The Graves of Academe: USC School of Social Work Bans ‘Field’ thumbnail

The Graves of Academe: USC School of Social Work Bans ‘Field’

/in , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

“Shall Paper live, or Ink/Since Brass and Marble Can’t Withstand/This Iron Age’s Violating Hand?” — Johannes de Bosco

The University of Southern California (that’s USC to you and me) has been thrust into the limelight yet again. In 2019, and for several years following, it was in the news as a major participant in the “Varsity Blues” scandal; rich parents were inveigled into paying bribes to the university’s water polo coach, so that their children might be admitted, as potential varsity players of the sport, to USC. It’s a university that as part of its online advertisement for itself says that “USC has conferred honorary degrees on 29 billionaires.” I’m not exactly sure why that should impress anyone, but some people at USC think it should; no doubt USC has its reasons that reason does not know. Some eyebrows were raised when USC agreed to pay its new football coach $10 million a year; not everyone on the faculty – you know, those old fogies who teach such frivolities as literature, history, and philosophy — were pleased by this demonstration of USC’s priorities. But what do those people know? Have they ever had to meet a payroll? A winning football team pays their salaries. They had better stop complaining.

And now the University of Southern California Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work (USCSDPSSW for short) has put USC the news again. The school has just announced that it has decided to ban the word “field” from its curriculum. No longer will anyone at the University of Southern California Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, whether faculty members, or staff, or students, be permitted to use the word “field.” From here on out, it’s strictly forbidden. The story of this remarkably thoughtful act of anti-racism can be found here: “Elite University Department Bans Use of Word ‘Field,’ Claiming It’s Too Racist,” by Alexa Schwerha, Daily Signal, 

The University of Southern California Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work will no longer use the word “field” in its curriculum or its practices as part of its anti-racist framework, according to an email reportedly sent Monday.

The school reportedly stripped the word from use due to alleged ties to “anti-Black” and “anti-immigrant” rhetoric, according to the email sent by the Practicum Education Department to the campus community, faculty, staff, and students. The school informed [sic] that the word “practicum” would be used instead to “ensure [its] use of inclusive language and practice.”

“This change supports anti-racist social work practice by replacing language that could be considered anti-Black or anti-immigrant in favor of inclusive language,” the email reportedly reads. “Language can be powerful, and phrases such as ‘going into the field’ or ‘field work’ may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign.”

The revised language aligns with several anti-racist initiatives the school abides by, including the Council on Social Work Education’s Advancing Antiracism in Social Work Education and the Eliminate Racism Grand Challenge for Social Work, according to the email.

“In solidarity with universities across the nation, our goal is not just to change language but to honor and acknowledge incline [sic] and reject white supremacy, anti-immigrant and anti-blackness ideologies,” the email continues. “Words are powerful, but even more so is action. We are committing to further align our actions, behaviors, and practices with anti-racism and anti-oppression, which requires taking a close and critical look at our profession—our history, our biases, and our complicity in past and current injustices.”

The email then claimed the school would “train social work students” to “understand and embody social and racial justice” and told the campus community to “hold each other accountable.”

USC, the Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, and the Practicum Education Department did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Don’t forgive them, Lord, at the USCSDPSSW they know exactly what they do. They are beyond all appeals to common sense. They will not engage – because they don’t know how to do so – in discussions about the right use of words. Delicacy, tact, intelligence – don’t even ask. Their every comical word-banning – don’t think they will stop with “field” — should be held up for ridicule, every jot and tittle of idiocy exposed, while those who refuse to get with the program should move unobserved from campus to campus, quietly distributing copies of Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” and even more important, Ian Robinson’s The Survival of English.

Shouldn’t we do away entirely with the word “field”? If it summons up, as we are being asked to believe, images of black slaves in fields of tall cotton (but it was Johnny Cash, a white man, who sang about “them old cotton fields back home”), and Mexican workers in the bean fields and orange groves of sunny California, then it shouldn’t be banned just from the USCSDPSSW. It should be banned everywhere. Anti-racism demands it.

