, as lives, simply matter.

NEW YORK, NY - MAY 11: Protesters demanding an end to Israeli aggression against Palestine rally in Midtown Manhattan on May 11, 2021 in New York City. Recent violence between the Israeli military and Palestinians in Jerusalem has left dozens dead as activists around the world denounce attacks on the city's Al-Aqsa Mosque.(Photo by Scott Heins/Getty Images)

Protesters demanding an end to Israeli violence against Palestine rally in New York on May 11, 2021.

Photo: Scott Heins/Getty Images

Perhaps something, this time, will be different. With the newfound skepticism of law enforcement and incarceration wrought by the George Floyd movement, many in the “woke” world seem to have found resonance with the scenes of Palestinian civilian protests throughout the territories and Israel, launching marches of their own around the globe. Perhaps, after a year in which the words “decolonization” and “intersectionality” have become memes, in which social media has become a streamlined highway for outrage and mobilization, this “clash” will be recognized at last for what it is: a fight for the Palestinian right to be human.

Such a shift would be a breakthrough: Just as the U.S. will remain haunted until Black lives are fully, truly, and equally valued, there can be no peace in Israel-Palestine until all the lives involved are reckoned with as human. Such a reckoning is understandably terrifying for nations built on the systematic denial of certain humanities, but there is no other way. And if the last year has taught us anything, it is that no odds can outmatch the individual’s need for dignity.

“The myths of self-defense” — Israel’s — “and both sides are becoming more and more penetrable,” Mohammed el-Kurd, whose family is facing forced displacement from their home in Sheikh Jarrah, said in a CNN interview this week. “People are being able to see through these myths and call an occupation for what it is and an aggressor for what it is.”

And perhaps, too, they will begin to see us.

Sarah Aziza@SarahAziza1

Critical Race Theory A Weapon of Mass Subversion

“The Frankfurt School consisted mostly of neo-Marxists who hoped for a socialist revolution in Germany but instead got fascism in the form of the Nazi Party. Addled by their misreading of history and their failure to foresee Hitler’s rise, they developed a form of social critique known as critical theory.
CRT inherits from its Critical Legal Theory ancestor the commitment to dismantle all aspects of society through unremitting criticism”-If you want to understand the age of Trump, read the Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to Corrupt

Review of Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part II–The Critique of Mass Culture

What critical race theory is really about

Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it — and of those who have, many don’t understand it. This must change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

To explain critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism.

Originally, the Marxist left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Karl Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: The workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class and usher in a new socialist society.

During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million people. They are remembered for gulags, show trials, executions and mass starvations. In practice, Marx’s ideas unleashed man’s darkest brutalities.

The Karl Marx sculpture is pictured in Chemnitz, Germany, August 31, 2018.
To explain critical race theory, we should begin with a brief history of Marxism.

By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West had begun to acknowledge these failures. They recoiled at revelations of Soviet atrocities and came to realize that workers’ revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, which had large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living. Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream — the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work and good citizenship.

But rather than abandon their political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s. Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.

Fortunately, the early proponents of this revolutionary coalition in the US lost out in the 1960s to the civil rights movement, which sought instead the fulfillment of the American promise of freedom and equality under the law. Americans preferred the idea of improving their country to that of overthrowing it. Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision, President Lyndon Johnson’s pursuit of the Great Society, and the restoration of law and order promised by President Richard Nixon in his 1968 campaign defined the post-1960s American political consensus.

Demonstrators gather next to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial
Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision for a more just society defined the post-1960s American political consensus.

But the radical left has proved resilient and enduring — which is where critical race theory comes in.

Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions over the past decade. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks and school curricula.

Its supporters deploy a series of euphemisms to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion” and “culturally responsive teaching.”

Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds nonthreatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, critical race theorists explicitly reject equality — the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy and oppression.

In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.

Demonstrators hold signs during the Bay Area Rally Against Hate counter-protest against the cancelled No Marxism in America rally in Berkeley, California, U.S. August 27, 2017.
Critical race expert Ibram X. Kendi has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism.

Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government and would have the power to nullify, veto or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others deemed insufficiently “antiracist.”

One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since, according to Kendi, “in order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anticapitalist.”

In other words, identity is the means; Marxism is the end.

An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination and omnipotent bureaucratic authority.

Historically, the accusation of “anti-Americanism” has been overused. But in this case, it’s not a matter of interpretation: Critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.

What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees that they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which design America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day re-education camp where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and to write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.

This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, Calif., an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Mo., a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.”

In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgment of [their] thieved inheritance.”

I’m just one investigative journalist, but I’ve developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, I am not exaggerating — from the universities to bureaucracies to K-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.

A demonstrator wearing a Black Panther beret takes part in a protest against the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd, in New York City, New York, U.S., June 6, 2020.
An elementary school in Philadelphia forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally.

This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions were presented as neutral, technocratic and oriented toward broadly held perceptions of the public good. Today, under the increasing sway of critical race theory and related ideologies, they are being turned against the American people. This isn’t limited to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, DC, but is true as well of institutions in the states — even red states. It is spreading to county public health departments, small Midwestern school districts and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.

So far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this.

First, too many Americans have developed an acute fear of speaking up about social and political issues, especially those involving race. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of conservatives are afraid to share their political beliefs publicly. Worried about getting mobbed on social media, fired from their jobs or worse, they remain quiet, largely ceding the public debate to those pushing these anti-American ideologies. Consequently, the institutions themselves become monocultures: dogmatic, suspicious, and hostile to a diversity of opinion.

Team Biden pushing Critical Race Theory in America’s classrooms

Demonstrators build a fire near fresh graffiti at Seattle Central College during an anti-capitalist protest in Seattle, Washington May 1, 2015.
Demonstrators at an anti-capitalist rally in Seattle  REUTERS

These criticisms are worthy and good, but they move the debate into the academic realm — friendly terrain for proponents of critical race theory. They fail to force defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the realm of politics.

No longer simply an academic matter, critical race theory has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, it is fast achieving cultural hegemony in America’s public institutions. It is driving the vast machinery of the state and society. If we want to succeed in opposing it, we must address it politically at every level.

Critical race theorists must be confronted with and forced to speak to the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed”? Do they support mandatory curricula teaching that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism”? Do they support public schools instructing white parents to become “white traitors” and advocate for “white abolition”? Do they want those who work in government to be required to undergo this kind of re-education? How about managers and workers in corporate America? How about the men and women in our military?

How about every one of us?

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Adapted with permission from City Journal.



Politics Is Reactionary, Pushing Transgenderism Fuels Opposition Politics

“It just isn’t fair”: Caitlyn Jenner opposes transgender girls participating in women’s sports

‘State of crisis’: Advocates warn of ‘unprecedented’ wave of anti-LGBTQ bills

Eight of these bills have already been enacted and 10 more are on governors’ desks, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Arkinsas State Capitol

The Arkansas State Capitol in Little Rock.Ramesh Lalwani / Flickr Vision via Getty

Hundreds of bills that target LGBTQ people have been filed in state legislatures, creating a “state of crisis,” advocates say.

The bills “attempt to erase transgender people and attempt to make LGBTQ people second-class citizens,” Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said during a news conference Thursday.

David said the number of bills, particularly those targeting transgender young people, is “unprecedented” and that 2021 is on track to “become the worst year for state legislative attacks against LGBTQ people in history.”

Until now, 2015 held that record, with 15 anti-LGBTQ bills enacted into law, David said. So far this year, eight bills targeting LGBTQ people have been signed into law, and another 10 are sitting on governors’ desks awaiting signatures, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

“Just to underscore the severity of these bills and the dangerous threshold we are about to cross: If these bills are enacted, it would mean that states will have enacted more anti-LGBTQ bills this year alone than in the last three years combined,” David said.

The national landscape

So far in 2021, eight bills targeting LGBTQ people have become law, most of them centered on transgender minors.

Governors in four states — ArkansasMississippiTennessee and Alabama — have signed bills banning trans athletes from competing on school sports teams that align with their gender identity.

Republican Gov. Kristi Noem in South Dakota issued two executive orders that will prohibit trans girls from playing on girls sports teams. Noem also signed a religious freedom bill that advocates say opens the door to discrimination against LGBTQ people.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, signed a similar bill that allows doctors to refuse to treat someone due to their religious or moral beliefs. Hutchinson vetoed another bill to ban transition care for trans minors — including puberty blockers, hormones and surgery — but the Arkansas Legislature overrode the veto, and the bill will become law this summer.

In North Dakota, Republican Gov. Doug Burgum signed a bill that the Human Rights Campaign says will allow student groups that receive state funding through their universities to turn away LGBTQ students “under the guise of free speech.”

In addition to those measures, another 10 are sitting on governors’ desks. Among them are a bill in Montana that would require gender-affirming surgery before a trans person can change the gender marker on their birth certificate; bills in West Virginia and Alabama that limit trans athlete participation; and bills in Arkansas and Tennessee that would require parents to sign off on any mention of gender identity or sexual orientation in school curriculums.

The Tennessee Legislature is expected to send a bill to Republican Gov. Bill Lee’s desk that requires schools to provide “reasonable accommodations,” such as single-occupancy restrooms, to public school students who don’t want to share public facilities with trans students.

“All of these bills are dangerous and harmful to LGBTQ people, and many of them have particularly singled out some of the most vulnerable in our community, which are transgender youth,” David said.

A few governors, like Hutchinson, have already vetoed some legislation. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, vetoed a bill last week that would have required parental notification of any mention of LGBTQ people in school curriculums. Burgum in North Dakota and Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, both vetoed trans athlete bans.

A protester holds a rainbow flag in support of transgender rights
A protester holds a rainbow flag in support of transgender lives during a demonstration on Oct. 2.SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty file

The vetoes, David said, are the result of advocates’ efforts to provide elected officials with facts instead of misinformation about the medical care trans young people receive, or the potential negative economic effects of passing such bills.

“Once they understand the facts from the medical community, from the business community, from families, they understand that these bills are not supported by the facts, they’re not supported by science and there’s no basis to advance these bills. Yet they are still under pressure from their ‘base,’” David said, “which is why we’re seeing some of these bills signed, because they’re providing red meat to their base, but at the same time they recognize that some of these bills are just simply unconscionable.”

Major medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association oppose medical care bans and support affirming care for trans youth, Dr. Robert Garofalo, division chief of adolescent medicine at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, said during the news conference.

“We know that gender-affirming care is best practice and to think otherwise just flies in the face of all available scientific evidence,” Garofalo said. One study published in the journal Pediatrics found that trans people who received puberty blockers had a lower risk of suicidal thoughts than adults who wanted them but couldn’t access them.

The vetoes and opposition to the bills from some Republicans are also the result of grassroots activism, said Jasmine Banks, whose daughter is trans. Banks is also founder of Reconcile Arkansas, a queer and trans advocacy group.

“This is one of those moments in history where we’re putting these folks on notice and we’re saying, ‘We are the people who put you in those positions of power, and if you continue to leverage your attacks on our communities, you will no longer be in those positions. We will move you out of those leadership positions,'” Banks said during Thursday’s news conference.

David said a number of bills are also poised to soon pass their second legislative chambers, such as abill in Tennessee that would require businesses to post signs outside of restrooms if they allow trans people to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.

Texas and Tennessee are the two states considering the most anti-LGBTQ bills this year. Texas legislators have introduced more than two dozen bills targeting LGBTQ people, Cathryn Oakley, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said.

All told, Oakley said, state legislatures have considered 35 bills to ban or limit transition care for trans minors, 66 trans sports bans, 43 religious refusal bills and 16 bills that relate to trans people’s access to bathrooms and locker rooms.

“Our opposition, they are truly getting desperate,” Oakley said, citing the conservative fights against marriage equality and bathroom bills in North Carolina and Texas that ultimately failed or were repealed.

The bills’ ‘human cost’

The bills are already having an impact, advocates say. Dr. Michele Hutchinson, who runs a clinic for trans youth at Arkansas Children’s Hospital, told the Associated Press the families she serves “are in a state of panic” now that the state has approved a law that will ban gender-affirming care for trans minors.

“They want to know what they should do next and we don’t have a clear answer for them,” she told the AP.

She also said that since the bill passed, four young people in her program attempted suicide. Other patients have asked her if they’ll be able to get their medications on the black market, which she said would “be dangerous because they won’t be monitored for side effects.”

Texas is also considering a bill that would make it a felony for parents or doctors to provide transition care for trans youth. The proposal would classify the act as child abuse, and parents who violate it could have their children removed from their home and placed in foster care.

Libby Gonzales, an 11-year-old trans girl who lives in Texas, said lawmakers there have been “attacking” her since she was 6, when they tried to bar her from using the girls’ bathroom.

Libby Gonzales.
Libby Gonzales.Courtesy of the family of Libby Gonzales

“Now they’re trying to stop me from getting the health care I need,” Gonzales said Thursday. “Who am I supposed to be if these bills pass? I told my mom and dad that if this law passes I want to disappear. I don’t know how I’m going to go to school and pretend that everything’s OK.”

“If they don’t want to understand us, they should at least not keep our families from supporting us and our doctors from helping us,” she added.

The bills are not only impacting trans young people but the safety of all trans people, David said.

“It is important to say here that people are already dying,” David said. “These bills are further fueling a wave of anti-trans violence that is devastating our community so far in 2021.”

At least 15 trans and gender-nonconforming people have been killed so far this year. This puts 2021 on track “to more than double the number” of those killed in 2020, which was already the deadliest year on record with at least 44 trans people killed.

‘It merits united action’

Oakley said the “tide may be turning” for anti-LGBTQ legislation, noting the two recent vetoes by Republican governors in Arizona and North Dakota. A recent PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll found that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to laws that would limit trans rights.

“Public opinion is absolutely on our side,” Oakley said. But she still doesn’t think it will be enough to prevent 2021 from breaking the record for the most anti-LGBTQ bills to become laws.

David described the wave of legislation and anti-trans violence as “a national crisis by any objective standard,” and he said it “merits national attention, and it merits united action.”

He wrote an open letter to corporate leaders, published as a full-page ad in The New York Times on Monday, calling on business leaders to “take action now by publicly denouncing state legislation that discriminates against people, refusing to advance new business in states that are hostile to corporate values and refusing to support sporting events where transgender athletes are banned or athletes taking a knee are penalized.”

David said the Human Rights Campaign is also calling on the NCAA, which regulates college athletics in the U.S., to follow through on its April 12 statement saying it wouldn’t hold championship games in locations that aren’t “free of discrimination.”

“It is not just the NCAA. We also need our entire nation,” David said. “We need every single person to make their voices heard and make sure that their voices are clear that these bills are inhumane and unacceptable.”

Follow NBC Out on TwitterFacebook & Instagram


Bill Gates Against Giving Covid Vaccine Aid To Hard-Hit India

[SEE: Bill Gates and His Historical Support of Eugenics and Population Reduction Before Anyone Heard of 5G ]

COVID-19 vaccine formulas shouldn’t be shared with India: Bill Gates

Nachiket Mhatre

COVID-19 vaccine formulas shouldn

02 May 2021: COVID-19 vaccine formulas shouldn’t be shared with India: Bill Gates


It’s a terrible time to be a publicist for Bill Gates. The billionaire, who the mainstream media celebrates as a philanthropist, is being criticized for his stance on vaccine patents.

When asked if he would share the COVID-19 vaccine recipes with developing nations, the tech mogul categorically refused, much to the shock of everyone who believed Gates prioritized saving lives over making profits.

Profits over lives: Gates doesn’t believe in transferring vaccine tech to developing countries

The Microsoft co-founder answered with an emphatic “no” when the vaccine patent relaxation question was fielded to him during a Sky News interview.

The logic backing the query being that transferring vaccine recipes to developing countries would not only accelerate localized production but also make it possible for poorer nations to inoculate more people with cheaper vaccines.

Fact: Gates justifies stance by making this a safety, expertise issue

“There’s only so many vaccine factories in the world and people are very serious about the safety… Moving a vaccine, say, from a factory into a factory in India, it’s novel, it’s only because of our grants and expertise that can happen at all,” said Gates.

Grants and expertise: Gates believes vaccines tech transfer will be too expensive

Gates, however, provided a couple of reasons for his refusal to share vaccine recipes with poorer countries.

He contends there are limited vaccine factories in the world, and that transferring manufacturing technology can’t be done without American “grants” and “expertise”.

The vaccine czar essentially implies that it is impossible for developing countries to manufacture vaccines without the US spending a fortune transferring technology.

Weak argument: Contrary to Gates’ claims, India is proficient at vaccine manufacturing

Except, Gates’ notion that vaccine production cannot be moved to India is demonstrably false. India has shown remarkable technological proficiency in developing and manufacturing vaccines to become the vaccine hub of the world.

In fact, it had been exporting vaccines globally until US President Joe Biden invoked Defense Production Act, thereby starving India of critical materials required to keep up the manufacturing pace.

Factually incorrect: Vaccine tech transfer that Gates deemed impossible has already happened

Gates’ logic is further undermined by United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres deeming India’s vaccine exports “the best asset that the world has today” against the pandemic.

India achieved this feat on the basis of technology transfer between the Serum Institute of India and AstraZeneca. This directly contradicts the tech billionaire’s excuse that such a transfer is a major hurdle in opening up vaccine patents.

Pandemic profiteering: Gates’ involvement is the reason why Oxford vaccine isn’t free

Gates’ controversial comments have brought increased scrutiny to his influence on global vaccine availability.

A report by Australian Fair Trade & Investment Network Ltd (AFTINET) reveals how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s involvement in the partnership between the University Oxford and AstraZeneca prevented the vaccine from having an open distribution model.

Facade shattered: Increasing number of people are clueing into Gates’ true nature

To make matters worse for the billionaire, media coverage of the pandemic has ensured that the public is well versed with these facts.

That makes his disingenuous justification for prioritizing vaccine profits over saving millions of lives all the more conspicuous.

The fact that developed countries such as the US have been hoarding more vaccines than they would ever need doesn’t help matters either.

Chasing profits: Conflict of interest: Gates’ $250 million investment in vaccine firms

The Gates Foundation declared more than $250 million in vaccine investments through regulatory filings. The foundation’s $40 million-worth stake in CureVac alone has delivered profits to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

There’s ample evidence that Gates has his fingers in all vaccine pies, so he has a clear conflict of interest when choosing between saving the world and profiting off vaccines.

Risky Business In The Taiwan Straits

5 1

[The Taiwan Straights has a wall of ships in place, composed mostly of fishing boats and “unidentified” ships, no doubt military.  The unidentified ships are clustered primarily, around Penghu Island, the primary Taiwanese military fortification.]

The most dangerous place on Earth

America and China must work harder to avoid war over the future of Taiwan

The test of a first-rate intelligence, wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. For decades just such an exercise of high-calibre ambiguity has kept the peace between America and China over Taiwan, an island of 24m people, 100 miles (160km) off China’s coast. Leaders in Beijing say there is only one China, which they run, and that Taiwan is a rebellious part of it. America nods to the one China idea, but has spent 70 years ensuring there are two.

Today, however, this strategic ambiguity is breaking down. The United States is coming to fear that it may no longer be able to deter China from seizing Taiwan by force. Admiral Phil Davidson, who heads the Indo-Pacific Command, told Congress in March that he worried about China attacking Taiwan as soon as 2027.

War would be a catastrophe, and not only because of the bloodshed in Taiwan and the risk of escalation between two nuclear powers. One reason is economic. The island lies at the heart of the semiconductor industry. tsmc, the world’s most valuable chipmaker, etches 84% of the most advanced chips. Were production at tsmc to stop, so would the global electronics industry, at incalculable cost. The firm’s technology and know-how are perhaps a decade ahead of its rivals’, and it will take many years of work before either America or China can hope to catch up.

The bigger reason is that Taiwan is an arena for the rivalry between China and America. Although the United States is not treaty-bound to defend Taiwan, a Chinese assault would be a test of America’s military might and its diplomatic and political resolve. If the Seventh Fleet failed to turn up, China would overnight become the dominant power in Asia. America’s allies around the world would know that they could not count on it. Pax Americana would collapse.

To understand how to avoid conflict in the Taiwan Strait, start with the contradictions that have kept the peace during the past few decades. The government in Beijing insists it has a duty to bring about unification—even, as a last resort, by means of invasion. The Taiwanese, who used to agree that their island was part of China (albeit a non-Communist one), have taken to electing governments that stress its separateness, while stopping short of declaring independence. And America has protected Taiwan from Chinese aggression, even though it recognises the government in Beijing. These opposing ideas are bundled into what Fitzgerald’s diplomatic inheritors blithely call the “status quo”. In fact, it is a roiling, seething source of neurosis and doubt.

What has changed of late is America’s perception of a tipping-point in China’s cross-strait military build-up, 25 years in the making. The Chinese navy has launched 90 major ships and submarines in the past five years, four to five times as many as America has in the western Pacific. China builds over 100 advanced fighter planes each year; it has deployed space weapons and is bristling with precision missiles that can hit Taiwan, us Navy vessels and American bases in Japan, South Korea and Guam. In the war games that simulate a Chinese attack on Taiwan, America has started to lose.

Some American analysts conclude that military superiority will sooner or later tempt China into using force against Taiwan, not as a last resort but because it can. China has talked itself into believing that America wants to keep the Taiwan crisis boiling and may even want a war to contain China’s rise. It has trampled the idea that Hong Kong has a separate system of government, devaluing a similar offer designed to win over the people of Taiwan to peaceful unification. In the South China Sea it has been converting barren reefs into military bases.

Although China has clearly become more authoritarian and nationalistic, this analysis is too pessimistic—perhaps because hostility to China is becoming the default in America. Xi Jinping, China’s president, has not even begun to prepare his people for a war likely to inflict mass casualties and economic pain on all sides. In its 100th year the Communist Party is building its claim to power on prosperity, stability and China’s status in its region and growing role in the world. All that would be jeopardised by an attack whose result, whatever the us Navy says, comes with lots of uncertainty attached, not least over how to govern a rebellious Taiwan. Why would Mr Xi risk it all now, when China could wait until the odds are even better?

Yet that brings only some comfort. Nobody in America can really know what Mr Xi intends today, let alone what he or his successor may want in the future. China’s impatience is likely to grow. Mr Xi’s appetite for risk may sharpen, especially if he wants unification with Taiwan to crown his legacy.

If they are to ensure that war remains too much of a gamble for China, America and Taiwan need to think ahead. Work to re-establish an equilibrium across the Taiwan Strait will take years. Taiwan must start to devote fewer resources to big, expensive weapons systems that are vulnerable to Chinese missiles and more to tactics and technologies that would frustrate an invasion.

America requires weapons to deter China from launching an amphibious invasion; it must prepare its allies, including Japan and South Korea; and it needs to communicate to China that its battle plans are credible. This will be a tricky balance to strike. Deterrence usually strives to be crystal-clear about retaliation. The message here is more subtle. China must be discouraged from trying to change Taiwan’s status by force even as it is reassured that America will not support a dash for formal independence by Taiwan. The risk of a superpower arms race is high.

Be under no illusions how hard it is to sustain ambiguity. Hawks in Washington and Beijing will always be able to portray it as weakness. And yet, seemingly useful shows of support for Taiwan, such as American warships making port calls on the island, could be misread as a dangerous shift in intentions.

Most disputes are best put to rest. Those that can be resolved only in war can often be put off and, as China’s late leader Deng Xiaoping said, left to wiser generations. Nowhere presents such a test of statesmanship as the most dangerous place on Earth. ■

Dig deeper

China’s growing military confidence puts Taiwan at risk (Apr 2021)
Even doveish China-watchers in America are becoming hawkish (Apr 2021)
How TSMC has mastered the geopolitics of chipmaking (Apr 2021)
Nominal spending figures understate China’s military might (Apr 2021)

There are only so many ways for China to invade Taiwan. The country’s main island is mountainous and rocky on its east coast. The good beaches are on the west coast, in particular along Taiwan’s southwest plain.

If China invades, it’s most likely going to land troops on that plain. But there’s at least one big obstacle to that approach. A fortified Taiwanese island that looms like a jagged speed-bump in the middle of the Taiwan Strait.

To be clear, it in theory is possible for a Chinese invasion fleet to directly attack Taiwan’s capital Taipei, in the country’s north, by sailing straight into the city’s port. Chinese planners reportedly have drawn up plans for just such an operation.

Ian Easton, senior director at the pro-Taiwan Project 2049 Institute and author of The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan’s Defense and American Strategy in Asia, gamed out a Taipei-grab in a 2018 article.

“It’s the ultimate nightmare scenario,” Easton wrote. Fortunately for Taiwan, however, Taipei is heavily-defended so an assault “relie[s] on stealth”—and stealth is hard to pull off when attacker and defender lie a mere hundred miles from each other.

That makes the southern approach less risky for China. Everyone knows it. Everyone is planning for it. Analysts have had so long to study the problem that they’ve identified all the likely invasion beaches. That of course means the Chinese and Taiwanese militaries also know the beaches.

Shortly after Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen landslide reelection in January, the Chinese military apparently leaked a photo depicting soldiers studying maps of Taiwan.

Invasion routes are clearly marked on the maps. One of the maps shows Chinese forces landing in southern Taiwan, but only after seizing Penghu, a Taiwanese archipelago of 90 islets that lies 30 miles from the main island.

Penghu Island

China has little choice but to capture or suppress Penghu before invading Taiwan proper. Taiwanese forces on the archipelago operate a long-range radar plus Hsiung Feng II anti-ship cruise missiles and Sky Bow III surface-to-air missiles. If a Chinese invasion fleet bypassed Penghu without destroying its garrison, the fleet would be subject to missile strikes at its flanks.

It’s not for no reason that Paul Huang, a researcher with the Taipei-sponsored Institute for National Defense and Security Research, early this year described Penghu’s as the most important of Taiwan’s three major island garrisons.

If China failed to suppress or capture Penghu, the main invasion force “might be obliged to abort the operation, making an assault on Taiwan one of history’s nonevents—like Hitler’s invasion of England,” analysts Piers Wood and Charles Ferguson wrote in a 2001 edition of the U.S. Naval War College Review.

But taking the islands could be hard for China. Their 60,000-strong permanent garrison includes an army brigade with 70 upgraded M-60 tanks and an artillery battalion. The Taiwanese navy routinely deploys a missile destroyer in the waters around Penghu. The air force practices staging nimble Indigenous Defense Fighters to the archipelago’s airport.

A major beach-defense exercise in 2017 involved 3,900 Taiwanese troops, IDF and F-16 fighters, AH-64, CH-47 and UH-60 helicopters, RT-2000 multiple-launch rocket systems, tanks, 155-millimeter and 105-millimeter howitzers and teams firing Javelin anti-tank missiles at offshore targets.

The Taiwanese fleet operates just two front-line submarines, but in the event of war it’s a safe bet that at least one of them would prowl near Penghu.

To be clear, Beijing has the power to take Penghu. China’s navy possesses an amphibious flotilla with eight modern assault ships and dozens of large landing craft. China’s marine corps is tens of thousands strong. The Chinese air force and rocket force could bombard Penghu with literally thousands of bombs and missiles.

But every hour the Chinese military spends fighting for Penghu is an hour Taiwan could use to deploy its active forces toward its southern beaches and mobilize its two-million-person reserves.

The U.S. Navy could use that same hour to shift two or three aircraft carrier battle groups toward Taiwan. By the time Chinese troops raised Beijing’s flag over Penghu, American bombers could be en route with loads of stealth cruise missiles.

In any invasion scenario, time is not on China’s side. “Initiating a war over Taiwan in the face of both internal and external threats is the greatest risk imaginable,” wrote Drew Thompson, a researcher at the National University of Singapore.

Penghu embodies that risk. Capturing the island could clear the way for China finally to “reunify” Taiwan with the mainland. Failing to capture Penghu could, perhaps for a very long time, end Beijing’s reunification-by-force gambit.

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here. Send me a secure tip.

Columbus, Ohio Cop Demonized For Preventing A Black On Black (Girls) Knifing

… ‘Disgraceful & Dangerous’

Jen Psaki baselessly and disgracefully racialized the killing in Columbus

“Believe your own eyes” — that was the prosecutor’s final admonition to the jury in the Derek Chauvin trial. And indeed, the evidence of their own eyes was likely the reason the jury members didn’t accept the defense’s case that there was “reasonable doubt” about Chauvin’s guilt. Instead, they convicted him on all charges.

The same admonition should be governing the public response to the horrible event in Columbus, Ohio, that transpired just as the Chauvin verdict was being announced. But it isn’t.

No less than the press secretary of the president of the United States went before the public Wednesday and all but explicitly suggested what had happened in Ohio was an illegitimate, racist police killing.

Believe your own eyes, Jen Psaki. Watch the body-cam footage that shows 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant charging first one fellow teenager, then a second. The second girl was slammed against a car, at which point Bryant began to swing her right arm — with a knife in her hand.

The police officer whose camera recorded the event had told her to “get down,” and she hadn’t done so. He had only a split second to react as she aimed the knife and readied to swing. He fired.

Believe your own eyes. She had a knife. Had she not been stopped, that knife would have gone into the body of the girl on the car. The police officer was witness to a violent act in real time and interceded the only way he could.

At the five-second mark in the video, the officer has gotten out of his car and is asking someone on the street, “What’s going on?” Two seconds — two seconds — later, the first girl being chased by Bryant falls to the ground.

“Hey! Hey!” the cop says at the nine-second mark, as he spots Bryant turning toward the second girl. At 10-second mark, he says with great urgency, “Get down! Get down! Get down!”

It’s now the 12-second mark. The cop has removed his gun from his holster. At 13 seconds, Bryant’s arm is drawn. At 14, we see Bryant fall to the ground.

What this means is that the officer found himself in the middle of a violent confrontation and had to act . . . within nine seconds.

Count off nine seconds. Out of a car. Asks for information. Suddenly a girl falls in front of him, chased by Bryant and her knife. He tells her to get down before removing his weapon and has it in his hand in time to stop her from stabbing the girl against the car.

I’ve watched the body-cam footage 25 times. I can’t imagine what else the police officer could possibly have done given the urgency of the moment — except allow Bryant to stab the other girl.

My own eyes suggested to me, and to the world, that Chauvin was guilty of something — though it was certainly beyond my knowledge then or now, as I wasn’t on the jury, to know precisely what. Likewise, my eyes say this was a horrible, tragic, terrible event in which a police officer may have saved a life in imminent peril.

And yet this is what Psaki, the spokeswoman for the world’s greatest power and leading democracy, said: “She was a child. We’re thinking of her friends and family in the communities that are hurting and grieving her loss. We know that police violence disproportionately impacts black and Latino people in communities and that black women and girls, like black men and boys, experience higher rates of police violence.”

Then teen is seen allegedly holding a knife in the bodycam video.
Then teen is seen allegedly holding a knife in the bodycam video.
Columbus Police Department via WSYX-TV via AP 
I don’t think my eyes have been blinded by the cop’s whiteness. The girl he saved was black, just like Ma’Khia Bryant. She was a teenager, it seems, just like Ma’Khia Bryant. She has a family, just like Ma’Khia Bryant. And she wasn’t swinging a knife at Ma’Khia Bryant. She was defenseless — until the law-enforcement officer defended her.

Who speaks for her and the countless Americans whose lives are saved every day by the intervention of law enforcement? Who will speak out for those who have saved them?

Basketball Champion Would Make A Great President

“I truly believe in my heart most white people and black people are awesome people, but we’re so stupid following our politicians, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, and their only job is, ‘Hey, let’s make these people not like each other.”

[VIDEO] Charles Barkley Just Told The World Our Governments “Biggest Little Secret”…And He Nailed It

This is one of the reddest “red-pill’ statements ever. Charles Barkley really “gets it”

Wow. I gotta tell ya, I think Charles Barkley is inching closer and closer to being a full-blown conservative.


As a matter of fact, he’s sharing some pretty heavy stuff about the government that is about as ‘red-pilled’ as you can get.

Barkley has always been a common-sense kinda guy. He’s the type who can see through. the garbage, and speak the truth.

MORE NEWS: Heads Up: George Soros is On The Move Again…He’s Unleashing a $500 Million-Dollar Plan

Remember, Charles was one of the first people to come out really hard against the stupid “defund the police” nonsense.

Charles is calling out our government’s deepest, darkest plot … those of us on the right have always known this and talked about it, but to hear someone like Charles say it out loud, really makes your jaw drop.

So, what to Charles reveal?

He revealed that he believes our government is actively working to keep whites and blacks at each other’s throats and hating one another.

Here’s what he said:

Man, I think most white people and black people are great people. I really believe that in my heart, but I think our system is set up where our politicians, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, are designed to make us not like each other so they can keep their grasp of money and power. They divide and conquer. I truly believe in my heart most white people and black people are awesome people, but we’re so stupid following our politicians, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, and their only job is, ‘Hey, let’s make these people not like each other. We don’t live in their neighborhoods, we all got money, let’s make the whites and blacks not like each other, let’s make rich people and poor people not like each other, let’s scramble the middle class. I truly believe that in my heart.

Yep. Nailed it.



The media can be included in this mix as well.

They do the same thing – which makes sense since they’re basically part of the government, too.


We’re all being played – pitted against one another so that these swampy slimeballs can conduct all their illegal business and we won’t notice.

It’s time for everyone to wake up.

Attn: Wayne Dupree is a free speech champion who works tirelessly to bring you news that the mainstream media ignores.

Dem. Favorite Radical AOC Slams Biden Border Tragedy

“This is not an invasion. US foreign policy has contributed to the destabilization of these regions…where the children are fleeing …. We have decades of interventionist foreign policies that have contributed to this issue.”

AOC slams ‘horrifying,’ ‘barbaric’ US border conditions under Biden

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday night slammed the overcrowded conditions for immigrants at the US-Mexican border under President Biden as “inhumane”, “horrifying,” “unnaceptable” and “barbaric.”

She also blamed decades of US foreign policy with countries in neighboring Central America as contributing to the perpetual crisis of desperate residents from poor, violence-torn countries flooding the border.

AOC unloaded on the border crisis during a virtual town hall meeting Wednesday night.

“The fact that this keeps happening is a political failure of both parties,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

AOC gave a detailed critique on the current border crisis — after being accused of giving Biden a pass after excoriating former President Trump’s border and immigration policies.

Migrant children sleep inside a cage at the Donna Department of Homeland Security holding facility in Donna, Texas on March 30, 2021.
AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills 

During an earlier interview, she criticized people who describe the situation at the border as a “surge” of pushing a “white supremacist” philosophy.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed people who described the border crisis as a "surge" were pushing a "white supremacist" philosophy.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed people who described the border crisis as a “surge” were pushing a “white supremacist” philosophy.
CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images 

She had visited immigration detention centers in 2019 and decried the conditions under Trump as “concentration camps.”

Ocasio-Cortez said the slow processing and verification system at the border causes a “huge pile up” leading to “inhumane conditions” that “are wrong.”

Unaccompanied migrant children play inside a playpen at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility in Donna, Texas on March 30, 2021.
Unaccompanied migrant children play inside a playpen at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility in Donna, Texas, on March 30, 2021.
AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills 

While claiming Trump’s immigration policies are more harsh than Biden’s, she added, “I don’t want to excuse any of this.”

“We should be doing better by now,” she said.

At one point, she said families who were forcibly separated during the Trump years “are owed reparations. Period.”

Migrants are processed inside the Donna Department of Homeland Security holding facility in Donna, Texas on March 30, 2021.
Migrants are processed inside the Donna Department of Homeland Security holding facility in Donna, Texas, on March 30, 2021.
AFP via Getty Images 

She blamed US foreign policy for contributing to the border crisis.

“This is not an invasion. US foreign policy has contributed to the destabilization of these regions…where the children are fleeing …. We have decades of interventionist foreign policies that have contributed to this issue.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argues “US foreign policy has contributed to the destabilization,” of Central-American countries where migrants are fleeing from.
AOC argues “US foreign policy has contributed to the destabilization,” of Central-American countries where migrants are fleeing from.
Bloomberg via Getty Images 

“People don’t want to talk about it but then they want to act like this is brand new every time,” said of the masses overwhelming the border.

While she decried the current conditions at the border, she claimed Biden is trying to solve the problem.

Two unaccompanied migrant children stand at a makeshift processing checkpoint in Roma, Texas on March 27, 2021.
Two unaccompanied migrant children stand at a makeshift processing checkpoint in Roma, Texas, on March 27, 2021.
AFP via Getty Images 

“I’ve been in contact with the Biden Administration personally. What is different is they’re trying to figure out … how to find the resources to end his problem,” AOC said..

She said the border crisis could get worse if the US doesn’t address root causes through its foreign policy and trade and climate policies.

“The volume of these shifts are going to increase as droughts increase,” said Ocasio-Cortez.

BLM To Politicize Music and Mathematics, Replacing Mozart with Rap and Math with Tribal Learning

Debate emerges over racism and white supremacy in Oregon math instruction

“The group claims white supremacy culture can show up in the classroom in various ways, including when ‘the focus is on getting the ‘right’ answer,’ and when ‘students are required to ‘show their work.'”

“The group also says educators should try to ‘center ethnomathematics’ by identifying and challenging the ways that ‘math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.'”


” Now mathematics is being nudged into a specifically political direction by educators who call
themselves “critical theorists.” They advocate using mathematics as a
tool to advance social justice. Social justice math relies on political
and cultural relevance to guide math instruction. One of its precepts is
ethnomathematics,” that is, the belief that different cultures have
evolved different ways of using mathematics, and that students will
learn best if taught in the ways that relate to their ancestral culture…The culturally attuned teacher will learn about the
counting system of the ancient Mayans, ancient Africans, Papua New
Guineans, and other ‘non-mainstream’ cultures… Partisans of social justice mathematics advocate an explicitly political
agenda in the classroom… Teachers are supposed to vary the teaching of
mathematics in relation to their students’ race, gender, ethnicity, and

Oxford University May Scrap Sheet Music for Being Complicit in ‘White Supremacy’


Ian Forsyth/Getty Images


The University of Oxford is considering proposals that would remove sheet music from its curriculum over woke claims that teaching the Western form of musical notation has roots in “colonialism” and “complicity in white supremacy”.

In response to widespread Black Lives Matter protesters and riots last year in the United Kingdom, music educators at Oxford University have joined the wider iconoclastic movement which has been sweeping through British academia.

The music department at the prestigious and ancient university has seen calls to remove music notation from the curriculum as professors seek to focus less on white European heritage and culture, according to documents seen by The Telegraph.

The woke educators went on to claim that musical notation itself is a “colonialist representational system” that has “complicity to white supremacy”. The claim is similar to leftist pronouncements in America that mathematics is inherently racist.

The Oxford academics went on to pronounce that teaching the piano or conducting orchestras could cause “students of colour great distress” as the skills involved are closely tied to “white European music”.

Professors at the university said that the classical music which is taught at Oxford, which includes Beethoven, Mozart, and Schubert, among others, is too focused on “white European music from the slave period”.

The assertion is somewhat dubious, as Western classical music, as well as the practice of sheet music notation, predates the Atlantic slave trade, stemming back to musical traditions from the medieval period such as Gregorian chanting.

Delingpole: Now Oxford University Grovels to Black Lives Matter

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) June 17, 2020

In response to student demands “arising from international Black Lives Matter demonstrations,” the Oxford faculty is also considering placing a heavier emphasis on “non-Eurocentric” musical traditions such as Hip-Hop and Jazz, as well as “African and African Diasporic Musics” and “Global Musics”.

The curriculum could also place more importance on pop music and culture, with suggested topics including “Artists Demanding Trump Stop Using Their Songs” at campaign rallies and “Dua Lipa’s Record-Breaking Livestream”.

Mocking the woke push from the university, London mayoral candidate and Heritage Party leader David Kurten said: “For goodness sake. Oxford is supposed to be one of our top Universities that promotes academic rigour and excellence. It should not be peddling woke nonsense like ‘classical music is racist and ‘sheet music is non-inclusive’”.

The proposals come amid a wider push throughout British academia to “decolonise the curriculum” in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.

In February, for example, the University of Leicester caused uproar after it proposed cutting courses in Medieval English literature — removing seminal works such as Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf — in favour of focusing more heavily on texts relating to sexuality, diversity, race, and ethnicity.

The woke push has also seen the introduction of speech codes, with the University of Manchester telling staff to refrain from using gendered words such as “father” or “mother” in favour of more “inclusive language”.

Three Wise Monkeys Are Racist Now, Says Woke University of York

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) January 24, 2021

Near-Hysterical Biden CDC Director Warns of “Impending Doom”

‘Scared’ CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky warns of ‘impending doom’

By Jackie Salo

CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky became emotional at a White House coronavirus press briefing on Monday — her voice breaking as she warned that the US is facing “impending doom” as COVID-19 cases rise again.

“I’m gonna lose the script and I’m going to reflect on the recurring feeling I have of impending doom,” Walensky told reporters at the briefing.

“We have so much to look forward to, so much promise and potential of where we are, and so much reason for hope. But right now I’m scared.”

“I know what it’s like as a physician to stand in that patient room, gowned, gloved, masked, shielded and to be the last person to touch some else’s loved one because their loved one couldn’t be there,” she continued.

“And I know what it’s like to pull up to your hospital every day and see an extra morgue sitting outside.”

Walensky said she feared that the US is headed down a similar path to many European countries, which have had to issue lockdowns again amid surges in cases.

“The trajectory of the pandemic in the United States looks similar to many other countries in Europe, including Germany, Italy, and France looked like just a few weeks ago and since that time those countries have experienced a consistent and worrying spike in cases,” she said.

Walensky — speaking, she said, not just as the CDC director but “as a wife, as a mother, as a daughter” — urged Americans to “hold on a little longer” until they can get vaccinated against the coronavirus.

“We are not powerless. We can change this trajectory of the pandemic, but it will take all of us recommitting to following the public health prevention strategies consistently, while we work to get the American public vaccinated,” she said.

Are Whites Really To Blame For Mass Shootings? Photos Reveal The Truth

Are Whites Really To Blame For Mass Shootings? Photos Reveal The Truth

Following the mass shooting in Boulder Colorado, globalists and leftists joined arm in arm in blaming White Americans for mass shootings in America.

Once it was revealed that the shooter was actually a Syrian native who came to America as a child who was a devout Muslim and alleged ISIS sympathizer who hated Donald Trump and some of his major platforms, they quickly adjusted

But, the inevitable gun grabs began and the intentional false impression has been left on masses of Americans by these racist politicians and media personalities that white people are to blame for most mass shootings.

I’m hearing it repeated as gospel truth that “nearly all” American mass shooters are white. Here are the photos of mass shooters from 2019 (defined as four or more shot in a single incident). It shows quite a diverse set of faces. #Boulder #Atlanta

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) March 24, 2021

Trending: Global Prices Soar As Enormous Ship Draws Penis In The Red Sea…Then Gets Stuck in the Suez Canal

However, a photo collage released by journalist Andy Ngo on Twitter allegedly shows who is responsible for the known mass shootings in America.  And, if there is one slogan to describe mass shooters in America, it might be:

“Diversity Is Their Strength”Tinnitus? when the Ringing Won’t Stop, Do This (It’s Genius)healthtodayAds by

A 2020 photo collage from Andy Ngo reveals a similar trend:

The Gateway Pundit provides additional context to the photos as well as caveats:

“Democrats continue to push the ridiculous talking point that white men commit the majority of mass shootings in the United States.
The left continues to push this with every mass shooting.

Wiki Page was created to list every mass shooting in the US in 2019.

The list does not include those shootings where no one will speak to police.

At least 20 of the mass shootings in 2019 were in Chicago, Illinois.

More than 140 mass shootings are unsolved largely because no one will give descriptions to the police.

Of course, most of these shootings took place in the inner city. Democrats don’t care about those shootings. They never make the splash headlines for days.

It doesn’t fit their agenda.”

There are also some other interesting facts that pertain to the false narrative that white people commit most mass shootings and that government regulations make anything better:

Black people make up roughly 13% of the US population while white non-Hispanic people make up roughly 61%, so we might expect to see roughly 5 times more white people committing any given crime-including mass shootings.  Yet we do not.  Why?

Many mass shootings are part of gang violence.

It should be noted that non-whites make up nearly 88% all of the gang members in America despite being minority populations.  Interestingly, the large number of gang members and their demographic makeup were not always this way. Perhaps, they are now because government began destroying the black family the mid-1900s as well as flooding the country with impoverished immigrants since the 1965 Hart-Seller Act while promoting a massive welfare state to promote single motherhood.  Black single motherhood has skyrocketed from about 20% in the 1920s to about 76%, today.  People who come from broken homes tend to have more mental issues, less wealth, and tend toward more crimes.  This may lead them to seek out familial relationships in gangs much more often than those who come from solid homes in solid neighborhoods.

Bring back the family, promote the true American citizenry and the US Constitution, and reward meritorious hard work.

This is not a race issue.  This is a massive government meddling issue.



“If you catch 100 red fire ants as well as 100 large black ants, and put them in a jar, at first, nothing will happen. However, if you violently shake the jar and dump them back on the ground the ants will fight until they eventually kill each other. The thing is, the red ants think the black ants are the enemy and vice versa, when in reality, the real enemy is the person who shook the jar. This is exactly what’s happening in society today. Liberal vs. Conservative. Black vs. White. Pro Mask vs. Anti-Mask. Vax vs. Anti-vax. Rich vs. poor. Man vs. woman. Cop vs. citizen. The real question we need to be asking ourselves is who’s shaking the jar… and why?” – Shera Starr

Who's Shaking the Jar? - The Thinking Conservative

A few weeks ago, I saw the above quote in Jeff Thomas’ article Learning from Ants, and it has been reverberating in my mind ever since. It is a perfect analogy for what has been happening in this country for years, with the jar lately being shaken at a rate faster than a Biden vote count increase at 3:00 am in a swing state. Everyone in this country, and the world, is at each other’s throats. Who is shaking the jar? Why are they shaking the jar? Why do they want us fighting each other?

If they keep us focused on fighting each other, they believe we will not notice their reprehensible criminality, as they manipulate the masses through psychological engineering and the employment of propaganda techniques to push their desired narrative. If you ask someone – who is shaking the jar? – they will likely answer based on the standard left vs right, liberal vs conservative, white vs black paradigm which has been created by those benefiting from conflict. It is always a safe bet to follow the money when trying to identify the culprits.

The elevated intensity of manipulation by those pulling the strings of societal discontent reveals much about their level of desperation in creating more chaos, because the awakening of more to the truth, endangers their wealth, power, and control. They have turned the shaking power up to eleven in the last year, as an implosion of the Ponzi financial system was looming as we entered 2020, and the Deep State oligarchs needed cover to implement a massive injection of liquidity into the veins of Wall Street bankers, the medical industrial complex, and mega-corporations like Amazon, Wal-Mart and Target.

The weaponization of a contagious, but highly non-lethal to anyone under 80 years old, flu became the perfect camouflage of fear to bailout the teetering financial system and creating turmoil, chaos, and distrust among the populace. The non-stop fear mongering was purposely ramped to keep the public distracted while the national wealth pillaging operation proceeded at a breakneck pace behind the scenes. $600 for you and $10 trillion for them.

The monstrous effort to polarize the country by the psychopaths in suits pulling the strings of societal disgruntlement has the ultimate purpose of subjugation and dominion over every aspect of our lives. They no longer feel the need to conceal their treachery, as they openly proclaim their Great Reset, where you will own nothing and be happy – living in a 200 sq ft shipping container, eating synthetic meat, drinking Gates endorsed reprocessed piss, snacking on bugs, and praying their windmill and solar power works on calm cloudy days as a frigid winter storm front arrives.

A right-wing meme on Twitter positioning George Soros as the originator of a coronavirus world conspiracy involving Bill Gates, James Comey, Rep Adam Schiff and others

None of this is an accident. It is not occurring naturally. This is the result of a designed blueprint to control and rule the world by a relatively small cadre of billionaire oligarch globalists, Big Tech despots, bought off politicians, the banking cabal fronted by their puppets at the Federal Reserve, surveillance state operatives, military industrial complex parasites, captured corporate media, mega-corporations, and mid-level government apparatchiks sucking on the teat of the Deep State.

These people are the real government who had been pulling the strings behind the curtain, but now feel emboldened to openly execute their plans, after observing how easily the masses could be manipulated and controlled through fear during this conveniently engineered pandemic. Decades of dumbing down the populace through government run public school indoctrination disguised as education, has produced millions of non-critical thinking barely sentient consumers who have their beliefs fashioned, choices formed, and opinions dictated by manipulative men operating in the shadows.

Those pulling the strings understand the psychological processes, societal relationships, and technology driven social media addictions of the masses. They know how to sell a narrative based upon the emotions, feelings, fears and biases of the masses. With so few capable of critical thinking and seeing through their deceptive manipulation of the story-line, complete control over mainstream and social media gives those pulling the strings tremendous power over the direction of society.

And if they can keep the majority at each other’s throats, distracted by trivialities, minutia, false narratives, and unable to decipher the truth, they can keep us subjugated and constrained while they pilfer and pillage the wealth of the nation. It is a despicably audacious plan but is working to perfection. But, as always with humans, their hubris and myopia have convinced themselves they are infallible and immune to defeat. Their greed and arrogance will ultimately lead to their downfall.

Fighting in Our Streets and God | Tennessee Bible College

Glenn Greenwald recently called out the faux journalists working in the corporate media complex for their shamefully pathetic attempt to twist the truth into the false narrative required by their Deep State puppet masters. They are nothing but highly paid whores doing tricks at the behest of their oligarch pimps.

“If you think the real power centers in the US are the Proud Boys, 4Chan & Boogaloos rather than the CIA, FBI, NSA, Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and spend most of your time battling the former while serving the latter as stenographers, your journalism is definitionally shit.” – Glenn Greenwald

Real journalists like Greenwald and Tucker Carlson are not afraid to confront those shaking the societal jar. That is why there is a concerted effort by those shaking the jar to try and destroy Substack, where Greenwald writes, after The Intercept began to censor his articles, and to force Fox to cancel Carlson by pressuring advertisers to boycott his show. This Cancel Culture tactic is being employed by those in control to crush dissent and free speech, so their narrative can dominate the airwaves and social media platforms, drowning out the truth.

There is a war for the soul of America underway and only one side is fighting – the globalist cabal along with their billionaire backers (Gates, Soros, Bloomberg), Big Tech tyrants, Big Media, Big Pharma, and Big Corporations. They have positioned their troops as attorney generals, governors, mayors, and legislators; in universities; in K-12 classrooms; in the media; on Wall Street; at the Fed; and in the Swamp of D.C. They now have a senile useful idiot in the White House, with a compliant cackling diversity hire waiting in the wings to become their new stooge.

There is no Deep State - Econlib

The technique of using propaganda to manipulate the opinions of the masses, put forth by Edward Bernays almost one hundred years ago, has been enhanced and perfected by the deceitful and traitorous psychopaths operating as the shadow government, as they purposely construct false narratives and bogeymen, so they can expand their supremacy, dominion, and fortunes. It has always been this way, as human nature never changes, but the level and intensity has been ratcheted up to a degree never seen before in human history.

Technological advances have allowed these evil men to reinforce their narrative, while suppressing the truth tellers, and brainwashing the masses to do as they are told. Over the last five to ten years, they have convinced a vast swath of the population to believe utter nonsense, cower in their basements on command, and buy into false narratives and fake news that a sixth-grade level IQ should be able to see through. I have never lived through the final days of an empire, but this must be how it feels.


Those shaking the jar understand the mental processes of the ants because the indoctrination curriculum instilled in their brains by government controlled public schools through sub-mediocre, union worshiping, social justice warrior teachers has been designed to make them obedient, non-thinking, susceptible to psychological manipulation consumers.

The controllers know which buttons to push to keep the masses at each other’s throats: Democrat vs. Republican; liberals vs. conservatives; black vs. white; male vs. female; gay vs. straight; young vs. old; rich vs. poor; capitalists vs. socialists; white collar vs. blue collar; essential vs. non-essential; police vs. citizens; military vs. civilian and numerous variations on these categories of warring factions. Below is only a partial list of false narratives, fake news and outright lies over the last several years used by the powers that be to keep the ants fighting each other:MUST-SEE SHOWDOWN: WHAT’S AHEAD FOR YOUR MONEY DURING THE BIDEN PRESIDENCYThe Oxford Communique

  • The Russiagate conspiracy created by the Obama and Hillary acolytes, in conspiracy with the leaders of the FBI, CIA, and DOJ to take down a duly elected president was a coup built upon nothing but lies, fomented and spread by the seditious corporate media. If the country were ruled by honest, forthright, law abiding people, Obama, Hillary, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and dozens of underlings would be in prison for this plot to unseat Trump.
  • The Mueller investigation cost the American taxpayer tens of millions; produced thousands of hours of fake news reports by CNN, MSNBC, the NYT and the rest of the left-wing media; ruined the lives and reputations of dozens; distracted Trump from governing for two years; and resulted in absolutely zero proof of any wrongdoing or collusion with the Russians. The entire episode was created to distract from Hillary’s emails, the murder of Seth Rich for providing the info to Julian Assange, and the filthy dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
  • The lies about kids in cages and children being torn from the arms of their loving parents at the border, with photo shoots of AOC crying in an empty parking lot, was nothing but tripe. The “cage” pictures were taken during the Obama administration. It seems those cages are being used again, with Biden inviting millions to cross our unprotected border, but now the narrative is one humanity and caring. The hypocrisy of these feckless idiots knows no bounds.
In Emergency Bill, House Dems Vote To Send More Fake Tears To Address Border Crisis | The Babylon Bee
  • The “fine people” hoax regarding the Charlottesville protests and clashes in 2017 had been used by the Democrats and their media mouthpieces for three years to make it appear Trump supported white supremacy. It was a complete and utter lie, and they knew it. Of course, the full airing of his real comments was played during the latest impeachment hoax, clearly vindicating Trump. But liberals still latch onto this false narrative like an infant with a bottle. The infantilization of the masses appears to be working, as they cry at every perceived micro-aggression.
Storytime with Drag Queens | Things to do in Chicago
  • George Soros and his Open Society organization is intent on destroying all societal norms and community standards which have bound us together for generations. His desire is to destroy the family unit and replace it with the state. He openly funds anything and anyone who will further this agenda. He encourages things like Drag Queen Story Hour at public libraries where purveyors of pedophilia freaks teach five-year-olds how to twerk and attempt to legitimize their mental illness as normal. This brain washing of children is child abuse. Soros has spent tens of millions to get sociopath District Attorneys elected in Democrat run urban shitholes, whose sole purpose is to encourage crime, not prosecute murderers and thieves, and allow havoc and chaos to engulf their cities. Mission accomplished, as murder rates have skyrocketed in every Democrat run urban paradise in America – and the killing is not being committed by white supremacists. Soros is tearing down our society so it can be built back in his dystopian communist vision of the future.
There's Been a George Soros for Every Era of Anti-Semitic Panic
  • The entire Jeffrey Epstein episode is another false narrative created by the jar shakers because they were the perverts, pedophiles, and deviants who Epstein was blackmailing with secret videotapes and whatever took place on his private island. Clinton, Gates, Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, John Roberts and dozens more sociopaths were all implicated. Everyone knows Epstein did not kill himself. He was murdered by those at the top to shield themselves from revelations of their perversions and crimes. When you control the narrative, you can get away with anything. Maxwell will not talk. She knows her fate if she does.
  • The faked chemical weapons attack in Syria, blamed on the Assad regime, was completely fabricated and staged. It resulted in president Trump launching a missile attack against the Syrian government. Everything reported by the corporate media over the last decade has been built upon lies. Obama created ISIS, with the support of McCain and the neo-cons, to overthrow the regime of Assad. They did such a bang-up job turning Libya from the richest country in Africa to a 3rd world ungovernable hellhole, they wanted to accomplish the same in Syria. It was only after Putin’s military began obliterating ISIS, the U.S. was shamed and reluctantly joined, and then took full credit for their defeat.
A Movie as “New Evidence on Fake Chemical Attack” – Again - EU vs DISINFORMATION
  • Blaming Russia for everything bad that happens in our country, run by incompetent corrupt boobs, has become the go to lie by Democrats and their media lapdogs at CNN, Washington Post, NYT and MSNBC. They were accused of hacking into our electrical grid in 2016, with the entire story debunked in days. The Washington Post claimed 200 websites had been infiltrated by the Russians, accusing Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard of being Russian assets. The laughability of these claims by Hillary’s army did not stop useful idiots from believing. The Russians were accused of using sonic and microwave weapons to cause brain damage to U.S. personnel in the US embassy in Cuba. It was determined the sounds were male crickets during mating season. The bullshit continues to this day, as Biden has accused Putin of interfering in the 2020 election and calling him a killer. Maybe the Russians interfered to get Biden elected, knowing he is a dementia racked bumbling fool.
Shocking Footage of Joe Biden Falling Multiple Times: What Is Wrong? | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report - YouTube
  • The first ridiculous impeachment of Trump was based on a phone call with the Ukraine president regarding the actual corruption and payoffs to Hunter Biden and the Biden crime family to influence U.S. policy in the Ukraine. The U.S. had already funded and aided in the coup against the democratically elected president and encouraged the civil war that followed. The real crimes were committed by Hunter selling influence and the Big Guy having the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter fired. Ironically, two key figures in the impeachment hearings Eric “the farter” Swalwell and Diane ‘the crypt keeper” Feinstein had much bigger skeletons in their closets – sleeping with a Chinese spy and employing a Chinese spy for almost twenty years as her driver.
  • The second, more ridiculous, impeachment of Trump was such a shitshow, John Roberts refused to participate in the farce. This travesty of justice was conducted to send a message to all Trump supporters they will be painted with the brush of insurrectionists and white supremacists. The absurd charade was conducted after Trump was already out of office. Swalwell and his parade of woke jokes doctored evidence, lied and exaggerated the claims against Trump, and were ultimately eviscerated and embarrassed by Trump’s defense team on national TV. But they convinced their faithful intellectually deficient dupes Trump had provoked an armed insurrection, no matter the verdict.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., gives final remarks during a hearing where former White House national security aide Fiona Hill, and David Holmes, a U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, testified before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 21, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents.(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
  • The false narrative of the January 6th “armed insurrection” is blatantly false and continues to be flogged by the dutifully deceptive defecators on the payroll of CNN and MSNBC. There is only one requirement for an armed insurrection. Somebody must be armed. Not one firearm was used by any of the selfie taking boobs wandering around the Capitol. I guess someone could have been gored by the buffalo dude. The fake news about a Capitol cop beaten to death with a fire extinguisher was peddled for months by CNN and MSNBC. It was 100% fake news. He died of a stroke a day after the protest. The only person killed was an unarmed female who posed no threat to anyone. They still have not revealed the name of the cop that executed her. The presence of ANTIFA plants, paid by CNN, instigating the crowd, has been memory-holed by the malleable media.
Maryland man caught inside US Capitol building during riot fired | WBFF
  • The “armed insurrection” by “white supremacists” false narrative has been exploited by the hateful shrew Pelosi to turn D.C. into an armed fortress with national guard members pretending to protect the Capital from imminent attack by the Trump militia armies. The FBI does their part by fear mongering about non-existent right wing domestic terrorists, while Democrat run cities continue to be terrorized and burned by real ANTIFA and BLM terrorists, with Federal buildings under armed attack and set on fire. The diversity hire Defense Secretary is busy purging white Trump supporters from the ranks, while encouraging the feminization of his forces, to the delight of Russia and China. Pelosi and Schumer will never tear down those walls. They know their far-left agenda will ultimately result in chaos and revolution. They want to extinguish our exiting civilization, so they can “build back better” as a globalist utopia where the few, like Gates, Soros and Schwab, rule over the many, and you will own nothing and be happy – or else.
This is not freedom': militarized US Capitol a sign of forever wars coming home | US Capitol breach | The Guardian
  • The false narrative they have been beating to death since the election is the Qanon conspiracy of a vast array of right-wing domestic terrorists planning a takeover of the government. They were blamed for the January 6th non-insurrection and are being used as the excuse to keep 12-foot walls around the Capitol. This entire storyline is laughable, except brainless twits in the corporate media flog it to benefit Pelosi and her parade of congressional dimwits as they intentionally mislead the public about the real threats in this country. If 5% of Trump voters had ever heard of Qanon, I would be shocked. If .00001% of the public believed the fairy tales spun on 4Chan or 8Chan or whatever Chan, then I would be flabbergasted. In retrospect, it is evident this was a Psy-Op conducted by the surveillance state to lure people into a trap of hope, and now is being used to paint all Trump supporters as crazy white supremacists, intent on overthrowing the government. Mission accomplished by the jar shakers.

In Part 2 of this article, I will detail the extraordinary efforts by those in power to cover-up the ultimately fatal levels of debt endangering the American Empire, by creating trillions more in debt, and pondering what happens next on our road to perdition.


Biden lies, and the media doesn’t question it: Goodwin

Biden lies, and the media doesn’t question it: Goodwin

By Michael Goodwin

Three big things stood out in President Biden’s first press conference.

1. The leader of the free world is often lost at sea and says many things that are blatantly false.

2. The media is in the tank and cannot be trusted to hold him accountable.

3. Because of Nos. 1 and 2, America is headed for serious trouble.

For this sickening spectacle we had to wait 64 days?

Still, the event was meaningful in one distressing way. Now we know beyond all doubt there is no way to deny the terrifying truth.

This was Biden’s coming out party, and the nation faces a mess that will only grow worse in time. The man who campaigned on unity is hell-bent on permanent polarization, meaning cancel culture and the super-charged racial climate are here to stay.

Biden gave license to the worst instincts on the left with his repeated sneering references to all Republicans and especially Donald Trump. At one point, he actually accused Trump of letting immigrant children “starve to death on the other side” of the Mexican border.

He said it in a room full of 30 supposed journalists and not a single one challenged him or even asked whether he meant it literally. In fact, not a single one challenged him on any of his falsehoods.

Nor did anyone ask him why he read from prepared talking points during answers to three questions on foreign policy. No recent president has felt the need to do that.

There also were moments when he talked himself into dead ends, yet there were no questions about when he would release the health reports he’s been hiding.

Regarding his agenda, a report that Biden sees himself as the new FDR gives credence to the idea that he’s all in for every big, crazy idea left-wings Dem can cook up.

The Green New Deal, open borders, removing voting safeguards, endless tax hikes, statehood for D.C. — they’re all on track and bound for glory. The only obstacle is the Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass legislation, but Biden left no doubt he would be willing to do away with it.

“I want to get things done,” he said.Biden answers question about running for re-electionPlay Video

Each piece of his party’s planned utopia is unprecedentedly radical in its own way, but not nearly radical enough for the media. Their performance was pathetic not just in what questions they asked and didn’t ask, but how they asked them. The dominant theme was that Biden and his team are not moving fast enough to turn America upside down and inside out.

Why don’t you, when will you, why haven’t you? Over and over, the aim was not to ask a question but to speed up an agenda.

Naturally, this was the complete opposite of the way some of the same people behaved during the Trump presidency. Then the questions were outraged expressions that aimed at stopping the administration. Now they are pleas aimed at pushing this one forward faster.

As such, the 10 people Biden called on generally followed the script laid out in the Washington Post and elsewhere. Columnist Margaret Sullivan had warned reporters not to try to “show how tough” they were being on Biden to please “Trump allies.” She even downplayed the border crisis, suggesting it was getting too much attention.

It got the most attention Thursday, but only in ways that reinforced the idea that it is the milk of human compassion to invite Central Americans to make the long trek north. Violence is rampant and coyotes, human traffickers and the cartels are making a mint, but not a peep about that from the president or his media helpers.

Nor was there any hint that perhaps stricter enforcement was compassionate to Americans in border towns and taxpayers everywhere. Instead, the underlying assumption seemed to be that any suffering experienced by migrants once they got to the border was proof of heartlessness and had to be remedied as quickly as possible.

As for the pandemic, apparently it’s no longer a problem. Pictures showing migrants crowded together in cages and reports that many are released despite testing positive for COVID never came up. No sense spoiling the good vibes.

The facts of illegal immigration are fairly simple. Trump campaigned on the issue and after false starts and despite unified Democratic opposition, eventually stitched together a series of policies and actions that stemmed the tide. He built large sections of wall, deported criminal aliens and struck an agreement with Mexico that those making asylum claims would have to wait in Mexico.


Reporters suck up to ‘nice guy’ Biden

It is also a fact that Biden blew up each of those pillars, yet now claims he inherited a mess. Strangely, he also insisted that the numbers surging now “happens every single, solitary year. Nothing has changed.”

He’s either misinformed or lying. Record numbers of arrivals are being reported daily, and NBC recently called the crossings the highest in 20 years.

Again, Biden was not challenged.

The final proof that the press has abdicated its role was clinched when the president refused to say when he would allow more media access to the border detention facilities. He said it would have to wait until his team got its new programs working.

If Trump had said that, the sky would have fallen and democracy would be declared dead. But when Biden says it, the media rolls over.

So add transparency to the list of things that don’t matter anymore.

The Woke Mob vs. the Trump Mob: the Real Double Standard

Alexander Zubatov

(Jonathan Levinson/OPB)

“There is a real double standard at work. It is a glaring one, not the one President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris claim exists but, rather, the one they want to gaslight us into accepting.”

The bar for calling something “racist” in the United States has apparently dropped so low that it is now okay to concoct an utterly topsy-turvy narrative in order to call out an allegedly racist double standard in the way the Capitol Riots vs. the #BLM riots have been treated by the powers-that-be.

Although I, like many of us by this point, have become so numb to the incoherent shrieks of “racism” echoing out in every direction that I am quite comfortable dismissing nearly all of them as vacuous posturing by celebrities and social media influencers, virtue-signaling by white elites and woke corporations, or cynical profiteering by the outrage-clickbait-peddling media, this one still threw me for a loop: I could hardly believe my ears when I heard President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, parroted by the usual organs of the mainstream media, cry racism in characterizing the reaction of authorities to incensed supporters of President Donald Trump storming the United States Capitol on January 6th.

“No one can tell me that if that had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn’t have been treated very, very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol,” President-elect Biden said. “We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer. It’s simply unacceptable,” Vice President-elect Harris tweeted.

Yes, the law enforcement response to the Capitol Riots was unquestionably a failure on every level. But racism? All I could think was how dumb do these people think we are? Do they really think we have forgotten the actual events of this summer so soon?

Do they think those like me who witnessed the #BLM riots with their own eyes in New York City (or in the many other cities across the nation shaken by #BLM’s violence this summer) have already forgotten how roving bands of almost exclusively black teens and twenty-somethings rioted and looted, breaking into high-end SoHo boutiques and struggling small businesses already ravaged by the Coronavirus (COVID-19), absconding with millions in merchandise and causing billions in damage, while our spineless leaders stood by doing nothing and left those businesses to board up and fend for themselves for days on end? 

Do they think we have forgotten how those few looters and rioters who were arrested were let go, with all charges against them dropped? Does anyone believe that the Capitol Rioters currently being identified and hunted down across the nation will be met with similar lenity?

Do they think we have forgotten how prominent #BLM leaders defended this summer’s looting or labeled it “reparations,” while establishment media outlets—the same ones that had no problem referring to the Trump supporters in Washington on January 6th as a “mob” of “rioters”—had continued to insist back in June, against the evidence of our own senses and the empirical findings showing a trail of violence across the country brought by the #BLM mob, that we were watching “peaceful protests”? NPR even gave a platform to someone hawking a book entitled In Defense of Looting.

CNN, New York Times and Washington Post online headlines on January 6th, when these outlets suddenly had no problem calling things by their true names.

Do they think we have forgotten how newly woke corporations fearful of #BLM shakedowns donated to the cause, coming forward with statements of full-throated support and new diversity and hiring policies, while pretending that the hateful anti-cop, anti-white, anti-American rhetoric we were hearing (and the crude graffiti and retrograde violence we were seeing) in previously sacrosanct public spaces was somehow a progressive accomplishment, even as the media did its darndest to sell us on an empirically unsupportable narrative that the freak incident in which one bad cop in Minneapolis unjustifiably killed the career criminal George Floyd was a commonplace occurrence representative of ubiquitous “systemic racism”? 

The graffiti defacing New York’s City Hall left untouched for weeks on end:

Do they think we have forgotten how the same Big Tech monopolies that were so quick to shut down President Trump’s social media accounts when his supporters came to riot had wholeheartedly embraced the #BLM cause and continued to let their platforms be used by #BLM and Antifa to organize disruptive protests, riots, and territorial occupations for weeks on end?

Do they think we have forgotten how people—from social media influencers to politicians like our incoming Vice President nominated for her race after #BLM—elevated their careers championing #BLM while, today, we are seeing people losing their jobs for joining (or persecuted for donating to) the pro-Trump assault on the Capitol?

No, we have not forgotten, and we will not forget. There is a real double standard at work. It is a glaring one, not the one President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris claim exists but, rather, the one they want to gaslight us into accepting. That double standard being perpetuated by all the organs of the elite media, Big Tech, woke capital, the celebrity class, and the political class is precisely what has led to so many of President Trump’s supporters resorting to violence; they and their concerns are not being heard. Their anger, like #BLM’s anger, is no excuse for violence. I believe in a single standard for everyone, and that those who break the law in the name of any cause should be held to account. For reasons I have previously explained, I voted for President Trump in 2020 despite his many flaws, and yet I think his behavior since the election has been childish, irresponsible, dangerous, and unbecoming of the Presidency. I will make no excuses for him or for his more intemperate supporters. But as long as one side of the equation—with its angry, racially divisive rhetoric and its violent actions to undermine law and order and shake America to its foundations—keeps getting a free pass, the other side of the equation will never add up, and the delicate balance between them will never amount to a functional democracy that works for everyone.

Alexander Zubatov is a lawyer in New York, as well as an essayist and poet. 

Former Pres. France Sarkozy Gets Jail Term For Corruption

SEE: Criminal Exploits of NICOLAS SARKOZY

Sarkozy: Former French president sentenced to jail for corruption

Nicolas Sarkozy in court in Paris, 1 March 2021IMAGE COPYRIGHT REUTERS
Nicolas Sarkozy appeared in court on Monday


French ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy has been sentenced to three years in jail, two of them suspended, for corruption.

He was convicted of trying to bribe a judge in 2014 – after he had left office – by suggesting he could secure a prestigious job for him in return for information about a separate case.

Sarkozy, 66, is the first former French president to get a custodial sentence.

His lawyer says he will appeal. Sarkozy will remain free during that process which could take years.

In the ruling, Judge Christine Mée said the conservative politician “knew what [he] was doing was wrong”, adding that his actions and those of his lawyer had given the public “a very bad image of justice”.

The crimes were specified as influence-peddling and violation of professional secrecy.

It is a legal landmark for post-war France. The only precedent was the trial of Sarkozy’s predecessor Jacques Chirac, who got a two-year suspended sentence in 2011 for having arranged bogus jobs at Paris City Hall for allies when he was Paris mayor. Chirac died in 2019.

If Sarkozy’s appeal is unsuccessful, he could serve a year at home with an electronic tag, rather than go to prison.

His wife, supermodel and singer Carla Bruni, reacted by describing the case as “senseless persecution”, adding that “the fight continued, and truth would come out”.

Who is Nicolas Sarkozy?

Nicolas Sarkozy served one five-year term as president from 2007. He adopted tough anti-immigration policies and sought to reform France’s economy during a presidency overshadowed by the global financial crisis.

Critics nicknamed him “bling-bling”, seeing his leadership style as too brash, celebrity-driven and hyperactive for a role steeped in tradition and grandeur.

His celebrity image was reinforced by his marriage to Bruni in 2008. In 2012 he lost his re-election bid to Socialist François Hollande.

Carla Bruni with Nicolas Sarkozy on a state visit to London in 2008IMAGE COPYRIGHT GETTY IMAGES
Sarkozy began a much-publicised relationship with Carla Bruni after he took power in 2007

Since then he has been targeted by several criminal investigations.

In 2017 he tried to make a political comeback, but failed as his centre-right Les Républicains party chose another presidential candidate instead.

What is the corruption case about?

Sarkozy was on trial with two co-defendants, his lawyer Thierry Herzog and Gilbert Azibert, a senior judge.

The case centred on phone conversations between Sarkozy and Herzog that were taped by police in 2014.

Investigators were looking into claims that Sarkozy had accepted illicit payments from the L’Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt for his 2007 presidential campaign.

The prosecution convinced the court that Sarkozy and Herzog had sought to bribe Azibert with a prestigious job in Monaco in return for information about that investigation.

French media reported that Sarkozy was heard telling Herzog: “I’ll get him promoted, I’ll help him.”

The phone line police tapped was a secret number set up in a fictional name, Paul Bismuth, through which Sarkozy communicated with his lawyer.

On Monday Herzog and Azibert were also sentenced to three years in jail, two of them suspended.

Presentational grey line

From wronged politician to convict

Analysis box by Hugh Schofield, Paris correspondent

Nicolas Sarkozy is no stranger to legal investigations – since he left the presidency he has been the object of half a dozen – but up until now his record sheet has been clean. There was plenty of mud, but none of it stuck.

Half an hour in a courtroom in Paris’s new Palais de Justice changed all that. Judge Mée read out a verdict that spared nothing, and no-one. Sarkozy, Thierry Herzog and Gilbert Azibert all knew perfectly well what they were doing, she said.

They were trading confidential information for professional favours. And that was corruption in any book.

It is not the end of the affair, by any stretch. The appeal could take years. His team will continue to argue that the case rested on ill-gotten evidence – chance eavesdroppings on confidential phone-chats between a man and his lawyer.

But from today Sarkozy cuts a different figure. Before he was the wronged ex-president, fighting back against a left-wing judicial cabal. Now he has been convicted in a court of law.

Presentational grey line

What other accusations is Sarkozy facing?

He is due to go on trial next month over the so-called Bygmalion affair, in which he is accused of having overspent in his unsuccessful 2012 campaign.

Prosecutors are also investigating claims that Sarkozy received funding for his 2007 campaign from Libya’s then-leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Sarkozy has already been cleared in connection with the Bettencourt case. He had said all investigations against him were politically motivated.

Despite his legal woes he has remained popular in right-wing circles, a year away from another presidential election.

Republicans Who Supported Democrat Agenda Targeted For Ouster

‘Humans Against Mike Lee’ campaign launches to unseat senator for opposing Trump impeachment

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney has failed, and continues to fail, to represent the average conservative Utah Republican voter.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney misrepresented himself as a Republican.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney has prioritized his personal and political vendetta against President Donald J. Trump ahead of the Constitution of the United States, the interest of We, the People, and the advancement of the Republican Platform.

WHEREAS; President Donald J. Trump received 58.13% in Utah’s 2020 General Election.

WHEREAS Senator Willard Mitt Romney embarrassed the State of Utah when he was the only U.S. Republican Senator in 2019 to join the Democrats partisan vote to convict President Donald J. Trump.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney voted against Senator Rand Paul’s motion regarding the unconstitutionality of impeaching a private citizen.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney voted to continue the Un-Constitutional Impeachment Trial of President Donald J.Trump to allow witnesses after House Managers had previously failed to call any witness prior to their rushed impeachment vote in the House, thus Denying President Donald J. Trump Due Process Rights under the Constitution.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney voted guilty in the 2021 Impeachment Trial of former President Donald J. Trump.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney saw fit to intentionally violate the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment Rights of President Donald J. Trump.

WHEREAS, Senator Willard Mitt Romney used and uses his senatorial power and influence to undermine Republican President Donald J. Trump.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney has condoned false and misleading statements that have led the 117th Congress of the United States to further conduct an illegal and unconstitutional 2nd Impeachment proceeding against President Donald J.Trump.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney fails to ensure election integrity and continues to condemn those who do.

WHEREAS; the Utah Republican Party leadership has failed to issue a censure.


We, the undersigned voters, censure Senator Willard Mitt Romney.