Think of all the possibilities. In sports, the USC Trojans run out onto the football practicum. Everyone experiences the collective thrill of anti-racism as they hear the announcer shout “they’re on the Prac-Ti-Cum and ready to go.” Baseball – same thing. The practicum of dreams will now have players catching balls at center, right, and left practicums.

In USC art classes, students will study such works of Van Gogh as “Wheat-practicum with a lark,” “The green wheat-practicum behind the Asylum painting,” and “Wheat-practicum with crows.” It takes a little getting used to, but just keep at it, and you’ll soon get the hang of it. And each time you refrain from saying the word “field,” you will have won a little victory for anti-racism. Rosa Parks would be pleased.

In the Department of Physics at USC, that last lonely professor who refuses to get on board with string theory, that is still all the rage, should announce that he is still working on trying to come up with a Unified Practicum Theory. You’re unfamiliar with that? Here’s what it is: in particle physics, it’s an attempt to describe all fundamental forces and the relationships between elementary particles in terms of a single theoretical framework. In physics, forces can be described by practicums that mediate interactions between separate objects.” There. That shouldn’t be hard to understand. A special house blend of quantum mechanics and general — or is it special? — relativity.

And let’s not stop with banning only the word “field” from our collective vocabularies and consciousnesses. There are so many other words that need to be excised from our scandalously offensive lexicons. Take the word “bend,” as in “the slaves had to bend over as they picked the cotton in their practicums.” Let’s fix it: “the slaves had to ____their torsos as they picked the cotton in their practicums.” Fill in the blank. Anything you come up with will be better than “bend.” Then do the same to transform “a bend in the river” and “South Bend, Indiana” and “bend it like Beckham.” See – you can even have fun as you deracistize your language.

What about the word “cotton” itself? I bought a cotton polo shirt the other day, and when I got home I couldn’t stop thinking about those held in bondage in the antebellum South picking the very same stuff that my shirt was made of, and I felt so…so racist. I should have been more attentive to my language. I should have taught myself to think of my recent purchase as a “shirt made of a soft white fibrous substance that surrounds the seeds of a tropical and subtropical plant and is used as textile fiber and thread for sewing.” And from now on I will. Now, isn’t that better?

I fear there is no end to this. There are so many words — thousands, maybe tens of thousands — that will need to be replaced. Whole departments of language police will spend years to work on the problem. We’ll need to get rid of “master bedroom” and “master class” and “Master and Margarita.” We’ll need to ban “overalls” and “dungarees.” And “back” of course, which makes us think of “back of the bus.” We can’t have “back.” Oh, and “bus.” And “tree.” We can’t have “tree.” Do I have to draw you a diagram? Goodness, what work we have ahead of us. And not a moment too soon. Let’s be grateful to the hyper-vigilant people at the University of Southern California Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work (USCSDPSSW) who led the way. And now we have a solemn duty to take what they’ve begun to another level.

AUTHOR

HUGH FITZGERALD

RELATED TWEET:

Sheila Jackson Lee introduces bill that criminalizes criticism of a “non-White person” by a White

“The bill says any White person who criticizes immigration or vilifies any “non-White person or group” can be charged with committing a federal hate crime.”https://t.co/zAEijeigW9

— Sue Knows Best (@sues86453) January 15, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Going Beyond The Culture Wars thumbnail

Going Beyond The Culture Wars

/in , , , , /by

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

How Western culture has been moulded by faith.

Faith Challenges Culture: A Reflection of the Dynamics of Modernity

Paul O’Callaghan | Lexington Books | 2021, 142 pp

In this terrific book, Dubliner Fr Paul O’Callaghan, a lecturer in the school of theology in the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, presents a succinct and insightful analysis of a daunting topic: the interaction of faith and culture.

He sets himself the task of examining how Western culture has been moulded by faith (by which he means faith in the strict sense of revealed religion, and not religion in general) and in particular how this is true of four realities key to contemporary culture: rationality, freedom, equality and (surprisingly) conquest.