Michael James
Marcy Underdahl
Larry Meyers
Lisa Shepherd
Allen Arnoldsen
Don Guymon
Aaron Bullen
Cindy L Shepherd
Susan Kay Anderson
Charlotte Wakefield
Laura Ferry
Bradley Green
Maria Diosdado
Cynthia Black
Gayle Rice
Janice Legler
Judy Woodward
Shanna Barton
Harley Woodward
Kirby Smith
Drew Chamberlain
Rachael Beasley
Robin Towle
Nancy P.
Beth A. Hartung-Soria
Maureen Rice
Art Christensen
Amy J Workman
Stephen N Millet
Jonnie Maughan
Amy Lloyd
Terri Palmer
Samantha Banner-Carreno
Kevin Harper
William Olson
Arturo Morales LLan
Lynn Jackson
William S Both (Bill)
Justin Miller
Don Houskeeper
Joe Taylor
Brent Keith Garner
Kassidy Koch
Linda Houskeeper
Jodi May
Deanna Holland
Jeralene Young
Robert Adams
Cynthia Perkins
Cevin Ormond
Meredith Leatham
Sheila Braun
Kaye Gladwell
Brooke Johnson
Klaye Slack
Robert Langworthy
Curtiss Perkins
Richard D Owens
Shelley Hupp
ElRsy L Anderson
W. G. Fairclough, Jr.
Tami Gray
Richard Chayer
Burke Johansen
Jenny Alder
Kathy Wilson
Don Smith
C. Kirk Rogers
Janalee Tobias
Nancy Green
Brandon Russell
Pamela Bridwell
Werner Weeks
Kelly Green
Todd J Thurgood
Tesa Smith
Amy Ritchie
Cathlene Smith
Mark johnson
Julie Green
Darin Bushman
Becky Gelderloos
Catie Anderson
Kimberli Gabaldon
Mary L. Taylor
John Taylor
Kevin Harris
Richard B. Smith
Traci Nichols
Otto Krauss
Clayton Hinman
Kassandra Berger
Rocky Bishop
Kim D. Johansen
Robert Gibbons
Darla Patterson
Ashley McNamee
Kristin Hayes
Susan L. Shaw
Rebecca Doty
Trevor George
Julie Eskelson
Laura Duncan
Kelly Clawson
Daleine Martin
Mark Steed
Gary Pease
Caridaun tobler
Jalene Davis
Don Cann
William Evans
Kellee Baird
Beverly Syrett
Ray Pini
Morgan Marie Brown
Glenn Olsen
Vince Oller
David Johnson
L.W. Howell
Craig Ferguson
Mark Yeates
Sue Dredge
Jared mickelsen
Phill Wright
Kristi Rivera
Stuart Radford
Jared J. Vanallen
Karena D Parkinson
Jerry Smart
LeAnn Bushnell
Annette Harris
Julie Gale
Richard Bushnell
George Jones
VerNonn Burkey
Lisa Ceniceros
Lesly Broadwater
Gary Moore
Joyce Joan Fenton
Traci Forsey
Stephen L. Dean
Brian Finn
Kaisa Schmidt
Chris Hatch
Aspen M Westenskow
Jill Stephens
David Pierce
Lee Ann. Brockbank
Trevor George
Loretta Johnson
Amy Bonnell
Merrill Brockbank
Jennifer Greenwood
Alvin Nash
Steve Smith
JoEllen Peterson
Lisa Smith
Marc Cooper
Daren Cottam
Ann Rose Berglind
Lisa Cottam
Frances Lay
John Schulz
Jill Tobler
Merl Guth
Kourtnay Cox
Kimberly Hermann
Lora Lewis
Cathy Hope
Marcelle B Cox
Dereck Hope
Lonni Clarke
Loie Lowry
Gene Heaton
Nick Bitton
Troy Hansen
Neil Varner
Barbara L Naylor
Linda Yarbrough
Donald H Harden
Sullivan Love
John Agar
Terry Bridwell
Bruce Kupfer
Daniel L Naylor
Laurie agar
LeAnn Gay
Paula J. Milby
Lani Love
Julie Paz
Scott Jackson
George D Crawford
Steven Diamond
Jeffrey Nielsen
Ethan Hay
Amanda Broadhead
Heather Boxell
Carolyn Fugal
Teena Horlacher
Willi Christensen
Layne Hansen
Elizabeth Allen
Haylee Bennett
Deon Jensen
Stacey Anne Stacey
Christopher Franklin
Michelle Anderson
Justin Conder
Erik Jensen
Helen S Naylor
Jorge Luis Lopez
Danny Stacey
Bob Andersen
WenDee Russon
James d olsen
Dorrell Barker
Jennifer Moroz
Kevin Dimond
David Tayloe
Dennis Gunn
Trena Harrison
DonnaVee Best
Jennifer Monthey
Becky Romney Zackrison
David Nielsen
Patricia Hahaj
Christine Boardman
Charlie Harrison
Neil Schultz
Debra Sutherland
Mark J Salcedo
Trudy Lund
Chris Kilmer
DonnaVee Best
Chris Davies
Russell Dye
maribeth merton
Rebecca Nix
Becky Larsen
Angela halliday
Joanna Lucero
Christal Holley
Daniel Scott Naylor
Ryan Kelander
Keith Kuder
Krista Pulsifer
Jared Bigham
Lisa Diane
Craig Ferguson
Karen olson
Allen Nielsen
Greg Hughes
Stacy Kienle
Stadelmayer Edward J
Justin Taylor
Rhonda Nelsen
Greg Cox
Mary W. Burkett
Brenda Paige
Crystal Harrison
Mary Ann Rudenborg
Cindy Bass
Anthony C Daniels
David Fanaras
Kyle Foc
Amanda Carlson
Elizabeth St Germain
Misty Paul
Wilfredo Diaz
Tammy Mott
Shannon Long
Donna Pellegrini
Kristina Hooper
Sonia Emigh
Travis Tanner
Ashlee Forti
Emily Ferentino
Sandra Blankenship
Lynette Woode
Debbie Morris
Janet LeeBurt
Lily Duran
Heather Conlon
Barbara Sawyer
Rawneat Davikaher
Angie Black
Debra Lemburg
Carolyn Choate
Brook Wardle
Thomas Andrew Menard
JoAn McLean-Turner
Bobby Samons
Deborah Grey
Kimberly Gaylord
Martha Gosselin
Janet Smart
Mark Slama
Mystina Slade
Patricia Simeone
Teri Alvarado
Deanna Deangelo
Kent Nielsen
Brian L Smart
Alan Riggs
Nichole Weiss
trudy williams
Lorin Smart
Juan Farran
Reginald Hughes
Nola Peterson
Janis Howse
Richard jarman
Nate Robertson
Kathleen Hawley
Roald E. Peterson Jr
Ashlee Lund
Ashley Johnson
Wendy Ozenne
Debbie Sather
Brad J. Beus
Jeannine Ulrich
Nickole Tanner
Jodi Hugoe
Brandon Rivera
Travis Tanner
Gary Marshall
Robert L Hugoe
Gail Harrington
Rex Stanworth
Timothy Thach
Brent Jackson
Laura L Guthrie
Katherine Elaine Adamson
Brent anderson
Michelle Kountz
Leigh Ann Beckham
Robin Tolleson
Jen Ottens
Dale Anderson
Carolyn Moosman
Shelley Monson
Mary Maxson
Ilene Anderson
Tina Cole
Kelli Arnoldson
Myra McGavin
Patt Mazzola
Richard R. Palmer
Ron Moosman
Peggy Denning
Cynthia Trautz
Shelley Monson
James Trautz
Kaylee Hawkins
Robert Dunn
Karl Donaldson
Debra L Gillett
Silke Oellrich
Bonita L Saunders
Tyler Hawkins
Terry Finnegan
Alice Valentine
Kay Ericson
Holly Daniels
Leesa Davis
Stephanie Danko
Mark Shea
Kay wenker
Al Patron Cassidy
Lauren Fowler
Kristy Williams
Mrs. Jessica Meyer
David Owen
Burke Christensen
Joan Heckel
Sheila Plourde
Linda Susan Weeks
Robert Hatch
Michele Christensen
Roland Whitesides
Kerri Gruebner
Brittany Green
Allen Parker
Ray Tripp
Glodeane Billeter
Sheila Davis
Jodi Conner
ambrea banagas
Janell Littlebear
Keri Bushman
Amber Howarth
Sharlene Malan
Jason hill
Chasidy Willhelm
Sheila Bess
Roger Stanworth
Michael D Rose
Scott Pehrson
Kayleen Flynn
Stanley Bess
Margaret Wilkin
Paul Gabaldon
Diane L Grieco
Phyllis A Monson
Linda Strauss
Craig A. Burbank
Eric Haws
Marlene Bodiford
Cindy Stringer
April Aguilar
Sally Farb
Becky Fales
Bret Bryce
Robert Hughes
Elizabeth Spicer
Robert B Shepherd
Richard Gardiner
Julie Eskelson
Janet Geyerman
Jim Neff
William F. Beach
Bryce Coons
Rowena montoya
Amberly Ethington
Summer Jones
Judith Mozley
Steven Ethington
Patty Johanson
Toni Sparrow
Warren McGuire
Susan C. Hatch
Bryan Christensen
Lindsey Carnahan
Joseph MacDowell
Maria Soza
Mertie Tonjes
Kathleen Reed
Elizabeth Carlin
Krystle Cordingley
Sharon Dotson
Anne Carman
Bert Walker
Kip Carman
Michael Lake
Anne Dunion
Ashley Orgill
Desiree Smith
Amy Saunders
Rick Smith
Ruth Cummings
Kendel Saunders
Martin Chatterley
Ryan Guy Palmer
Pita Hopoate
Rebecca Olson
Jeffery Harris
Paula Dalley
Sharon Law
Jeanne Weigel
Rhonda Covert
Sheri Harris
Sandra Ferraro
Tamara Marcroft
Barbara Donahue
Mary Ammend
Robert Law
Mildred Winter
Marie Owens
David Shelburne
Dale Gibson
Deborah Klemin
Deborah Doucas
Fred Owens
Julie Knudsen
Stephen O’Hearn
Terrie White
Toni Marroquin
Steve Wright
Debra E. Provence
Steffnie Shepherd
Toni Marroquin
Sarah Mitte
james Jackson
Sylvia Overson
Dinah Apple
Jason tayor
Jordan Clay
Juan Lara
Brenda Medina
Brian Probasco
Ryan Warczak
Rodasi Ishaya
Heather Dennis
Dustin McCleve
Jill K Ruggieri
Jann McConkie
Leilani Taukeiaho
Clare Clay
Jeff Atwood
Mark E. Peterson
Johnny Taukeiaho
Paul Minger
Julie Lisonbee
Alisha urbaniak
Robert W Hair
Roger Barton
Daniel Davidson
Daniel Hurley
Deborah Avery
Dave Elery
Zac Hamby
Dawnette Clyde
David Williams
Julie Hancock
Isileli Tukuafu
Judy Darby
Matthew W Bell
Kelsie Atwood
Chris Langlois
LeRoy Gibson
Jen Chiniquy
Victoria Wells
Doug Barton
Casey Thomas
Jonathan Wellman
Tim linton
Louise Garcia
Cindy Howell
Angela Livernois
Carolyn Lietuvininkas
Johnnie schear
Russell Sias
James Pruitt
Joseph Clay
Doug Butts
Jaime Allen
Pete Olson
Tom Kerr
Marci Stahl
Lauro Lacerda
Cindy Kerr
Paul Everly
Stephen Griner
Timothy Mccloud
Chrystal Smith
Sherry Hunt
linda g beyer
Katherine L Cole
Adam Jacox
Scott Darley
Bonnie Burson
Johanna Murrieta
Coulton Woodger
Lyndsy Tippetts
Sarah Foster
Paul Perdue
Linda merill
Debora kahny
Emily Santa Cruz
Patricia Jones
Patricia Whitten Bell
Tracey Brown
Victoria Fielding
Heather Swymeler
Tracy Cowley
Nancy Schumacher
Kathy Sifuentes
Tim VanVranken
Derek Harris
Mark Brack
Christie Yu
Jason mooney
Kimberly Ferrell
Jean Chen
Janet Gutierrez
Julie Long Gortler
Jamie Barrow
Beckie Lewis
Renee Yakiwchuk
Randall Martin
Tom Rucker
Walter Hale
Mark Ursic
Sean Snyder
Richard Bylsma
Steven Christensen
Reagan Brunger
Johnny Brian
Nancy Myers
Lydia Stelmae
Destry Griffiths
Rodney Myers
Scott D Farnsworth
James Calveri
Marci Brooks
Adrianne Sorensen
Jennifer Darger
Tom Faircloth
Lora Lane
Tiffany wiley
Philip L Bugher, SSG U.S. ARMY Retired
James Watson
Paula Johnson
Roy Watson
Cal Harlow
Jacqueline Fritz
Heather Griesemer
Laurie larsen
Judy Pierce
Donna Roylance
Doyle R. Griffith
Mark Griesemer
Jamie L. Girardi
Sue Wood
Moy M Chambers
Wyatt Allinson
Lee Clark
Junie Harlow
Jennifer Contreras
Caleb MitsVotai
Jan Collard
LaVerne Hunt
Natalie Cook
Austin Barton
Janice Erickson
Donna Sanchez
Ranae Boyer
Marley Millety
Maribel Chin
Joseph Kilpatrick
Brad Millett
Benjamin Blauer
Teena Horlacher
Edward Chin
Michael Nasella
Liam Gent
yes i want mitt to go
Maureen Burd
Nancy Elliott
Kelly R. Strebel
Bob Castagno
Lauri B Madsen
Adam Arrington
Joseph Rupp
Kieth Rawlings
Eileen Erekson
Shirley Altenes
Jeremiah S. Barlow
Lisa Barney
Steven S. Boyer
Tanissa Skeen
Sandra Critchlow
Barbara Puakea Balatico
Thomas Ellis
Jeff Pulver
Daniel Stephenson
Zachary Vincent
Daniel Altenes
Marianne K Boren
Adam Johnson
Marsha Stafford
Brett Lafeen
Royce Iverson
Terry Poulton
Gena M Jepsen
Theresa Brown
Gregg Gunzenhauser
Ryan Wall
Aaron Kaupp
Jana Olsen
Gerald Wagner
Korry Soper
Scott Olsen
elizabeth wagner
Chris Critchlow
Rod Kynaston
Bruce L.Boren
Danita Knickerbocker
Jules Brannon
Holly J Perry
Lisa Schroeder
Randy Wall
Jon Stratton
Max J Nield
Dana Erickson
Leisy Lisa
Thomas Cook
Sara Patterson
Steven Gifford
Emily Peterson
Trent Fredrickson
Barbara Jackson
Lois Leikam
Randy L. Thompson
Lyndon Brittner
Nickole Tanner
Wayne Burcham
Tricia Lavin
Kym McClimans
Ashley Pedersen
Sandra Mol
Nellrisa Warren
Paul M. Tom
Herschel Jones
Wanda K Anderson
Roger McClimans
Clarice Wayman
Sheila Jones
Cory Thompson
Rich Jarman
Lori Wolterman
Regena Persinger
Randall D McCleve
Anthony J Anderson
Kim Davis
Kenny Winters
Shannan Dowling
Brian R. Wilkin
Rebecca Hines
Joshua Jarman
David Hendrickson
Sydney Jarman
Amy Hofer
Marilyn Aiken
Michael Herner
Charles D Aiken
Jusy l blackner
Barbara Reeds
Wendy Gardner
Christi Wolsey
Dennis t blackner
Darci Brown
Marlene Harlow
Heather Kupfer
Kristen Smith
Leslie Savitz
Jaime Batewell
Garnett Schultz
Debra Hiett
Christina Colton
Cochise Murray
Trudy Teichert Lamb
Toni Grant
VickiAnn Higgs
Jerry R Anderson
Cheryl Waterman
Nicholas H Manning
Sheila Hunter
Jentrie Williams
Edward Scott
Michelle Brown
Justin Cook
Kirt Rawlings
Casey Flynn
Nicholas Manning
Tana Hallows
Terry Cox
Linda Ferrante
Leesa Kearl
Walt n jarvis
Bonnie Ralph
Rich Bowman Jr.
Brent Fairclough
Shelley Monson
Elizabeth Gasser
Cori Hyland
Luann Abbott
Kristy Snyder
Mark Lafferty
Julie Thatcher
Todd Holland
Deanne Bettino
Charlene Barber
Tara Chambers
Peg Kull
Connie M8nard
Karen Roylance
Renae Mears
Marie Whale
Melinda Hilleary
Konneen Willis
Brian Hardy
James Vanwagoner
Dev Brown
Austin Dixon
Bethany Hopoate
Mark H Robinson
Lakisha Lefevers
Leland H Boardman
Leilani Gray
Rowdy Chadwick
Mark Gray
Leann Bowman
Bev myers
Michael Grover Coltharp II
Julie Forrest
Robert Bishop
Kathy A. Thompson
Jennifer Boatwright
Kevin Thompson
Shelly Branz
Kamryn Thompson
Donnalyn Dwyer
M Shane Leishman
Kathleen Flygare
Kyle Jameson
Maurine Allen
Lloyd Dauer
Jc Black
Eileen Prevost
Gina Drake
David Crandall
Joseph DiGiovanna
Rheta Martinez
Dana Glaviano
Lisa Ashby
Douglas Nowak
Gary Glaviano
Tresa Christensen
Casey Brown
Thomas Barrie
Brad Warner
Janet Gates
Daniel M Gates
Jayne Coleman
Jack L. Stickney
Selena Thayne
Sabrina Robinson
Aubrey Jeppson
Sharina Latch
Colleen Staheli
Ron Payne
Rebekah Raymond
Zachary Merkley
Raegan Warren
Jaran Higley
Derek Smith
Michael Wilson
Megan Dennis
Rodney Bennett
Chris Booth
Berta Guerrero Hillison
Ella Early
Bartt ratcliffe
Darwin N. Davis D.D.S.
Debra Hendrickson
Leona Hicks
Gary J Wilson
Lori Youngblood
Alan Youngblood
Village Idiot
Robin Ensminger
Mike Grover Coltharp
Hubert Lumpkin
Mitt Romney
Willy Wonka
John Donald Turnp
Tanya LaBauve Hudkins
Pamela Kelley
David Shelton
Holly Goetz
Mark Bliss
Joan Francis
Dawn L Krisher
Shannon Marshall
Robie Cagle
Darlyn Arnesen
Matthew Williams
Lori Gelter
Tiffani D. Kurts
Patricia Kolman
Drew Coombs
Kathy Herman
Becky Johnson
Mildred E Hatfield
Scott Mabey
Randall D Jones
Robert Bryce Larabee
Janet Eyring
Sandra Davis
Brent Bein
Kay Whiting Harrison
David Bithell
Jill Metz
Michelle Cole
Karen Church
Charles Cole
Braxston T. Hughes
Lianne Ames
Christine Dunn
Royce Monson
Darrin Singletary
James R McAdams
Dalana Morse
Melanie Hungerford
Patricia Gerdes
Elaine Lacey
Glory Thomas
Zachary j Beach
Mike Spendlove
Lana Hanover
Tiffany Bearden
Richard Zebe
Tod wilson
Tiffany Sigmon
Jayni Anderson
Ron King
Sylvia Buckley
Nicole Sparks
Rebecca Fabiszak
Pamela Cantrell
Carmella B Mifflin
Barbara Hughes
Shanna Wilson
Robyn Veater
Cathleen Vanasse
Charles Vanasse
Heather Dievendorff
Shelly Martinez
Taresa Hiatt
Robert Zufelt
Lynn Hiatt
Natalee Pemberton
Jason Hoggan
Lorne Jensen
leslie a crick
steven crick
Melvin Ralph
Gary Walkee
Brook Allred
Janet Vincent
Gail Gardner
Ronald Vincent
Shane Gardner
Milton berlin
Derek Hopper
Brenden Borrowman
Kathryn Starling
Heather Salser
Troy Salser
Worth Barham
Frank Hatch
Shauna Hatch
Kyle Jacox
Cory Douglas
Garrick ainge
Rosemarie Marshall
Christan Strong
Oak Norton
Sharon Lewis
Diane Hardy Empey
Ashley Empey
Mike Gilbert
Justin Page
Katelon Gilbert
Kirsten Bascom
Tyler Jense
Rebecca strongo
Teresa Richfird
Elaine Rudd
Gary Chamberlain
Pamela A McIntosh
Shelley Morrell
Jacob R Creason
Joe Hando
Richard R McIntosh
Dawn Sutherland
Judith A Adams
Blake Hyatt
Kreg butterfield
Betty Hyatt
Kevin Kozak
Annette Hansen
margaret overson
Scott Karkos
Karen Rudman
Michelle Schlentz
Letty Willden
Larry Blanchet
Sidney Jensen
Brent V Peterson
Nancy J. Inman
Janna Stout Morrell
Jeanine Milliner
Todd Andrus
Jill Beard
Sophia Anderson
Rebecca Fabiszak
Les Farnsworth
Bradley Johnson
Lana Schultz
Kristen Barnes
Andrea Allred
Blayde Crockett
Garry Berg
Gary Richins
Richard Vondrus
Janelle Kentch
Pamela McKinnon
Diana A Williams
Eleanor Byrd
Ofa Afu
Lori Weiss
Kyle Hicks
jack l cleghorn
Patricia Lybbert
Stewart Finley
Laura Tramell
Camille Behunin
Leslie Hubrich
Linda Harlow
Sandra Howell
Dan H
Jean Corey
De Ann Moore
Debra lee rodriguez
Lyle Harlow
David Rubinger
Pierre duvall rodriguez
Paul James
Hayden Moss
Austin Clark
Mary Smith
David Dalbey
Jeff Tomlinson
Mike Vanalfen
Donald Bird
Mike Burke
Jennifer Thurston
Rosanne Silverwood
Rodasi Ishaya
Benjamin Allred
Mary Voss
Jhan Miller
Janie Schulthies
Leslie Eskelson
Karen Davis
Swede Larson
Julie Edwards
Joseph Scott Edwards
Richard Parks
Katherine P Olson
Shauna Jorgenson
Robert Sorensen
Trista Criswell
Regina Devlin
Robert Sloat
Kevin Hastings
Karson Hughes
Brandon Ralph
Tawni Stewart
Tj Edwards
George Dye
Heath Burchinal
Pamela Edwards
Mike Carpenter
Steffanie Norton
Michael Beaumont
Scott Conley
Karen Hodgson
Michelle Mosley
Wesley tallon
Frank Overfelt
Kelly J DeMello
Ryan Misrasi
Merae Kimbsll
Janalee Gold
Brandon Todd Sandstrom
Connie Hawkins
Jill Bodily
Catherine Gettman
Brenda Babcock
Ronald Craig Bruin
Colton Christensen
Shawn Gilbert
Anthony bishop
Dani Ray Wharton
Cynthia Antonelli
Steve White
Antonio Antonelli
Toni Nicole Antonelli
Michael Antonelli
Lindsay Pugh
Kenneth Kay
Seanna Williams
Christine Weston
Jill Kirk
Jason Cramer
Jason lester
Cathrynn Cramer
Susanne Burbank
April Elizabeth Hewitt
Wendy Cheney
Helena Kleinlein
Shannon Spainhower
Kennith C Hall
Stephen Randall Oveson
Cheryl Marz
Tiffany Pickett
Stephen C. Kelsey
Sylvia Borowiak
Jayne Barrus
Natalie Cox
Michele Larsen
Lucretia Harvey
Michael Gray
John Allen
Brent Russell
Toni Schoenborn
Lance Mudrow
Angie Quinonez
Veronica Ernest
Peggy Burdett
Shelly Jensen
Robert Blackburn
Julie Merrell
Mark Burdett
Lesley Guzman
Tammy Panfil
Michelle Thone
Judy J Sceili
Sandra McKee- Smuin
William Tim Hansen
Laurie Frazier
Panela Ransom
Gayle Peacock
Bradley Kalmar
Rebecca Hansen
Del William Smith
James Barker
Dustin Del Toro
Alan Sanders
Eric Steele
vernon brent allphin
Bonnie Sanders
Cynthia Bennett
Misty Braithwaite
Peter Mills
Mindy Walkingshaw
Collette Peacock
Colleen Carter
Carla Walker
Robert Diamond
Clarence Byington
Morris Clark
John L Smith
Lori Cooksey
Stacy Salmans
MarJean Pitcher
Todd Strelka
April Stoker
Michael Yates
Ronald Nielsen
Gary Hake
David T Walker
Newell Christensen
Zella Christensen
Kristin Randall
Jeff Sorenson
Gary Myrup
JaCoby Marston
David Hutchins
Jill Boyson
Clint Larsen
Krysten Lusty
D. Patterson
Forrest Lewis
Darcy Adams
Angelique Lowery
Joe Evans
Tammy Clarke
Dolores D Wiker
Todd D Glover
Vickie Hatch
Blaine Hatch
Theodore W. Schultz
Carolyne Jensen
Jeff Schramm
Rebecca L. Campbell
Renee Mikkelson
Ken Wright
Debra Cox
Lee nelson
Shannon Cloward
Dorothy Fraga
Paula King
Marilyn J Momeny
Lynne Whitt
Steven D Wilcock
Laura Jensen
Dixie Trevino
Tana Alexa
Helena Kleinlein
Rudy Trevino
Douglas Christenson
Patrick G. Whitt
Angela Alison Brown
Marian Bankemper
Scottie Sorensen
Shalyn Richtsteig
Shanece Leausa Fuimaono
Liz Hammond
Lindsay Pugh
Megan Johnson
Leah C Henderson
Darkness Kunzler
Dennis Hooper
Nicholas Willis
Larry & Karin Stone
Anthony Kociela
Nikki Jacobsen
Michelle Harris
Robert r shan jr
Mindy Mair
Daniel Houchen
Rebecca Phillips
Apryl Lund
Andrea Shirts Nelson
Shanalee Simper
Thomas Milner
Marilyn P Danielson
Arthur R Barnard
Dorothy Anne Jepsen
Leo C Branz
Debra Judkins
Erin Vendetti
Robert Harrington
Anthony kociela
Michael Henriksen
Nancy Jane Olpin
Rickie T Taylor
Kathy Nelson
Ruth Ann Milner
Tara Hobbs
Rodney Hobbs
Brian Flint
kenneth fannin
Horace Fleming
Lee Dove
Janice Alderson
Betty Hassell
Sally Squire
Rodney G. Hobbs
Denise gooch
Michael Squire
Stephen Alderson
Steve Stockberger
Sheila Geesa
Casey Christopherson
Laura J Ross
Susan Palmer Baker
Mrs. Sarah Anderson
Marie DelAguila
Hayden Davis
Allen Berg
Shelli Hufstetler
Nancy Tippets
Kipp Gavin
Leo Lipsie
Lorna Y Bitton
Craig Heffernon
Les Bitton
Wendy Barlow
Edward Reott
Darren Miller
Sara Hendricks
Dustin Bishop
Janice Payne Hymas
Kevin Anderson
Jonathan nelson
Jill McCloud
Ben Barlow
Debra Ley
Alanna Bean
Denna Robertson
Charles Mock
Vicky Keeth
Kevin Rushton
Cynthia Wassom
David Valentine
Glen Meyer
Steven M Visser
Nancy Jones
Robert Spendlove
Thomas Chapman
Sherry Cragun
Lynn Stout
Cody Cross
Shari worthen
Joseph A. Elder
Charles Russell Robinson
Russell Etheringtin
Andrea Lang
Kenneth Maloy
Jill McCloud
Russell Etheringtin
Helen Clawson
F Stewart Clawson
Glen Cox
Amanda Clanton
Eddie Stevenson
Rob Broadhead
Heather Ryan
Richard Bosler
Brian Wood
Kathleen C. Burns
James Weeks
John L Milliner
Blake Woodring
Lenora Spencer
Ellaine Chournos
Kerry Bang
Robert Robison
Rachael Montgomery
Matthew Montgomery
Betty Wentz
Cindy Cossairt
Richard Genck
Keith Brady
Dean Warkentin
Teri Thomas
Linda Holt
Crystal Sims
Tyle Ramshur
Kathryn Warkentin
Carolyn Tibbetts
Steve Horne
Marilyn Oveson
Brent Undhjem
Gretchen Denton
Gayline Rhinehart
Linda Brinkerhoff
Marilyn Middlesworth
Perry Renner
Alanna Bean
Penny Dunford
Greg Harris
Daniel B.Dunford
Troy w Bradley
Jodi Lynn Kaili
John w. Reynolds
Nathan Burton
Sylvia Weidlein
Blaine Syewart
Douglas Bronson
Tamra kendrick
Kari Kowalewski
Sandra barlow
Laura Ferguson
Tamara Laing
Corey Kendrick
Nina Hart
Candace washburn
Rick Jackson
Patricia Snow
Cathy Owens
D. Terry Noorda
Jon Beelsey
Mary G Smith
Penny Bridges
Dennis Bassett
Michael Scharbach
Terry Stewart
Pam Anderson
Kevin Richey
Richard Anderson
John Bingham
Jami Christopherson
Lisa Gillis
Guy Laing
Frank Lindhardt
Hollie Hansen
Debra Terry
Sandra Nielson
Chuck Mauronrt
Belinda Mallinak
Arthur O Davis II
Blaine Johnston
Howard Gillingham
Beckie Herring
Nancy Whitney
Lora lee wise
Lyle Goodsell
Lyle Goodsell
Scott Whitney
Lyman Grant Johnson
Dixie Millet
Barbara Undhjem
Darrell J Priest
William Blackwell
Jared Rea
Tony Roberts
Barry Clanton
Dr. Chris Taylor
Matthew Nelson
Marilyn Richardson
Clarissa Griffith
Jeff Groesbeck
Jeanette Keate
Jourdan Dixon
Kristy Ryan
Dennis Gardner
Susan Lindberg
Charles F Beickel
Gerry Saunders
Virginia Hucks
Colleen Gotberg
Trisha Hamilton
Paul Gotberg
Orrin Andersen
Rodney Stott
Richard Walton
Forrest B Allred
Karla Hullinger
Please resign.
Cathy Esplin
Terri Edmunds
Howard Gillingham
Kent Jenkins
Shari worthen
jimmie owens
Bryson Gillingham
Alice Skidmore Allred
Beth LaGrant
Nephi Lewis
Jay Lawrence
David J Rhees
David J Rhees
Wanling cooper
Tiffany Vanzeben
Terry Putnam
Chrystal Hartman
Thayle Wilkins
Marissa Gardner
Cherri Pidgeon
James Trump
Lori Wehling
Kellie Spendlove
Denna Hatch
B. L. Goddard
Nate Laing
Tylor John Young
John Bergeron
Russell McConkie
Liesl Li
Stephanie Given
Nickole George
brian rogers
Kenneth Smith
Marjorie Haun-Storland
Benjamin Wilkins
Skyler Spendlove
Richard A Jensen
Robert Herbstritt
David Johnson
Margaret Herbstritt
Miguel Munleon
Karolyne Johnson
Nathan R. Davis
Brent Sorensen
George Patterson
Larry Vance
Annie Webber
Darryl L. Williams
Andrea Beyerlein
Michael Leavitt
Patty Dunn
Holli Johnson
Justin Bybee
Carol S.
Janelle Ruesch
Joyce Pedersen
Rebecca Campbell
Michael Campbell
Mary Fuller
Lisa McDougle
Amy patton
Robert John Primbs, Jr.
Annette Everett
Gail Zahran
Dennis Knox
Caroline Sheehan
Kelle Olsen
Jeremy Nowak
Joel V. Storland
Cathy Thorsen
Darrin Williams
Amy Null
Annie Sturm
John Elroy Christianson
C. B. Paddock
Brien Smith
Larry Stephens
Dan Wade
Paul S. Ensign
Kyle Weaver
Cynthia Geertsema
Arbon Nordgran
Veronica Hollestelle
Steve Russell
Paul Hofheins
Julie Bryson
Christopher Porter
Jodi Bailey
Bobbi Jo Trimming
Riki Ashment
Ryan VanBeekum
Karen Yost
Richard Baldree
Brent K Allred
Steve Bryson
Gregg W. Stucki
Ann Cummins
Wade Starks
Steven Edgin
Richard L.Jensen
Arlene Stringham
Kirtland Stout
Russell G Hatch
Brent Forbush
Russell VanMeeteren
Betty Ann Heck
Michael Nordgran
John L. Honeycutt
Emily Adams
Deanna Mauchley
Jonathan Mauchley
Aaron Henrie
Coleman Noyes
Steve Covert
Floyd Jackson
Jenny call
Mattie Kirby
Russell Robinson
Bob Eckman
David M Rogers
Pablo Sanchez Jr
Michael Blais
Jill Kay
Marc Galen Woolley
Max Moody
Lorraine Henrie
Haydee Decker
Ann Sather
Patricia Williams
Jared Clanton
Kenzie Bagley
Robert Sather
Joey Edwards
Anmaree Osmond
Patricia A Hughes
Todd Wilson
Todd Wilson
LeAnn Walters
Ethan Clinger
Rick Moore
Melanee Bingham
Erin McGahuey
Jasmine Redd
Anna M Starley
Micah Braman
Vickie W. Patterson
Margie Houston
Micah Whitehead
Roger howe
Jessica Bussell
Jon Clark
Vern dickman
Rodney D Patterson
Gwen Theener
Sandra Adams
Deborah Ellis
Brianna DeMille
Lynnette Smith
Delaine Oaks
Robert W Tate
Linda galbraith
Richard Schmidt
Bart Nielsen
Christine Tate
Darin Kunzler
Imre Molnar
Rick Sutherland
Beau R Lund
Michelle Lund
Cindy Demerino
Dale Gary Frodsham
Jerry Samuels
Ruth Anderson
Colton Belliston
Ann Stauffer
Tamra Ensign
Russell Thornton
Kristen Small
Trudy Ross
Jen Chiniquy
Stephanie McConkie
Kimberly Eaves
James Belliston
Laurie agar
John agar
Cherie James
Janet Hodek
Kathy Anderson
Derk Palfreyman
Matthew rose
Christine Heathman
Alan Fish
RaNae Bennett
Margaret Stevens
Glade Barker
Karen Palfreyman
Mark Campbell
Kyle Stephens
Eric Wanner
Drew curley
Sharee Larsen
Cory Green
David Swan
Lindsey Lassen
Lawrence Law
Mike Sherwood
Deborah Barnes
Morris Kunz
Russell Allred
William Barton
Van Anderson
Gary Bradley
Kathie Masich
Annette Astuto
Jeanne Lewis
Karen Houston
Sally Meyer
TJefferson Gray
Jerold Carpenter
Kaley Giessing
David Giessing
Jillyn Bettridge
Melinda Wolf
Gordon Hendrickson
Patrick Oney
Cynthia Hansen
Karen Judge
Leland Hansen
Julie Harris
Denise Bohne
Donna Olsen
Susan Harris
Howard Carter
Allen J. Bohne
Candice Cochegrus
Katharine Barlow
Mary wood
Bradley Vallem
William Hoster
Tony Robinson
Tamara Jensen
Chay McGee
Sabrina Perry
Debra L Gillett
Julie Gale
Robert Henrie
KaeLene Scow
Laurie Loader
Neal Dastrup
Vicki Beach
Karen L Long
Sherry Burton
Ralph Burton
Jerry Shaw
Connie Taylor-Shaw
Timothy Scott Smith
Robert Judd
Michael Meservy
Bonnie Mounteer
Mary Judd
Robert J Rasmussen
JAy Mounteer
Daniel Judd
Katherine B McAndrews
Andrew Decker
Ken Matthews
James Baldwin
Tyson Bills
Paul Miller
Shirley Ann Manning
Paul Cozzens
Barbara Petty
Debbie Miller
Mark Miller
Greg Harris
Vincent R. Newmeyer
James Mecham
John Welsh
Karen B Turner
Edwin Odell Miner
Dorothy C. Miner
Matthew p hogan
Dalane England
April Pratt
jim Harris
Cheryl L Wall
Mark England
Shayne Howell
Max Johnson
Freda Smith
Shareen Johnson
Natalie Tanner
Kye Tanner
Jodie Barton Hunsaker
Paula Bicoy
Miki Riding
Debra McGee
Michiel Millett
Joshua Felt
Erin Burgener
Marge Stolk
Brian Anderson
Eric Reynolds
Kathryn Christensen
Cathy Harding
Stacy S Hale
Kyle Ashment
Robert Blakely
Blake Summers
Carrie Condon
Troy Weight
Kimberlee Turley
Catherine Merrill
Vanessa Sommerfeld
Mark turnbow
Lyndi Brinkerhoff
Sarah Hooke
David Pyne
Devin Dastrup
Karen Newmeyer
Chris Nielsen
Tonyia Clark
Justin Messick
Rae Young
Patricia childs
Rebekah Beckstrom
Kris Naisbitt
Carla Law
Joni Bott
Bonnie Durtschi
Elijah Rich
Susan Vivian
Laurie Scott
Sallee Walker
Amy Moody
Veronica J Elliott
Samuel Bush
Dan Petersen
Saundra Brower
L.J Blackett
Laura Perry
Harold Lan Ealey
Jamey Ealey
Jessica Naisbitt
Darin Naisbitt
Lacy Bingham
Leroy Etzler
Todd Thornock
David O. Morris
Kelsie Atwood
Angela and Val Meyer
Darlene Finger
Angela Boddy
Brad Duckworth
Carrie Morison
Kim Mathie
Alicia Koehler
Marianne Duckworth
Jim Morison
Dan Staheli
randy douglas
Emily Haverfield
Richard Hill
Kristina Brown
Cathy Mays
Susan Markham
Suzanne Harper
Daryl Owen
Michael Harper
Janice K Foster
June MacNaughtan
Dennis pond
Ken James
Roger V. Taylor
Ken James
Barry Brown
Thomas hart
Ryan K Bronson
Derek Hegsted
Thomas hart
Jeff Nielsen
John T. Gilden
Clint H Bean
Hal hicken
Trina Johnson
G Tracy Lewis
Aaron Diamond
Ken Boothe
Corbin Betts
Millie Green
Meghan Kleinlein
Patricia Sprunt
Jo Walker
Walter Bradford
William Skokos
James M. Popham
Bonnie Skokos
James P McGarvey
Dawn Van Nosdol
Elizabeth Spurrier
James Trussell
Mark Ewell
Gracelyn Neville
Hafin M Painter
Sarah Ann Naisbitt
Melissa A Taylor
jacob smith
Julie Painter
David Carter
Stephan Kleinlein
A. Woffinden
Barbara Minor
Holly Sutton Goetz
Tanalyn Parker
Don Lee Sheffer
Jolene Bigham
Natalie Silva
Chelsea Mieure
Aaron Morran
Tim Lindsay
Diane Pope
Doug Pope
Spencer Shuppy
Sally Farb
Josh Feller
Robert A. Jorgensen
Marta T Hudson
Randy Lieber
Eileen Lieber
Jeff Hansen
Edward bartling
Tracy Silva
Trudy Thompson
tony Di Preta
Christen Hansen
Brian Ordean
Ragen Bostrom
Julie Burgess
Fawn kohler
Douglas Smith
Gailen Call
Carson Tait
Kylee Brown
Sherry Lindow
Joyce Onorata Bonhag
Andrew Sanford
Douglas brown
Alayne Vicars
Michael Eldon Leigh
Aleta Leigh
Joseph Bodell
Penn Owens
James Costello
Blake Izatt
Alysa Leigh
Keeth Leigh
Sandra Bangerter
Keven T Leigh
Jane Sexton
Julie Self
Rocky Montoya
Janell Mitton
Jenefer Nielson
Shanna Christ
Ted vallejos
Kris Lewis
NaTeisha Kline
Magalene. Hawkins
Eric Vaughn
Jason Messick
Chase Hulse
Stephen Graham
Justin San Souci
Heather T Hulse
Rodman A Flint
Dan Greenberg
Dan Elmer
Amanda Ballif
Richard A Smith
John Luiting
Layne Kamalu
Janet L Seamons
Heidi Hadley
Cynthia Ottle
RuthAnne Noel
Jacqueline Smith
Rex Harris
Ezra Clements
Donald J. Levi
Robert Anderson
Kent Kenison
Lisa Fifield
Stephanie Wenz
Linda Blosch
Scott Hart
Linda galbraith
Jan Sherwood
John Thibeault
Walter Ward
Denise Ward
Michael Dunsmore
Shauna Fowers
Ruth Randall
Kay Brown
Yes recall
Gail Winegar
Vicki Dial
David Evans
Barbara Pledger
Sharon Mathews
Russ Adair
Brian Swenson
Ellen Hensley
Mekel Zorn
Kesaia Havea
Kristine Case
Kyle Eversole
Kim Hamson
Cindy Fahring
Jean Robbins
KathiJo Smith
Clark r Ward
Lisa Krage
Debbie Blair
Kodie Bird
Phoebe Fournier
Jeff Davis
Carla Kendall
Cory Watkins
Shauna Winter
Jodie Barton Hunsaker
Rozlyn Olmsted
Melanie Barnhill
Jill Carroll
Carla M. Crews
Nancy Johnson
Johnny Sandel
Michelle Herzog
Shirley Nault
Pat Rhodes
James McNeely
Ney Coleman
Darren Paul Wood
Lyman Stratton
Brian Oswald
Tom Bemis
Byron Tuck
R Craig Johnson
Faye Jenkins
Cody Burrows
Daniel Krage
Golden Bishop
Cymony M. Tarin
Sharon Goldsberry
Julianne Jenkins
David Johnson
Glayd Jenkins
Rebecca B. Barton
Judy Bennett
Camie Nord
Mike Bartell
Britney Krage
Sharon Smith
Brianna Kleinlein
Edward Johnstun
Camberly Anderson
Arlo Elizarraraz
Cynthia Russo
Christina Harrison
John Zirkel
Meghan Vargason
Lee Mahlstede
John Bowen
Dirk Allen Willden
Janice Cox
James L Harper
Bill Akers
Marianne Barton
Sofía gray
Beverly Harper
John Cox
Kathleen A Harris
Alisha Green
He is dishonest and disgraceful
Jennifer B. Faddis
Randal Olsen
Michael Braegger
Karen Braegger
Tricia Cox
Michael bishop
Ray Wilcox
Lana Barlow
Shauna Warren
Jeffery Smith
Michelle Holmes
Janice Hepworth
Patricia Huver
Linda Peterson
Melanie Wendt
Marty Stevens
Mike Brown
Melissa Clegg
Jan Sisneros
Robin Halverson
Sid and Linda Thatcher
Bernadette Difuntorum
James Greco
Ann Webb
Brenda Beus
Heather Brown
Matthew Westrich
Jon L. Hunt
Travis Tanner
Lacy Spruell
Melissa Jane Cesaria Erickson
Ronald Criss
Vanessa Baranowsky
Lauri Madsen
Janet Hendricks
Chris Carver
Eric Cottrell
Robert Powers
Judy Cottrell
Jacquie L. Hunt
Richard Melton
Loma Lee McKinnon
Sabrina Lupo
Sam Weston
MaRea Hess
Robert mcCune
Todd Montella
Sonya Jenkins
lajuana watts
Tina Esplin
Mekeli P. Miller
Tatiana Owens
Maria LaRocco
Jen Bryson
Olivia Dawn
Helen Clawson
Paul Williams
Roxanne W. Averett
Kathlene Norton
Linda Anderson
Helen Clawson
Mindy Rasmusen
Susan K Russell
Robert Satterfield
Janet Call
Patrick l larson
laura e larson
Peggy Sorensen
Melanie Knight
Sylvia O. Kralik
Marjorie Turner
Abbi Gaetano
Diana Salazar
Spencer Madsen
Lila Lee Christensen
Sadie Gurley
Margaret Anderson
Manuel Cypers
Margaret Anderson
Tarrell Hughes
Margaret Anderson
Ricky L Lelli
Margaret Anderson
Scott Olmsted
Dean Terry
Heather Thomas
Andrea Burton
Kathryn Pitochelli
Skylar thomas
Ashley Tucker
Tonya Huntsman
Sherry Kuchta
Diane Taylor
Paul Prier
Karen Prier
Todd Kuchta
Russell Jackson
John G. Kellogg
Aleena Pedersen
Janet Fawson
Allison Brumley
Carol Brady
Lauren Henshaw
Sharlene Pitman
Phil Fidler
Eric Rocky Romero
Bill Akers
Andrea Prier
Tawny Barker
Richard Harris
Keith Lyncy
Cynthia Beasley
Roberta Ivankovich
Amy Hart
Judy F Thompson
David Chambers
James D Rowell
Kourtney Roderick
Mark Herre
Donna P. Chambers
Scott Jackson
Nancy Rowell
Robert J. Chambers
Tonna Peterson Bowcutt
David Benson
Helen Chambers
MIke Bulllen
Elona White
Leanna Robinson
Kathy Bullen
Cameron Black
Dan McKittrick
Jennifer Black
Dayne Call
Lynette McKittrick
Renée Herrington, RN
James R Chambers
Kortni Call
Marlene Cook
Jesse White
Kristin Dunlop
Carol Chambers
Jordan McKittrick
Sam Weston
Nevrus Mero
Engjellushe Mero
Deborah K Phillips
Anita s weaver
Frank Wentz
Kendra Lloyd
Derek Lloyd
Andrea Browning
Tana Oscanyan
Ed Wallace
Nathan W Allred
Justin Bodily
nate blotter
Monte Wells
Kurt Duane Beckstrom
Alex’s Harding
Tamra Ensign
Julie McDonald
Russ Piggott
Kathy Piggott
Erica Lafferty
Sid Willes
Stacy Norton
michelle prisbrey
Bruce Ahlstrom
Kevin Thompson
Michelle Sala
sandy prisbrey
Michelle Sala
Rena Montedoro
mckay hyer
Charles Montedoro
Cyntha Stagg
Theresa Valdivia
Ingrid Weinmuller
Alicia Lesser
Patrick Warr
Jessie Ibrahim
David G Law
Brian Wilson
Janine W Law
Rick Harper
Cheryl Loveall
Raymond Kirk Johnson
Aleece Skeem
Ken Wade
Kamile K Stoker
Jennifer Ruff
Dean Lab
Jessica Johnson
Larry Ruff
Cherylynn Botkin
Mark Godfrey
Geoffrey Hibbert
Kimberlee Hicks
Lloyd Davis
Angelynn Okelberry
Elizabeth Johnson
Dean Averett
Casey Paul Mills
Shana Hall
Kori Prestwich
Kimberly F Hansen
Kyle Lynch
Becky L Parry
Lujuana Petersen
Richard Wilson
Janet Eichelberger
Clayton Parry
Donnalyn Dwyer
Mike Eichelberger
Analili Burrows
Tony Fieldsted
Sherry W Rhodes
Gerard Heck
R. Bick Lesser Sr.
Johnny Powell
Blake cozzens
Natalie Hatch
Michael Millard
jullyn doyle
Curtis Kohl
Megan Rueckert
Nicole Ford
Brenda Bourgeois
Hal Lemon
Quinn Mortensen
Jonathan Broomhead
Marnie Mattinson
Michael James London
Taylor webster
Brian Lake
Lynn Smedley
charles sarvis
Dwight Andersen
Colette Proffit
Toni Smedley
Karl. McClellan
Jeanne L Judges
Joe Ann Watts
Harold H L Hodges
David Breinholt
Rachel crandall
Patricia Welch
Tina Urbanik
Lisa Tenney
David Breinholt
Amy Kirkham
Sally Quinn
Kristen Gabriel
Lana S. Gardner
Shem Jessop Jr.
Lawrence Gardner
Darin Hoover
Dolores Burnsides
Jenny Bernards
Lynn Williams
Dallas W Fullmer
Alex Barnes
Hillary Dummar
Sheereen Stefan
Valerie Rogers
Jerry Backett
Rick A Meryhew
Jennifer Wild
Ann Bieker
James E Robertson
Hector Hernandez
Steve Asay
Ann Jacobsen Given
Chelsea Baker
Charles Waldrop
Beverly Asay
chas claybaugh
Nancy Rowell
Bogdan Wozniak
Howard Davis
Kristy Peterson
Abby Moore
Teri Zenger
Gilbert Benavidez
Dallen Holmgren
John O’Daly
Jeremy Biehn
Quinn Ryan Hammond
Elizabeth Abercrombie
Nick Smith
Whitney Warr
Cristi Staheli
Victoria VanHorn
Alma M Staker
Kevin Jolley
Ann Broadbent
Lanette Dalley
David J Sindt
Geanie Michelle Struthers
Joel R Sanders
Marcia Bohn
Lorraine Montgomery
Jason Ostler
Leroy Dow
Katherine Jensen
Macie Staheli
Rachel Ostler
Brian K Gorum – Uintah County GOP Chairman
Heidi Weyland
Amy Hofer
Maria Gardner
Charlotte Hansen
Christina Jenson
Judy E. Jolley
Brad DeBer
Agnieszka Wozniak
Jason Job
Jeremy Joplin
Jeffrey Bartholomew
Charles Joseph Freshman
Jon Moore
Gordon Larson
Dan Johnson
Richard N. Summers
Jennifer Gossard
Janet Freshman
Tiffany Martineau
Susan Boyce
Cole Burrows
Patrick Wilson
Kimberly Wilmarth
Shawn Casady
Jana Belliston
Stephanie Olsen
Nathan G Joplin
Kade Wilmarth
Lori Welch
Nathan G Joplin
Justin Hansen
William Weaver
Steven Capener
Charli Fraughton
Rosalyn Summers
Barbara Wilson
Carissa Gossard
Stanley Hodges
Teresa Nelson
Clifford Sorensen
Deron Brunson
Julianne Jones
Lorie L Dejoria Waldenberg
Mark Rasmussen
Jason McMillan
Shirl Brown
Julie Schulz
Stephanie Barton
Nicholas Dalley
Nicholas Dalley
Franklin H. Frederick
D Hamilton
James Tracy
Mark Barton
Krissy Vaynce
Jensen Litke
John Katsanevas
Brenda McEwan
Diana Bivens
Whitney Warr
Kendell Geiger
Art Mathews
Jackie Mathews
Gene Buhler
Dean Lehwalder
Merldene Karrh
Don Branca
Cynthia Cosgrave
Scott Deschamps
Kyle Romney
Amanda Biehn
Brian Arnold
Kristy Bird
Anne Rasmussen
Michael Cosgrave
Anthony Hecker
Kagun Fowkes
Sophia Anderson
Christina Colton
Kent Wetzel
Greg Cameron
Cassandra Lacy
Justin Powell
Renee Esterly
Dorothy Wetzel
Terri Clark
David Woolley
Daniel E Beatty
Rose Marie Sforza
James Albert
Dennis Thompson Jr
Carolyn Beatty
Hal Gunn
June Reese
Lori Welch
Calvin H Pearson
Brenda McEwan
Mike Reese
Lyman Ray Winger
Donnie Jennings
Ronnie Hawkins
Patricia Yarrington
Maggie Tracy
Weston S. Millward
M Susan Gunn
Ralph Dlugas
Marci McClellan
Kristin L Johnson
Royal Eccles
Lee Saylor
Iris Wyman
Amanda Dlugas
Leonor Saylor
Howard Fisher
Jerry R Johnson
Kathleen Hohosh
James Winger
Gregory Scot Rodman
Justin Reese
Annette M. Winger
Erasmo unda
Joseph Winger
Michelle Taylor
Kim Lakin
Carrie Barker
David Rowell
Julie Scow
Wendi Myrup
Days! Smith
Michael Burns
Joseph Brackner
Yolanthy Moleni
Raelynn Thomas
Seth Morrison
Sam Thomas
Lydia Pinilla
Randy Memmott
Carolyn Calkins
Christian Judd
Sarah Evans
Randy Lang
Charles Joseph
Shannon Chapman
R Corder Farnsworth
Brandon White
William Workman
Kody Condie
Laura Taylor
Anthony Hamby
Kevin Wade
Michael Wells
Mark Bowman
Tamara Perkins
Mark Wilkins
Danielle Kunsman
Matthew Parr
David Hurd
Camille Bell
William Sprunt
Kelli Clark
Kris Kimball
Joel Most
Karla Hurd
Michael Fonnesbeck
Dan Wade
Anthony C. Francis
Aubree Argyle
Chris Holm
Rick Hackford
Kevin Harria
Lisa Anderson
Michelle Bohne
John Bell
Jolinda Jarvis
Mary Wade
Joel Most
Terry Dickens
Joan Anderson
Anthony Alleman
Wendy Hart
Nate Hutchinson
Dennis Harris
Kelly Batt
Carl John Anderson
Kim Garity
Cori Smith
Teresa Bowman
Carla Green
Kristin Russo
Alan B Crane
Jim Green
Marianne Kuroski
SHERIFF Cameron M. Noel
Ray Stephenson
Scott Cameron
Robyn Fitzgerald
Chad Struckle
Randy Lang
Joseph Brewer
Brett Butler
Bart Peterson
Charles M. Drake
Mark Sosebee
Abigail Rosengren
Kelly Matlock
Debbie Miller
Karen Roylance
Rene Wood
Ray Bivens
Wendi Ficklin
Jenifer Yancey
Ellen Nerdin
Shannon Stucki
Lance Jaggar
Becky Moore
Allison Larson
Ross Burton
Raelynn Thomas
L Rand Jolley
Ben Black
Justin Richins
Robin Snyder
Michelle Loveridge
Andrew Howard
Daniel Perkins
Melissa Kemp
Robert Echols
Douglas Nerdin

Biden Names Obama’s Top Behaviorist Brainwasher To Wage War Against Americans With Criminal Thoughts

[SEE: Cass Sunstein]

Matthew Ehret
Cass Sunstein, Samantha Power
© Photo: Flickr/Mary Calvert

Conspiracies for good and for evil do exist now, as they have from time immemorial, Matthew Ehret writes. The only question is which intention do you want to devote your life towards?

If you are starting to feel like forces controlling the governments of the west are out to get you, then it is likely that you are either a paranoid nut job, or a stubborn realist.

Either way, it means that you have some major problems on your hands.

If you don’t happen to find yourself among the tinfoil hat-wearing strata of conspiracy theorists waiting in a bunker for aliens to either strike down or save society from the shape shifting lizard people, but are rather contemplating how, in the 1960s, a shadow government took control of society over the dead bodies of many assassinated patriots, then certain conclusions tend to arise.

Three Elementary Realizations for Thinking People

The first conclusion you would likely arrive at is that the United States government was just put through the first coup in over 58 years (yes, what happened in 1963 was a coup). Although it is becoming a bit prohibitive to speak such words aloud in polite society, Nancy Pelosi’s official biographer Molly Ball, recently penned a scandalous Time Magazine article entitled ‘The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that Saved the 2020 Elections’ which admitted to this conspiracy saying:

“Even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream- a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.” (Lest you think that this was a subversion of democracy, Ball informs us that “they were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”)

Another conclusion you might come to is that many of the political figures whom you believed were serving those who elected them into office, actually serve the interests of a clique of technocrats and billionaires lusting over the deconstruction of western civilization under something called “a Great Reset”. Where this was brushed off as an unfounded conspiracy theory not long ago, even Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister (and neo-Nazi supporting Rhodes Scholar) Chrystia Freeland decided to become a Trustee of the World Economic Forum just weeks ago. In this role, Freeland joins fellow Oxford technocrat Mark Carney in their mutual endeavor to be a part of the new movement to decarbonize civilization and make feudalism cool again.

Lastly, you might notice that your having arrived at these conclusions is itself increasingly becoming a form of thought-crime punishable in a variety of distasteful ways elaborated by a series of unprecedented new emergency regulations that propose extending the definition of “terrorism”. Those implicated under the new definition will be those broad swaths of citizens of western nations who don’t agree with the operating beliefs of the ruling oligarchy.

Already a 60 day review of the U.S. military is underway to purge the armed forces of all such “thought criminals” while McCarthyite legislation has been drafted to cleanse all government jobs of “conspiracy theorists”.

Another startling announcement from the National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin that domestic terrorists include: “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority [and] perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”

While not yet fully codified into law (though it will be if not nipped in the bud soon), you can be sure that things are certainly moving fast as, before our very eyes, the right to free speech is being torn to shreds by means of censorship across social media and the internet, cancelling all opinions deemed unacceptable to the ruling class.

The Conspiracy to Subvert Conspiracy Theorizing

This should not come as a surprise, as Biden’s new addition to the Department of Homeland Security is a bizarre figure named Cass Sunstein who famously described exactly what this was going to look like in his infamous 2008 report ‘Conspiracy Theories’ (co-authored with Harvard Law School’s Adrien Vermeule). In this under-appreciated study, the duo foresaw the greatest threat to the ruling elite took the form of “conspiracy theorizing” within the American population using as examples of this delusion: the idea that the government had anything to do with the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, or the planning and execution of 9-11.

Just to be clear, conspiracy literally means ‘two or more people acting together in accord with an agreed upon idea and intention’.

The fact that Vermeule has made a legal career arguing that laws should be interpreted not by the “intentions” of lawgivers, but rather according to cost-benefit analysis gives us a useful insight into the deranged mind of a technocrat and the delusional reasoning that denies the very thing which has shaped literally ALL of human history.

In their “scholarly” essay, the authors wrote “the existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.” After establishing his case for the threat of conspiracies, Sunstein says that “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”.

Not one to simply draw criticisms, the pro-active Sunstein laid out five possible strategies which the social engineers managing the population could deploy to defuse this growing threat saying:

“(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counter speech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counter speech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help”.

(I’ll let you think about which of these prescriptions were put into action over the ensuing 12 years.)

Cass Sunstein was particularly sensitive to this danger largely because: 1) he was a part of a very ugly conspiracy himself and 2) he is a world-renowned behaviorist.

The Problem of Reality for Behaviorists

As an economic behaviorist and lawyer arguing that all “human rights” should be extended to animals (blurring the line separating human dynamics from the law of the jungle as any fascist must), Sunstein has spent decades trying to model human behavior with computer simulations in an effort to “scientifically manage” such behavior.

As outlined in his book Nudge (co-authored with Nobel Prize winning behaviorist Richard Thaler), Sunstein “discovered” that people tend to organize their behavioral patterns around certain fundamental drives, such as the pursuit of pleasure, avoidance of pain, and certain Darwinian drives for sex, popularity, desire for conformity, desire for novelty, and greed.

One of the key principles of economic behaviorism which is seen repeated in such popular manuals as Freakonomics, Nudge, Predictably Irrational, The Wisdom of Crowds, and Animal Spirits, is that humans are both biologically determined due to their Darwinian impulses, but, unlike other animals, have the fatal flaw of being fundamentally irrational at their core. Since humans are fundamentally irrational, says the behaviorist, it is requisite that an enlightened elite impose “order” upon society while maintaining the illusion of freedom of choice from below. This is the underlying assumption of Karl Popper’s Open Society doctrine, which was fed to Popper’s protégé George Soros and which animates Soros’ General Theory of Reflexivity and his Oxford-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET).

This was at the heart of Obama’s science Czar John Holdren’s call for world government in his 1977 Ecoscience (co-written with his mentor Paul Ehrlich) where the young misanthrope envisioned a future utopic world governed by a scientifically managed master-class saying:

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable”.

The caveat: If Darwinian impulses mixed with irrational “animal spirits” were truly all that animated those systems which behaviorists wish to map and manipulate (aka: “nudge” with rewards, punishments), then a scientific priesthood would indeed be a viable and perhaps necessary way to organize the world.

Fortunately, reality is a bit more elegant and dignified than behaviorists wish to admit.

Why Computer Modellers Hate Metaphysics

On a closer inspection of history, we find countless instances where people shape their individual and group behavior around sets of ideas that transcend controllable material impulses. When this happens, those individuals or groups tend to resist adapting to environments created for them. This incredible phenomenon is witnessed empirically in the form of the American Revolution, Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings, Civil Rights movements, and even some bold manifestations of anti-lockdown protests now underway around the world.

Among the most troublesome of those variables which upset computer models are: “Conscience”, “Truth”, “Intentions”, “Soul”, “Honor”, “God”, “Justice”, “Patriotism”, “Dignity”, and “Freedom”.

Whenever individuals shape their identities around these very real, though immaterial (aka: “metaphysical”) principles, they cannot be “nudged” towards pre-determined decisions that defy reason and morality. Adherence to these principles also tends to afford thinking people an important additional edge of creative insight necessary to cut through false explanatory narratives that attempt to hide lies behind the appearance of truth (aka: sophistry).

As witnessed on multiple occasions throughout history, such individuals who value the health of their souls over the intimidating (and extremely malleable) force of popular opinion, will often decide to sacrifice personal comfort and even their lives in order to defend those values which their minds and consciences deem important.

These rare, but invaluable outliers will often resist policies that threaten to undo their freedoms or undermine the basis of their society’s capacity to produce food, and energy for their children and grandchildren. What is worse, is that their example is often extremely contagious causing other members of the sheep class to believe that they too are human and endowed with unalienable rights which should be defended.

The Intentions Ordering World History

Perhaps, most “destructive” of all is that these outlier people tend to look for abstract things like “causes” in historical dynamics shaping the context of their present age, as well as their current geopolitical environment.

Whenever this type of thinking is done, carefully crafted narratives fed to the masses by an enlightened elite will often fail in their powers to persuade, since seekers after truth soon come to realize that IDEAS and intentions (aka: conspiracies) shape our past, present and future. When the dominating intentions shaping society’s trajectory is in conformity with Natural Law, humanity tends to improve, freedoms increase, culture matures and evil loses its hold. Inversely, when the intentions animating history are out of conformity with Natural Law, the opposite happens as societies lose their moral and material fitness to survive and slip ever more quickly into dark ages.

While sitting in a jail in Birmingham Alabama in 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. described this reality eloquently when he said:

“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust… One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”

From Plato’s organization of his Academy and efforts to shape a Philosopher King to beat the forces of the Persian Empire, to Cicero’s efforts to save the Roman Republic, to Augustine’s battles to save the soul of Christianity all the way to our present age, conspiracies for the good and counter-conspiracies for evil have shaped history. If one were to begin an investigation into history without an understanding that ideas and intentions caused the trajectory of history, as is the standard practice among history professors dominant in todays world, then one would become incapable of understanding anything essential about one’s own reality.

It is irrelevant that behaviorists and other fascists wish their victims to believe that history just happens simply because random short-sighted impulses kinetically drive events on a timeline- the truth of my claim exists for any serious truth seeker to discover it for themselves.

Back to our Present Sad State of Affairs

Now we all know that Sunstein spent the following years working as Obama’s Regulatory Czar alongside an army of fellow behaviorists who took control of all levers of policy making as outlined by Time Magazine’s April 13, 2009 article ‘How Obama is Using the Science of Change’. As the fabric of western civilization, and traditional values of family, gender, and even macro economic concepts like “development” were degraded during this period, the military industrial complex had a field day as Sunstein’s wife Samantha Power worked closely with Susan Rice in the promotion of “humanitarian bombings” of small nations under Soros’ Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

After the Great Reset Agenda was announced in June 2020, Sunstein was recruited to head the propaganda wing of the World Health Organization known as the WHO Technical Advisory Group where his skills in mass behavior modification was put to use in order to counteract the dangerous spread of conspiracy theories that persuaded large chunks of the world population that COVID-19 was part of a larger conspiracy to undermine national sovereignty and impose world government.

The head of WHO described Sunstein’s mandate in the following terms:

“In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are using a range of tools to influence behavior: Information campaigns are one tool, but so are laws, regulations, guidelines and even fines…That’s why behavioral science is so important.”

Today, hundreds of Obama-era behaviorists have streamed back into influential positions of government under the new “scientifically managed”, evidence-based governance coming back to life under Biden promising to undo the dark days of President Trump.

Ideologues who have been on record calling for world government, the elimination of the sick and elderly (see Obamacare architect Ezekiel Emmanuel’s Why I Hope to Die At 75), and population control are streaming back into positions of influence. If you think that anything they have done to return to power is unlawful, or antithetical to the principles of the Constitution, then these technocrats want you to know that you are a delusional conspiracy theorist and as such, represent a potential threat to yourself and the society of which you are but a part.

If you question World Health Organization narratives on COVID-19, or doubt the use of vaccines produced by organizations like Astra Zeneca due to their ties to eugenics organizations then you are a delusional conspiracy theorist.

If you doubt that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide or that implementing the Paris Climate accords may cause more damage to humanity than climate change ever could, then you must be a conspiracy theorist.

If you believe that the U.S. government just went through a regime change coordinated by something called “the deep state”, then you run the risk of being labelled a delusional threat to “the general welfare” deserving of the sort of treatment dolled out to any typical terrorist.

It appears that the many comforts we have taken for granted over the past 50-year drunken stupor called “globalization” are quickly coming to an end, and thankfully not one but two opposing intentions for what the new operating system will be are actively vying for control. This clash was witnessed in stark terms during the January 2021 Davos Summit, where Xi Jinping and Putin’s call for a new system of win-win cooperation, multipolarity and long-term development offset the unipolar zero-sum ideologues of the west seeking to undo the foundations of industrial civilization.

Either way you look at it, conspiracies for good and for evil do exist now, as they have from time immemorial. The only question is which intention do you want to devote your life towards?

The author can be reached at

Ohio’s Most Endearing Quality…We Are A Hotbed For Anti-Government Extremists

protest columbus

Hundreds of protestors gathered outside the Ohio Statehouse on Saturday, April 18, 2020, calling for state officials to immediately lift coronavirus related restrictions.(Laura Hancock/

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Mask mandates and business closures to fight coronavirus, Black Lives Matters rallies, and President Trump’s false election fraud claims stoked the fury of extremist antigovernment groups last year, according to Southern Poverty Law Center President and CEO Margaret Huang. Those issues prompted them to protest by the hundreds at state capitols, including Ohio’s, and by the thousands at last month’s U.S. Capitol riot that resulted in the deaths of five people including a police officer.

Huang’s organization, which started out 50 years ago as an Alabama law office fighting the Ku Klux Klan, is now a nonprofit that monitors hate groups and extremists around the nation. It released a report this week that found Ohio has the second highest number of active antigovernment groups of any state: 31. Only California’s 51 antigovernment groups exceeded the number found in Ohio, which has less than a third of California’s population.

Huang says some of the nation’s best-known extremists hail from Ohio, such as Columbus-native Andrew Anglin, who founded the white supremacist Daily Stormer website, and James Alex Fields of Maumee, who was sentenced to life in prison for ramming his car into a a crowd of counter-protesters at a 2017 “Unite the Right Rally” in Virginia that was promoted by Anglin’s website. Fields’ attack killed one woman and injured dozens of other people.

In an interview with Plain Dealer, Huang said young people in Ohio and elsewhere in the country who feel frustrated, isolated and lacking in community support sometimes find that community in online antigovernment or hate groups where people like Anglin lead them to believe the government or groups of people they dislike, such as racial minorities, have caused their problems.

“It seems like an answer to why they’re feeling so isolated, so frustrated,” says Huang, adding that the groups’ recruitment techniques mirror those of foreign terrorist organizations. “Many of them find a community there. They find people who want them to join their activities and who invite them to be part of something larger. I think in many parts of the country, not just Ohio, because you can see that these groups are found in every state, but in many parts of the country where there are a lot of young people who are frustrated, who may be economically disadvantaged, who may not have great employment or educational opportunities, they are turning to these extremist groups as a way to find community with others.”

The Ohio groups the Southern Poverty Law Center labels as antigovernment extremists include the OHIO III% United Patriots, Heartland Defenders, American Patriots Three Percent, Irregulars of Ohio Reserve Militia, John Birch Society, Oath Keepers, The Last Militia, Ohio Defense Force Home Guard and Ohio Militiamen.

Northeast Ohio-based organizations that the SPLC classifies as antigovernment include the Frontiersmen militia group of Ravenna, which the SPLC says spreads disinformation about COVID-19, Democrats and Antifa, among other topics, and Cleveland’s Silver Shield Xchange, which the SPLC says spreads conspiracy theories and disinformation about COVID-19, former President Barack Obama, China, former President Donald Trump, the 2020 election, and the supposed imminent collapse of the dollar. They also sell survivalist merchandise, including guns, gold and silver, the SPLC says.

Two of the Ohioans charged with rioting at the U.S. Capitol – Champaign County’s Donovan Crowl and Jessica Watkins – are members of a militia associated with the Oath Keepers, a loosely organized right-wing group that believes the government is stripping away Americans’ rights and focuses its recruitment efforts on former military members, federal charging documents indicate.

Huang said her organization identifies antigovernment groups by monitoring their online recruiting and event organization platforms, and through flyers the groups distribute in their communities to recruit new members, express hate, or call for people to take up arms against the government. She said her organization get the flyers from police reports or people who forward them to her organization’s six offices around the country.

“These are groups that openly advocate violence, that openly advocate white supremacy, etc.,” says Huang.

Over the years organizations including the socially conservative Family Research Council have disputed the Southern Poverty Law Center’s decision to classify them as hate groups, calling it “a hard left activist organization” whose political agenda pervades construction of its lists. In 2018, SPLC paid a $3.4 million  settlement  and issued an apology to a British political activist named Maajid Nawaz, who sued it for labeling him an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

Huang says Family Research Council made its hate group list for demonizing LGBTQ people and advocating policies that would deny their rights. She said several groups that have made SPLC’s lists have sued over their inclusion but her organization typically wins those challenges “because we use a clear definition and criteria for determining who falls into each category.”

“The reason we have a trusted reputation is that we do monitor these groups and we have been accurate in calling out their activities and calling out their hateful ideology,” Huang says. “If it bothers them, they should reconsider what they are saying and doing.”

According to Huang, many of the antigovernment groups existed for decades, but their numbers escalated when hard right groups took exception to a Democrat-run government after Obama’s election. Under Trump, she says many antigovernment groups focused more of their attention on state legislatures to express their frustration with coronavirus-related mask mandates and school and business closures.

“They have used this as a rallying cry to encourage people to oppose the government’s orders as illegitimate,” says Huang.

In addition to holding armed protests in numerous state capitals including Columbus and playing a key role in the riot at the U.S. Capitol, members of antigovernment groups were charged in a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer because of restrictions imposed to limit the spread of coronavirus. Documents filed in the case against the alleged kidnap conspirators say they met twice in Ohio to discuss their scheme.

Huang says investments in education, job training opportunities and jobs in all communities would help stop the spread of antigovernment groups.

“When people talk about why international terrorists become radicalized, it’s frequently because they don’t have jobs, they can’t go to school and so they turn to terrorism as something that makes them feel a part of the community,” Huang said. “So we need to do the same kinds of things that we’ve advocated for countering terrorism internationally. You have to provide economic opportunities, you have to provide educational opportunities and when people have those alternatives, they’re much less likely to embrace extremism.”

Biden’s Gun Control Proposals Aimed At Neutering the New Right Patriots

[It will prove to be both violent and impossible to disarm one-third of all American adults, especially the patriotic ones who absolutely believe in the quotations given below.]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”–Declaration of Independence.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

White House officials met last week with several gun violence prevention groups as they weigh how to move forward on an issue that has stymied Democrats for years.

The White House says President Biden is “personally committed” to action on an issue he has tackled many times in the past. Less than a month into the new administration, Biden officials are meeting with advocates backing reforms that Democrats have been pushing for in Congress, like strengthening background checks.

However, Americans’ views on guns may be even more divided than the last time Biden confronted the issue. A November Gallup poll found support for stricter gun laws is at its lowest level since 2016.

But anti-gun violence groups still see momentum. Brady, Giffords, Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action met virtually on Wednesday with Susan Rice, the head of the Domestic Policy Council, and Cedric Richmond, a senior adviser to the president.

Officials familiar with the meeting said Rice and Richmond signaled the White House was prepared to use multiple avenues to try to curb gun violence, including executive action, though the administration has yet to roll out any specific proposals.

“I think everything is on the table. I think the White House is certainly supportive of Congress doing their part. I think there are things we’d like to see happen through legislation. … But certainly there is a role for executive action,” said Adzi Vokhiwa, director of federal affairs at Giffords, an anti-gun violence advocacy group.

The meeting comes as gun sales are on the rise across the U.S., which has been attributed to the concerns that Biden will act on gun control and amid fear and uncertainty around the pandemic and protests over racial injustice.

Sunday was the third anniversary of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Fla. Rice and Richmond held a call Thursday with most of the families of the victims of the shooting, a White House official said, and listened to stories about their loved ones and work they’ve pursued since the shooting.

Biden, who visited Parkland to comfort victims’ families in 2018, pledged during his presidential campaign to take numerous actions to try to curb gun violence. He vowed to pass legislation banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and buy back the ones already in circulation. The president’s campaign website also said he would “enact universal background check legislation.”

“This meeting provided more evidence that the Biden Administration is committed to being the strongest we’ve ever seen on gun safety,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, of Wednesday’s meeting. “With Covid making gun violence worse and armed extremists literally holding our democracy at gunpoint, the time for action is now — and we fully expect to see it soon.”

Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, also released a statement on the White House meeting, saying it confirmed that gun safety is a top priority for the administration.

“We look forward to working with the administration to save lives and stop gun violence, and we’re confident that we will see executive and legislative action in the near future,” she said.

The White House is still staffing up and has yet to nominate a head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces gun laws. Both are a sign that the administration is still some time away from formally putting anything forward on guns, sources said.

Biden has repeatedly been involved in efforts to pass stricter gun laws dating back to his time in the Senate. He helped pass the Brady Bill in 1993, which implemented the modern background check system that advocates are now pushing to reform, and he helped pass the original assault weapons ban.

Through executive orders, Biden could change or expand the definition of who is in the business of selling guns, prioritize funding for community violence prevention programs and eliminate “ghost guns” by defining what constitutes a gun, according to gun control advocates.

The term ghost guns refers to guns available for purchase, typically without a background check or a serial number, that are not fully finished or may have a missing part.

Momentum has repeatedly hit a wall in Congress, even as mass shootings become commonplace in the United States. Congress failed to pass stronger gun laws after the Sandy Hook shooting, when Biden was vice president, and initial optimism fell by the wayside following back-to-back massacres in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, in 2019.

While Democrats control the House, the party would need all 50 members in the Senate to rally around gun legislation and be joined by at least 10 Republican senators to overcome the legislative filibuster. A bill proposed by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) after the Sandy Hook shooting only garnered 54 votes.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), an active voice on gun control ever since the Sandy Hook shooting in his home state, told The Hill he plans to introduce background check legislation “in the upcoming weeks” and is committed to getting a bipartisan bill passed in this Congress.

“President Biden and his administration are clearly committed to signing commonsense gun violence prevention legislation into law and taking executive action to save lives and make our communities safer. Two years ago, we got pretty darn close to striking a bipartisan deal to expand background checks that I believe would have passed on the floor if [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell put it up for a vote,” Murphy said.

The Democratic-led House last Congress passed control gun legislation, but those bills never received votes in the GOP-controlled Senate.

That bill, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, is aimed at strengthening background checks for gun purchases and passed the House on Feb. 27, 2019. A day later, the House approved the Enhanced Background Checks Act, which would close the so-called Charleston loophole, giving federal investigators more time to do background checks.

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who authored the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, has not yet reintroduced it this Congress. But the bill is expected soon.

“The White House is definitely committed to gun violence prevention and Mike’s top priority on this issue is the Bipartisan Background Checks Act. We are still actively working with leadership and advocates on timing of that bill,” a Thompson aide said.

Assault weapon ban legislation to prohibit the sale of semi-automatic rifles and pistols with certain military-style features was also introduced last Congress by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.).

Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), another vocal gun control advocate, noted that passing background checks in the House last Congress was the first legislative action to prevent gun violence in decades.

“While the bill to expand background checks received bipartisan support, it was unfortunately blocked by Mitch McConnell in the U.S. Senate. Now, with a new Congress and White House, I know that action to prevent gun violence remains a top priority for President Biden and Democrats in Congress,” Kildee told The Hill.

Democrats are also looking to take advantage of the weakened National Rifle Association (NRA). The once powerful pro-gun lobbying group filed for bankruptcy last month following a lawsuit that alleged it violated New York state law governing nonprofit organizations.

“It will be up to these millions of law-abiding gun owners, and millions of NRA members, to make their voices heard in opposition to any infringement upon their constitutional rights,” the group wrote in response to comments from White House press secretary Jen Psaki last week that Biden “would love to see action on additional gun safety measures.”

Democrats point to public polling to argue that basic actions intended to limit gun violence, such as universal background checks, are overwhelmingly popular.

Still, former President Trump’s vow to protect his supporters’ Second Amendment rights was one of his reliable applause lines on the trail in 2020. The Gallup poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans favor stricter laws for gun sales, the lowest percentage in 20 years. Conservatives are likely to ardently object to any effort that is perceived as taking guns away from Americans and use it to fuel their base heading into the 2022 midterm elections.

Pelosi Is Like A Toothless Old Dog with A Bone

[After conservatives openly challenge Pelosi with a series of questions on whether the Jan. 6 event was “allowed to happen”, or “made to happen”, Pelosi, the little vigilante, steps forward to create a “911 type commission” to investigate (cover-up/whitewash) the riot, just as the original 911 Commission covered-up the September 11 attack.]

Pelosi’s office pushes back on House GOP questions about Capitol security ahead of riot

Lawmakers trying to ‘deflect responsibility for the Capitol attack from Donald Trump,’ Pelosi’s office says

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s office fired back at House Republicans on Monday who demanded answers regarding security decisions leading up to and on the day of the Capitol riot last month, saying they are “clearly” trying to “deflect responsibility for the Capitol attack from Donald Trump.”

House Administration Committee Ranking Member Rodney Davis, R-Ill., House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member James Comer, R-Ky., and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., sent a letter to Pelosi, D-Calif., on Monday, saying that “many important questions” about her “responsibility for the security” of the Capitol on Jan. 6 “remain unanswered.”


But Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff, Drew Hammill, told Fox News that the speaker “has and will continue to take action to ensure accountability and enhance the security of the Capitol.”

“Two of the four House Republican ranking members voted to overturn the results of a fair election, just hours after the Capitol was sacked by an insurrectionist, right-wing mob – a mob incited by Trump,” Hammill said. “A full 65% of House Republicans joined them in voting to undermine our democracy.  All four ranking members also voted against holding Donald Trump accountable for inciting the mob.”

Hammill added: “Clearly, the security of our Capitol and democracy are not the priorities of these ranking members.”

The Republicans, in their letter to Pelosi Monday morning, questioned: “When then-Chief Sund made a request for National Guard support on Jan. 4, why was that request denied? Did Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on Jan. 4 prior to denying Chief Sund’s request for the National Guard?”

Davis, Jordan, Comer and Nunes pointed to claims made by former Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund, that he, on Jan. 4, approached the sergeant-at-arms to request the assistance of the National Guard. Sund, in a letter to Pelosi last month, said Irving replied that he was concerned about “the optics” and didn’t feel the “intelligence supported it.”

“As you are aware, the speaker of the House is not only the leader of the majority party, but also has enormous institutional responsibilities,” they wrote. “The speaker is responsible for all operational decisions made within the House.”

The House sergeant-at-arms and the Senate sergeant-at-arms, Michael Stenger, were removed from their positions and Chief Sund resigned after the riot.

“It is the job of the Capitol Police Board, on which these three individuals sat, to properly plan and prepare for security threats facing the U.S. Capitol,” Hammill said. “It has been reported that the House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving has said that he did not present to House leadership any request for the National Guard before Jan. 6.”

Hammill noted that the committees of jurisdiction were briefed “in advance of Jan. 6 about security preparedness.”


“During a briefing of the Appropriations Committee Majority on Jan. 5 by the House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving and U.S. Capitol Police Chief Sund both Chief Sund and Mr. Irving provided assurances that the Capitol Complex had comprehensive security and there was no intelligence that groups would become violent at the Capitol during the certification of electoral votes,” Hammill explained. “It is our understanding that ranking member Davis was also briefed, but took no action to address any security concerns that he might have had.”

Davis’ office, in response,  told Fox News that “no one is alleging that Ranking Member Davis denied a request for the national guard ahead of January 6th because he would not have the authority to do so even if he had been made aware of the request, which he was not.”

“Following the insurrection, the speaker immediately tasked Gen. Honoré with leading an immediate security review of the U.S. Capitol Complex and has called for a 9/11-style Commission to investigate, with legislation creating such a panel to be introduced in the coming days,” Hammill said. “The USCP is also conducting an internal security review.”

Pelosi, last month, appointed retired Gen. Russel Honoré to lead a security review of the events at the Capitol amid calls from members on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers of Congress, to conduct a review.

Republicans took issue with Pelosi’s appointment, saying it was done “without consultation of the minority.”

But again, Hammill fired back, calling Republicans’ demands a “transparently partisan attempt to lay blame on the speaker, who was a target of assassination during the insurrection fueled by the lies of House Republicans,” and said that “the ranking members are trying to absolve former Police Chief Sund, former Sergeant-at-Arms Stenger and the leader who appointed him, Mitch McConnell, of any responsibility.”

“We look forward to these ranking members asking these same questions of former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,” Hammill said.

Hammill also added that Pelosi “knows all too well the importance of security at the Capitol and is focused on getting to the bottom of all issues facing the Capitol Complex and the events that led up to the insurrection.”

He added: “Clearly, these Republican ranking members do not share this priority.”

Capitol Police have been under heightened scrutiny amid the siege of the Capitol on Jan. 6 during a joint session of Congress to certify the Electoral College results in favor of President Joe Biden.

But Pelosi last week said she would introduce a resolution to give the Congressional Gold Medal – the highest honor Congress can bestow – to the U.S. Capitol Police officers and other law enforcement personnel who protected the Capitol during the riot.

“They are martyrs for our democracy, those who lost their lives,” Pelosi said during her weekly press conference.

Five people died when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, including U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, 42. Two other officers died by suicide in the week after the siege.

“The service of the Capitol Police force that day brings honor to our democracy. Their accepting this reward brings luster to this medal,” the California Democrat said. “We must always remember their sacrifice and stay vigilant against what I said before, about what Abraham Lincoln said: the silent artillery of time. We will never forget.”

Former President Donald Trump was impeached by the House, for the second time, on Jan. 13 for inciting insurrection on Jan. 6.The former president was acquitted by the Senate over the weekend.

Meanwhile, Republicans also claimed that House officers were not providing necessary documents surrounding the Capitol riot.

“We might have some more clarity on the timeline of events if Speaker Pelosi would direct her House officers to comply with Ranking Member Davis’s preservation and production requests for information surrounding January 6,” a spokesperson for Davis told Fox News. “USCP has agreed, but the SAA and CAO, who are appointed by the Speaker, have denied our requests.”

The spokesperson added: “But either way, Speaker Pelosi needs to answer these questions truthfully: was anyone on her team aware of Mr. Sund’s request for the national guard before January 6, was the request denied because of optics, and why did it take the SAA over an hour to approve the request for the national guard in the middle of the riots?”

Instagram bans top anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over COVID falsehoods

Instagram bans top anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over COVID falsehoods

Kennedy has a long history of spreading dangerous misinformation on social media.

Robert Kennedy Jr. heads up to a meeting at Trump Tower on January 10, 2017 in New York City.
Robert Kennedy Jr. heads up to a meeting at Trump Tower on January 10, 2017 in New York City.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Instagram has permanently banned the account of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an infamous and prolific peddler of dangerous anti-vaccine and COVID-19 misinformation.

The move will likely be cheered by public health advocates who have struggled to combat such harmful bunkum online during the devastating pandemic. However, Kennedy’s account on Facebook—which owns Instagram—remained active Thursday and lists over 300,000 followers.

In an email to Ars, a Facebook spokesperson said Kennedy’s Instagram account was removed “for repeatedly sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines.” The account had over 800,000 followers prior to its removal, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Facebook spokesperson declined to respond to Ars’ question about whether Kennedy’s Facebook account would also be removed or otherwise penalized. The social-media behemoth told The New York Times, however, that it has no plans to remove Kennedy from Facebook “at this time.”

In the email to Ars, the spokesperson noted Facebook’s updated policies that involve “expanding our efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, and vaccines in general during the pandemic.” Facebook says it has already removed “more than 12 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram” deemed harmful misinformation. The spokesperson also listed eight other accounts that Facebook had recently removed, including those with URLs /virusesarenotcontagious, /vaxxed2, and /nofacemasks.

Hazardous history

Kennedy’s contentious relationship with Facebook began well before the pandemic, however. He and his anti-vaccine organizations—Children’s Health Defense and the World Mercury Project—were leading forces behind the misinformation campaigns fueling the resurgence of measles worldwide in recent years.

For instance, at the end of 2019, the government of Samoa was forced to shut down to deal with an explosive measles outbreak. The deadly surge of disease came after Kennedy’s organization spent months fear-mongering over vaccine safety and spreading falsehoods about an incident that led to the tragic deaths of two Samoan infants. An investigation determined that the babies were given lethal doses of muscle relaxant by negligent nurses who intended to immunize them. The nurses were each convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. Of course, none of that information was shared by Kennedy’s organizations.

Just a month before the outbreak exploded in Samoa, a study appearing in the journal Vaccine found that Kennedy’s World Mercury Project was the single largest source of anti-vaccine advertisements on Facebook.

Though Facebook has tried—many times—to crack down on anti-vaccine misinformation, Kennedy has fought restrictions and continued to spread falsehoods. In August of 2020, Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense filed a lawsuit alleging that Facebook’s effort to fact-check vaccine misinformation was “censorship” that infringed on the organization’s First and Fifth Amendment rights.

BETH MOLE, Beth is Ars Technica’s health reporter. She’s interested in biomedical research, infectious disease, health policy and law, and has a Ph.D. in microbiology.

A rebellion against the US ruling class

On an HBO “Real Time” broadcast, Bill Maher stated, “Liberals can either write off half the country as irredeemable, or they can ask, what is it about a D next to a candidate’s name that makes it so toxic?” He continued, “Democrats, too often, don’t come across as having common sense to a huge swath of Americans.”

Maher is correct, but a more fundamental question is this: Why did the ruling class of America learn so little from 2016?

Ann Coulter, in a lecture at the University of Texas at Austin, said what Americans want is “Trumpism without Trump.” That Trump got almost half of all votes after five years of unrelenting negative press, constant innuendos, and negative selective reporting indicates that Coulter, who despises Trump, is also correct.

Those on the left who believe they are smarter than everyone are being blinded by their own hubris. That a man with the buffoonish demeanor of Donald Trump could gather such influence doesn’t tell us that people are stupid. It tells us they are desperate, and no one is listening to them.

In fact, a post-election poll found 73% of voters said that corruption in government was a problem, 62% of that group said it was a “major” problem.

Lincoln said at Gettysburg that the Civil War was being fought so that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” What many Americans see now is an elite class, supported by the media and much of the left, that wants to abolish a nation with borders, eliminate the “under God” clause from the Pledge of Allegiance,” and create a government of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite, and any interest other than theirs be damned.

A poll of the people who voted in this election showed something that this column has been saying for decades. Liberals are a minority.

Voters who self-defined themselves as liberals constituted only 29% of the total; by contrast, conservatives, self-defined, were 37%.

This remains true even after the media, the education system, and the entertainment industry would have us believe that conservatives are some strange, small cult-like group, irredeemably racist, which resides out in the backward areas of fly-over country.

That cartoon caricature is simply not true.

America is not Europe. The left needs to get outside of their cultural bubble, or the next election will not be kind to them.

The majority of Americans did not vote for Joe Biden or his party, they voted for the anti-Trump. The majority of these voters consider the far left to be not only dangerous, but marginally insane. As Maher suggested, even associating with the far-left brands Democrats as having little common sense.

The overwhelming majority of Americans believe our current leaders are corrupt and unresponsive, and flirting with dictatorial powers.

Perhaps pessimism has always been with us, but at least in the past those corrupt leaders didn’t want to control every aspect of our lives.

The Democrats HAVE NO MANDATE…the 100 Million Strong Silent Majority Still Outnumbers Pelosi’s Party

[Yet she wages war against the opposing party, calling-out many Republicans as “enemies within”, because they refuse to accept the national narrative as defined by the Democrat leadership and the mainline liberal media.  Pelosi refuses to acknowledge the prominent role played by the “Qanon” subversives and the known provocateurs like Mr. Jones.  Having never listened to a Trump speech, or read any Q material, I have never understood the cult of Trump or Q, so I am at a loss to explain how normally sane Americans could fall for such nonsense.  But the belief in election fraud is not a conspiracy theory, it is a never-ending problem…who can forget the Bush/Gore voting controversy.  Gore probably would have won if there had been a national recount, by conceding early he may have handed the White House to W.  The concerted national effort to whitewash 2020 fraud claims without apparent investigation, coupled with the move to brand election doubters as “traitors”, was certain to enrage 74 million conservative voters who already considered the national mainstream news to be slanted and non-factual.]

In 2020, 80 + 74 million voted, 154 million total, out of a pool of 250 million voting age Americans.


Trump has a point about the media–
The media’s partisan hostility to Trump led to the abandonment of objectivity and truth.

Growing calls in media for Trump supporters to be ‘reprogrammed’

The left’s leaders are the real fascists

Unhinged Democrats inciting next civil war by moving to ban Trump supporters from getting jobs, joining military

A New Leninism Is Gripping America

Democrat Party Declares New Terror War On the Half of America That Voted For Trump

Pentagon goes rooting for ‘extremists’ among its 3.6mn trained killers

AOC: Country will heal with the ‘actual liberation of southern states’ from GOP control

Defense secretary orders military ‘stand down’ to address ‘extremism’

‘Fund them & lose in slow motion’? Twitter reads into CIA veteran’s advice to use Iraqi-Afghan playbook on DOMESTIC ‘extremists’

A rebellion against the US ruling class


How the QAnon Cult Stormed the Capitol

Perhaps the strangest thing about the media coverage of the Capitol Hill rally was how little of it focused on the visible presence of QAnon. What’s behind the Q cult, and how can we confront it?

A pro-Trump mob confronts the US Capitol Police outside the Senate chamber of the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Perhaps the strangest thing about the media coverage of the Capitol Hill rally was how little of it focused on the visible and disproportionate representation of QAnon, an online community of conspiracy theorists that started in October 2017 when an anonymous 4chan post foretold the impending arrest of Hillary Clinton.According to the Daily Beast’s Will Sommer, who was reporting on the ground, the rally consisted not only of Trump-supporting, straight-ticket Republicans, but a visibly high number of Q true believers. In fact, Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran who was shot to death by Capitol Police, was an ardent member of the Q faithful, as was Rosanne Boyland, who was reportedly trampled to death during the conflagration.

Q adherents come from an increasingly eclectic set of backgrounds: you’ll find NEETS, police officers, military veterans, service workers, computer programmers, successful business owners, unsuccessful business owners, stay-at-home moms, and regular working stiffs. QAnon-ers also hail from a number of identity groups, uniting straight cis white men with women and racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, and religious minorities. You’ll even find immigrants, visibly represented by the bright South Vietnamese flags seen flying at the rally. The movement boasts Zoomers, boomers, and everyone in between.

Even aesthetically, QAnon offers the dedicated paranoiac manifold subcultures and aesthetics from which to choose. Soldier of Fortune may have published its last issue in 2016, but Q provides a space for the militia-chic crowd to talk guns, ammo, and tactical gear with fellow enthusiasts. If you’re more of a yoga mom influencer, “Pastel Q” offers a decidedly feminine, New Age approach to the Ministry of MAGA, complete with crystals. There are at least a few military officers; Babbitt, ironically, was part of the Air National Guard’s “Capital Guardians,” which is charged with protecting Washington, DC.

Aside from what appears to be a conspicuous absence of middle-class professionals, Q has space for everyone. As Chapo Trap House’s Felix Biederman has remarked, “this is why Q is successful. You can have a guy in there who’s thing is, ‘I’m a black guy against affirmative action,’ or you can have a guy in there who’s fully antisemitic, or you can just have some drunk woman.” It’s a true Rainbow Coalition.

The movement’s idiosyncratic demographics reflect its idiosyncratic ideology. Babbitt, for example, boasted on Twitter about voting for and supporting Barack Obama throughout his presidency, saying he did “great things,” before declaring that in 2016 she just couldn’t vote for Hillary and thus had to support Trump. As Babbitt’s comments suggest, not only have a fair number of QAnon-ers radicalized relatively recently, but many don’t hail from the traditional Trump or conservative base. Some, like Babbitt, were formerly liberals. Some were even Bernie Sanders supporters.

Another exceptional feature that distinguishes the contemporary iteration of QAnon from the traditional right-wing base is a palpable antipathy toward the Republican Party. Their objections and grievances toward the GOP run the gamut. Some Qanon-ers believe all institutional politicians — including almost all Republicans — are in a pedophile cabal. Some Q rail against the party’s capitulations to “cultural Marxism,” which means something different to every single one of them. Some dust off that old antisemitic chestnut about the (((rootless cosmopolitans))) who run the government, media, and banks. Many Q even vehemently oppose Republican collaborations with Big Tech and/or the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, one pervasive and popular Q conspiracy is that Trump will forgive the medical debt of all Americans.

At a QAnon rally in April of 2018, for instance, Sommer interviewed one protester dying of cancer, who believed a cure had been discovered long ago, but that the “cabal” (meaning the satanic, pedophile politicians and moneymen) were hiding it from the people. He told Sommer not to worry about him, though; Trump would release it soon enough. Another woman at the same rally, upset that her young son wasn’t receiving the special education support he needed in school, insisted that Trump would deliver the similarly repressed cure for his Down Syndrome.

And here we see how Q became one of the most successful phenomena of the Trump era, despite the fact that its adherents don’t share economic interests, culture, or even a political program. Rather, many people joined Q because of their alienation and disconnection from a system they view as illegitimate. To provide their ever-more precarious lives with meaning and an explanation for American decline, Q adherents congealed under a series of bizarre Internet conspiracy theories that unite a right-wing, anti-elitist, but nevertheless authoritarian sensibility that is organized around narratives that link pedophilic cabals, racism, antisemitism, fears of “cultural Marxism,” Satanism, and, of course, absolute faith in the singular, salvific, and millenarian figure of President Donald J. Trump.

The sources of the illegitimacy that drive QAnon are vast and well known to readers of Jacobin: the financial collapse of 2008–9, the pointless imperialist wars, the ever-more grotesque inequality between the wealthy and everyone else, bad trade deals and globalization, and a feeling of impotence in a political system that was supposed to be a democracy. All of these anxieties, of course, have been recently compounded and exacerbated by a pandemic, lockdown, and an economic recession that predictably witnessed an explosion in QAnon proselytes.

Therefore, to combat the appeal of QAnon, you have to understand that you’re not dealing with a political movement, but with a cult. As members of an ecstatic and Evangelical movement — many of them, in fact, are literal Evangelicals — QAnon-ers embrace conspiracy theories because unlike the Republican or Democrat narratives, the stories they tell provide meaning in dislocated lives. In essence, QAnon tells people who believe in America that a cabal has stolen their country from them, and that faith in a charismatic leader is the only way to redeem it (and, ultimately, redeem themselves).

In this way, QAnon’ers share a view of America with many liberals. In Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago 7, Abbie Hoffman, played by Sacha Baron Cohen declares patriotically, “I think the institutions of our democracy are wonderful things, that right now are populated by some terrible people.” Or to make a comparison that QAnon-ers might find less appealing: like Hillary Clinton, they believe America is already great.

What Is Q Capable Of?

Many in the media, including writers in Jacobin, have identified the Capitol riots as a “coup.” This is wrong, and an accurate diagnosis is neither academic nor pedantic. Were this merely a coup from a very small number of committed reactionaries, then a hyper-militarist response might be a workable solution to QAnon. But throwing the rioters, whose sentiments embody the feelings of manifold Americans, in jail will not solve the fundamental problems of dislocation, alienation, and resentment that impelled them. Just ask Hitler, whose stint in prison failed to stave off the Nazis’ rise.

If we want to actually address the problem posed by QAnon, we have to understand what it actually is and what its members actually want. Otherwise, we risk empowering the security state while ignoring and exacerbating the conditions that enabled the Q conspiracy to take hold.

Trump supporters enter the Rotunda of the US Capitol Building in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee / Getty Images)

First, a “coup” refers to the overthrow of a government. Not only did QAnon-ers not come close to achieving this goal, this wasn’t even their goal. Instead, many, if not most adherents, insisted that they were the defenders of the democratic system, which they believe elected Trump legitimately. To paint QAnon as antidemocratic is beside the point, as it misunderstands their motivations and sense of mission.

Second, and more important, describing the events of January 6 as a coup winds up portraying a fundamentally religious movement as a fundamentally political one. As became clear once QAnon-ers entered the Capitol, they had no genuine strategy and no genuine program, instead relying on a millenarian faith that Trump would deliver them from the rule of elite pedophiles, heal the sick, comfort the poor, and establish a New Jerusalem.

Put simply, QAnon is not a properly political movement. Instead, the cultist collection of ideas in the Q eschatology are frenetic, adaptive, and have little connection to political strategy or even reality. Q-Kremlinology is therefore not only unnecessary — Q-Anon zealots pretty much post their every move in full view of the public — but practically pointless.

What the riot does reveal, however, is what QAnon-ers are, and are not, capable of.

Very clearly, they can’t overturn an election. Despite an alarming number of veterans and police officers, they have nowhere near the numbers to prevent security services from murdering them (at the very least, the elites who control American violence are not on board with Q).

Q also can’t — and does not aspire — to woo either the Republican Party or the deep state, neither of which want any competition, especially from a delusional mob that believes all non-Trump elites are satanic pedophiles. On the Republican side, Senator Ben Sasse has called QAnon-ers “nuts”; Representative Liz Cheney has referred to the conspiracy as “dangerous lunacy”; and Karl Rove has lambasted Q as a “group of nuts and kooks.”

And while the initial success of a few Q-associated political campaigns should be monitored, it’s unlikely that Q has the ability to act as a “ginger group” that pushes the Republican Party into a similarly paranoid and potentially dangerous fantasia from the inside, as the Tea Party supposedly did. The fact of the matter is that most dedicated Q members have no interest in working with either party, which they correctly identify as decayed, sclerotic, and hopelessly corrupt.