As we might imagine, the faith-culture relationship will of necessity be a complex one. They are two very different realities: faith stems from a divine initiative, indeed an “interruption” into human history, while culture is the fruit of human endeavour. And nevertheless as the author points out, the West has developed without either element erasing the other; rather they “seek each other out”, each respecting the contribution of the other (for the most part):

“Christian revelation and grace are not meant to ride roughshod over reality, over the world as we know it, over the lives and dreams and projects of its inhabitants, over the traditions and civilizations consolidated over the centuries…”

And yet we know that Modernity (the period dating from around the 16th or 17th century) has been predicated on an elevation of man accompanied by a diminished view of God and a disregard for the West’s Christian roots — an unfortunate over-correction of the mediaeval world’s bias for the divine over the human.

The effects of the secularising tendency of modernity are apparent in the impoverishing effect on those four key areas of rationality, freedom, equality and conquest, distorting them in the direction of rationalism, licence, reductive egalitarianism and rapine respectively.

The interaction of faith and culture

O’Callaghan discusses briefly a number of core tenets of Western civilisation which have their roots in the Bible, such as the notion of intrinsic human dignity, the centrality of human freedom, and the sanctity of marriage.

He cites the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’ most interesting distinction between the Judeo-Christian concept of “righteousness and guilt” and the pagan “honour and shame” culture. The former places man’s intrinsic worth on something interior and not immediately apparent, something at the realm of freedom and conscience, and ultimately a person’s interior relationship with God.

The latter on the other hand looks to the external actions alone, for which a person earns honour or shame from others. Such a culture easily (perhaps excessively) exalts its heroes and unequivocally and even brutally condemns its enemies (think “cancel culture”). Lacking the classic Judeo-Christian distinction between sin and sinner, it equates the sinner with their apparent sins, and so is merciless in shaming (and “cancelling”) offenders.

Many core elements of Western culture come from an “intelligent and practical assimilation of Christian Revelation” which is complex and ongoing. There has never been, nor can there ever be, a “purely Christian culture” (despite the nostalgia of some for a Medieval Golden Age of Christendom): sin is a constant in human existence, and has always been present in human culture. Modernity itself, despite all its secularising tendencies, is a “highly positive phenomenon”. As Pope Benedict has reminded Christians, Modernity’s own intrinsic merits as well as its “material fidelity to Christianity” must be acknowledged.

While the theme of the modern world’s fundamental indebtedness to Christianity has recently been revisited and popularised in Tom Holland’s highly successful Dominion, this is not Holland’s discovery: it has been covered in the past by the likes of Dostoevsky, Guardini, T.S. Eliot, and even Jürgen Habermas (for whom the West’s sense of personal conscience, human rights, equality and democracy is built directly on “the Jewish ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love… All the rest is postmodern chatter.”)

Unfortunately of course, the Christian roots of Western values are increasingly being ignored and forgotten, and it would be, in the words of the Dutch reformed pastor Wim Rietkerk, modern man’s biggest mistake if he thought “that he could keep enjoying the fruits without the roots, without walking humbly with his God. … There is no future for a Western civilisation cut off from its roots.”

The four key tenets

O’Callaghan then focusses his attention on those four concepts so central to the West’s very identity: rationality, freedom, equality, and conquest. The last, “conquest” is an unusual concept, and the author explains it as follows:

We assume that what we obtain, what is at our disposal, we have a right to, as if it were our very own and belonging to no-one else. Whether we are talking about children, or property, or space travel, or instant telematic communication to the other side of the world … we see the world around us as a terrain of conquest, of achievement, of success.

He examines how these four notions as we understand them in the West, are essentially the fruit of Christian revelation.

The first, rationality, was already much prized — as logos — by the Greeks. For them rationality could not be understood without reference to the divine. Nevertheless the Christian conception of reason is even more elevated and optimistic than that of the Greeks, for whom reason was marred by very significant limitations.