New congressional representative Lauren Boebert’s commitment to Q has been largely overstated, with the connection hinging mostly on a QAnon radio appearance and a lukewarm Q-curiosity expressed in remarks like, “Everything that I’ve heard of Q, I hope that this is real.” In fact, Boebert reeled back her tacit support for the group, having already been disciplined by a visit from Republican Party officials, the details of which are presently unknown. New representative Marjorie Taylor Greene is a more serious QAnon-er, though she has been with the group for years, having endorsed the conspiracies when the movement was still largely comprised of small business owners like herself. Put another way, Greene belongs to the traditional conservative base and has genuine class interests that she will work to achieve. Whatever bizarre things she might utter, or even believe, her loyalty to capital is not really in doubt.

Additionally, QAnon is incapable of “uniting the Right,” as so many have tried before. After Charlottesville, the tenuous coalitions that united the far right collapsed, resulting in numerous splits and splinter groups. In many ways, Q became the lint trap of these fractures, collecting the orphans of more genuinely political movements, along with culture warriors and the hopelessly online. At this point even Pizzagate godfather Alex Jones has disabused himself of QAnon, and Ariel Pink isn’t exactly a militiaman.

So, like any broad tent that benefits from ecumenism, QAnon thankfully also suffers from sectarianism.

While all follow the Prophet (in this case, Trump), there are profound disagreements about who is preaching his True Word. Some Q are obsessed with Russiagate, others obsess over Pizzagate, and still others form into subcults centered on charismatic leaders like Austin Steinbart. The only glue that holds this collection of malcontents together is a faith in and adoration for Trump: not ideology, not politics, and not even a shared understanding of reality.

Considering the large number of security service services that have likely infiltrated their ranks, one might assume it would be easy enough to sow suspicions among them and fracture the group. They are, after all, a group predicated on paranoia. However, it would appear that QAnon is less susceptible to COINTELPRO than one might hope. But, at least for the moment, they’re more Burning Man than burn-it-all down.

Furthermore, Q has neither the direction, means, nor ability to coordinate the networks required to overtake the American state, nor do they seem especially interested in governing. What they really want is the True King to remain in power. Were there a coup, the deep state wouldn’t trust such a bag of mixed nuts with any real responsibility.

And perhaps most important for those who hope to deprogram and rehabilitate a Q-pilled loved one, there are limits to their faith. At the level of the group, it appears few QAnon-ers are willing to make martyrs of themselves in dramatic moments of violent self-sacrifice.

What Q is capable of is nonetheless significant. As the Capitol assault reveals, they’re willing to attack, and even kill, police officers. They’re also clearly able to organize mass events with a myriad of disaffected people who are willing to put themselves at risk of arrest and imprisonment.

Given historical precedent, this is nonetheless concerning. The Silver Shirts were a mystical, New Age nationalist cult with which no “respectable” fascist group initially wanted to associate. However, over time, more coordinated far-right groups began to identify the Silver Shirts as potential useful idiots, a viable secret militia that they could encourage to use violence while keeping their own hands clean.

It’s possible that the trained among the Q could be used as a militia on behalf of the conservative right or as tools in a Business Plot–style power grab by capital.

But, judging by the combat-readiness of the Q ranks of January 6, this overestimates their present capabilities.

However, even if most QAnon-ers are not inclined toward radical violence, mass events like the one we witnessed on January 6 provide both camouflage and an excuse for exceptionally violent people to act on their twisted fantasies. Whether a protest or a parade, large, boisterous events provide convenient chaos for a dangerous person to hide in plain sight, though this is true regardless of the agenda of the larger crowd.

Liberals and conservatives alike are well aware of the potential violence and threat to the legitimacy of the general order posed by crowds and mass politics. In fact, since the middle of the twentieth century, it’s been liberals who often take the lead on anti-populist politics. Much of modern liberalism is premised on finding reasons to ensure ordinary people don’t really shape most important government decisions.

As such, instead of transforming the conditions that engendered the angry crowds, which is what the left position must be, liberals lambast the idea of the crowd itself, which was well evidenced in the media coverage of the events of January 6.

This brings us to the most significant, and unintended, potential consequence of QAnon’s agitation: the response from a bourgeois security state that for decades has been shoring up its capabilities and winning the hearts and minds of Americans terrified of communists/Islamists/China as well as political and social collapse.

Barbarians at the Gates

Even as the events of January 6 were unfolding, the liberal media’s coverage was subsumed by their horror. Instead of simply reporting on the riots, pundits like Anderson Cooper derided the protesters as “unpatriotic” “terrorists,” “insurrectionists,” and “anarchists” — terms, of course, often used to malign leftists. Cooper also played the “barbarians at the gates” number, highlighting the uncouth, unsophisticated, and tacky American consumption patterns of the QAnon-ers, the Vanderbilt heir sneering at their penchant for Olive Garden and habitation of low-rent hotels.

To Cooper, the real problem with QAnon-ers isn’t their reactionary politics, delusional worldview, or blind adherence to a charismatic leader, but their antiauthoritarianism, lack of respect for and obedience toward the American state and its ruling class, and general vulgarity.

Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Jon Cherry / Getty Images)

Politicians haven’t been much help either. There is, of course, the (second) impeachment campaign, which does not prevent another Trump from emerging and which has the potential to legitimize a corrupt and dysfunctional political system. For a United States experiencing mass death and economic collapse, the spectacle of impeachment, while potentially symbolically powerful, will do little to address the actual concerns of a growing mass of desperate and suffering people.

Then there are the gestures of “liberal capital,” which appear designed to do little more than antagonize increasingly hostile Trump supporters. Twitter has finally responded to Kamala Harris’s call to suspend Trump’s account, but of course @Jack didn’t stop there, suspending and banning accounts of people tweeting even mildly in support of Trump or the demonstrations. Twitter even banned Ben Garrison, a libertarian political cartoonist that draws Trump as a bestriding Adonis with rippling muscles, a sharp jawline, and a never-ending desire to own the libs. More seriously, Twitter and other platforms have also begun to ban anti-Trump users for making fairly obvious parody accounts to mock Trump. It’s not fearmongering to worry that critical voices on the Left might soon be subject to similar measures.

Another dangerous potential effect of the protests is the re-legitimization and strengthening of the national security state. The inklings of what is likely to come are already evident in president-elect Joe Biden’s assertion that the rioters were “domestic terrorists,” a phrase that indicates the new Democratic administration will bring the strategies of the “war on terror” home by cracking down even more on civil liberties, increasing the militarization of domestic security forces, and surveilling masses of people without a warrant. Before the riots gave them cover for their plans, the incoming administration already promised as much.

In the wake of the riots, Congress members like Elissa Slotkin have begun the arguments that “the single greatest national security threat right now is our internal division. It’s the threat of domestic terrorism. It’s that polarization that threatens our democracy.” As the Intercept has noted, such calls are likely to encourage those who advocate the passage of a domestic terror statute that would provide the government with the capacities to go after domestic terrorist groups in a manner similar to how it attacks foreign terrorist groups. The problem with this, as the Intercept makes clear, is that such a law could establish “broad and vague powers that could be used to go after activists or religious minorities.” In fact, after the storming of the Capitol, Republican lawmakers in Florida, Mississippi, and Indiana introduced bills that essentially criminalize protest. Again it is worth remembering that despite their declared aims, the House Un-American Activities Committee was always more invested in prosecuting Communists than Nazis.

And herein lies the danger of misdiagnosing QAnon as the source of, rather than a symptom of, the chaos borne of economic immiseration and rapid American decline. Not only will the move to repress QAnon further justify the repression of left-wing dissent in both legal authority and public opinion; it will do nothing to deprogram the dedicated cultists or curb the reactionary resentments and conspiracies worming their ways through brains across America. In fact, it’s likely to make it worse. That’s how cults work.

The Nature of the Threat

What is to be done about the cult of Q?

There are already online communities comprised of recovering QAnon believers, which tend to operate as both sympathetic support groups and as spaces for sophisticated discussions about Q and its appeal. On these message boards, people tell their life stories, try to understand why they joined QAnon (and how they got out), and offer advice to people who have lost someone they love to Q.

Posters tend to be insightful about the factors that left them vulnerable to such a stark break with reality. In particular, they highlight the significance of economic instability and poverty, general feelings of powerlessness, a broad disillusionment with politics, mental illness and depression, and boredom and loneliness. The pandemic lockdowns are often pointed to as a major factor in the group’s explosion, with many former QAnon-ers stating they had never even heard of the group until COVID-19, when they had little to do with their days except sit at home, alone, on the Internet.

Much of the energy that these former QAnon-ers once dedicated to divining the meaning of cryptic Trump utterances and anonymous Q posts is now directed toward a different kind of search for answers, not only to questions of politics and the economy, but to questions of the psychological and sociological conditions under which we all live. The success of Q, in fact, underlines what the late Michael Brooks emphasized in his work: that people need not only arguments, but spiritual and social connection, to make meaning of their lives.

Most former QAnon-ers recognize the group as a cult, and as such often read and discuss books about the psychology and sociology of indoctrination, refer to James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente’s Stages of Change, post videos of talks given by former Westboro Baptist Church member Megan Phelps-Roper, and host AMAs with people like Steven Hassan, author of Combating Cult Mind Control. Notably, none of the materials discussed seem to have been adopted with the same fevered conviction as the QAnon-ers’ former beliefs; the goal is not to replace one absolute truth with another, but rather to foster a healthy intellectual curiosity, provide compassion and insight that might help others leave or prevent their indoctrination in the first place, and make peace with the uncertainty of life under capitalism.

It’s of course not clear if the sort of ex-Q who posts about their journey was the same stripe of Q who would storm the Capitol, or even how many posters are authentic. For obvious reasons, contributors to these online groups are anonymous, and there is careful moderation to ensure the integrity of what is inevitably a vulnerable therapeutic and intellectual space. Still, a few ex-Q have graciously agreed to speak with or be profiled by journalists.

In late 2020, for instance, Jitarth Jadeja spoke candidly with Rolling Stone and the Washington Post about his indoctrination into Q and the devastating realization that he had believed a series of deranged and cruel lies:

“If I didn’t have family that loved me I probably would have committed suicide,” Jadeja remarked. “It was really a terrible feeling to know that you are this stupid and this wrong.”

And therein lies the rub: loss of faith is often very painful.

Q makes people feel good. We don’t mean merely that it makes them “feel good” by delivering the dopamine jolts that come from the embrace of a community, the thrill of discovery, the satisfaction of enlightenment, and the comfort of a worldview that brings hope, though QAnon does provide all of that. What we mean is that it makes them feel “Good,” as in righteous, heroic, noble, and benevolent. So why would a QAnon-er stop believing, especially given that a return to a pre-Q worldview likely invites back all the pre-Q fear, confusion, and feelings of powerlessness that engendered an individual’s turn to QAnon in the first place, only this time there’s the added pain of shame and the shattering of one’s self-image as a wise and virtuous person.

Friends and family members of the indoctrinated are often in the difficult position of trying to take away a belief system from someone who has finally found an intellectual framework that appears to make sense of the world and allows them to feel in control of what is likely to be an increasingly — and objectively — disenfranchised life.

There are different perspectives on how to break the spell of QAnon, but there are a few relatively consistent tips that sociologists, psychologists, and former cult members themselves recommend adopting at the interpersonal level.

First and foremost, it’s important to recognize that cult membership will not be solved by facts and logic. QAnon-ers, like members of all cults, have embraced a different ontology, a different view of reality, and attempting to “demystify” this new worldview is likely to be construed as naivete, hostility, or perhaps even collaboration with the evil cabal. Relatedly, berating, punishing, or shunning a cult member will probably do little but shore up their belief in the conspiracy theory and possibly direct their paranoia on you.

Instead, the best way to deal with someone who has embraced a conspiracy theory is to show your concern for them. An honest “I’m worried about you” or “This seems to take up a lot of your time and energy” reminds them that you are on their side. With time and luck, this can encourage QAnon-ers to open up about their beliefs. Questioning their claims and asking them to consider alternative explanations requires patience and actively listening to their concerns, getting to the root of the discontent that animates the byzantine collection of conspiracies to which they have subscribed. These are people trying to make sense of a frightening and precarious world, and if they believe the exit from Q requires them to again feel confused, powerless, and terrified, they are unlikely to leave the comfort of their delusions.

Presenting oneself as the sole authority of truth is generally counterproductive. One, you’re not, and two, an air of superiority ensures that a friend or relative will not confide in such a person should they begin to have doubts. The idea is to be patient and leave the door open for when cracks of skepticism emerge. No one likes feeling ashamed, and no one seeks a confidante who is likely to tell them, “I told you so.”

Finally, deriding QAnon-ers’ feelings of insecurity and outrage or writing them off as irrational or “privileged” does nothing. To reverse a quote by one of the United States’ dumbest minds, “feelings don’t care about your facts.” Indeed, be sure to make clear that you understand that their motives are “Good,” as in righteous, heroic, noble, and benevolent.

However, not only should one not overestimate their power to deprogram a QAnon-er; such a case-by-case approach swats at flies. Cults tend to recruit from the already lost and lonely, and both generate and exacerbate preexisting and pervasive antisocial insularity, isolating members from the people best equipped to help them. Moreover, individually deprogramming QAnon-ers does nothing to alleviate the conditions that produced the Q mindset, conditions that will only be addressed by transforming the world that allowed the conspiracy to take hold in the minds of so many.

QAnon-ers are correct about a lot of things. Recent revelations like those surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein scandal indicate that a lot of wealthy elites are, in fact, members of a pedophilic cabal. More broadly, though, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that much of the world has gotten worse for millions of people as a direct result of forces beyond their control.

Socialists have some big advantages over an anonymous 4chan account; not only do we have explanations and a political program that addresses QAnon-ers’ legitimate concerns, but we also have reality and the honesty and humility to admit that, while we don’t have all the answers, we aspire to build a system that is democratic and just, that is honest, and that cultivates the better angels of our nature, so that our world, and indeed humanity itself, can become Good.

Daniel Bessner is the Joff Hanauer Honors Associate Professor in Western Civilization in the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. He is also a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a contributing editor at Jacobin.

Amber A’Lee Frost is a writer and co-host of the Chapo Trap House podcast. She is currently completing her first book, on the rise of social-democratic politics post-2008 financial crisis.

Freaked-Out Radical Congresswoman NOT IN US CAPITOL During Jan. 6 Riot, As Claimed

AOC compared to Jussie Smollett after her ‘near-death’ riot experience revealed as hiding from POLICE in office OUTSIDE Capitol

AOC compared to Jussie Smollett after her ‘near-death’ riot experience revealed as hiding from POLICE in office OUTSIDE Capitol
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is being compared to the actor who staged an attack on himself, after her account of fearing for her life during the January 6 riot was fact-checked, exposing that she wasn’t in the Capitol building.

The hashtags #AlexandriaOcasioSmollett, along with #AOCLied, trended on Wednesday, following a fact-check of AOC’s (D-New York) Instagram livestream two days prior by OAN journalist Jack Posobiec. During her emotional one-and-a-half-hour-long talk, Ocasio-Cortez admitted that she was not in the Capitol building during the riot to begin with, but continued to claim that she experienced a life-threatening situation.

When Ocasio-Cortez denounced it as a “manipulative take on the right,” Posobiec posted a map, with arrows pointing to the Capitol as well as two other office buildings across the road. One of them is where AOC’s own office is located, and where she claimed she “thought I was going to die” during the January 6 events. Another is where she ended up sheltering inside the office of Rep. Katie Porter (D-California) after leaving her office on the instructions of the Capitol Police.

“This isn’t a fact check at all,” Ocasio-Cortez responded to Posobiec’s post. “Your arrows aren’t accurate. They lie about where the mob stormed & place them further away than it was.”

She accused Posobiec of failing to show that demonstrators were trying to “storm” multiple areas, or showing “tunnels” between the Capitol and other office buildings – which to a lot of people sounded like moving the goalposts and not in line with her original description. Her post was quickly ratioed on Twitter, and the hashtag comparing her to Jussie Smollett began to trend.

A crowd of supporters of President Donald Trump had gathered outside the main Capitol building on January 6, eventually breaking inside and disrupting the joint session of Congress meeting to certify 2020 presidential election results. During the Monday night Instagram live-stream, Ocasio-Cortez described how she hid in the bathroom of her office, located in the Cannon House Building, and thought she was “going to die.”

However, she then admitted that the man who rushed into the office and supposedly looked at her with “anger and hostility” turned out to be an officer with the Capitol Police – who are now treated by Congress as heroes who opposed the “insurrection” against “our democracy.” 

The officer then instructed her and her staffer to go to the Longworth House Office Building – the one where Porter’s office is located, and the one that Ocasio-Cortez claims some protesters later tried to storm. There is no publicly available evidence that any of the rioters got anywhere close to Ocasio-Cortez’s whereabouts, and Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-North Carolina), who has her office two doors down from that of AOC’s, has said that “insurrectionists never stormed our hallway.”

However, Ocasio-Cortez has already sought to fend off any backlash by comparing criticism to a “tactic of abusers,” as she revealed she’s also a “survivor of sexual assault.”

ALSO ON RT.COM‘Bravery’ or ‘manipulative’? AOC comes out as survivor of sexual assault while describing ‘trauma’ of Capitol riotThis appeared to be a reference to a letter by 13 House Republicans demanding an apology from her for accusing Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and others who challenged the 2020 election results as trying to have her “murdered” by supposedly “inciting” the rioters. Her January 28 tweet targeting Cruz said she was “happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed.”

Smollett, who AOC scored comparisons to, shot to fame in February 2019, after accusing two Trump supporters of a racist and homophobic attack in Chicago. He quickly garnered sympathy from the media, activists and Democrats such as then-senator and current Vice President Kamala Harris. When the police located the men who allegedly doused him with bleach and put a noose around his neck, they turned out to be Nigerian immigrants who said the ‘Empire’ actor paid them to stage the “attack.”

Whatever the truth about AOC’s alleged sexual assault and near-death experience at the Capitol, some critics of the progressive social media star noted that she had successfully diverted attention from problems with the government and the small investor rebellion against hedge funds.

Mainstream American Media Is NOT fact-based reporting, If Half the Facts Are Omitted

“How do you bring those people back into the mainstream of fact-based reporting and try to get us all back into the same consensus reality?”–CNN interview.

The CIA Democrats: Part one
The CIA Democrats: Part two
The CIA Democrats: Part three–9 March 2018

Ideological Alignment Pushing America Toward Totalitarianism, Experts Warn


Concerns over the nexus of big tech, big media, and big government

The formation of a totalitarian state is just about complete in America as the most powerful public and private sector actors unify behind the idea that actions to stamp out dissent can be justified, according to several experts on modern totalitarian ideologies.

While many have warned about the rise of fascism or socialism in “the land of the free,” the ideas have largely been vague or fragmented, focusing on individual events or actors. Recent events, however, indicate that seemingly unconnected pieces of the oppression puzzle are fitting together to form a comprehensive system, according to Michael Rectenwald, a retired liberal arts professor at New York University.

But many Americans, it appears, have been caught off guard or aren’t even aware of the newly forming regime, as the idea of elected officials, government bureaucrats, large corporations, the establishment academia, think tanks and nonprofits, the legacy media, and even seemingly grassroots movements all working in concert toward some evil purpose seems preposterous. Is a large portion of the country in on a conspiracy?

The reality now emerges that no massive conspiracy was, in fact, needed—merely an ideological alignment and some informal coordination, Rectenwald argues.

Despite the lack of formal overarching organization, the American socialist regime is indeed totalitarian, as the root of its ideology requires politically motivated coercion, he told The Epoch Times. The power of the regime isn’t yet absolute, but it’s becoming increasingly effective as it erodes the values, checks, and balances against tyranny established by traditional beliefs and enshrined in the American founding.

The effects can be seen throughout society. Americans, regardless of their income, demographics, or social stature, are being fired from jobs, getting stripped of access to basic services such as banking and social media, or having their businesses crippled for voicing political opinions and belonging to a designated political underclass. Access to sources of information unsanctioned by the regime is becoming increasingly difficult. Some figures of power and influence are sketching the next step, labeling large segments of society as “extremists” and potential terrorists who need to be “deprogrammed.”

While the onset of the regime appears tied to events of recent years—the presidency of Donald Trump, the CCP virus pandemic, the Capitol intrusion of Jan. 6—its roots go back decades.

Is It Really Totalitarian?

Totalitarian regimes are commonly understood as constituting a government headed by a dictator that regiments the economy, censors the media, and quells dissent by force. That’s not the case in America, but it’s also a misunderstanding of how such regimes function, literature on totalitarianism indicates.

To claim power, the regimes don’t initially need to control every aspect of society through government.

Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialist Workers Party in Nazi Germany, used various means to control the economy, including gaining compliance of industry leaders voluntarily, through intimidation, or through replacing the executives with party loyalists.

Similarly, the regime rearing its head in America relies on corporate executives to implement its agenda voluntarily but also through intimidation by online brigades of activists and journalists who take initiative to launch negative public relations campaigns and boycotts to progress their preferred societal structure.

Also, Hitler initially didn’t control the spread of information via government censorship but rather through his brigades of street thugs, the “brown shirts,” who would intimidate and physically prevent his opponents from speaking publicly.

The tactic parallels the often successful efforts to “cancel” and “shut down” public speakers by activists and violent actors such as Antifa.

Dissenting media in America haven’t been silenced by the government directly as of yet, but they are stymied in other ways.

In the digital age, media largely rely on reaching and growing their audience through social media and web search engines, which are dominated by Facebook and Google. Both companies have in place mechanisms to crack down on dissenting media.

Google gives preference in its search results to sources it deems “authoritative.” Search results indicate the company tends to consider media ideologically close to it to be more authoritative. Such media can then produce hit pieces on their competitors, giving Google justification to slash the “authoritativeness” of the dissenters.

Facebook employs third-party fact-checkers who have the discretion to label content as “false” and thus reduce the audience on its platform. Virtually all the fact-checkers focused on American content are ideologically aligned with Facebook.

Attempts to set up alternative social media have run into yet more fundamental obstacles, as demonstrated by Parler, whose mobile app was terminated by Google and Apple, while the company was kicked off Amazon’s servers.

To the degree that a totalitarian regime requires a police state, there’s no U.S. law targeting dissenters explicitly. But there are troubling signs of selective, politically motivated enforcement. Signs go back to the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups or the difference in treatment received by former Trump adviser retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe—both allegedly lying to investigators but only one getting prosecuted. The situation may get still worse as the restrictions tied to the CCP virus see broad swaths of ordinary human behavior being considered “illegal,” opening the door to nearly universal political targeting.

“I think the means by which a police state is being set up is the demonization of Trump supporters and the likely use of medical passports to institute the effective equivalent of social credit scores,” Rectenwald said.

While loyalty to the government and to a specific political party plays a major role, it’s the allegiance to the ideological root of totalitarianism that gives the system its foot soldiers, literature on the subject indicates.

Totalitarian Ideology

The element “that holds totalitarianism together as a composite of intellectual elements” is the ambition of fundamentally reimagining society—“the intention to create a ‘New Man,’” said author Richard Shorten in “Modernism and Totalitarianism: Rethinking the Intellectual Sources of Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the Present.”

Various ideologies have framed the ambition differently, based on what they posited as the key to the transformation.

Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, viewed the control of the economy as primary, describing socialism as “socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature,” in his Das Kapital.

Meanwhile, Hitler viewed race as primary. People would become “socialized”—that is transformed and perfected—by removing Jews and other supposedly “lesser” races from society, he claimed.

The most dominant among the current ideologies stems from the so-called critical theories, by which the perfected society is defined by “equity,” meaning elimination of differences in outcomes for people in demographic categories deemed historically marginalized. The goal is to be achieved by eliminating the ever-present “white supremacy,” however the ideologues currently define it.

While such ideologies commonly prescribe collectivism, calling for national or even international unification behind their agenda, they are elitist and dictatorial in practice as they find mankind never “woke” enough to follow their agenda voluntarily.

In Marx’s prophecies, the revolution was supposed to occur spontaneously. Yet, it never did, leading Vladimir Lenin, the first head of the Soviet Union, to conclude that the revolution will need leadership after all.

“The idea is that you have some enlightened party … who understand the problem of the proletariat better than the proletariat does and is going to shepherd them through the revolution that they need to have for the greater good,” said James Lindsay, author of “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody.”

Elements of this intellectual foundation can be found in ideologies of many current political forces, from neo-nazis and anarcho-communists, through to progressives, and to some extent even neoliberals and neoconservatives, Lindsay said.

“This is why you see so many people today saying that the only possible answers are a full return to classical liberalism or a complete rejection of liberalism entirely as fatally disposed to create progressivism, neoliberalism, etc.,” he said.

That’s not to say these ideologies are openly advocating totalitarianism, but rather that they inevitably lead to it.

The roadmap could be summarized as follows:

  1. There’s something fundamentally and intolerably wrong with current reality
  2. There’s a plan to fix it requiring a whole society buy-in
  3. People opposing the plan need to be educated about the plan so they accept it
  4. People who resist the persuasion need to be reeducated, even against their will
  5. People who won’t accept the plan, no matter what, need to be removed from society.

“I think that’s the general thrust,” Lindsay said. “We can make the world the way we want it to be if we all just get on the same page and same project. It’s a disaster, frankly.”

Points four and five now appear to be in progress.

Former Facebook executive Alex Stamos recently labeled the widespread questioning of the 2020 election results as “violent extremism,” which social media companies should eradicate the same way they countered online recruitment content from the ISIS terrorist group.

The “core issue,” he said, is that “we have given a lot of leeway, both in traditional media and on social media, to people to have a very broad range of political views,” and this has led to the emergence of “more and more radical” alternative media like OAN and Newsmax.

Stamos then mused about how to reform Americans who’ve tuned in to the dissenters.

“How do you bring those people back into the mainstream of fact-based reporting and try to get us all back into the same consensus reality?” he asked in a CNN interview.

“And can you? Is that possible?” CNN host Brian Stelter said.

The logic goes as follows: Trump claimed the election was stolen through fraud and other illegalities. That hasn’t been proven in court and is thus false. People who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and managed to break inside and disrupt the electoral vote counting did so because they believed the election was stolen. Therefore, anybody who questions the legitimacy of the election results is an extremist and potentially a terrorist.

With tens of thousands of troops assembled to guard the inauguration of President Joe Biden, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) recently told CNN that all guard members who voted for Trump belong to a “suspect group” that “might want to do something,” alluding to past leaders of other countries who were “killed by their own people.”

Former FBI Director James Comey recently said the Republican Party needs to be “burned down or changed.”

“They want a one-party state,” conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza said in a recent podcast. “That is not to say they don’t want an opposition. They want a token opposition. They want Republicans where they get to say what kind of Republican is OK.”

Just as Marx blamed the ills of the world on capitalists and Hitler on Jews, the current regime tends to blame various permutations of “white supremacy.”

“Expel the Republican members of Congress who incited the white supremacist attempted coup,” said Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) in a recent tweet, garnering some 300,000 likes. She was referring to the Republican lawmakers who raised objections on Jan. 6 to election results in Arizona and Pennsylvania. Their objections were voted down.

“Can U.S. Spy Agencies Stop White Terror?” Daily Beast’s Jeff Stein asked in a recent headline, concluding that a call for “secret police” to sniff out “extremist” Americans “may well get renewed attention.”

Under the regime, allegations of election fraud—de facto questioning the legitimacy of the leader—have become incitement of terrorism. YouTube (owned by Google), Facebook, and Twitter have either banned content that claims the election was rigged or are furnishing it with warning labels. Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey was recently recorded as saying that banning the president’s account was just the beginning.

The approach closely mirrors that of the Chinese communist regime, which commonly targets dissidents for “subverting” the state or “spreading rumors.”

What’s the Alternative?

If calls for radically reorganizing the world are inherently totalitarian, how is the world to avoid them? The question appears to be its own answer. If totalitarianism inherently requires allegiance to its ideology, it can’t exist in a society with a lack of such allegiance.

The United States was founded on the idea that individual rights are God-given and unalienable. The idea, rooted in traditional beliefs that human morality is of divine origin, stands a bulwark against any attempt to assail people’s rights even for their own good.

Rectenwald said: “If you’re not a believer in actual God, you can posit a God’s ideal on the matter. … We have to posit some arbiter who’s above and beyond our own prejudices and biases in order to ensure these kinds of rights. … Because otherwise, you have this infinitely malleable situation in which people with power and coercive potential can eliminate and rationalize the elimination of rights willy-nilly.”

Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvab

Democrat Party Declares New Terror War On the Half of America That Voted For Trump

Trump Led A Voting Bloc of 70 Million Anti-Elitists

The New Domestic War on Terror is Coming

No speculation is needed. Those who wield power are demanding it. The only question is how much opposition they will encounter.

National Guard Troops walk down the stairs towards the Capitol Visitors Center on Monday, Jan. 18, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

The last two weeks have ushered in a wave of new domestic police powers and rhetoric in the name of fighting “terrorism” that are carbon copies of many of the worst excesses of the first War on Terror that began nearly twenty years ago. This trend shows no sign of receding as we move farther from the January 6 Capitol riot. The opposite is true: it is intensifying.

We have witnessed an orgy of censorship from Silicon Valley monopolies with calls for far more aggressive speech policing, a visibly militarized Washington, D.C. featuring a non-ironically named “Green Zone,” vows from the incoming president and his key allies for a new anti-domestic terrorism bill, and frequent accusations of “sedition,” “treason,” and “terrorism” against members of Congress and citizens. This is all driven by a radical expansion of the meaning of “incitement to violence.” It is accompanied by viral-on-social-media pleas that one work with the FBI to turn in one’s fellow citizens (See Something, Say Something!) and demands for a new system of domestic surveillance.

Underlying all of this are immediate insinuations that anyone questioning any of this must, by virtue of these doubts, harbor sympathy for the Terrorists and their neo-Nazi, white supremacist ideology. Liberals have spent so many years now in a tight alliance with neocons and the CIA that they are making the 2002 version of John Ashcroft look like the President of the (old-school) ACLU.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security website, touting a trademarked phrase licensed to it in 2010 by the City of New York, urging citizens to report “suspicious activity” to the FBI and other security state agencies

The more honest proponents of this new domestic War on Terror are explicitly admitting that they want to model it on the first one. A New York Times reporter noted on Monday that a “former intelligence official on PBS NewsHour” said “that the US should think about a ‘9/11 Commission’ for domestic extremism and consider applying some of the lessons from the fight against Al Qaeda here at home.” More amazingly, Gen. Stanley McChrystal — for years head of Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and the commander of the war in Afghanistan — explicitly compared that war to this new one, speaking to Yahoo News:

I did see a similar dynamic in the evolution of al-Qaida in Iraq, where a whole generation of angry Arab youth with very poor prospects followed a powerful leader who promised to take them back in time to a better place, and he led them to embrace an ideology that justified their violence. This is now happening in America….I think we’re much further along in this radicalization process, and facing a much deeper problem as a country, than most Americans realize.”

Anyone who, despite all this, still harbors lingering doubts that the Capitol riot is and will be the neoliberal 9/11, and that a new War on Terror is being implemented in its name, need only watch the two short video clips below, which will clear their doubts for good. It is like being catapulted by an unholy time machine back to Paul Wolfowitz’s 2002 messaging lab.

The first video, flagged by Tom Elliott, is from Monday morning’s Morning Joe program on MSNBC (the show that arguably did more to help Donald Trump become the GOP nominee than any other). It features Jeremy Bash — one of the seemingly countless employees of TV news networks who previously worked in Obama’s CIA and Pentagon — demanding that, in response to the Capitol riot, “we reset our entire intelligence approach,” including “look[ing] at greater surveillance of them,” adding: “the FBI is going to have to run confidential sources.” See if you detect any differences between what CIA operatives and neocons were saying in 2002 when demanding the Patriot Act and greater FBI and NSA surveillance and what this CIA-official-turned-NBC-News-analyst is saying here:

The second video features the amazing declaration from former Facebook security official Alex Stamos, talking to the very concerned CNN host Brian Stelter, about the need for social media companies to use the same tactics against U.S. citizens that they used to remove ISIS from the internet — “in collaboration with law enforcement” — and that those tactics should be directly aimed at what he calls extremist “conservative influencers.”

“Press freedoms are being abused by these actors,” the former Facebook executive proclaimed. Stamos noted how generous he and his comrades have been up until now: “We have given a lot of leeway — both in the traditional media and in social media — to people with a very broad range of views.” But no more. Now is the time to “get us all back in the same consensual reality.”

In a moment of unintended candor, Stamos noted the real problem: “there are people on YouTube, for example, that have a larger audience than people on daytime CNN” — and it’s time for CNN and other mainstream outlets to seize the monopoly on information dissemination to which they are divinely entitled by taking away the platforms of those whom people actually want to watch and listen to:

(If still not convinced, and if you can endure it, you can also watch MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski literally screaming that one needed remedy to the Capitol riot is that the Biden administration must “shutdown” Facebook. Shutdown Facebook).

Calls for a War on Terror sequel — a domestic version complete with surveillance and censorship — are not confined to ratings-deprived cable hosts and ghouls from the security state. The Wall Street Journal reports that “Mr. Biden has said he plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism, and he has been urged to create a White House post overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremists and increasing funding to combat them.”

Meanwhile, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) — not just one of the most dishonest members of Congress but also one of the most militaristic and authoritarian — has had a bill proposed since 2019 to simply amend the existing foreign anti-terrorism bill to allow the U.S. Government to invoke exactly the same powers at home against “domestic terrorists.”

Why would such new terrorism laws be needed in a country that already imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world as the result of a very aggressive set of criminal laws? What acts should be criminalized by new “domestic terrorism” laws that are not already deemed criminal? They never say, almost certainly because — just as was true of the first set of new War on Terror laws — their real aim is to criminalize that which should not be criminalized: speech, association, protests, opposition to the new ruling coalition.

US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) flanked by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) (R) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), speaks at a press conference on Capitol Hill (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)

The answer to this question — what needs to be criminalized that is not already a crime? — scarcely seems to matter. Media and political elites have placed as many Americans as they can — and it is a lot — into full-blown fear and panic mode, and when that happens, people are willing to acquiesce to anything claimed necessary to stop that threat, as the first War on Terror, still going strong twenty years later, decisively proved.

An entire book could — and probably should — be written on why all of this is so concerning. For the moment, two points are vital to emphasize.

First, much of the alarmism and fear-mongering is being driven by a deliberate distortion of what it means for speech to “incite violence.” The bastardizing of this phrase was the basis for President Trump’s rushed impeachment last week. It is also what is driving calls for dozens of members of Congress to be expelled and even prosecuted on “sedition” charges for having objected to the Electoral College certification, and is also at the heart of the spate of censorship actions already undertaken and further repressive measures being urged.

This phrase — “inciting violence” — was also what drove many of the worst War on Terror abuses. I spent years reporting on how numerous young American Muslims were prosecuted under new, draconian anti-terrorism laws for uploading anti-U.S.-foreign-policy YouTube videos or giving rousing anti-American speeches deemed to “incite violence” and thus provide “material support” to terrorist groups — the exact theory which Rep. Schiff is seeking to import into the new domestic War on Terror.

It is vital to ask what it means for speech to constitute “incitement to violence” to the point that it can be banned or criminalized. The expression of any political viewpoint, especially one passionately expressed, has the potential to “incite” someone else to get so riled up that they engage in violence.

If you rail against the threats to free speech posed by Silicon Valley monopolies, someone hearing you may get so filled with rage that they decide to bomb an Amazon warehouse or a Facebook office. If you write a blistering screed accusing pro-life activists of endangering the lives of women by forcing them back into unsafe back-alley abortions, or if you argue that abortion is murder, you may very well inspire someone to engage in violence against a pro-life group or an abortion clinic. If you start a protest movement to object to the injustice of Wall Street bailouts — whether you call it “Occupy Wall Street” or the Tea Party — you may cause someone to go hunt down Goldman Sachs or Citibank executives who they believe are destroying the economic future of millions of people.

If you claim that George W. Bush stole the 2000 and/or 2004 elections — as many Democrats, including members of Congress, did — you may inspire civic unrest or violence against Bush and his supporters. The same is true if you claim the 2016 or 2020 elections were fraudulent or illegitimate. If you rage against the racist brutality of the police, people may go burn down buildings in protest — or murder randomly selected police officers whom they have become convinced are agents of a racist genocidal state.

The Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer and hard-core Democratic partisan, James Hodgkinson, who went to a softball field in June, 2017 to murder Republican Congress members — and almost succeeded in fatally shooting Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) — had spent months listening to radical Sanders supporters and participating in Facebook groups with names like “Terminate the Republican Party” and “Trump is a Traitor.”

Hodgkinson had heard over and over that Republicans were not merely misguided but were “traitors” and grave threats to the Republic. As CNN reported, “his favorite television shows were listed as ‘Real Time with Bill Maher;’ ‘The Rachel Maddow Show;’ ‘Democracy Now!’ and other left-leaning programs.” All of the political rhetoric to which he was exposed — from the pro-Sanders Facebook groups, MSNBC and left-leaning shows — undoubtedly played a major role in triggering his violent assault and decision to murder pro-Trump Republican Congress members.

Despite the potential of all of those views to motivate others to commit violence in their name — potential that has sometimes been realized — none of the people expressing those views, no matter how passionately, can be validly characterized as “inciting violence” either legally or ethically. That is because all of that speech is protected, legitimate speech. None of it advocates violence. None of it urges others to commit violence in its name. The fact that it may “inspire” or “motivate” some mentally unwell person or a genuine fanatic to commit violence does not make the person espousing those views and engaging in that non-violent speech guilty of “inciting violence” in any meaningful sense.

To illustrate this point, I have often cited the crucial and brilliantly reasoned Supreme Court free speech ruling in Claiborne v. NAACP. In the 1960s and 1970s, the State of Mississippi tried to hold local NAACP leaders liable on the ground that their fiery speeches urging a boycott of white-owned stores “incited” their followers to burn down stores and violently attack patrons who did not honor the protest. The state’s argument was that the NAACP leaders knew that they were metaphorically pouring gasoline on a fire with their inflammatory rhetoric to rile up and angry crowds.

But the Supreme Court rejected that argument, explaining that free speech will die if people are held responsible not for their own violent acts but for those committed by others who heard them speak and were motivated to commit crimes in the name of that cause (emphasis added):

Civil liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence. . . .

[A]ny such theory fails for the simple reason that there is no evidence — apart from the speeches themselves — that [the NAACP leader sued by the State] authorized, ratified, or directly threatened acts of violence. . . . . To impose liability without a finding that the NAACP authorized — either actually or apparently — or ratified unlawful conduct would impermissibly burden the rights of political association that are protected by the First Amendment. . . .

While the State legitimately may impose damages for the consequences of violent conduct, it may not award compensation for the consequences of nonviolent, protected activity. Only those losses proximately caused by unlawful conduct may be recovered.

The First Amendment similarly restricts the ability of the State to impose liability on an individual solely because of his association with another.

The Claiborne court relied upon the iconic First Amendment ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohiowhich overturned the criminal conviction of a KKK leader who had publicly advocated the possibility of violence against politicians. Even explicitly advocating the need or justifiability of violence for political ends is protected speech, ruled the court. They carved out a very narrow exception: “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” — meaning someone is explicitly urging an already assembled mob to specific violence with the expectation that they will do so more or less immediately (such as standing outside someone’s home and telling the gathered mob: it’s time to burn it down).

It goes without saying that First Amendment jurisprudence on “incitement” governs what a state can do when punishing or restricting speech, not what a Congress can do in impeaching a president or expelling its own members, and certainly not social media companies seeking to ban people from their platforms.

But that does not make these principles of how to understand “incitement to violence” irrelevant when applied to other contexts. Indeed, the central reasoning of these cases is vital to preserve everywhere: that if speech is classified as “incitement to violence” despite not explicitly advocating violence, it will sweep up any political speech which those wielding this term wish it to encompass. No political speech will be safe from this term when interpreted and applied so broadly and carelessly.

And that is directly relevant to the second point. Continuing to process Washington debates of this sort primarily through the prism of “Democrat v. Republican” or even “left v. right” is a sure ticket to the destruction of core rights. There are times when powers of repression and censorship are aimed more at the left and times when they are aimed more at the right, but it is neither inherently a left-wing nor a right-wing tactic. It is a ruling class tactic, and it will be deployed against anyone perceived to be a dissident to ruling class interests and orthodoxies no matter where on the ideological spectrum they reside.

The last several months of politician-and-journalist-demanded Silicon Valley censorship has targeted the right, but prior to that and simultaneously it has often targeted those perceived as on the left. The government has frequently declared right-wing domestic groups “terrorists,” while in the 1960s and 1970s it was left-wing groups devoted to anti-war activism which bore that designation. In 2011, British police designated the London version of Occupy Wall Street a “terrorist” group. In the 1980s, the African National Congress was so designated. “Terrorism” is an amorphous term that was created, and will always be used, to outlaw formidable dissent no matter its source or ideology.

If you identify as a conservative and continue to believe that your prime enemies are ordinary leftists, or you identify as a leftist and believe your prime enemies are Republican citizens, you will fall perfectly into the trap set for you. Namely, you will ignore your real enemies, the ones who actually wield power at your expense: ruling class elites, who really do not care about “right v. left” and most definitely do not care about “Republican v. Democrat” — as evidenced by the fact that they fund both parties — but instead care only about one thing: stability, or preservation of the prevailing neoliberal order.

Unlike so many ordinary citizens addicted to trivial partisan warfare, these ruling class elites know who their real enemies are: anyone who steps outside the limits and rules of the game they have crafted and who seeks to disrupt the system that preserves their prerogatives and status. The one who put this best was probably Barack Obama when he was president, when he observed — correctly — that the perceived warfare between establishment Democratic and Republican elites was mostly theater, and on the question of what they actually believe, they’re both “fighting inside the 40 yard line” together:

A standard Goldman Sachs banker or Silicon Valley executive has far more in common, and is far more comfortable, with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan than they do with the ordinary American citizen. Except when it means a mildly disruptive presence — like Trump — they barely care whether Democrats or Republicans rule various organs of government, or whether people who call themselves “liberals” or “conservatives” ascend to power. Some left-wing members of Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) have said they oppose a new domestic terrorism law, but Democrats will have no trouble forming a majority by partnering with their neocon GOP allies like Liz Cheney to get it done, as they did earlier this year to stop the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Germany.

Neoliberalism and imperialism do not care about the pseudo-fights between the two parties or the cable TV bickering of the day. They do not like the far left or the far right. They do not like extremism of any kind. They do not support Communism and they do not support neo-Nazism or some fascist revolution. They care only about one thing: disempowering and crushing anyone who dissents from and threatens their hegemony. They care about stopping dissidents. All the weapons they build and institutions they assemble — the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the NSA, oligarchical power — exist for that sole and exclusive purpose, to fortify their power by rewarding those who accede to their pieties and crushing those who do not.

No matter your views on the threat posed by international Islamic radicalism, huge excesses were committed in the name of stopping it — or, more accurately, the fears it generated were exploited to empower and entrench existing financial and political elites. The Authorization to Use Military Force — responsible for twenty-years-and-counting of war — was approved by the House three days after the 9/11 attack with just one dissenting vote. The Patriot Act — which radically expanded government surveillance powers — was enacted a mere six weeks after that attack, based on the promise that it would be temporary and “sunset” in four years. Like the wars spawned by 9/11, it is still in full force, virtually never debated any longer and predictably expanded far beyond how it was originally depicted.

The first War on Terror ended up being wielded primarily on foreign soil but it has increasingly been imported onto domestic soil against Americans. This New War on Terror — one that is domestic in name from the start and carries the explicit purpose of fighting “extremists” and “domestic terrorists” among American citizens on U.S. soil — presents the whole slew of historically familiar dangers when governments, exploiting media-generated fear and dangers, arm themselves with the power to control information, debate, opinion, activism and protests.

That a new War on Terror is coming is not a question of speculation and it is not in doubt. Those who now wield power are saying it explicitly. The only thing that is in doubt is how much opposition they will encounter from those who value basic civic rights more than the fears of one another being deliberately cultivated within us.

Turning Politics Into War

[Despite predictions of more violence predicted for today and the next few days, it is important to point-out once again, that this is NOT A ONE-SIDED FIGHT, the left did as much as the right (if not more) to prepare the ground for something like a civil war.  The post below does an excellent job of listing many of the Democrat actions which went into this fight.  Follow the reference links to reports confirming the extreme claims made.]

The left’s bare-faced hypocrisy: Devine


What a difference a week makes. On Wednesday, we discovered that House Democrats actually support police. They are against mob violence. They believe in law and order. They believe in harsh punishment for rule breakers. They believe in accountability.

They care deeply about civility. They believe words matter. They abhor intemperate rhetoric. They are against coarse language. Fancy that.

They believe in a peaceful transition of power, at least this time, as opposed to 2016. They believe in the Electoral College. They believe in the legitimacy of the people’s vote.

They believe in walls, at least when it comes to protecting their own place of work. They even believe in bringing in the National Guard to quell civil unrest, at least when it comes to preserving their own peace.

They believe in guns, at least when their own safety is at risk.

They revere American history and institutional norms. They honor the Founding Fathers. Hah!

This is what we learned while watching the Democrats in the House impeach President Trump for the second pointless time in 13 months.

We learned that they, almost to a man and a woman, suffer from an acute case of hypocrite-itis.

Where have they been the past four years with these noble ideas that conservatives have been begging them to defend?

Perhaps if Democrats had not normalized and encouraged violence when organized BLM-Antifa mobs began rampaging through our cities, the tragic events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol would not have occurred.

As Republican Rep. Pat Fallon of Texas said Wednesday:

“Last summer the Antifa and BLM riots swept across our country. Businesses were destroyed, cities burned. It was not like the horrible hours we had on January 6. But rather, they went on for weeks and in some cases months.

Democrats have seemingly forgotten how many businesses and communities were burned amid the ‘peaceful’ George Floyd protests last summer.
Democrats have seemingly forgotten how many businesses and communities were burned amid the “peaceful” George Floyd protests last summer.
Star Tribune via Getty Images 

“So if there’s any silver lining in this dark cloud, it’s that our friends across the aisle have come to realize that riots are bad. We conservatives have known this all along.”

Perhaps if Democrats had not weaponized the intelligence agencies to spy on Trump’s campaign, perhaps if they had not used the Steele dossier to undermine the legitimacy of his presidency and accuse him of colluding with Russia to rig the 2016 election, perhaps if they had not hobbled his administration with the three-year Mueller investigation, perhaps more Trump voters would have been willing to accept the legitimacy of a Biden presidency.

Perhaps if Dems had not already launched a spiteful partisan impeachment last year, their efforts to highlight the president’s shortcomings would have fallen on fewer deaf ears this time.

Nancy Pelosi and the left suffer from an acute case of hypocrite-itis.
Nancy Pelosi and the left suffer from an acute case of hypocrite-itis.

As Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio said,it took just 19 minutes into Trump’s presidency for the Washington Post to trumpet: “Campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” 

“And now with just one week left,” Jordan said Wednesday, “they’re still trying.”

Perhaps if Dems had reflected on their own culpability in the attempted assassination of Republican Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana by a Bernie Sanders supporter, their sanctimonious lectures Wednesday would be more credible.

“I’ve seen the evil of political violence firsthand and it needs to stop,” Scalise said Wednesday. “But all of us need to be unequivocal calling it out when we see it, not just when it comes from the other side of the aisle.”

Perhaps if Joe Biden had not spent two years muscling up to Trump, with threats like “I’d smack him in the mouth” and “I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,” Biden’s pitch for civility might be more palatable.

Perhaps if Democrats had not spent the last four years calling Trump a dictator, authoritarian, Nazi, Hitler, white supremacist, anti-Semite, bigot, racist, hater, dangerous, demented and insane, then the hyperbole they used against him Wednesday might have been more effective.

The Aesop’s fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” comes to mind. Democrats and their media handmaidens have spent four years demonizing Trump, using the most outlandish hyperbole their fevered imaginations could dream up.

So when finally, at the bitter end, when he behaves in a way that angers even his most loyal supporters, there is nowhere left to go in the demonization department.

Hence the absurdity of Wednesday’s rhetoric in the House, as Democrats overreached yet again, traducing the president as a “white supremacist” — or “racist in chief,” as Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan called him.

Instead of impeaching the president, the House could have censured him and gathered a lot more Republican votes.

His refrain since November about having won in a “landslide” was reckless and deluded but it had nothing to do with racism, and his speech at the Ellipse in DC on Jan. 6 explicitly called for the crowd to “peacefully” protest.

How was he to know that the Capitol would not be adequately guarded, and the mob would so easily smash their way inside?

Capitol Police had been left like lambs to the slaughter in part because the cop-hating mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, wrote to the Department of Justice the day before the protests specifically to reject federal reinforcements.

The flexible morality and selective outrage of the Democrats and their media boosters is so dishonest, it makes your head spin.

At a thunderous press conference Tuesday, acting US Attorney for DC Michael Sherwin said law enforcement officials are treating last week’s Capitol riot “like an international counterterrorism investigation. We’re looking at everything — money, travel records. No resource will be unchecked.”

It is reportedly one of the “most expansive criminal investigations in the history of the Justice Department,” with all 56 FBI field offices involved.

Great, but where was that kind of gravitas when BLM-Antifa rioters locked Seattle police in a building and tried to burn them alive?

Or when police were attacked with bricks and Molotov cocktails, whole blocks were looted and set ablaze at a cost of billions of dollars, and parts of some US cities were turned into lawless autonomous zones inside which people were murdered? For months.

There now are at least twice as many troops guarding the nation’s capital than the total number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

Maybe it’s not overkill, but the optics also serve the purpose of further demonizing President Trump and his supporters to a worldwide audience.

That’s why Nancy Pelosi posed merrily for photos outside the Capitol in front of rows of uniforms yesterday. All class, and subtle as a sledgehammer.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks to National Guard troops outside the Capitol
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks to National Guard troops outside the Capitol.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s Office via AP

Democrats Plan Witch-Hunt To Destroy Republican Party, Leaving the U.S. A One-Party Dictatorship

When Deplorables Become Ungovernables

PBS lawyer fired after championing ‘REEDUCATION CAMPS’ for children of Trump supporters in latest Project Veritas sting

AOC: Country will heal with the ‘actual liberation of southern states’ from GOP control

DOJ, FBI say more than 170 charged in US Capitol riot: ‘This is only the beginning’

The Coup Began Years Ago

The Alt-Right Is Now the Entire Right

President Donald Trump speaks during a Jan. 6, 2021 rally protesting the electoral college certification of Joe Biden as President. After the speech, supporters of Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol. (AP)President Donald Trump speaks during a Jan. 6, 2021 rally protesting the electoral college certification of Joe Biden as President. After the speech, supporters of Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol. (AP)

  • The Insurrection Act is a federal law that empowers the president to deploy the military and federalize National Guard troops to suppress certain situations including civil disorder, insurrection or rebellion. 
  • Martial law, by contrast, is a concept that doesn’t have a legal definition in the U.S. At its most extreme, it reflects the suspension of civil authority and military control of civilian functions such as the courts.
  • Many social media posts pushing unproven claims about Trump invoking the Insurrection Act or declaring martial law contain information that’s misleading or inaccurate. ​
Social media users are spreading a variety of claims that President Donald Trump will either impose martial law or invoke the Insurrection Act to prevent Joe Biden from being inaugurated on Jan. 20.

The Insurrection Act is a federal law that empowers the president to deploy the military to suppress certain situations including civil disorder, insurrection or rebellion.

The act has been used to send the armed forces to quell civil disturbances a number of times during U.S. history, according to the Congressional Research Service. It was most recently invoked during the 1992 Los Angeles riots after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of a Black man, Rodney King, and during Hurricane Hugo in 1989, when widespread looting was reported in St. Croix, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Martial law, by contrast, is a concept that doesn’t have a legal definition in the U.S. Many people pushing the theory that Trump will invoke martial law don’t specify what form they expect it to take. However, their descriptions seem to reflect martial law at its most extreme: the suspension of civil authority and military control of civilian functions such as the courts.

As of this writing, there’s no indication that Trump is planning to invoke the Insurrection Act or impose martial law. Moreover, most of these posts contain information that’s misleading or just plain wrong.

Claim: “Trump already signed the Insurrection Act.”

Some social media posts went so far as to claim that Trump just signed and invoked the act. But there’s no evidence that this is true.

The Congressional Research Service says that it is legal convention under the act for the president to first issue a proclamation to get the situation under control before using the powers in the federal law.

“If the President decides to respond to such a situation, generally upon the recommendation of the Attorney General and, if necessary, the request of the governor, he must first issue a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse within a limited time,” the CRS report says, citing Title 10 of the U.S. Code. “If the situation does not resolve itself, the President may issue an executive order to send in troops.”

Trump has not done this, and he signaled in a Jan. 7 speech that he will support the transition to a new administration.

In the videotaped speech, a day after a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, Trump said that he’s focused on “ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power” and that “a new administration will be inaugurated on Jan. 20.” He also added in a subsequent tweet that he would not be attending the event.

Claim: A 2018 executive order gives Trump the ability to impose martial law.

Another theory holds that a 2018 executive order on election interference gives Trump the ability to impose martial law. It doesn’t.

Six scholars of constitutional law and presidential power told PolitiFact that the executive order gives the president the ability to impose economic sanctions on foreign entities who interfere in a U.S. election.

“How you get from there to imposing martial law, I don’t know. It doesn’t make any sense,” said Chris Edelson, an assistant professor of government at American University.

Any executive order that gave the president the authority to unilaterally invoke martial law would be unconstitutional, the scholars said.

Claim: Martial law is imminent, and Speaker Pelosi’s laptop proves it.

Other variations of the rumor claim that martial law is “imminent” and that information on a laptop stolen from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office during the riot at the Capitol is the basis for Trump invoking the Insurrection Act.

A laptop was stolen from a conference room in the Capitol, but Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s spokesman, said that the laptop was only used for presentations.

Besides Trump alluding to invoking the Insurrection Act at the height of the protests surrounding the death of George Floyd, he has not made any indication that he’s considering invoking the Insurrection Act or any variation of martial law going forward. Some D.C. officials were worried that Trump could invoke the act to seize control of the city’s police department the day of the Capitol riot, but that didn’t happen.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the president has no inherent authority to declare martial law except under the extreme circumstances of a rebellion or foreign invasion, said Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School.

“Losing an election doesn’t count as a basis for invoking this power,” Feldman added.

In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled that martial law cannot be imposed where civil courts are open and functioning. As a result, one should think of martial law as a state of affairs arising from a total breakdown of civil order, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas School of Law and expert in martial law.

Even if such conditions existed in a part of the U.S., the president would have to get congressional approval to use the military, said Joseph Nunn, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and author of an exhaustive study on martial law in America. ​

Starship Captain Pelosi Declares War On Republicans Who Supported Trump

[This was not an insurrection, neither was it treason.  It was a clear case of popular political manipulation by an extremely popular politician/President who rose to his position of preeminence through the callous manipulation and deception of his followers.  Trump set his own people up to be sacrificed, in order to glorify himself and to grant himself a second undeserved term, all on the pretext of protesting an impending vote in Congress, a political act of protest no different from Democrat protestors shouting “Kill the Bill” in the following clip.

Senate protesters chant ‘kill the bill,’ interrupt motion to proceed

Trump is the guilty party, along with all his people who helped to fabricate a seemingly sound complaint of election irregularities.  People followed their leaders to Washington to support the President’s claims.  They willingly went along with those who were committing destruction of property and criminal trespass into the Capitol, but there was no armed uprising or attempt to unseat the government.  They were no more guilty of insurrection or treason than were those in previous BLM and anti-lockdown protests, but Pelosi and her Democrat army want blood…(SEE: Capitol riot: Media mirrors Biden by vilifying police, comparing response to Black Lives Matter protests), they are already adding this latest charge to their ongoing narrative of American racism.]

Pelosi and her Democrat army are setting-up the liberal-Democrat faction of the American people for the same kind of fall.  The rapidly building Republican “witch hunt” is nothing less than political civil war.  By branding most Republicans in general as insurrectionists, or worse, treasonists, they are paving the way to that civil war.]

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government–

rebellion, revolution, uprising, revolt, insurrection, mutiny mean an outbreak against authority. rebellion implies an open formidable resistance that is often unsuccessful. open rebellion against the officers revolution applies to a successful rebellion resulting in a major change (as in government). a political revolution that toppled the monarchy uprising implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion. quickly put down the uprising revolt and insurrection imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds. a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders an insurrection of oppressed laborers mutiny applies to group insubordination or insurrection especially against naval authority. a mutiny led by the ship’s cook

Speaker Nancy Pelosi threatened decisive action against the president for his role in the insurrection against Congress if he refused to resign.

Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Democrats laid the groundwork on Friday for impeaching President Trump a second time, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California threatened to bring him up on formal charges if he did not resign “immediately” over his role in inciting a violent mob attack on the Capitol this week.

The threat was part of an all-out effort by furious Democrats, backed by a handful of Republicans, to pressure Mr. Trump to leave office in disgrace after the hourslong siege by his supporters on Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Although he has only 12 days left in the White House, they argued he was a direct danger to the nation.

Ms. Pelosi and other top Democratic leaders continued to press Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to wrest power from Mr. Trump, though Mr. Pence was said to be against it. The speaker urged Republican lawmakers to pressure the president to resign immediately. And she took the unusual step of calling Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to discuss how to limit Mr. Trump’s access to the nation’s nuclear codes and then publicized it.

“If the president does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action,” Ms. Pelosi wrote in a letter to colleagues.

At least one Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, followed Ms. Pelosi’s lead and told The Anchorage Daily News that she was considering leaving the Republican Party altogether because of Mr. Trump.

“I want him out,” she said. “He has caused enough damage.”

At the White House, Mr. Trump struck a defiant tone, insisting that he would remain a potent force in American politics as aides and allies abandoned him and his post-presidential prospects turned increasingly bleak. Behind closed doors, he made clear that he would not resign and expressed regret about releasing a video on Thursday committing to a peaceful transition of power and condemning the violence at the Capitol that he had egged on a day before.

He said on Twitter on Friday morning that he would not attend President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s inauguration, the first incumbent in 150 years to skip his successor’s swearing-in. Hours later, Twitter “permanently suspended” his beloved account, which had more than 88 million followers, “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

Federal law enforcement officials announced charges against at least 13 people in connection with the storming of the Capitol, including Richard Barnett, 60, of Gravette, Ark., who had posted a picture of himself on social media sitting at Ms. Pelosi’s desk during the mayhem with his feet up on her desk, and a Republican state delegate from West Virginia.

Among enraged Democrats, an expedited impeachment appeared to be the most attractive option to remove Mr. Trump and register their outrage at his role in encouraging what became an insurrection. Roughly 170 of them in the House had signed onto a single article that Representatives David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Ted Lieu of California, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and others intended to introduce on Monday, charging the president with “willfully inciting violence against the government of the United States.”

Democratic senators weighed in with support, and some Republicans appeared newly open to the idea. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska indicated he would be amenable to considering articles of impeachment at a trial. A spokesman for Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she was “outraged” by Mr. Trump’s role in the violence, but could not comment on an impeachment case given the possibility she could soon be sitting in the jury.

Even Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader and one of Mr. Trump’s most influential allies for the past four years, told confidants he was done with Donald Trump. Mr. McConnell did not directly weigh on a possible impeachment case, but he circulated a memo to senators making clear that under the Senate’s current rules, no trial could effectively be convened before Jan. 20, after Mr. Trump leaves office and Mr. Biden is sworn in, unless all 100 senators agreed to allow it sooner.

It was a fitting denouement for a president who, despite years of norm-shattering behavior, has acted largely without consequence throughout his presidency, showing no impulse to change his ways, despite being impeached in Congress, defeated at the ballot box and now belatedly shunned by some members of his own party.

By Friday evening, Ms. Pelosi had not made a final decision on whether to proceed with impeachment and was wary of rushing into such a momentous step. She issued a statement saying she had instructed the House Rules Committee to be ready to move ahead with either an impeachment resolution or legislation creating a nonpartisan panel of experts envisaged in the 25th Amendment to consult with Mr. Pence about the president’s fitness to serve.

Democrats agreed it was logistically possible to vote on articles of impeachment as soon as next week, but they were weighing how to justify bypassing the usual monthslong deliberative process of collecting documents, witnesses and the president’s defense. Others worried that Mr. Trump’s base would rally more forcefully around him if Democrats pushed forward with impeaching him again, undermining their goal of relegating the 45th president to the ash heap of history.

Republicans who only days before had led the charge to overturn Mr. Trump’s electoral defeat said impeaching him now would shatter the unity that was called for after the Capitol siege.

Workers on Friday in the Capitol preparing for President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s inauguration ceremony.
Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times 

“Impeaching the president with just 12 days left in his term will only divide our country more,” said Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, just a day after he voted twice to overturn Mr. Biden’s legitimate victory in key swing states.

Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, issued a nearly identical statement.

Democrats, too, were concerned about plunging Washington into a divisive, time-consuming and politically fraught drama that would overshadow and constrain Mr. Biden’s agenda and stomp on his attempt to unify the country.

During an appearance in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Biden declined to directly weigh in on plans to impeach Mr. Trump saying, “What the Congress decides to do is for them to decide.” But he made clear his energies were being spent elsewhere.

“If we were six months out, we should be moving everything to get him out of office — impeaching him again, trying to invoke the 25th Amendment, whatever it took to get him out of office,” Mr. Biden said. “But I am focused now on us taking control as president and vice president on the 20th and get our agenda moving as quickly as we can.”

Mr. Trump had told advisers in the days before the march that he wanted to join his supporters in going to the Capitol, but White House officials said no, according to people briefed on the discussions. The president had also expressed interest beforehand in calling in the National Guard to hold off anti-Trump counterprotesters who might show up, the people said, only to turn around and resist calls for bringing those troops in after the rioting by his loyalists broke out.

On Friday, Mr. Biden had harsh criticism for Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas, Republicans who had lodged objections to his Electoral College victory on Wednesday amid the mayhem at the Capitol. As some leading Senate Democrats called on them to resign, Mr. Biden said the pair had perpetuated the “big lie” that his election had been fraudulent, comparing it to the work of the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

The recriminations played out on a day when workers in the Capitol were literally repairing the damage that had been done two days before, when a mob of supporters, egged on by Mr. Trump, stormed the Capitol as lawmakers were formalizing Mr. Biden’s electoral victory. Lawmakers mourned the death of a Capitol Police officer who succumbed to injuries sustained while defending the building.

From the same office ransacked by the mob, Ms. Pelosi was working furiously on Friday to try to contain Mr. Trump. She urged Republicans to follow the model of Watergate, when members of their party prevailed upon President Richard M. Nixon to resign and avoid the ignominy of an impeachment.

She also said she had spoken with General Milley about “preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes.”

A spokesman for General Milley, Col. Dave Butler, confirmed that the two had spoken and said the general had “answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority.” But some Defense Department officials have privately expressed anger that political leaders seemed to be trying to get the Pentagon to do the work of Congress and cabinet secretaries, who have legal options to remove a president.

While military officials can refuse to carry out orders they view as illegal, they cannot proactively remove the president from the chain of command. That would be a military coup, these officials said.

Ms. Pelosi elaborated on her thinking in a private call with House Democrats, indicating she was particularly concerned about Mr. Trump’s behavior while he remained commander in chief of the armed forces, with the authority to order nuclear strikes.

“He’s unhinged,” Ms. Pelosi, according to Democrats familiar with her remarks. “We aren’t talking about anything besides an unhinged person.”

She added: “We can’t move on. If we think we can move on then we are failing the American people.”

Democrats appeared to be largely united after the call, which lasted more than three hours, that the chamber needed to send a strong message to Americans and the world that Mr. Trump’s rhetoric and the violence that resulted from it would not go unanswered.

Ms. Pelosi had asked one of her most trusted deputies who prosecuted Democrats’ first impeachment case against Mr. Trump, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, to give a frank assessment of the potential drawbacks of impeachment during the session.

Mr. Schiff did so, but later issued a statement saying, “Congress should act to begin impeachment proceedings as the only instrument wholly within our power to remove a president who has so manifestly and repeatedly violated the Constitution and put our nation at grave risk.”

At least one Democrat, Representative Kurt Schrader, a centrist from Oregon, argued against impeachment, likening the move to an “old-fashioned lynching” of Mr. Trump, and arguing it would turn the president into a martyr. He later apologized for the analogy.

A bipartisan group of centrist senators, including several who helped draft a stimulus compromise last month, discussed the possibility of drafting a formal censure resolution against Mr. Trump. But it was unclear if a meaningful attempt to build support for censure would get off the ground, especially with Democrats pushing for a stiffer punishment.

After years of deference to the president, leading Republicans in Congress made no effort to defend him, and some offered stinging rebukes. At least a few appeared open to the possibility of impeachment, which if successful could also disqualify Mr. Trump from holding political office in the future.

Mr. Sasse said he would “definitely consider whatever articles they might move because I believe the president has disregarded his oath of office.”

“He swore an oath to the American people to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution — he acted against that,” Mr. Sasse said on CBS. “What he did was wicked.”

Senior Republican aides predicted other senators could adopt a similar posture, so deep was their fury at Mr. Trump. But they held back publicly, waiting to better understand a volatile and rapidly evolving situation.

If the House did impeach, and the Senate put Mr. Trump on trial, 17 Republicans or more would most likely have to join Democrats to win a conviction. That was a politically perilous and unlikely decision given his continued hold on millions of the party’s voters.

At the same time Republicans in Washington were chastising Mr. Trump, the Republican National Committee re-elected Ronna McDaniel, a Trump ally and his handpicked candidate, as its chairwoman for another term, and Tommy Hicks Jr., a close friend of Donald Trump Jr.’s, as the co-chairman.

Political risks for Republicans breaking ranks were also on vivid display on Friday at National Airport near Washington, where several dozen jeering supporters of Mr. Trump accosted Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, angrily denouncing the Republican as a “traitor” and a “liar” for voting to formalize Mr. Biden’s victory.

“It’s going to be like this forever, wherever you go, for the rest of your life,” one woman taunted to Mr. Graham, who had been one of Mr. Trump’s leading Senate allies and had initially humored his baseless claims of widespread election fraud.


Nicholas Fandos and Luke Broadwater reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker, Helene Cooper, Emily Cochrane and Catie Edmondson from Washington.


Afghan Nat. Security Council Meeting Evicts Spec. Forces from Wardak and Logar for Employing Criminal Gangs

The CIA’s “Civilian Army” In Afghanistan


A U.S.-Backed Militia That Kills Children May Be America’s Exit Strategy From Its Longest War

12-year-old Bilal survived a December 2018 night raid on his madrassa in Afghanistan’s Wardak Province, during which 12 other boys were massacred. “There were Americans in the corridor,” Bilal told The Intercept. “We could hear them speaking.” Photo: Andrew Quilty/Agence Vu

THE BUZZ OF a drone at night was the first sign of trouble.

Next came the roar of a larger, low-flying aircraft, which alerted residents of the Afghan village of Omar Khail that soldiers were nearby. Men in camouflage moved through the streets speaking Pashto and English. It was December 2018, and the air was frigid. They made their way to the madrassa, or religious school, where more than two dozen boys between the ages of 9 and 18 slept on the floors of several dormitory rooms.

A neighbor watching from a window across the street saw a flash and heard a loud explosion as the front gate of the madrassa was blown open. Inside, the noise awakened 12-year-old Bilal, who was huddled in a room with nine other boys when an Afghan soldier burst through the door.

“Wake up!” the man yelled in Pashto, pointing at the boys one by one with the barrel of his rifle, which was mounted with a flashlight. A second soldier entered, chose the two tallest boys, and led them out the door. The first soldier turned to leave, but before he did, he issued a warning to the rest of the boys cowering before him: “If I find you in this madrassa again, we won’t leave a single child alive.” (Continue Reading)


Democrat-Socialists…First Act…Destroy English Language

The new 117th US Congress started with controversy, as Democrats have passed new rules for Congress removing all mention of gender-specific words like “man”, “woman”, “mother”, “father”, “son”, and “daughter” to promote inclusion and diversity, and as representative Emanuel Cleaver finished the opening session prayer by saying “Amen and awomen”.

Former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii criticized the House’s ban on gendered language, which was passed on Monday, stating it denies “the very biological existence of women”.

Commenting on this new code of conduct, designed as it proclaimed to help promote diversity and inclusivity, especially for women in Congress, Gabbard said that it does “the very opposite of that”, calling it hypocrisy on the part of lawmakers who claim to support women’s rights.

“It’s the height of hypocrisy for people who claim to be the champions of rights for women to deny the very biological existence of women,” Gabbard said in an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

She also argued that the passing of that code shows just how out of touch lawmakers are with the needs of the American people.

The new rules forbid the use of gender-sensitive words like “mother”, “father”, “brother” and “sister” to “honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender-neutral”.

“Their first act as this new Congress could have been to make sure elderly Americans are able to get the COVID vaccine now alongside front-line health care workers,” Gabbard added. “Instead of doing something that could actually help save people’s lives, they are choosing instead to say ‘You can’t say mother or father.'”

The former House member said that the new ban passed by Congress “defies basic common sense” and “basic established science”.

Several Republican lawmakers also decried the code, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who took to Twitter to express his thoughts on the lawmakers’ decision.

​Gabbard, 39, who was a former presidential candidate, and did not run for reelection for her House seat in 2020, has recently come under fire for introducing the “Protect Women’s Sports Act“.

When Political Deceit Makes America Ungovernable

First Comes A Rolling Civil War

China, Russia and Iran are the top three existential “threats” to the U.S., according to the National Security Strategy. Three features distinguish the top three. They are all sovereign powers. They are under varying degrees of sanctions. And they are the top three nodes of the 21st century’s most important, evolving geopolitical process: Eurasia integration.

What do the three sovereigns see when they examine the dystopia that took over Exceptionalistan?

They see, once again, three – discombobulated – nodes in conflict: the post-historic Pacific and Atlantic coasts; the South – a sort of expanded Dixieland; and the Midwest – what would be the American heartland.

The hyper-modern Pacific-Atlantic nodes congregate high-tech and finance, profit from Pentagon techno-breakthroughs and benefit from the “America rules the waves” ethos that guarantees the global primacy of the U.S. dollar.

The rest of America is largely considered by the Pacific-Atlantic as just a collection of flyover states: the South – which regards itself as the real, authentic America; and the Midwest, largely disciplined and quite practical-minded, squeezed ideologically between the littoral powerhouses and the South.

Superstructure, tough, is key: no matter what happens, whatever the fractures, this remains an Empire, where only a tiny elite, a de facto plutocratic oligarchy, rules.

It would be too schematic, even though essentially correct, to assert that in the presidential election, invisible campaigner Joe Biden represented the Pacific-Atlantic nodes, and Trump represented the whole South. Assuming the election was not fraudulent – and that remains a big “if” – the Midwest eventually swung based on three issues.

  1. Trump, as much as he relied on a sanctions juggernaut, could not bring back manufacturing jobs home.
  2. He could not reduce the military footprint across the Greater Middle East.
  3. And, before Covid-19, he could not bring down immigration.

Everything that lies ahead points to the irreconcilable – pitting the absolute majority that voted Dem in the Atlantic-Pacific nodes versus the South and a deeply divided Midwest. As much as Biden-Harris is bound to isolate the South even more, their prospects of “pacifying” the Midwest are less than zero.

Whose ground control?

Beyond the raucous altercations on whether the presidential election was fraudulent, these are the key factual points.

  1. A series of rules in mostly swing states were changed, through courts, bypassing state legislatures, without transparence, before the election, paving the way to facilitate fraud schemes.
  2. Biden was de facto coronated by AP, Google and Twitter even before the final, official result, and weeks before the electoral college vote this past Monday.
  3. Every serious, professional audit to determine whether all received and tabulated votes were valid was de facto squashed.

In any Global South latitude where the empire did “interfere” in local elections, color revolution-style, this set of facts would be regarded by scores of imperial officials, in a relentless propaganda blitz, as evidence of a coup.

On the recent Supreme Court ruling, a Deep State intel source told me, “the Supreme Court did not like to see half the country rioting against them, and preferred the decision be made by each state in the House of Representatives. That is the only way to handle this without jeopardizing the union. Even prominent Democrats I know realize that the fix took place. The error was to steal too many votes. This grand theft indicts the whole system, that has always been corrupt.”

Dangers abound. On the propaganda front, for instance, far right nationalists are absolutely convinced that U.S. media can be brought to heel only by occupying the six main offices of the top conglomerates, plus Facebook, Google and Twitter: then you’d have full control of the U.S. propaganda mill.

Another Deep State source, now retired, adds that, “the U.S. Army does not want to intervene as their soldiers may not obey orders.

Many of these far right nationalists were officers in the armed forces. They know where the nuclear missiles and bombers are. There are many in sympathy with them as the U.S. falls apart in lockdowns.”

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden’s dodgy dealings simply will not be made to vanish from public scrutiny. He’s under four different federal investigations. The recent subpoena amounts to a very serious case pointing to a putative crime family. It’s been conveniently forgotten that Joe Biden bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations that he forced Ukraine’s chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin to be fired exactly when he was investigating corruption by Burisma’s founder.

Of course, a massive army of shills will always invoke another army of omniscient and oh so impartial “fact checkers” to hammer the same message: “This is Trump’s version. Courts have said clearly all the evidence is baseless.”

District Attorney William Barr is now out of the picture (see his letter of resignation). Barr is a notorious Daddy Bush asset since the old days – and that means classic Deep State. Barr knew about all federal investigations on Hunter Biden dating back to 2018, covering potential money laundering and bribery.

And still, as the Wall Street Journal delightfully put it, he “worked to avoid their public disclosure during the heated election campaign”.

devastating report (Dems: a Republican attack report) has shown how the Biden family was connected to a vast financial network with multiple foreign ramifications.

Then there’s Barr not even daring to say there was enough reason for the Department of Justice to engage in a far-reaching investigation into voting fraud, finally putting to rest all “baseless” conspiracy theories.

Move on. Nothing to see here. Even if an evidence pile-up featured, among other instances, ballot stuffing, backdated ballots, statistical improbabilities, electronic machine tampering, software back doors, affidavits from poll workers, not to mention the by now legendary stopping the vote in the dead of night, with subsequent, huge batches of votes miraculously switching from Trump to Biden.

Once again an omniscient army of oh so impartial “fact checkers” will say everything is baseless.

A perverse blowback

A perverse form of blowback is already in effect as informed global citizens may now see, crystal clear, the astonishing depth and reach of Deep State power – the ultimate decider of what happens next in Dystopia Central.

Both options are dire.

  1. The election stands, even if considered fraudulent by nearly half of U.S. public opinion. To quote that peerless existentialist, The Dude, there’s no rug tying the room together anymore.
  2. Was the election to be somehow overturned before January 20, the Deep State would go Shock and Awe to finish the job.

In either case, The Deplorables will become The Ungovernables.

It gets worse. A possible implosion of the union – with internal convulsions leading to a paroxysm of violence – may even be coupled with an external explosion, as in a miscalculated imperial adventure.

For the Three Sovereigns – Russia, China and Iran – as well as the overwhelming majority of the Global South, the conclusion is inescapable: if the current, sorry spectacle is the best Western liberal “democracy” has to offer, it definitely does not need any enemies or “threats”.

(Republished from Strategic Culture Foundation by permission of author or representative)

Nashville Bomber’s Reported Paranoia Lived in the Gap Between 5G Reality and 5G Marketing

If the Nashville suicide bomber destroyed an AT&T building because of delusional fears about 5G, overheated 5G marketing and political debates didn’t help.

(Image: Sascha Segan)
The FBI is investigating whether Anthony Quinn Warner, the presumed Nashville suicide bomber, targeted a nearby AT&T building because of paranoia over 5G-related government surveillance, according to several news reports.

If so, that brings the anti-5G conspiracy nonsense to a new, even more destructive level. For several months now, idiots have been targeting what they presume to be 5G towers (even when they aren’t) out of YouTube-soaked fears that 5G technology is harmful to their health. It’s even reached my New York City neighborhood; across the street from my apartment there’s graffiti that says “5G Kills Life.”

Let me be clear: 5G is not dangerous to your health, and it isn’t being used to surveil you in a way that’s any different from the 4G technology in your current smartphone. If you’ve spent any time watching a police procedural in the past decade, you know law enforcement can get warrants to track your phone-based location history or see who you’ve called or texted. The New York Times has shown how even anonymized location data can be used to track you using Wi-Fi, 3G, or 4G. There’s nothing new to see there with 5G.

Much of the anti-5G movement is a social-media-fueled, malicious grift. But Warner’s 5G-surveillance fears, if true, open up a new front that shows a true weakness of 5G technology, 5G debate, and 5G messaging in the US.

Let me get there through the health conspiracies, though.

The Lies About 5G and Your Health

Health-related 5G conspiracies are often based in the idea that 5G is an untested technology that requires new infrastructure and is related to dangerous technologies like military anti-personnel weapons. In my mind, they build on pseudoscientists trying to make a dollar or a career out of fear, and potentially on international bad actors trying to handicap rivals.

Those conspiracy theories aren’t true on a whole bunch of levels. But I think one reason why the wireless carriers are doing such a poor job counteracting these ideas is that they’re afraid to reveal how mundane their 5G systems really are.

If asked upfront they’ll be honest: “nationwide” 5G right now offers the same performance as 4G … because it’s still dependent on 4G, runs on the same frequencies, and uses many of the same technologies. But they’re not about to put that on billboards or promote it to investors. That wouldn’t sell the latest phones from Apple or Samsung or get carriers’ subscribers to upscale their service plans.

The fact that 5G right now, for most Americans, is almost exactly like 4G, is the most powerful argument against conspiracy theories. But companies can’t say that because it would pierce their marketing. They’d have to admit that when they said “5G just got real,” they jumped the gun.

On a political level, meanwhile, 5G has become an incoherent hot button, used as an incomprehensible buzzword by President Trump and thrown around Congress as a totem for an intangible technology race against China.

I believe in the promise of 5G as a technology. I’ve read the specs. If implemented properly, with broad ecosystem support, it can do everything it promises. But it isn’t doing any of it yet, billboards and presidential tweets notwithstanding. That then opens up the door, in a twisted mind, to the paranoia Warner may have believed.

It’s No Benefit, So It Must Be a Threat

Wireless carriers and tech companies are all saying 5G is a huge, world-changing technology that’s available now, but few Americans are seeing any value from it. Politicians are saying we must be in the lead in the “race to 5G,” but they never bring home concretely what winning that race means for improving Americans’ lives.

As we’ve shown in our tests, both Verizon’s and AT&T’s nationwide 5G often offer weaker performance than their 4G. T-Mobile’s mid-band 5G is faster than its 4G, but still well in the range of good 4G networks like the Bell and Telus networks in Canada.

The only type of 5G in the US that shows a truly new experience is millimeter-wave, most commonly known as Verizon’s “UWB.” Even after two years of network-building, only a single-digit percentage of Americans at most can get that, and most consumers haven’t seen any real-life millimeter-wave applications.

(Some of that, by the way, is ironically because of coronavirus. One of the few great, early potential mmWave applications lets thousands of people stream high-quality video from a crowded stadium or concert hall without their phones getting choked up … but when’s the last time you were in one of those?)

We’ve been hearing for years about how 5G will change education, industry, gaming … everything. None of that has come to pass. Not even a little bit! It may do so in the future, but the wireless carriers seriously jumped the gun on this marketing, leaving a huge gap between 5G promises and 5G reality.

And that’s where conspiracy theories can jump in. The carriers are spending a ton of money on this; politicians really seem to want it; it seems very important; it has so far brought you little or no advantage. So there must be a secret agenda, right? Who’s really behind this? Why is so much money being spent?

The dumb, dull, true answer is that Ajit Pai’s FCC screwed up its spectrum allocation plan, initially choosing a coward’s way out of not facing down the DoD or satellite companies to clear out the best frequencies for 5G, despite massive political pressures to show the US as a “leader” in any “race” against China.

The government and the carriers also wildly underestimated the logistical difficulty of building 28GHz networks, and new phones have become so boring that carriers need a buzzword to get you to upgrade during an overall very bad year for America in general.

But you’re not going to see any of that on a billboard.

The Grain of Truth in 5G Conspiracies

If the Nashville bomber saw 5G as a surveillance tool—and I’m not saying he did—yes, that’s just a 2020 version of “the FBI put radios in my teeth.” It’s classic paranoia.

The concept of “5G” has insinuated itself thoroughly into the internet’s surveillance-paranoia communities. For years now, people with paranoid delusions have shared and reinforced them with each other on websites dedicated to “targeted individuals.” One of those sites now shows a big 5G graphic, right at the top of the homepage.

But just as anti-FBI paranoia thrived during the post-J. Edgar Hoover era when it turned out the FBI was keeping files on a huge number of people, there’s a grain of sand in this twisted pearl, a reason why so many of these delusions have locked on to 5G specifically.

That grain isn’t that anything evil is being done with 5G. It’s that nothing much is being done with 5G that consumers can actually perceive, massively out of proportion to the marketing spend, political debate, and international hair-tearing it has incurred. And that shouldn’t be ignored. It should be a lesson—that the FCC, Congress, wireless carriers, and the wireless industry need to show some real 5G benefits for the average American, or shut up about it for a while.

Nashville Person of Interest Gave His Home Away Last Month…nothing fishy there

Nashville bombing ‘person of interest’, 63, gave house raided by FBI to a California woman, 29, for FREE last month: Feds investigate mysterious property deal and continue search for motive in Christmas Day attack

Nashville bombing suspect Anthony Quinn Warner died in explosion, police confirm
RV on Street View on Bakertown Road in Antioch, Tennessee (Image Capture: May 2019 ©2020 Google)source

NASHVILLE, TN (WSMV) – As Federal Agencies push for answers in the Nashville explosion, the investigation to law enforcement to a house in Antioch where officials believe the RV used in the blast may have been kept.

Multiple senior federal law enforcement officials told NBC News Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are searching the home of Anthony Quinn Warner. The investigation is taking place at a home in the 100 block of Bakertown Road in Antioch.

FBIT, ATF, and police search home in connection with Nashville RV explosion

A Google street view image of the location showed a RV parked in the driveway, however that RV is no longer there.

A RV, which matches the one in the Google street view image, exploded outside the AT&T transmission building on Second Ave North around 6:45 a.m.

Neighbors say they, too, recognized the RV.

“We’ve always seen the RV in the back,” said Sarah who lives nearby.

“You never know who your neighbors are,” said neighbor Jesus.

They told NEWS4 the RV had been parked behind the home for years, then recently disappeared.

“He started moving it like about a month ago, but before that it never moved at all. And he had a bunch of other cars around here. I don’t know where they went,” said Marco. He lives in the duplex adjacent to Anthony Quinn Warner, 63, who authorities said may have connections to the blast.

Marco said Warner would keep to himself.

“He would always be on some ladder. I think working on that antena there. And then power washing,” said Marco.

We found Warner’s house covered In security cameras and no trespassing signs.

Many who live on the street say this experience makes them wish they knew their neighbors a little better.

“You just open it up, and you’re like, Woah, wait a minute, there’s FBI, there’s ATF, there’s police, the roads are blocked,” said Sarah.

“Imagine he had a malfunction while making that bomb,” said Jesus. “All this block would’ve been affected, you know.”

Two law enforcement officials also confirmed to the Associated Press a person of interest has been identified in connection with the explosion.

Metro Police said the incident was “an intentional act.” The explosion damaged 41 businesses and injured at least three people.

The senior federal law enforcement officials told NBC News that they are still following leads and still want help from the public.

News 4 crews are on the scene as authorities go door to door asking for information. News 4 crews have seen four evidence bags brought out of the home.

Authorities were in the house for hours on Saturday. An FBI spokesperson told NEWS4 no one was inside the home when they arrived.

It is a duplex house and agents did not have information about the other side of the duplex. is now with you on the go! Get the latest news updates and video, 4WARN weather forecast, weather radar, special investigative reports, sports headlines and much more from News4 Nashville.

>> Click/tap here to download our free mobile app. <<

Copyright 2020 WSMV (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved.

Was Nashville Truck-Bomb A Lunatic Conspiracy Theorist Attack On ATT 5G?

Nashville bombing ‘person of interest’, 63, gave house raided by FBI to a California woman, 29, for FREE last month: Feds investigate mysterious property deal and continue search for motive in Christmas Day attack

Over 140 arson attacks on 5G infrastructure in Europe

Explosion Nashville
A Nashville Police officer blocks the entrance to the scene of an explosion Saturday, Dec. 26, 2020, in Nashville, Tenn. The explosion that shook the largely deserted streets of downtown Nashville early Christmas morning shattered windows, damaged buildings and wounded three people. Authorities said they believed the blast was intentional. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

NASHVILLE, TN (WSMV) – News4 Investigates has confirmed FBI agents spent Saturday speaking with a top Nashville real estate agent, who contacted them after fearing the subcontractor who worked for him may be the same man whose home they were searching.

Other federal agents spent much of the day searching the Antioch home of Anthony Warner.

Realtor Steve Fridrich contacted the FBI after reading Warner’s name, as for several years, a man by the name of Tony Warner had worked for him for several years doing information technology work.

Fridrich confirms that agents asked him whether or not Warner had paranoia about 5G technology.

Fridrich told the agents that Warner had never spoken to him about that.

But a source close to the federal investigation said that among several different tips and angles, agents are investigating whether or not Warner had paranoia that 5G technology was being used to spy on Americans.

A spokeswoman for the FBI said they could not comment because of the pending investigation.

Fridrich described the Tony Warner who worked for him as a kind person who they contacted only to work on internet issues.

“Nice guy. You know, he was a techie guy – don’t mean anything negative about that. He would do this thing and leave. He didn’t bother anybody. He did his thing and leave,” Fridrich said.

As for the RV that exploded when the bomb went off on December 25th, Fridrich said Warner only ever spoke of his fondness for camping in December.

Copyright 2020 WSMV (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved.

Chief Investigative Reporter

Jeremy Finley is the chief investigator for News4 Investigates. His reporting has resulted in criminal convictions, legislative hearings before the U.S. Congress, and the payout of more than a million dollars to scam victims.


5G coverage Nashville pre-explosion

5G Outage Map after bomb

Fifty Years of Tax Cuts for Rich Didn’t Trickle Down To the Poor and Middle Class


Tax cuts for rich people breed inequality without providing much of a boon to anyone else, according to a study of the advanced world that could add to the case for the wealthy to bear more of the cost of the coronavirus pandemic.

The paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King’s College London, found that such measures over the last 50 years only really benefited the individuals who were directly affected, and did little to promote jobs or growth.

“Policy makers shouldn’t worry that raising taxes on the rich to fund the financial costs of the pandemic will harm their economies,” Hope said in an interview.

That will be comforting news to U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, whose hopes of repairing the country’s virus-battered public finances may rest on his ability to increase taxes, possibly on capital gains — a levy that might disproportionately impact higher-earning individuals.

It would also suggest the economy could weather a one-off 5% tax on wealth suggested for Britain last week by the Wealth Tax Commission, which would affect about 8 million residents.

The authors applied an analysis amalgamating a range of levies applied on income, capital and assets in 18 OECD countries, including the U.S. and U.K., over the past half century.

Their findings published Wednesday counter arguments, often made in the U.S., that policies which appear to disproportionately aid richer individuals eventually feed through to the rest of the economy. The timespan of the paper ends in 2015, but Hope says such an analysis would also apply to President Donald Trump’s tax cut enacted in 2017.

“Our research suggests such policies don’t deliver the sort of trickle-down effects that proponents have claimed,” Hope said.

Journalists Have Become Self-Appointed Thought Police

Journalists Turn on Free Expression


Steve Coll, Dean of Columbia Journalism School and staff writer for The New Yorker appears at a news conference in New York, April 6, 2015. (Mike Segar/Reuters)

Mainstream journalists have used their access to a massive audience to mislead the public in many ways, but this isn’t a free-speech problem.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt, The New Yorker’s Steve Coll contends that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s “profound” support of free speech — oh, how I wish that were true — is problematic because “free speech, a principle that we hold sacred, is being weaponized against the principles of journalism.”

The New Yorker’s @SteveCollNY suggests Mark Zuckerberg’s “profound” support of free speech is problematic: “Those of us in journalism have to come to terms with the fact that free speech, a principle that we hold sacred, is being weaponized against the principles of journalism.”

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 7, 2020

Journalism has turned on free speech, the one belief that had been somewhat impervious to the ideological tendencies of most editors and reporters. There’s absolutely nothing in Coll’s comments — nor in Hunt’s begging a question about the alleged corrosive effects of unfettered speech — which demonstrates that either are particularly concerned about the future of free expression, much less that either hold the principle as “sacred.”

The notion that Facebook’s reluctance to limit users is akin to neglecting efforts to “preserve democracy,” as Coll ludicrously suggests, is also another example of how the contemporary usage of “democracy” means little more than “fulfilling the wishes of liberals.”

If you believe Americans are too stupid to hear wrongthink, transgressive ideas, and, yes, fake news, you’re not a fan of the small-l liberal conception of free expression. That’s fine. Those ideas seem to be falling into disfavor with many. But the sanctity of free speech isn’t predicated on making sure people hear the right things, it’s predicated on letting everyone have their say. Because as always, the question becomes who decides what expression is acceptable. I’m not keen on having the fatuous media reporters at CNN or activist “fact-checkers” at the Washington Post adjudicating what is and isn’t permissible for mass consumption.

Facebook, of course, has no duty to provide us with a platform. It was Coll, however, who brought up free speech as “a principle.” And this obsession among journalists with pressuring platforms into limiting speech exposes their illiberal inclination. Speech is a neutral principle — universal, fundamental, and unassailable. A Facebook user no more “weaponizes” speech than a criminal weaponizes due process.

Then again, this kind of selective esteem for sacred ideals is becoming popular on the contemporary Left. Religious freedom is wonderful when the government protects Native Americans who want to smoke peyote, but it is “weaponized” when an order of nuns decides it’s not interested in chipping in for condoms or an Evangelical business owner decides he’d rather not participate in a gay marriage. Due-process rights are foundational to American life, unless they are being weaponized by college students accused of sexual assault.

Everything Coll praises in the clip encompasses some limitation on free expression, and everything he believes is a hindrance to society — capitalistic “structures” such as Facebook — are dangerous. From what I can tell, it’s become conventional wisdom among the Fourth Estate, no longer able to monopolize and curate the news we consume, that too much speech and too much equal time is bad for our institutions.

For one thing, I wish I could believe they cared. For four years, journalists acted as if Donald Trump was an existential threat to free expression because he berated and insulted reporters. Trump’s tone was certainly unpresidential, but it needs to be said that he did absolutely nothing to hinder anyone from criticizing him or reporting about him. Contra the self-canonized Jim Acosta, it was not a particularly dangerous time to tell the truth. Indeed, reporters were not only free to accuse the president of being a fascist, they could concoct entire fake scandals surrounding the Russians, and Trump was powerless to stop them.

(You might remember the panic over the Cambridge Analytica–Facebook whistleblower scandal. This was one of the stories that convinced Democrats that social-media giants were attacking our democratic institutions. At the time, Bloomberg breathlessly noted that “revelations of the apparent skulduggery that helped Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election keep sending shock waves across the political landscape.” After a three-year investigation, the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office uncovered no skullduggery from Facebook. Chances are, you didn’t hear about that.)

In any event, if journalists thought free expression was a “sacred principle,” they would also likely have been up in arms about the Obama administration spying on dozens of Associated Press reporters and using the Espionage Act to file criminal charges against then-Fox News reporter James Rosen. For the most part, they were not.

They would also be up in arms about Joe Biden’s appointment of Rick Stengel, a former editor of Time magazine, who takes to the pages of our most prestigious newspapers to advocate that the government ban offensive speech. They would be upset about Biden’s appointment of California attorney general Xavier Becerra, who brought 15 felony charges against a pro-life activist named David Daleiden for reporting on Planned Parenthood’s ethical abuses, using the same methods and functioning under the same standards journalists have employed for decades. There will be no anger, because abortion is “sacred” in a way that free expression is no longer.

Now, I happen to believe mainstream journalists have used their access to a massive audience to mislead the public into needless wars, into destructive presidencies, and into counterproductive economic decisions. They regularly spread unscientific, indecent, and misleading ideas about the world. It’s a price we pay for being free. But that’s not a free-speech problem, it’s a journalist problem.

DAVID HARSANYI is a senior writer for National Review and the author of First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History with the Gun. @davidharsanyi

Iranian Press Pushing Govt. To Strike Israel At Haifa Port Over Scientist Assassination


Kayhan: Hit Haifa

In a note written by Saadullah Zarei, the Kayhan newspaper today suggested that Iran attack the port of Haifa in the occupied territories in response to the martyrdom of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

Fararo – Today, Kayhan newspaper, in a note written by Sadollah Zarei, suggested that Iran attack the port of Haifa in the occupied territories in response to the martyrdom of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. 

Kayhan wrote in the memo: “If the role of the Israeli regime in the assassination of the great martyr Fakhrizadeh is proven to the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, and of course all the evidence shows this, we must necessarily strike such a blow to this regime that the issue of attacking forces or “Iranian centers, wherever they are – from Absard to Caracas – will be off the agenda of any enemy forever.”

Sadullah Zarei continued his note in Kayhan: “We have stated several times in the face of Israel that we will strike Haifa if Israel makes a mistake. Now that we can prove the role of the Zionist regime in this great martyrdom, we can operationalize this threat, but not in the sense that we will be satisfied with an operation the size of a missile we had against the Ain al-Assad military base, and not in the sense of that operation, but in the sense that “In fact, we are attacking the important port city of Haifa in such a way that, in addition to destroying the facilities, it is accompanied by heavy human casualties, so that our deterrence reaches a” safe point “.”

According to the author of Kayhan, “Iran’s reactionary action, if implemented intelligently and accurately, will definitely lead to deterrence, because the United States and the Israeli regime and its agents are by no means ready to take part in a war and military confrontation, and this is literally a war case.” “And terrorism is coming to an end in our region.”

Young man: Do not run away from under the gutters for fear of rain

But along with the analysis of the universe and the demand for a sharp reaction to the martyrdom of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the young newspaper affiliated with the IRGC also believes in the reaction, but with a more moderate view. “The enemy’s calculations in the assassination are that Iran is not in a position to react, and ironically this is the best time for assassination,” Abdullah Ganji, the young managing director, wrote in a note in the newspaper, criticizing Hassan Rouhani’s analysis of Fakhrizadeh’s assassination. Unfortunately, we could not change this calculation of the enemy and we changed it ourselves. Our main analysis is that the Zionists are seeking to undermine the strategic honor of “fighting in Syria rather than fighting in Hamedan and Kermanshah,” seeking security for which we have fought abroad and pushed back their infantry in the form of “insecurity.” “They should bring them inside the country and make people aware that we fought in Syria and neglected the security of our country.”

However, he believes: “One should not make a decision with hasty feelings or social pressure. We should not go in a direction that took the repentants of Karbala to the same level and wasted without a military estimate.”

According to Ganji: “On the other hand, we should not be Sultan Hussein Safavid, who placed the crown on the head of a 26-year-old man and said,” My son, God has decreed this, and we do not oppose God’s command. ” If Sultan Hussein had fought outside the fortress of Isfahan and been torn to pieces, he would now be one of the heroes of Iran and Shiism, but the amnesty caused him to surrender the government and behead all the Safavid princes in one day, two years after the handover of Mahmud Afghan government. “The king was also watching.” 

“In response to the Zionist action, we have a lot of capacity to use,” the young newspaper said. “Any analysis that silences us has broken the pride of the great and ancient nation of Iran. The pride of the Iranians is so much that it is sometimes called the ‘Empire Syndrome.’ This pride must not be broken. The condition for maintaining this pride is that “Do not run away under the gutters for fear of rain.”

State of War Between Iran and Israel

A Scorched Earth Strategy on Iran–The assassination of a top nuclear scientist isn’t about stopping a bomb — it’s about preventing diplomacy.

Iran’s Mohsen Fakhrizadeh killed by 62-person hit squad, reports say

The killers — who Iranian officials have insisted were sent by Israel — included a team of 50 giving “logistical support” to the dirty dozen who carried out the actual ambush Friday, sources told leading Iranian journalist Mohamad Ahwaze.

All involved had “entered special training courses, as well as security and intelligence services abroad,” Ahwaze tweeted, as translated by ELINT News.

“The team knew exactly the date and course of the movement of the Fakhrizadeh protection convoy in the smallest details,” Ahwaze’s sources told him, allowing them to cut the scientist off as he went to his private villa in Absard.

Shortly before Fakhrizadeh drove through their ambush site, the team “cut off the electricity completely from this area” to slow reports of their assassination and any calls for help, the reporter said.

Fakhrizadeh was traveling in the middle of three bulletproof cars, with the killers striking after the first car entered a roundabout, the report said.

A booby-trapped Nissan was then detonated to block the car behind Fakhrizadeh — as 12 gunmen pounced on him, arriving in a Hyundai Santa Fe and four motorbikes, Ahwaze tweeted.

“After the car bomb was detonated, 12 operatives opened fire towards Fakhrizadeh’s car and the first protection vehicle,” his thread said.

“According to Iranian leaks, the leader of the assassination team took Fakhrizadeh out of his car and shot him and made sure he was killed.”

None of the hit squad were wounded or arrested during the gunbattle with the Iranian’s bodyguards, Ahwaze said.

Friday’s hit has dramatically escalated tensions between Iran and Israel, which was quickly accused of ordering the hit.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed “definitive punishment of the perpetrators and those who ordered it.”

He called Fakhrizadeh “the country’s prominent and distinguished nuclear and defensive scientist,” and analysts have compared him to being on a par with Robert Oppenheimer, the scientist who led the U.S.′ Manhattan Project in World War II that created the atom bomb.

Left-Wing “Woke” Zealots Urge You To Disrupt Thanksgiving Dinner, By Attacking Your Family’s Beliefs

[The cancel culture hates you, your family, your God and your country…and they call themselves morally superior.]

UVA student newspaper opinion writer: ‘Stand up’ to ‘racist family’ at Thanksgiving

Article imageBenjamin Zeisloft | Pennsylvania Senior Campus Correspondent

An opinion writer for the University of Virginia student newspaper encouraged her readers to “stand up” against “racist family.”

She argues that “hateful rhetoric, conspiratorial thinking and virulent racism, xenophobia and sexism” endure in broader American society.

One student commented on the opinion article, stating that by playing along with the “policing of white progressives, we grant them a position of superiority and false sense of accomplishment.”

Emma Camp, who writes a regular opinion column for the Cavalier Daily, asserted that “white progressives must privilege their principles over personal comfort” in conversations with family during the holiday season. In order to fulfill this mandate, they “need to stand up to their racist loved ones.”

Though Trump, who Camp defines as a “proto-fascist,” who has “been defeated,” she argues that “the hateful rhetoric, conspiratorial thinking and virulent racism, xenophobia and sexism he espoused during his tenure remain deeply entrenched in American political discourse.”

“When we sit silent over our uncle’s QAnon rants or our high school friends’ xenophobic comments,” she continues, “it shows that we value our own comfort over what we know to be our ethical duty.”

She again admonishes readers to prove that their “moral principles” are more important than their “relationship with racists.”

“No matter the outcome, standing up for your principles disrupts the presumption of agreement so often assumed by bigots,” concludes Camp. “Hateful beliefs may continue — but at the very least you can make it clear that they are not welcome to at least one person at the dinner table.”

University of Virginia undergraduate Deven Upadhyay told Campus Reform that “calling white progressives to action at Thanksgiving turns social activism into a game, eliciting frivolous accusations and burning bridges with loved ones.”

“Today’s progressives have developed a savior complex that has become so sensitive, diluting the severity of real instances of xenophobia, sexism, and racism,” he added. “As this piece pins this task on white people, it seems that people of color need to be ‘saved’ by our white friends.”

Upadhyay, who is Indian-American, says that he does not “need to be saved or pandered to. By playing along with the policing of white progressives, we grant them a position of superiority and false sense of accomplishment.”

“If the purpose of activism is to make change, telling your uncle Steve he’s a white supremacist surely won’t win you a Nobel prize,” he added.

Campus Reform reached out to Camp for comment and will update this article accordingly.

Trump Working Feverishly To Scuttle Biden’s Iran Peace Overtures

Israel strikes widely in Syria, sending signal of aggressive post-Trump posture

Trump ‘asked for options on strike on Iran nuclear site’

Scoop: Israeli military prepares for possibility Trump will strike Iran

While Trump considered bombing Iran, Biden ponders a new deal with it

US President-elect Joe Biden.
US President-elect Joe Biden.

By John Solomou

Nicosia [Cyprus], November 23 (ANI): The New York Times reported that on November 12, US President Donald Trump asked his senior advisers to examine options for airstrikes against Iran’s main nuclear facility at Natanz. Trump convened the meeting just one day after the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors reported a significant increase in Iran’s nuclear material.

Fortunately, Trump’s advisers persuaded him that the risks of military action against Iran are very high. Had a strike against Iran actually taken place, apart from the fact that would be a clear violation of international law, it would also have scuttled any new deal with Iran, President-elect Joe Biden is pondering.

The nuclear deal, known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 with the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia, allows Iran to keep a stockpile of 202.8 kilograms. Inspectors reported that the stockpile increased to 2,442 kilograms, while Iran continues to enrich uranium to a purity of up to 4.5 per cent, higher than the 3.67 per cent allowed under the deal. It should be noted that low enriched uranium between 3 and 5 per cent can be used for nuclear power, but for nuclear weapons 90 per cent purity is required.

According to New York Times, Trump had to be persuaded not to order the attack by Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley. They pointed out that a military strike would have no basis on international law, while the UN Security Council in all probability would not approve a military action against Iran.

Iranian Government Spokesman Ali Rabiei, responding to the NY Times’ report, said that any US attack on Iran would face a “crushing” response.

Meanwhile, the US Administration announced fresh sanctions on numerous Iranian individuals, including the Intelligence Chief and a charitable foundation linked to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Trump had withdrawn from JCPOA in May 2018 and imposed sanctions, which according to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cut vital and lucrative Iranian exports by some 75 per cent, denying the regime of USD 70 billion in oil. Iran continued to comply with the provisions of JCPOA until July 2019, and then started violating parts of the deal, but last January following the assassination by the US of Major General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, it ended all compliance with JCPOA.

As Trump was mulling over an attack on Iran, the Israelis carried out strikes in Syria on Iranian-backed militias. On 18 November, the Israeli Air Force hit targets of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force and the Syrian Army in the Golan Heights and Damascus International Airport, as retaliation for the planting of explosives near an Israeli military position in the Golan Heights.

Undoubtedly, if a military attack on Iran took place during Trump’s final days in office, it would have certainly derailed Joe Biden’s stated election promise to handle Iran “the smart way” and to give the Iranian regime “a credible path back to diplomacy”.

Karim Sadjapour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that as both a Senator and a Vice President Biden’s views on Iran was always realistic. “He has no illusions about the nature of the Iranian regime and the challenges it poses to US interests, but he’s also been a consistent advocate of direct dialogue with Iran…. If Tehran shows a willingness to return to the status quo ante, no questions asked, it would strengthen the argument of those in Washington who favour an immediate return to the JCPOA. But if Tehran insists on being compensated for the sanctions imposed on Iran during the Trump era, or if Iranian leaders attempt to expand their nuclear program or carry out regional provocations in an attempt to expand their nuclear programme, or carry out regional provocations in an attempt to strengthen their bargaining position or signal that they are not weak, it will have the opposite effect.”

Paul Adams, BBC diplomatic correspondent points out that Iran, which “has weathered the Trump storm, has its own demands. Officials say the removal of sanctions won’t be enough. Iran expects to be compensated for two-and-a-half years of crippling economic damage….. The JCPOA was never a bilateral affair. Its other international sponsors – Russia, China, France, the UK and Germany, plus the European Union – are all, in one way or another, invested in its future. The European sponsors, in particular, are anxious to see Washington once more committed to the deal’s success. The UK, France and Germany (the “E3″) have tried to keep the deal alive during the Trump years and could now play a role in negotiating the terms of Washington’s return. But in London, Paris and Berlin, there’s a recognition that the world has moved on and that a simple return to the original deal is unlikely.”

A deal between Biden and the Tehran government is possible but could be much more difficult if Tehran insists on demanding compensation for US withdrawal from the deal, or if Biden raises the issues of the Iranian ballistic missiles or the Tehran supported militias in the region. (ANI)

Salonpas Pain Patch–Medical/Advertising Fraud for Doctors Too Afraid To Help Their Patients

Salonpas Pain Patch

Brand Name: Absorbine Jr., Analgesic Balm Greaseless, Arthricare Cream, BENGAY Ultra, Boroleum, Castiva Cooling, Eucalyptamint, Exocaine Plus, Flex-All 454 Maximum Strength, Gordogesic, Icy Hot, Mentholatum Deep Heating, Rhuli Gel, Salonpas Pain Patch, Satogesic, Thera-Gesic–DRUGS.COM


Jewish Editor and Jewish Filmaker Brand Criticism Of Soros As “Anti-Semitism”

By Edward A. Gargan

See the article in its original context from
September 22, 1997, Section A, Page 6Buy Reprints
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.

It was high noon in Hong Kong this weekend.

Like gunfighters on a dust-blown street, one of Asia’s most outspoken leaders, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, faced off against one of the world’s most formidable currency speculators, George Soros. In their holsters were weapons of oratory, currency and clout.

At stake was nothing less than Malaysia’s national prestige, the future of Southeast Asian economies and, by some accounts, the very shape of the global financial system.

Even more, the standoff pitted two worlds against one another, an Asia of growing economic might and a West convinced that free-wheeling trade — in ideas, capital and goods — is the best recipe for development.

The forum was the usually somber gathering of finance ministers, bankers and economists at the annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. On successive evenings, Mr. Mahathir and Mr. Soros squared off, denouncing each other in vitriolic language seldom heard in such settings.

Yet Malaysia’s economy is in crisis, its currency has collapsed and blame had to be fixed.

Lashing out at currency traders like Mr. Soros as ”morons,” Mr. Mahathir castigated them on Saturday as ”a group of ultra-rich people.”

”For them wealth must come from impoverishing others,” Mr. Mahathir said, ”from taking what others have in order to enrich themselves. Their weapon is their wealth against the poverty of others.”

While not mentioning Mr. Soros by name — although in previous comments to newspapers in Malaysia, Mr. Mahathir specifically blamed Mr. Soros for orchestrating Malaysia’s economic crisis — he told the assembled bankers and economists that Mr. Soros’s ilk had to be stopped.

”I am saying that currency trading is unnecessary, unproductive and totally immoral,” Mr. Mahathir declared. ”It should be stopped. It should be made illegal. We don’t need currency trading.”

Then tonight, before a standing-room-only crowd, Mr. Soros fired back at the Malaysian leader.

”Dr. Mahathir’s suggestion yesterday to ban currency trading is so inappropriate that it does not deserve serious consideration,” Mr. Soros said.

”Interfering with the convertibility of capital at a moment like this is a recipe for disaster. Dr. Mahathir is a menace to his own country.”

Since July, in the churning wake of the collapse of Thailand’s currency and banking system, Malaysia has foundered. Its currency, the ringgit, has plunged 20 percent against the dollar. On the heels of the tumbling ringgit, the Malaysian stock market crashed and the country’s banking system began to creak. Foreign investors fled.

For Mr. Mahathir, who has seen his country’s annual per-capita output soar from $350 to $5,000 in four decades, the assault on the ringgit smacked of a conspiracy wrought by international currency traders.

For a man who has built the world’s tallest buildings and Southeast Asia’s largest airport and who harbors visions of a glittering new capital, a high-tech corridor intended to rival Silicon Valley and immense hydroelectric dams, the economic train wreck has been an affront, to him personally and to Asia.

”We like to think big,” Mr. Mahathir said. ”But we are not going to be allowed to do this, because you don’t like us to have big ideas. It is not proper. It is impudent for us to try, or even to say we are going to do it. If we even say that when we have the money we will carry on with our big projects, you will make sure we won’t have the money by forcing the devaluation of the currency.

”If the countries of Europe and of North America can be almost uniformly prosperous, we don’t see why we cannot be allowed to be a little prosperous.”

Then tonight, 24 hours after Mr. Mahathir’s broadside against Mr. Soros, currency traders and the international financial system, Mr. Soros stood behind the same lectern and declared that the problem with Malaysia was not the world, but Mr. Mahathir himself.

”He is using me as a scapegoat to cover up his own failure,” Mr. Soros said. ”He is playing to a domestic audience, and he couldn’t get away with it if he and his ideas were subject to the discipline of an independent media inside Malaysia.”

Later, at a news conference, Mr. Soros elaborated on his comments. ”I want to express my sympathy for poor Malaysians who were hurt” by the collapse of the country’s currency and stock market, ”but not for Dr. Mahathir, because he’s responsible.”

The war of words reverberated through the cavernous conference halls, startling government officials and private bankers used to more measured language.

An Indonesian Government economist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was angered by Mr. Mahathir’s pronouncements.

”It’s very unfortunate that we are neighbors,” the economist said. ”I know we shouldn’t interfere in other countries’ policies. But all I can say is that it was very interesting. As an economist there are things that I disagree with. But because of our good neighbor policy, I can’t really comment on his speech.”

A Malaysian banker, who also insisted that he not be quoted by name, suggested that the Prime Minister was out of touch with reality.

”There are not two ways of doing these things,” the banker said. ”We have to get our own house in order. He really hasn’t thought these things out. He’s just spouting off.”

Israeli Forces Bomb Iranians In Syria, Trump Asks For Strike Options On Iranian Nuke Sites

Trump ‘asked for options on strike on Iran nuclear site’

Israel strikes widely in Syria, sending signal of aggressive post-Trump posture


Israel said it was retaliating for what it called an Iranian-sponsored operation in which Syrians planted explosives near an Israeli military base.


Image: Israeli soldiers on top of a Merkava Mark IV tank that deployed along the border with Syria, in Golan Heights, Israel.

Israeli soldiers on top of a Merkava Mark IV tank that deployed along the border with Syria, in Golan Heights, Israel, in 2018.picture alliance via Getty Images file

JERUSALEM/AMMAN — Israel launched air raids against what it called a wide range of Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria on Wednesday, sending a signal that it will pursue its policy of striking across the border despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s election defeat.

Israel said it was retaliating for what it called an Iranian-sponsored operation in which Syrians planted explosives near an Israeli military base in the occupied Golan Heights.

Israel has frequently attacked what it says are Iranian-linked targets in Syria in recent years, and stepped up such attacks over the past year in what Western intelligence sources describe as a shadow war to reduce Iran’s influence.

But Wednesday’s attacks struck a far wider range of targets than usual, and the Israeli military was more forthcoming about the details than it has been in the past, suggesting a clear intention to send a public message.

Image: People inspecting damaged buildings following a reportedly Israeli air strike on the Syrian village of Beit Saber, southwest of the capital Damascus
People inspecting damaged buildings following a reportedly Israeli air strike on the Syrian village of Beit Saber, southwest of the capital Damascus on 2019.SANA / AFP via Getty Images file

Trump, who lost his re-election bid on Nov. 3, has been a strong backer of Israeli military intervention against Iranian forces in Syria. President-elect Joe Biden has said he will try to revive a nuclear agreement with Iran that Trump abandoned.

The Syrian state news agency reported that three military personnel were killed and one wounded in “Israeli aggression”.

Lieutenant-Colonel Jonathan Conricus, an Israeli military spokesman, said eight targets were hit, belonging to the Syrian army or Iran’s Quds Force, in areas stretching from the Syrian-controlled side of the Golan Heights to the Damascus periphery.

They included an Iranian headquarters at Damascus international airport, a “secret military site” that hosted Iranian military delegations, and the 7th Division of the Syrian armed forces, he said. Syrian surface-to-air defenses were hit after firing at Israeli planes and missiles, Conricus said.

A former Syrian military commander told Reuters the attacks also targeted a base of the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group Hezbollah in Syria close to the Lebanese border, alongside bases in the southern Damascus area and outposts in the Syrian-controlled Golan Heights where Hezbollah has a presence.

Conricus made no mention of Hezbollah targets.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a war monitor, said at least ten people were killed including five Iranians from the elite Quds Force, as well as at least two Shi’ite militiamen who may have been Lebanese or Iraqi. A commander in an alliance of regional forces backing Damascus denied there were Iranians or Lebanese among the casualties.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government has never publicly acknowledged that there are Iranian forces operating on his behalf in Syria’s civil war, saying Tehran only has military advisors on the ground.

Western intelligence sources say Israeli strikes this year have undermined Iran’s extensive military power in Syria without triggering a major increase in hostilities.

Trump’s New Sec/Def Aims To End Perpetual War, Biden Sec/Def Speaks of War On Russia

Michele Flournoy, Biden Sec/Def Nominee–(SEE: The Looming US War on Russia )

Christopher C. Miller has been named acting secretary of defense.
National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller testifies before a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on ‘worldwide threats to the homeland’ on Sept. 17, 2020. President Trump named him acting secretary of defense on Nov. 9, 2020. (Chip Somodevilla/Pool via AP)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s new defense secretary signaled to the military in a late Friday message that he may be there to carry out one of the president’s early campaign promises, an overseas drawdown of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This is the critical phase in which we transition our efforts from a leadership to supporting role,” acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller said in a memo obtained by McClatchy. “We are not a people of perpetual war — it is the antithesis of everything for which we stand and for which our ancestors fought. All wars must end.”

Trump in a tweet Monday had announced Miller as the replacement for fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

In the memo to the Defense Department workforce, Miller described at length the respect he has for the institution and the sacrifices made by thousands of men and women who have deployed to the Middle East since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He said,

“ending wars requires compromise and partnership. We met the challenge; we gave it our all. Now, it’s time to come home.”

It was the first indication of what direction the Pentagon may take in Trump’s final weeks in office, the uncertainty of which has raised concerns among career defense officials and the incoming Biden administration about what the changes mean — whether he is rewarding loyalists or trying to force through policies the department has resisted over the last four years.

Top Biden transition officials said that postelection upheaval at the Defense Department, Trump’s firing of Esper and the resignations of top defense policy and intelligence chiefs that followed, amount to a final push to politicize the military.

The firings and resignations come amid Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his electoral defeat and authorize the federal government to begin preparing for a transition of power to President-elect Joe Biden. The defense officials and Biden’s team said that gap could increase security risks for the country.

“In the 9-11 Commission report, one of the things they talked about was the impact of the delay of the transition period on our national security,” Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the Biden transition team, told reporters on a call Friday.

“Of course it’s of concern to see the upheaval. It should be of concern to anybody because there shouldn’t be a politicization of the military,” said Psaki, who previously served in the Obama administration.

The firing and quick replacement of Esper had worried longtime defense civilian staffers, who wondered if there are major policy changes — such as a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan or new counterterrorism action in the Middle East or the Sahel, or even a potential use of military forces on U.S. soil to contest the election results — on the horizon before the president departs.

“I don’t know what the end game is,” said one current defense official who worked with policy staff members at the Office of the Secretary of Defense during Trump’s time in office. “For me that’s probably the most difficult thing to try and figure out. The instability and uncertainty complicates things.”

“They aren’t letting us talk about transition,” another current defense official said.

A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on the changes.

“It’s helpful to decapitate the senior civilian leadership at the Pentagon in preparation of some aggressive use of the military to bolster the president’s claims that he has won this election,” said one former defense official who has stayed close to the Pentagon’s current uniformed senior leadership. “That is probably the most worrisome, most extreme reason they could be making these decisions,” the official said.

“Then the other extreme — which is also possible, in fact some people think it’s the most likely, which is that this is just about score settling,” the official said.

“Once you got rid of Esper the decks were cleared to get rid of these other people that didn’t pass the loyalty test, and replace them with people that could use the experience over the next 70 days to pad their resume.”

In the last four years, the Pentagon has pushed back on decisions that senior military leaders hoped they could counsel the president to amend, such as the creation of the Space Force, withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria and the use of military force to quell protests.

Each pushback has come at a cost.

Now-retired Air Force Gen. David Goldfein’s public resistance to creating a Space Force, over cost and bureaucracy concerns, is widely believed to be one of the reasons Trump did not select him to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Former Defense Secretary James Mattis irked Trump by convincing him not to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2017, and ultimately resigned over Trump’s announcement that U.S. forces in Syria would depart in late 2018.

Esper fell out of favor with Trump when he pushed back on the use of active duty forces to counter nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody.

“I don’t see what the legal order would be for the military to get involved in something that had to do with the elections,” said retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro, who has assisted new administrations with Senate confirmations since the late 1990s.

Withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan or Germany, where the U.S. military has thousands of troops based, is much more likely to be the reason for the recent changes, Punaro said.

“There are certain things the president can do without the Congress. One is to deploy troops, two he can bring troops home,” Punaro said. “Troop levels in various locations is the most logical thing he could change with most recent changes in personnel.”

Punaro, like the former defense official, also said it was more likely some of these last-minute replacements were about rewarding staff that have remained in Trump’s favor.

“It really depends on the billet or the person,” Punaro said. “Allowing people a chance to have a significant position, for example they are bringing in some people in the chief management officer’s office, a new deputy chief management officer.”

“There’s some other people coming in,” Punaro said. “These aren’t related to bring(ing) the troops home from Afghanistan or (to) settle scores. These are really positions that have been vacant where they are giving people opportunities to serve perhaps only 70 days.”

After Esper was replaced by Miller, the following changes were also made at the Defense Department:

James Anderson, acting under secretary of defense for policy, was replaced by Anthony Tata, who Trump previously sought for the position. Tata, at that time, was unable to get Senate confirmation due to inflammatory remarks he has made about Muslims and former President Barack Obama. Tata will serve as “performing the duties of” the under secretary role, which will result in some limits to his authorities.

Retired Navy Vice Adm. Joseph Kernan, under secretary of defense for intelligence and security, was replaced by Ezra Cohen-Watnick, an early administration hire by former national security adviser retired Air Force Gen. Michael Flynn, before Flynn was replaced by retired Army Gen. H.R. McMaster.

Esper’s chief of staff, Jen Stewart, was replaced with Kash Patel, who previously worked for Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., on the Senate Intelligence Committee and assisted the Republican efforts on the committee to question the credibility of FBI agents investigating Russian election interference.

This article is written by Tara Copp and Michael Wilner from Special to McClatchy Washington Bureau and was legally licensed via the Tribune Content Agency through the Industry Dive publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to

Celebrity Elites vs “basket of deplorables”

The Biden Family: Corruption and media suppression that will fuel a civil war

President Trump, declassify everything, expose the swamp’s dual justice system and bureaucratic terrorists


60 million Americans have lost faith in their electoral process and their trust in government. The majority of Americans are disgusted by politicians, the government and the media telling them what to think while force-feeding them a steady diet of propaganda, lies, and excuses.

New York: The US Justice Department (DOJ) is responsible for ensuring the integrity of federal elections. Accordingly, A.G. Barr has launched a probe into “substantial allegations” of election fraud. Barr’s memorandum for US attorneys stated: “The DOJ must ensure federal elections are conducted in such a way that the American people can have full confidence in their electoral process and government.”

This memo lacks credibility, it is another paper tiger. 60 million Americans have lost faith in their electoral process and their trust in government. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The US government is rife with systemic fraud and corruption. The majority of Americans are disgusted by politicians, the government and the media telling them what to think while force-feeding them a steady diet of propaganda, lies, and excuses. Citizens need to believe in the integrity of America’s elections and equal application of the rule of law.

Many view Barr’s recent memo as another time-wasting, paper-shuffling “fake investigation” similar to the investigations into Crooked Hillary or the USA’s corrupt FBI. A FISA judge recently determined that FBI agents falsified and lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to obtain FISA warrants to illegally and “secretly spy” on the 2016 Trump campaign and American citizens. Additionally, recently declassified documents prove that Hillary Clinton funded the fraudulent “Steele dossier,” which was the FBI’s basis for obtaining the FISA warrants and would lead to the seditious Mueller investigation.

Mueller’s hoax was part of the FBI’s “insurance policy” to remove a democratically elected President and was one of many failed coup d’états to remove Trump initiated by the Democratic Party. The head of the FBI, James Comey, signed off on many of the FISA applications, attesting to their accuracy. Comey lied about the content in warrants and lied under oath, but Comey was never prosecuted. In 2016, Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton even though there was clear evidence proving that Clinton lied about illegally moving classified documents onto a non-secure unauthorized server in the basement of Clinton’s Chappaqua, NY home. Clinton’s above the law status illustrates to Americans that the dual justice system is real—one rule for Republicans and another for the political elites in the Democratic Party.

Inspector General Horowitz, of the United States Department of Justice, launched an investigation into the FISA abuses and the Russia probe. Horowitz’s 476-page report, which took years, determined that: “Malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process by FBI officials.” It was discovered that the FBI failed “to include exculpatory evidence in its four successful applications for surveillance warrants” and had relied heavily on 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions.”

In other words, the FBI lied to get FISA warrants that “unlawfully authorized” the FBI to conduct “electronic surveillance and physical searches.” Horowitz’s report was a “slow-roll cover-up” that resulted in nothing except the eroding of the public’s trust in government.

For nearly two years, John Durham, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, has been investigating the origin of the specious Russia collusion hoax that marred the Trump presidency and split the country apart. Laws were broken, but nothing was done and Durham just sat on his investigation into the investigators. Sorry, A.G. Barr, the Durham investigation is viewed by many Americans as yet another in a long series of paper shuffles by Washington’s swamp to protect the status quo and Obama’s legacy. Barack Obama, the most divisive President in US history, never departed Washington. Obama was the first US President to champion a “resistance movement” undermining a smooth transition of power to the Trump administration. It appears that Obama is the marionettist behind Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Obama campaigning in Georgia, on behalf of the Democratic Party Senate candidates, between now and the January runoff elections will further confirm Obama’s involvement to permanently change Americas norms and values.

During the 2020 elections, voting irregularities, software “glitches” or “mistakes” all benefited the Democratic Party enough so that the vote was likely shifted to ensure a Biden victory. All of these anomalies together are a statistical impossibility. The issues below need to be addressed before all the legal votes are counted and the results are codified:

1. As Joe Biden surrogates, the oligarchs of Silicon Valley spent billions of dollars on censorship and vote suppression campaigns that influenced the election’s outcome. Google, Facebook and Twitter censored the fact that Hunter Biden received millions from Moscow, Ukraine, and China and the fact that witnesses testified about influence peddling and that Joe Biden knew about Hunter’s activities. Big tech worked with the media to censor President Trump and to not report on systemic election fraud. Silicon Valley and the media continue to tyrannically censor evidence and facts that illustrate voter fraud or anyone that dares question the “rigged” electoral process. Big tech censorship is the greatest existential threat to free speech, liberty, and democratic principals in our lifetime. Silicon Valley amplified the voter suppression that played a critical role in the 2020 election results.

2. The pollsters and media suppressed the electoral vote, raised money for Democratic candidates and manipulated the outcome. The media ran 95% anti-Trump messaging, which seemed to justify that fraud was acceptable if it would remove “Orange Man Bad” from the White House.

3. Media hysteria over Covid-19 including Dr Fauci and the experts spewing “a science” mantra, massively boosted Biden’s election chances. It is now clear that the media used Covid-19 as a tool to instil fear in the masses. The case numbers were grossly overinflated, as were the projected number of deaths.

4. It is a fact that dead people not only registered to vote but also voted. The New York Times falsely declared in bold headline in all caps: ELECTION OFFICALS NATIONWIDE FIND NO FRAUD. Translation: Shut-up and obey! This lie illustrates why the media has lost the trust of the people.

5. Many votes were cast illegally—a fact the Democratic Georgia Secretary of State openly admitted after the election.

6. In Michigan, a “too close to call” swing state, a clerk found that software used in 47 counties moved 6,000 Republican votes to the Democrats. This software was used across the country and may have changed the election result.

7. Democratic political operatives in the Pennsylvania usurped the US Constitution by illegally changing election laws, to favour the Democratic Party, by fiat instead of by a legitimate, lawful and transparent legislative process.

8. Without due process or an investigation, a heavily biased media anointed Joe Biden President-elect. Joe Biden was trotted out, making spurious claims that American voters had “delivered us a clear victory, a convincing victory”. Biden’s “victory” was prematurely trumpeted by a shrill, corrupt and dishonest media when many questions need to be answered before any of the results are certified.

Election 2020 did not demonstrate free and fair elections. More than 70% of Republicans do not trust that US elections were free and fair, with 78% saying mail-in voting led to fraud. Mail-in ballot fraud, lack of voter identification, or signature matching are red flags that indicate malfeasance. This is how the NSA and CIA conducted electoral manipulation to install the USA’s leader of choice in “banana republics.”

While Joe Biden pretends the Democratic Party seeks unity, many of his party members, such as New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), begun “archiving” an extensive communist-style blacklist of “Trump sycophants” who shall be held responsible for their “complicity”. A “cancel culture” will hold you responsible! Executions? Cancelled from any employment and sent to re-education camps, modelled after China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, for having a differing view from AOC’s utopian democratic socialism? Indeed, “Owned by China” Joe Biden will turn a blind eye. Bill Clinton’s former Labour Secretary Robert Reich, who is now the chancellor of Public Policy Berkeley, stated: “When Trump nightmare is over, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” Naming everyone “whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe”. Reich and AOC’s incendiary rhetoric stands against every American norm, value, and the rule of law. These tyrannical ideas lay out precisely the agenda of the Democratic Party: re-write the US Constitution and rule for life, which will end in a very bloody civil war. Jack Dorsey’s Twitter proudly displays many threats to democratic principles like the examples above.

“The world should be horrified that Congress, Democratic Party members, and media have called for a blacklist and to purge polite society of all political opposition—this is fascism.’

To reiterate and conclude: A.G. Barr’s memo talks about the DOJ’s obligation to ensure that people can have full confidence in their government. That’s gone; that ship has sailed. The US electoral process has lost its integrity. The Obama and Clinton orchestrated “resistance” comparing Trump to Hitler, rogue intelligence operatives initiating smear campaigns on everything Trump and a concerted campaign of dirty tricks from Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer’s Democrats for over four years have polarized and irreparably damaged the country. The Democrats even failed to denounce the murders, looting, arson and shootings committed by the “defund-the-police” BLM and Antifa mob-rule thugs because they knew this chaos would instil fear in Americans and help influence the outcome of the election. Over 75 million Americans sharply rebuked the race, gender and sexual orientation-based identity politics branded by the far-left “Democratic Socialists”, who are Marxist revolutionary insurgents self-identifying as “progressives” wishing to turn the US into Wokistan.

President Trump has the legal authority to immediately declassify all the documents exposing the bureaucratic terrorists who have infested our government and institutions. Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” will no longer sit back and accept these lies. This week, massive boycotts have been threatened, and truck drivers across the nation will walk out. While Washington controls the swamp and the media live in a coastal echo chamber with Hollywood’s preachy shill actors, the country’s “basket of deplorables” has full control over its supply chains and logistics—food, toilet paper, etc.

This is how civil wars begin; we all should fear for the Republic—unfortunately, it may be lost.

Mitchell Feierstein is CEO Glacier Environmental Fund.

Not An Election, But A “Democratic” Coup d’Etat

The Biden Family: Corruption and media suppression that will fuel a civil war

Image credit: Mitch FeiErstein

The majority of Americans believe in the US Constitution, family values, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, forty years of neoliberal politics and academic indoctrination have spawned a movement of entitled, spoiled, social justice warriors (SJWs) claiming to be diverse, tolerant, accepting and inclusive. Once someone disagrees with these SJWs’ ideological viewpoints, the SJWs become violent, intolerant fascists.

In the epic 2020 presidential election, expect the unexpected. Expect Herculean internet content manipulation by Google, Facebook and Twitter to censor and suppress information in order to shape a favourable opinion of a heavily compromised Joe Biden. The Democratic Party, the media, rogue intelligence operatives, Wall Street, Hollywood, Ivy League neoliberal academics and the Silicon Valley aristocracy all loathe Trump. They will stop at nothing to ensure a Biden victory.


The US Senate has verified that the Biden corruption scandal is not Russian disinformation; it is real. Biden insider-turned-whistleblower, Tony Bobulinski, submitted thousands of pages into evidence that included direct testimony, financial records, text messages, emails, documents and audio recordings. The Senate has confirmed Bobulinski’s evidence as genuine. Bobulinski’s evidence makes it crystal clear that Joe Biden had direct knowledge of the Biden family’s ongoing, decades-long, worldwide influence-peddling scheme, which Biden lied to America about.

Washington Post columnist Thomas Rid published a heads-up for all media: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation—even if they probably aren’t.” Rid shows how the liberal media have irreparably breached public trust. The ongoing media cover-up of the Biden scandal and their failure to report evidence-based disclosures confirmed by the US Senate is unbelievable. Not a single liberal media outlet has covered the biggest political scandal during our lifetime. Journalistic objectivity has become politically motivated, biased and deceitful propaganda churned out by political activists.

Many of the documents and emails entered into evidence, with metadata, were written by Hunter and Jim Biden and prove how and where the Biden family was selling influence to many countries. Twitter, Facebook and Google have also censored the news pertaining to the Bidens. In recent testimony before Congress, Twitter boss Jack Dorsey supported news censorship by mob-rule. He stated, “We rely on people calling it out.” These companies are censoring news and lying to the American people to protect a compromised presidential candidate. Can the public ever trust the media or government agencies again? No.

These media “activists” are involved in the corruption rather than reporting on it or presenting facts that allow the people to draw their own conclusions. These political activists and social media companies are deciding what the people can see, what will be censored and finally, under the guidance of intelligence operatives, what they can think. Stanford communications professor emeritus Ted Glasser even advocates journalists embrace “social justice” activism over objectivity. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, et al, have become nothing more than “woke” censors and wholesale merchants in propaganda that perfectly replicate China’s social credit system.


The majority of Americans believe in the US Constitution, family values, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, forty years of neoliberal politics and academic indoctrination have spawned a movement of entitled, spoiled, social justice warriors (SJWs) claiming to be diverse, tolerant, accepting and inclusive.

Once someone disagrees with these SJWs’ ideological viewpoints, the SJWs become violent, intolerant fascists. These historically ignorant, entitled, indoctrinated children are demanding, by violence if necessary, a “regressive” and discriminatory new world order that prioritizes the characteristics of race, gender and class above a life history of achievement, merit and excellence.

Joe Biden-supporting, Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Anti-Fascists (ANTIFA) members have sparked a violent crime wave across America for the past eight months. These thugs murdered innocent people; looted and destroyed businesses; and burnt buildings, vehicles and police stations to the ground—anarchy that was hidden from the public view and covered up by a complicit media. As the CNN film rolled and buildings burned in the background, the CNN talking head described the ongoing murders, arson and looting as “peaceful protests”.


For the first time in history, presidential candidates have refused to disclose the platform they are running to lead America.

Here are the main points of the Joe Biden/Kamala Harris platform:

  • End the filibuster rule in the US Senate.
  • Grant DC and Puerto Rico statehood in order to appoint four liberal US Senators.
  • Abolish the Electoral College.
  • Pack the Supreme Court and the federal courts with “radicals in robes”.
  • Allow minors and illegal aliens the right to vote.

The five bullet points above will destroy the balance of power the US founders created within the US Constitution. The US Constitution was designed to limit government powers to protect the people from partisan politics when the government is controlled by one political party. As outlined in the US Constitution, the federal government has a mechanism of checks and balances that includes three branches of government: the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive.

The Democratic Party’s platform will destroy this balance and install a permanent oligarchy. The Democratic Party wants to delegitimize all existing systems, customs and norms. They believe that the US Constitution needs to be shredded because old white men wrote it. In the past year, well-funded movements, such as BLM, have sprung up to help realize this goal. BLM is run by Marxists demanding an end to the nuclear family and that the police be defunded or entirely abolished. Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and the radical Democrats continuously repeat the mantra that America’s police and law enforcement need to be “re-imagined”, but they refuse to elaborate on what this actually means.

Mob-rule demands acceptance, submission and obedience to BLM. If total compliance is not immediate, you are deemed a racist and preyed upon by the mob. Mob-rule, intimidation, violence and fear are tools Biden-supporting ANTIFA members deploy to pressure and coerce the public into submission.


Amy Coney Barrett, one of the most qualified jurists for a seat on the Supreme Court in decades, was formally sworn in as the Supreme Court’s ninth justice this week after the Senate confirmed her appointment by a vote of 48-52. The Democratic Party was apoplectic over Justice Barrett’s appointment even though Justice Barrett’s extensive vetting by the US Senate was 100% compliant with the privileges and rights guaranteed a sitting US President under the US Constitution.

Although Barrett was qualified for the vacant seat, every Democratic Party member voted against Barrett. Why? The Democratic Party places politics and power over the interests of the people and democracy.

Democratic Senator Cory Booker decried the process as delegitimate and a sham. Booker is an example of the contempt the Democrats in the US Senate have for the US Constitution. The Democrats’ lies, propaganda and material misrepresentations are intended to build a foundation for delegitimizing the US Constitution should Biden be elected. Democratic Senator Ed Markey called the “judicial originalism” espoused by Barrett “racist, sexist, homophobic and a fancy word for discrimination”. In other words, Markey is inferring the US Constitution is racist. Markey should be censured and forced to apologise for his repugnant comments.

Markey, Booker, and the Democrats believe the courts should be a super-legislature that rubber stamp their “social justice” ideological framework into flexible laws. This is pure demagoguery. The Democratic Party wants to tear up the US Constitution, do away with any system of checks and balances, tear down all historical statues, end traditional family values and norms, and burn down the judicial system. If Biden and the Bolshevik left seize power, the protections provided under the US Constitution and the rule of law will fade away, and the Bolsheviks will rule “Biden’s banana republic”.

This ideological war has fomented a genuine and irreparable distrust of our government agencies’ ability to protect, serve and represent the people who elected them. Never has the western media colluded to perpetrate an endless series of lies on this magnitude to cover up rampant political corruption; it is the most significant political corruption scandal and cover-up ever. These are crimes against democracy.

If you are not frightened by all of this, you should be.


On election day, Trump will melt the snowflakes on his way to 270+ Electoral College votes; I predict that Trump wins enough of the following states: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, to provide him enough of a boost, 125 votes, to launch him above 270 votes and a victory. Bear in mind, a Washington DC coup d’état cabal has been conducting, with impunity, a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the United States government for the past four years. It’s a safe bet this same cabal will invent ballots, lie, cheat, steal and do “whatever it takes” to dispute or overturn a legitimate Trump victory.


Mitchell Feierstein is CEO Glacier Environmental Fund.

Trump’s Syrian Envoy Admits Sabotaging President’s Directive In Syrian Occupation

Outgoing Syria Envoy Admits Hiding US Troop Numbers; Praises Trump’s Mideast Record

‘We were always playing shell games,’ says Amb. Jim Jeffrey, who also gives advice to President-elect Biden.

Amb. James Jeffrey, special representative for Syria Engagement and special envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State, speaks during a news conference at the State Department in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019.

Amb. James Jeffrey, special representative for Syria Engagement and special envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State, speaks during a news conference at the State Department in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019. AP PHOTO/SUSAN WALSH

Four years after signing the now-infamous “Never Trump” letter condemning then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as a danger to America, retiring diplomat Jim Jeffrey is recommending that the incoming Biden administration stick with Trump’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

But even as he praises the president’s support of what he describes as a successful “realpolitik” approach to the region, he acknowledges that his team routinely misled senior leaders about troop levels in Syria.

“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is “a lot more than” the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019.

Trump’s abruptly-announced withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria remains perhaps the single-most controversial foreign policy move during his first years in office, and for Jeffrey, “the most controversial thing in my fifty years in government.” The order, first handed down in December 2018, led to the resignation of former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. It catapulted Jeffrey, then Trump’s special envoy for Syria, into the role of special envoy in the counter-ISIS fight when it sparked the protest resignation of his predecessor, Brett McGurk.

For Jeffrey, the incident was far less cut-and-dry — but it is ultimately a success story that ended with U.S. troops still operating in Syria, denying Russian and Syrian territorial gains and preventing ISIS remnants from reconstituting.

In 2018 and again in October of 2019, when Trump repeated the withdrawal order, the president boasted that ISIS was “defeated.” But each time, the president was convinced to leave a residual force in Syria and the fight continued.

“What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal,” Jeffrey said. “When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.”

Officially, Trump last year agreed to keep several hundred U.S. troops — somewhere between 200 and 400, according to varying reports at the time — stationed in northeast Syria to “secure” oil fields held by the United States’ Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS. It is generally accepted that the actual number is now higher than that — anonymous officials put the number at about 900 today — but the precise figure is classified and remains unknown even, it appears, to members of Trump’s administration keen to end the so-called “forever wars.”

As he exits public service again, Jeffrey is hardly derisive of the divisive president.

The career ambassador’s 2018 decision to serve in the Trump administration despite his political opposition to the president — and to champion his policies on the way out the door — is on-brand for an official described by colleagues as the consummate apolitical public servant. Jeffrey offers no polemics on the president’s character, even as he says he stands by his decision to sign the 2016 open letter that said Trump was “erratic” and “acts impetuously.”

“I know what I did in 2016, I do not disagree with that,” said Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. “I was following closely the situation with Iran, Iraq and Syria, and I was appalled that we didn’t have a more coherent policy. This wasn’t a political decision.”

Jeffrey now says that Trump’s “modest” and transactional approach to the Middle East has yielded a more stable region than either of his predecessors’ more transformational policies. President George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech heralding the seismic U.S. intervention into Iraq and President Barack Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo proclaiming a “new beginning” with the Muslim world represent an approach to the Middle East that “made things worse” and “weakened us,” Jeffrey said. Trump’s administration, he said, has looked at the Middle East through a geostrategic lens and kept its focus on Iran, Russia, and China, while keeping the metastatic “disease” of Islamist terror in check.

Jeffrey believes Trump has achieved a kind of political and military “stalemate” in a number of different cold and hot conflicts, producing a situation that is about the best any administration could hope for in such a messy, volatile region.

In much of Syria, the remaining U.S. troops maintain a fragile stability. Although U.S. diplomats are still painstakingly working to resettle thousands of ISIS families and relocate foreign fighters still held by the Kurdish-led SDF, Jeffrey said the humanitarian situation is slowly improving and he has no concerns that the remaining detained ISIS fighters will escape.

In Iraq, Jeffrey credits the Trump administration with maintaining relations with the central government and constraining Iranian influence in Baghdad.

“Stalemale and blocking advances and containing is not a bad thing,” Jeffrey said. “That’s what powerful countries — France, Britain, the United States — failed to do in the 1930s, and then they discovered they had to fight for their lives in really important places like Paris and the South China Sea and North Africa.”

“That’s the nature of realpolitik and great power foreign policy.”

Jeffrey’s is an unorthodox view of Trump’s foreign policy, to be sure. It comes at a moment when most mainstream national security professionals of both parties — including some former members of Trump’s own administration — are openly condemning the president’s handling of America’s military and diplomatic affairs. In particular, critics say the 45th president has damaged American alliances, perhaps irreversibly, with his combative Twitter account and occasionally punitive foreign policy. In one key example, Trump announced a troop withdrawal from Germany because Berlin wasn’t meeting defense spending benchmarks.

Jeffrey said there’s no question that Trump has demanded a lot of U.S. allies, both in Europe and the Middle East. But he rolls his eyes at the notion that U.S. alliances will crumble under the pressure from the United States to do things like pay more for their own national defense or do more to push back on Iran.

Far from undermining Middle East allies, Jeffrey said, Trump has sought “to build up our alliance system and basically stop nagging at them, show that Washington has their back including their domestic situations — they can do pretty much what they want, but they’re going to have to step up and do things.”

In the Middle East, he said, that approach has won him friends, not enemies. He points to the historic political tightening between Israel and some of the Gulf monarchies.

“Nobody really wants to see President Trump go, among all our allies [in the Middle East],” he said. “The truth is President Trump and his policies are quite popular among all of our popular states in the region. Name me one that’s not happy.”

In Iraq, he said, relations with Baghdad have remained healthy, even as he confirmed the State Department threat to shutter the embassy if Iraq didn’t do more to curtail Iranian militia activity.

“That’s an ongoing issue,” he said. “It was not a bogus threat, it’s very serious.”

The Syria withdrawal announcement was roundly condemned even by members of Trump’s own administration as an abandonment of the SDF, which did the bulk of the on-the-ground fighting against ISIS. It is often held up by critics as the ultimate object lesson of the chaos — and even cruelty — of the Trump administration.

Jeffrey disputes the charge that the United States “abandoned” its Kurdish allies to a Turkish onslaught. Although the United States gave the Kurds a military guarantee against Russian mercenaries operating in Syria, the Syrian government and ISIS, “nobody in Washington ever gave the Kurds a military guarantee against Turkey,” Jeffrey said. “I cannot put my finger on it, [but] every Kurdish leader I know thinks that he or she was given such a guarantee by people in the field, and that had an impact on how they behaved including how they behaved vis-a-vis the Turks. So it was a very complicated political mess.”

Jeffrey doesn’t dispute that there was some chaos to the decision-making process. But he compared it to troop level fluctuations in Iraq under Bush, or Obama’s surge into and simultaneous withdrawal deadline in Afghanistan.

“Look, there’s a surface chaos to every administration,” he said. “I’m not defending this gang, I’m just saying chaos is what I’ve experienced.”

If Jeffrey is complimentary of the Trump administration’s overall approach to the Middle East, he is equally sanguine about the incoming Biden administration.

“If [U.S. allies in the Middle East] had to pick somebody else to come, it would be Joe Biden,” Jeffrey said. “I can’t predict how Joe Biden would act [but] of all of his decisions that I was involved in, and there were many, he is more of a transactional guy by his nature.

“I can’t see him giving either the Bush speech or the Cairo speech. And that’s a good thing.”

Asked how he would advise the Biden administration when it takes over his portfolio, Jeffrey said he would urge the President-elect to stay the course laid out by Trump’s team. Some things the Biden team may want to undo — like the dismantling of the Iran nuclear deal — he suggests may now be impossible. But above all, don’t attempt “transformation.” Don’t try to “turn Syria into Denmark.” Stalemate is stability.

“I think the stalemate we’ve put together is a step forward and I would advocate it,” Jeffrey said.

“I’m just telling you the reality as I saw it. I’m not trying to do favors to anybody. Because it’s very important when the new team comes in, they don’t say, if it was made by Trump it has to be bad.”

Trump Led A Voting Bloc of 70 Million Anti-Elitists

[The following article from Spiked really nails this past election and its true meaning.  It has not really been a contest between right and left, Dem. and Repub., or even Pro-Trump vs Anti-Trump…it has been a contest between America’s two classes, the hard-working lower classes (of all skin colors) against the ruling class elites and their fawning celebrity forces.  If Trump had not come along when he did there would have been someone else to lead the anti-politically correct Americans.  Hillary called us the “Deplorables”, members of a vast right-wing conspiracy, but that was just her snobbery speaking.  The following article tears into the elitists and their technocracy, speaking with power of a reenergized movement of over 70 million anti-elitist voters, the second-highest vote total of any bloc in American history.  The fact that at least 70 million of us still reject the non-stop brainwashing that has convinced many of our own friends and family that Trump was Hitler and we are the new Hitler’s army.  
This is dead wrong.  The Deplorables have risen-up from their own power to say NO to the cancel culture in their mob rule and their war against history otherwise known as political correctness.]

The real resistance

The 70million people who voted for Trump are revolting against the new elites.


So Joe Biden has won the highest popular vote in the history of the US. At the time of writing, more than 73million people have voted for him. He has beaten the record set by Barack Obama who was swept to power on that famous wave of ‘HOPE’ and 69.5million votes in 2008. But here’s the thing: so has Donald Trump. Trump might be trailing Biden in the popular vote of 2020, but he, too, has beaten Obama’s 2008 record. Trump, at the time of writing, has 69.7million votes. So he has won the second-highest popular vote in the history of the American republic. That is remarkable. Far more remarkable than Biden’s very impressive count.

Why? For one simple reason. Trump is the man we’re all meant to hate. He has been raged against ceaselessly by the cultural elites for the past four years. Hardly any of the American media backed him in 2020. Globalist institutions loathe him. Academia, the media elites, the social-media oligarchies, the celebrity set and other hugely influential sectors have branded him a 21st-century Hitler and insisted that only a ‘white supremacist’ could countenance voting for him. He’s the butt of every sniffy East Coast joke and the target of every fiery street protest. He’s the worst thing to happen to Western politics in decades, we’re told, by clever people, constantly.

And yet around 70million Americans voted for him. The second-highest electoral bloc in the history of the US put their cross next to the name of a man who over the past four years has been turned by the political clerisy into the embodiment of evil.

That is what makes the vote for Trump so striking, and so important. Because what it speaks to is the existence of vast numbers of people who are outside of the purview of the cultural elites. People who have developed some kind of immunity to the cultural supremacy of the ‘woke’ worldview so intensely mainstreamed by the political and media sets in recent years. People who are more than content to defy the diktats of the supposedly right-thinking elites and cast their ballots in a way that they think best tallies with their political, social and class interests. People who, no doubt to varying degrees, are at least sceptical towards the narratives of identitarianism, racial doom-mongering, climate-change hysteria and all the pronouns nonsense that have become dominant among political and cultural influencers, and which are essentially the new ideology of the ruling class.

Hillary Clinton infamously referred to many Trump supporters as ‘the deplorables’. But a far better word for them would be ‘the unconquerables’. These are minds and hearts uncolonised by the new orthodoxies. Seventy million people in a peaceful state of revolt against the new establishment and its eccentric, authoritarian ideologies. This is the most important story of the US election and it deserves serious attention.

The fury of the elites in the wake of the US election is palpable, and at times visceral. Even though their man is highly likely to have won, they are incandescent. Already there is rage against the innate racism and ‘white supremacy’ of the throng. Already there is neo-racist disgust with the Latinos and black people who, in larger numbers than 2016, voted for Trump. ‘We are surrounded by racists’, said New York Times columnist Charles M Blow, capturing the sense of siege felt by the woke clerisy. This rage of the elites against the masses, despite the victory of the elites’ preferred candidate, suggests they instinctively recognise their failure to bring significant sections of the masses to heel. They splutter out terms like ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ as reprimands against the millions who refuse to take the knee to their politics of fear, politics of identity, and politics of cancellation and control.

The elites, despite probably getting their way with a Biden presidency, have been thrown by this election. First, because they called it so wrongly. Their predictions of a ‘blue wave’ did not materialise. Their polls and punditry insisting that Trumpism would be resoundingly defeated turned out to be catastrophically incorrect. The stories of a 10-point swing to Biden evaporated upon contact with reality. So far, Trump has increased his vote by seven million.

The elite’s wrongness about this election is itself a crushing confirmation of their failure to ideologically domesticate large numbers of Americans. Many Americans have clearly chosen not to communicate their beliefs to pollsters, a key part of the new political clerisy, because they are aware that the political elites hold them in contempt. As one election analyst said, because of the ‘degree of hate’ directed to Trump supporters ‘by nearly all the media’, we have a situation where ‘people didn’t necessarily want to admit to pollsters who they were supporting’. Not only do many Americans refuse to embrace the new orthodoxies of the uniformly anti-Trump cultural elites, but they also refuse to engage honestly with the cultural elites. They know it’s a waste of time. That is the size of the moral and political chasm that now exists between the guardians of correct-thought and millions of ordinary people.

The real resistance

The second reason this election has rattled the seeming victors – the pro-Biden establishment – is because of who voted for Trump. Exit polls suggest there were significant shifts of black and Latino voters to Trump. It is reported that 18 per cent of black men voted for Trump, up from the five per cent who voted for John McCain in 2008 and the 11 per cent who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. A shift of this kind towards a politician relentlessly described as a ‘white supremacist’ is very significant. According to the AP VoteCast, 35 per cent of Latinos seem to have voted for Trump. And a whopping 59 per cent of Native Hawaiians and 52 per cent of Native Americans and Alaska Natives opted for Trump. Seemingly these First Nation peoples didn’t get the NYTSNL, DNC message that Trump is a racist who hates all non-white people.

As we should expect from the neo-racialists of the identitarian elites, there is already fierce denunciation of minority groups who voted for Trump. They have sold out to ‘white supremacy’, woke academics and columnists claim. Blow writes in the NYT that the Latino and black shift towards Trump is proof of the ‘power of the white patriarchy’ and the influence it has even over oppressed racial groups: ‘Some people who have been historically oppressed will stand with their oppressors.’ That’s a lot of words to say ‘Uncle Tom’. The anger with Latinos and blacks who voted for Trump is motivated by a view of these people as racial deviants, as traitors to their race. In the rigid worldview of the identitarian elites, people are not individuals or members of an economic class – they are mere manifestations of race and ethnicity and they must conform to that role. That many voters have clearly bristled at such racial fatalism is a very positive development. Identity politics was dealt a blow in this election, and the elites know it.

More striking still is the educational divide in terms of who voted for Biden and Trump. A majority of people whose educational level is high school or less voted for Trump, while a majority of college graduates voted for Biden. Among white voters, the educational divide is even more stark. Majorities of white men voted for Trump, but among white men who didn’t go to college 64 per cent voted for Trump, while among white men who did go to college it was only 52 per cent. Meanwhile, 60 per cent of white women who didn’t go to college voted for Trump, whereas 59 per cent of white women who did go to college voted for Biden.

The educational divide is telling. Naturally, some observers claim it is proof that clever people primarily vote for Biden while dumb people prefer Trump. In truth, this split is primarily reflective of the key role universities now play as communicators of the new orthodoxies. In recent years, universities in the Anglosphere have gone from being citadels of intellectual consideration and experimentation to being factories of woke indoctrination. From critical race theory to genderfluidity, from the view of American history as one crime after another to the myopic policing of speech – including conversational speech in the form of ‘microaggressions’ – universities have become important transmitters of the ideologies of the new elites. As a consequence, one of the great ironies of our time is that it is those who have not attended a university who seem better able to think independently and to resist the coercions of elite-decreed correct-thought.

The ideas that hold on a university campus – that men can become women, that offensive people must be ‘cancelled’, that complimenting a woman on her hair is a racial microaggression, that describing America as a ‘melting pot’ is a denial of people’s ‘racial essence’, as UCLA has claimed – hold no sway whatsoever in the factories, delivery centres, mess rooms or bars of vast swathes of America. That university-educated and non-university-educated people now think so differently is testament, not to uneducated people’s stupidity, but to the transformation of universities into machines for socialising young adults into the ways and creeds of the removed new elites.

Indeed, the split of Biden and Trump voters on issues is striking, too. Of the voters who think the economy and jobs is the most important issue, the vast majority are Trump supporters: 81 per cent compared with just 16 per cent of Biden supporters. Of the voters who think racism is the most important issue, 78 per cent were Biden supporters and just 19 per cent were Trump supporters. And of the voters who think climate change is the most important issue, 86 per cent were Biden supporters and just 11 per cent were Trump supporters. On Covid, 83 per cent of Biden supporters said it is ‘not under control at all’, while just 15 per cent of Trump voters said the same thing.

This is incredibly revealing. On issues that are central to the clerisy’s worldview – the idea that racism in America is as bad as ever, that the climate is heating uncontrollably, that Covid poses an existential challenge to the future of the nation – Trump voters deviate consistently from the elite narrative. That isn’t to say that they don’t think climate change or racism are problems we must address – I’m sure majorities of them do. But they clearly reject the fatalism and dominance of these issues in the body politic. They clearly balk at the ceaseless discussions of America’s inescapable racism and the idea that if Americans do not radically alter their lifestyles then they will fry in the heat-death of climate catastrophe. They push back, in their thoughts and their votes, against the identitarianism and apocalypticism of the new elites. And they do so even on issues for which you can be cancelled for disagreeing. Try going on to a campus and saying that racism and climate change are not major issues for the US. You would be finished. But not in other parts of America. There, free discussion, or at least free thought, appears still to reign.

One study, published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology after the 2016 election, described the widespread support for Trump among working-class or less-educated communities in particular as a form of ‘cultural deviance’. The study used over-psychologised language to describe people’s voting behaviour, but it hit on an important point: the evidence suggests that Trump-voting for many people was a form of ‘cultural deviance… [from] the salience of restrictive communication norms’. In short, the Trump phenomenon represents a revolt against the cultural supremacy of political correctness and its cancellation of any views or beliefs that are judged to be problematic. Trump became a vehicle for those who don’t agree that America is broken or racist, or that climate change will kill us all, or that identitarian correctness is more important than the economy and jobs, or that Trump is Hitler – things it is increasingly difficult to say in a polite society so feverishly policed by the new elites.

The real resistance

Perhaps the most important act of ‘cultural deviance’ carried out by the millions who chose Trump over Biden is their attempt to re-elevate class over identity. This is why the shift of working-class blacks and Latinos towards Trump is so important. It is also why Trump voters’ overwhelming belief that the economy and jobs is the most important issue in the US right now – in contrast with very small numbers of Biden voters who think the same thing – is so relevant. What we have witnessed in the US is a reassertion of the importance of class over identity, of the shared social and economic interests of a significant section of society over the narrow cultural obsessions of the new elites and their supporters in the new knowledge industries. The emerging populist coalition of working-class blacks, Latinos and non-university whites is a quiet revolt against the stranglehold that the upper middle-class elites have over the political narrative, and against the elites’ self-conscious promotion of the neoliberal myopia of identity and their diminution of the importance of class.

This is another reason why the elites are so furious in the wake of their own predicted election victory. It’s the key reason, in fact. Because they instinctively recognise that the economic concerns, and, more importantly, the economic consciousness, of substantial sections of society pose a threat to their ideological dominance. Witness the sneer, the naked contempt, with which the phrase ‘economic populism’ has been uttered by Biden-backing observers in recent days. ‘Economic populism’ is a cover for racism, our moral superiors insist. They dread nothing more than the re-emergence of a more class-based politics because they know it would run entirely counter, politically, morally and economically, to the divide-and-rule identitarianism they have cultivated in recent decades.

Corporations, academia, the education system, the Democratic establishment, the media elites and the social-media oligarchies are heavily invested in the cult of identity because it is a means through which they can renew their economic dominance over society and exercise moral authority over the masses. Identitarianism has provided spiritual renewal for the capitalist elites, new means of rebuking and censuring the workforce in corporations, and a sense of purpose for a political class utterly adrift from the working masses it might once have sought to appeal to. And they are not about to let some uppity blacks and Latinos and uneducated whites disrupt this new ruling-class ideology with their vulgar concerns about the economy and jobs.

Trump has lost. But so has the anti-Trump establishment. In some ways, the establishment’s loss is far more significant. These elites see in the 70million people who disobediently, flagrantly voted for ‘evil’, and who question the doom and divisiveness and censure of the new elites, a genuine mass threat to their right to rule and their self-serving ideologies. And they are right to. For these unconquerables, these teeming millions who have not been captured by the new orthodoxies, are proof that populism will survive Trump’s fall and that the self-protecting narratives of the new elites are not accepted by huge numbers of ordinary people.

This is the real resistance. Not the upper-middle-class TikTok revolutionaries and antifa fantasists whose every view – on trans issues, Black Lives Matter, the wickedness of Trump – corresponds precisely with the outlook of Google and Nike and the New York Times. No, the resistance is these working people. These defiant Hispanics. Those black men who did what black men are not supposed to do. Those non-college whites who think college ideologies are crazy. These people are the ones who have the balls and the independence of mind to force a serious rethink and realignment of the political sphere in the 21st-century West. More power to them.


Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

Pictures by: Getty.

Biden and His Hindu VP Give Nod For Covid Task Force To Anti-Redneck Hindu Doctor

[SEE: Obama Finds the Man Most Eager To Initiate Govt. Behavioral Control and Makes Him Surgeon Gen.]

Members of President-elect Biden’s coronavirus task force

–Source: Joe Biden-Kamala Harris transition team. —

FILE – In this Feb. 4, 2014, photo, then U.S. Surgeon General appointee Dr. Vivek Murthy appears on Capitol Hill in Washington. Murthy has been named as co-chair by President-elect Joe Biden to his COVID-19 advisory board. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

President-elect Joe Biden on Monday named the members of a team of public health and science experts to develop a blueprint for fighting the coronavirus.

A look at the members:

Dr. David Kessler, co-chair. Professor of pediatrics and epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner from 1990 to 1997.

Dr. Vivek Murthy, co-chair. U.S. surgeon general from 2014-17, who commanded public health force that dealt with Ebola, Zika and Flint water crisis.

Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, co-chair. Associate professor of internal medicine, public health and management at Yale University and associate dean for health equity research at Yale’s medical school specializing in health care for marginalized populations.

Dr. Rick Bright. Immunologist, virologist. Ousted as head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority after criticizing the federal government’s response to the coronavirus under President Donald Trump. Bright filed a whistleblower complaint alleging he was reassigned to a lesser job because he resisted political pressure to allow widespread use of hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug Trump pushed as a COVID-19 treatment.

Dr. Luciana Borio. Vice president of technical staff at the In-Q-Tel strategic investment firm who until last year was a biodefense specialist on the National Security Council.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Oncologist and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania who since 1997 has served as chair of the Department of Bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Atul Gawande. Professor of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and at Harvard Medical School who served as a senior adviser in the Department of Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration.

Dr. Celine Gounder. Clinical assistant professor at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine who served as assistant commissioner and director of the Bureau of Tuberculosis Control at New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Dr. Julie Morita. Executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation who helped lead Chicago’s Department of Public Health for nearly 20 years.

Michael Osterholm. Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, former science envoy for health security for the State Department.

Ms. Loyce Pace. Executive director and president of the Global Health Council, who previously served in leadership positions at the American Cancer Society.

Dr. Robert Rodriguez. Professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

Dr. Eric Goosby. Infectious disease expert and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine who during the Clinton administration was the founding director of the largest federally funded HIV/AIDS program.

Biden Won Because He Wasn’t Trump…no other reason

[Both the Democrats and their subservient media set out to sabotage every Trump move since before his first day in office. Obama and Hillary dedicated a team of State Dept. lawyers to investigate the new president and begin impeachment proceedings against him before the Dems left office. The majority of Biden supporters DID NOT vote for him because of anything he proposed, they merely voted for Biden because he wasn’t Trump. They voted for Creepy Joe because he wasn’t Trump…period.]

Buttigieg: Republican Senate would ‘defy the American people’ by opposing Biden agenda

Control of the Senate is on the line in two runoff races in Georgia, with two other Senate races undecided

In an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Buttigieg admitted that the federal government has – “for better or for worse” – a system of checks and balances where Senate leadership could “disagree with a majority of the American people.” He said that if a Republican Senate used their power to place a check on a Democratic White House, they would be holding back what the people want.


“At the end of the day the thing we have going for us is the American people are with us,” Buttigieg said, claiming that the Senate would be run by “minority rule” if Republicans block Democrat initiatives such as tax hikes and a public health care option.” He said it’s up to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

“Mitch McConnell’s going to have a decision to make. Is his purpose in Washington to defy the American people who, along with the president and the House of Representatives, will believe in expanding and not taking away health care,” Buttigieg said, “whether he wants to help move this country forward and influence progress or whether he wants to stop progress.”

In terms of the immediate future, Buttigieg touted Biden’s desire to hit the ground running in tackling the coronavirus pandemic. Biden is expected to announce his task force on Monday. Whether or not Biden takes any additional action before Inauguration Day remains to be seen.


“Well, he’ll decide on the best course of action,” Buttigieg said. He added that Biden will also “have to make a decision” regarding whether or not to get involved in negotiations with Congress over coronavirus relief legislation that has stalled for months.

“I think we all hope that that logjam in Washington comes to an end,” Buttigieg said.

The former South Bend, Ind., mayor was ultimately optimistic about a Biden administration, claiming that despite political differences, Biden shares common goals with people on both sides of the aisle.

“What Joe Biden wants for the country is what most Americans believe is right for the country,” he said.

Sec/State Pompous Legitimizes Another Terrorist Jihadi Group

[Trump has just de-designated another Islamist terrorist group, the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP). This is just the latest terror group to be white-washed by Washington before being enlisted to be used to commit terrorism for us. It seems that it isn’t a group’s violent attacks upon civilians that makes it a “terrorist organization”, but whether the attacks upon civilians are done for us or to us.  You see, it was never really a “war against terrorism”, but a war to secretly use terrorism against America’s adversaries.  Other former de-designated terrorist outfits, now serving the American Empire in political or non-violent ways, are the KLA (SEE: “KOSOVO LIBERATION ARMY” Freedom Fighters or… ) and the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq) . ]

US’ seal of approval for jihadist terrorist group is designed to cause chaos and unrest in China

US’ seal of approval for jihadist terrorist group is designed to cause chaos and unrest in China
Mike Pompeo has decided that after 18 years, the violent East Turkistan Islamic Movement should no longer be considered a terrorist group – a move calculated to bring trouble to China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region.
Whilst the world is distracted by the ongoing drama of the US presidential election, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was at work on Thursday making a very subtle, yet significant move.
He quietly announced to the United States Federal Register that the US had de-designated the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as a terrorist organization.


ETIM is a Uyghur jihadist group which advocates independence for China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region. It was listed as a terrorist organization by the US for 18 years, as well as having been blacklisted by the United Nations Security Council for links to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS).

And it has been linked with numerous terrorist attacks within Xinjiang itself, as well as providing members who participated alongside Islamists in the Syrian Civil War.

The move by Pompeo is subtle, but significant and inherently political. It follows a long-established pattern of US foreign policymakers defining what constitutes a ‘terrorist’ – and what does not – in accordance with geopolitical preferences. Now, as it looks like Pompeo might end up leaving office, he’s seeking to leave a legacy which makes life difficult for China. The long-term goal? To potentially transform Xinjiang into ‘China’s Afghanistan’ and purposefully incite unrest in the region.

ALSO ON RT.COMQuadruple trouble for China? Why Washington’s hopes of creating an anti-Beijing NATO-style bloc in the region is a pipe dream

Xinjiang has been an increasing focus of Pompeo and US foreign policy as of late. America has sought to push a broader narrative that China is imprisoning over one million Uyghurs, a Muslim minority group, in a re-education system that has been likened to concentration camps. It has accused China of severe human rights abuses and oppression.

While Beijing admits to the existence of these facilities, it argues their purpose is to facilitate counter-terrorism in the region and calls them ‘vocational training centers’, a claim which has drawn plenty of skepticism. Either way, it is quite obvious that the issue is being weaponized in order to manufacture consent for a US-led confrontation of China.

And herein lies the subjective debate as to what constitutes ‘terrorism’ and what does not. As the saying goes “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist,” and never has that been more true than with the US, which happily interchanges the label as it wishes to push its political agenda.

For example, the Mujahideen fighters the US pitted against the USSR in Afghanistan were called ‘freedom fighters’, until of course they turned against America itself and played an instrumental role in the horror of 9/11, at which point they became terrorists.

North Korea is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism despite the fact it has no involvement with terrorism at all. Sudan was listed too, until it agreed to recognize Israel and then suddenly it wasn’t.

Likewise, Pompeo goes around the world demanding groups funded by Iran, such as Hezbollah, be described as terrorist organizations. But ETIM is apparently now acceptable, despite its UN blacklisting and association with a number of other groups the US considers to be terrorists.

ALSO ON RT.COMAs bodies mount up in terrorist attacks, Europe must realise Islam itself is not the problem but how & why people get radicalised

The change in terminology for geopolitical motivations could not be more obvious and will now clearly be used to China’s detriment. And the implications are as follows: the US will no longer place sanctions on the group, crack down on its members (who have previously been detained in Guantanamo Bay) or blacklist it from the financial system. This will allow ETIM to have an effective ‘safe haven’ in the US where its members can seek political refuge, pool resources and evade Beijing’s influence.

The US hopes the long-term strategic goal to potentially encourage unrest and insurrection in Xinjiang itself will ultimately promote opposition to the Chinese Communist Party, which Pompeo frames as a cause for freedom and liberation.

It’s a reversal of nearly two decades of American foreign policy and a perfect example of what constitutes ‘terrorism’ shifting for strategic ends. After all, this is a region that is a geographic cornerstone of China’s Belt and Road initiative and the country’s main route into greater Eurasia, connecting it to the south with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor into the Indian Ocean and to the north with Russia and Kazakhstan.

Why would Pompeo stifle a group whose primary focus is China itself? As the clock ticks on his own term in office, he’s just made a decision that could have long-term and far-reaching consequences.

The Democrats’ Favorite KLA Terrorist Leader Thaci Indicted For US-Supported War Crimes In Serbia

Freedom Fighters or…

[Former KLA terrorist leader Thaci thrilling US Sec/State Albright to a state of ecstasy.–(SEE: Secretary of State’s Love Affair with Kosovo Liberation Army )]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with former leader of the KLA and “Prime Minister” of Kosovo

US Vice-President Jo Biden looks deeply into former KLA terrorist leader Thaci’s eyes.


“The 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia had the dubious distinction of being the first time NATO aligned itself with a terrorist organization fighting an insurgency
against a sovereign state. Defying the UN Security Council, the United States and its allies bombed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for 78 days, providing vital air support for the Kosovo Liberation Army. The result of this open for support for the KLA has helped to encourage ethnic Albanian separatists to use terrorism to start insurgencies in Serbia’s Presevo Valley and neighboring Macedonia. Furthermore, separatist terror groups in the Chechnya and Turkey have been emboldened to continue their respective campaigns as a result of Western support for Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence in February, 2008. To discourage the Kosovo precedent from continuing, it is crucial that NATO member states do not repeat the mistakes made in Kosovo and never again support terrorist insurgencies.”NATO and the KLA: How the West Encouraged Terrorism

Photo: BIRN.

The Special Prosecution Office in the Hague have announced that a ten-count indictment has been filed against Kosovo President Hashim Thaci and PDK leader Kadri Veseli, accusing them of criminal responsibility for nearly 100 murders.

On Wednesday, the Special Prosecution Office, SPO, in the Hague announced its intention to indict Kosovo President Hashim Thaci and former Speaker of the Assembly, Kadri Veseli, alongside other unnamed individuals, with ten counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The SPO stated that it filed an indictment to be reviewed by the Pretrial Chamber of the Court on April 24, charging Thaci and Veseli with “crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, enforced disappearance of persons, persecution, and torture.”

According to a press release issued by Kosovo Specialist Chambers, KCS, on Wednesday, the allegations contained in the indictment would hold Thaci and Veseli criminally responsible for nearly 100 murders. “The crimes alleged in the indictment involve hundreds of known victims of Kosovo Albanian, Serb, Roma, and other ethnicities and include political opponents,” it states.

While the charges are yet to be approved by the Pretrial Chamber, the Special Prosecutor “deemed it necessary” to publicise the suspects of the indictment as a result of “repeated efforts by Hashim Thaci and Kadri Veseli to obstruct and undermine the work of the KSC.”

According to the press release issued on Wednesday, the Court believes that the president and the former speaker have been involved in a “secret campaign” attempting to obstruct the work of the court to ensure that they do not face justice.

“By taking these actions, Mr Thaci and Mr Veseli have put their personal interests ahead of the victims of their crimes, the rule of law, and all people of Kosovo,” the press release states.

Is Social Media Leading Us to Civil War?

Is Social Media Leading Us to Civil War?

Civil war. That’s what one tech industry executive said he fears most, if we don’t curtail our social media habit. This was in the documentary “Social Dilemma” available on Netflix.

As of last year, 72% of U.S. adults used social media regularly. Facebook is the most popular, and 74% of its users log on daily. From civil war down to a lack of tolerance, the movie concludes social media has set us on a bad path.

I agree.

The scariest part of the film “Social Dilemma” was the explanation of the algorithms designed to keep you coming back.

Essentially, the system can tell what posts you engage the most with…. reading or watching the longest. And it feeds you more of that and less of other things.

This is all done without human oversight.

What gets you amped up on social media? Often it’s something just a little more inflammatory, a little more over the top, than, say, a measured news article that lists pros and cons on both sides. You read those “more exciting” things and you get more of them fed to you.

Another good tidbit from the film was the answer to the question, “How do those people believe all that silly stuff?”

Whether about Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton or Pizza gate or the WhatsApp scandals that led to murders of innocent people, fake news comes to those who consume it, and crowds out anything less exciting, i.e. more reality-based.

Social media trails only our local newspaper, The Signal, as being cited as a source of information in professional surveys done locally. Can you imagine what happens in areas that do not have local news coverage? That is how “those people” believe “all that silly stuff.”

One-sided information is all the vast majority of people see. That is not good for our world.

Government action and overall progress requires cooperation from many different interest groups for anything to succeed.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently announced his goal of ending the sale of fossil-fuel-powered cars in California by 2035. In the face of climate change, stretch goals like this are important.

However, to have a hope of success, goals need to have buy-in from other people. Within days of the announcement, a Latino group took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times saying the measure would adversely affect low-income and agricultural workers.

There’s talk of electrifying our home appliances, too. More costs for people barely making it. Our power grid and power supply seem to be right on the edge now, and curtailments like we saw in the last heat wave are expected to happen more often.

That, too, has to be fixed if we need to rely even more on electricity. These are discussion points that need to be resolved, yet the battles of social media leave out anything but black and white.

The question really isn’t “do you believe in climate change?”

The bigger question is, can we work together to fix things?

What is equally important is recognizing that China produces double the greenhouse gases that the United States does, and their air pollution even reaches the West Coast of the U.S. India is just behind the U.S.

On a per-capita basis, countries such as Kuwait, Belize, Australia, Libya and even Luxembourg produced more greenhouse gas than the United States as of 2013 (more updated accounting is supposed to start in 2024). I certainly hope sharing and funding efficiencies in other countries is on the table as well.

As much as we like to start at home, tackling the big problems on a worldwide scale is going to help us more than making a farm worker change out their natural gas clothes dryer. This is but one action item in a sea of many that our leaders need to tackle. The solutions are not binary nor are they simple.

Social media essentially makes us decide, with our attention, what is important and what is correct. It does this by feeding us biased information, all day long. This lessens our ability and our understanding of how complex problems are, making us intolerant and cranky when it seems nothing is improving.

In reality, many smart people are working every day to make things better. I’d like to hear more about that and less about fighting over every topic. The real world isn’t social media, but we seem to forget that a little too much lately, at our peril.

Maria Gutzeit is a chemical engineer, business owner, elected official, and mom living in Santa Clarita. “Democratic Voices” appears Tuesdays and rotates among local Democrats.

Is This Another Episode of Pre-Positioning Anarchist Supplies Before Nov. 3?

[SEE: Antifa Logistics Proven By Pallets of Conveniently Pre-Positioned Bricks In Riot Areas ]

Philadelphia police discover van loaded with explosives amid unrest over fatal shooting of Black man

N’dea Yancey-Bragg, Anthony V. Coppola

PHILADELPHIA  — Philadelphia remains on high alert after police reportedly found explosives inside a van following multiple nights of protest over the shooting death of a Black man with a history of mental health problems.

Police recovered propane tanks, torches and possible dynamite sticks from the van Wednesday and it is unclear if anyone has been arrested in connection with the vehicle, WPVI reported. The Philadelphia Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from USA TODAY.

The city fell mostly silent Wednesday after officials instituted a citywide curfew following several nights of unrest over the police killing of Walter Wallace Jr.

While scattered reports of looting were still popping up throughout the city Wednesday night, the protests and confrontations that marred Philadelphia since Monday had all but dissipated. Police showed a heavy presence in the neighborhood near where Wallace died Wednesday in anticipation of a third night of discord, but that never materialized.

By 7:30 p.m., just 15 people had gathered for a “Justice for Walter Wallace Jr” protest in Center City. The group slowly disbanded and went its separate ways not long after.

Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said at a news conference Wednesday she plans to release 911 tapes and police body camera footage of the shooting once the department shares it with Wallace’s family.

Mayor Jim Kenney said the Pennsylvania National Guard would also be deployed to help protect property and assist the police. The first troops were expected Friday and Saturday.

Wallace, a 27-year-old aspiring rapper and father of nine, was shot Monday as officers responded to a report of a person with a weapon, police spokesperson Tanya Little said. Officers ordered Wallace to drop the knife, but he instead “advanced towards”  them. Both officers then fired “several times,” Little said.

From Wednesday:Philadelphia prepares for another night of protests over Walter Wallace killing after second night turns violent

Video of the shooting was taken by a bystander and shared on social media which sparked protests in Philadelphia, the Brooklyn borough of New York City and Portland.

Protesters have also gathered in Washington, D.C. multiple nights this week following the death of 20 year-old Karon Hylton-Brown. Police say he died after officers attempted to make a traffic stop and Hylton-Brown’s moped collided with a passenger vehicle, but Hylton-Brown’s family told local media police are responsible for the crash.

The scene in Philadelphia on Wednesday was a stark contrast from what unfolded the nights before during which more than 170 people have been arrested and more than 50 police officers injured in clashes with protesters and vandals. Police said more than 1,000 people were looting businesses in the Port Richmond section of the city, breaking windows and stealing merchandise Tuesday night.

A lawyer representing the family told reporters Tuesday that Wallace had mental illness and had been taking lithium. Police officers responded twice to the Wallace residence Monday before returning a third time. Wallace’s brother reportedly called 911 looking for an ambulance.

‘Stop this violence’:Philadelphia police report large crowd of looters as Wallace’s father calls for peace

Outlaw said her department lacks a mental health unit or consistent way to coordinate police calls with specialists.

“We don’t have a behavioral health unit, which is sorely needed,” Outlaw said. “There’s clearly a disconnect on our end in terms of knowing what’s out there “ at the scene.

Both Kenney and Outlaw pledged to address the lack of coordinated mental health services.

“We have limited resources and we have a large number of people with problems,” Kenney said. “We need to do a better job.”

Police shootings amid mental health crisis:Police have shot people experiencing a mental health crisis. Who should you call instead?

Contributing: The Associated Press