Human reason for Christians receives a greater trustworthiness on account of the trustworthiness of its author: God. Nevertheless the secularising tendency of Modernity has lost the vastness of the power of reason as glimpsed by the Greeks, and boldly affirmed by Christianity. It began by reducing reason to a merely “computational and mathematical” power, and even now tends towards a radical scepticism which jettisons all confidence in reason.

O’Callaghan goes on to discuss how much the Western notion of freedom owes to Christianity. For Christianity freedom is essentially the filial freedom of those who are called to become God’s children: it is the “freedom of the glory of the children of God” in the words of St Paul. This is the ultimate goal for freedom to aspire to, a true “freedom for”.

However, this Christian-inspired concept of freedom came gradually to be eclipsed by a reductive “freedom from” — which reduces freedom to the mere capacity to choose one thing over another, without any intrinsic direction or dynamism. This reductive freedom is developed by the likes of Ockham, Bacon, Luther and more recently Foucault. Nevertheless, there has been a recovery of the richer conception of freedom, in particular by the Personalist movement for whom freedom is inseparable from man’s fundamental relatedness to others, and to God.

The notion of the fundamental equality of human beings so central to Western values is equally something stemming from Christian revelation. Man’s social and relational nature is presented throughout the Bible as constitutive of his very being. Against this is a non-Christian understanding of relationality as a sign of weakness, insofar as it implies dependence on others; a lack of the autonomy so valued by Modernity (and to a degree even by the Greeks).

The equal dignity under God of all men receives an unequivocal affirmation throughout the Bible. And yet the manifest inequalities between men are not a scandal for Christianity in the way they are for modern culture (for which all “inequality” must be ultimately stamped out), because the presence of neediness is a divine call to the others to live out the charity which must be at the heart of all social relations.

There follows a most illuminating consideration of the fourth tenet: the idea of conquest (by which we see “the world around us as a terrain of conquest”). What O’Callaghan shows here is that the now dominant “anthropology of the self-made man who designs and constructs himself down to the last detail” has lost sight of the Christian notion of gratitude.

The radical individualism that has developed in the West rejects as “childish”, indebtedness to others. Dignity requires that the self must be “self-made” and autonomous. This produces a great incapacity to receive from others, and with that a systematic ingratitude.

However for the Christian, absolutely everything is a gift from God, and man is a receiver of gifts before anything else. This then allows us in our turn to give and receive from others — there is no shame, nor subjugation in receiving understood in Christian terms.

Modernity, on the other hand, is marked by a systematic rejection of gift and so is marked by a striking ingratitude. What is needed is a return to the sense of gratitude gestured at by Heidegger when he said that “denken ist danken” (“to think is to thank”); that even “thought itself is a grateful receptiveness to the giveness of being”.

And so the ungrateful West is faced with the important task of rediscovering true gratitude, also gratitude towards God. The secular world’s “eclipse of worship” (to coin a phrase from Charles Taylor in his work A Secular Age) means that “humans have stopped recognising God as the source of all good and intelligibility. They have stopped thanking God, they no longer recognise the world they live in as a gift, they no longer live ‘eucharistic’ lives.” And such ingratitude is a serious state of affairs: “the most abominable of sins” for Ignatius of Loyola. The author concludes that:

“This has led many of those influenced by modern culture to a generalised loss of faith and to a pathology of individualism and ingratitude, as they attempt to live out their lives in isolation from their fellows, unprepared to recognise the world they live in and the privileges they enjoy as so many gifts they should be profoundly grateful for.”

The question of the gratitude leads on in the Epilogue to a very interesting discussion on the integration of conservatism and progressive liberalism. O’Callaghan shows that both the conservative and liberal tempers are embraced by Christianity: it is conservative insofar as it is conscious of being the receiver of gifts from God, and handed down by others by tradition; the Christian is by definition a conserver of these gifts.

At the same time, the Christian doctrine of Original Sin necessitates the liberal dimension since certain elements from the past will of necessity be tainted by sin and in need of reform and purification; not everything merits conservation. But there is need of a delicate balance of these two opposed tendencies: too much conservatism produces a lazy complacency that is fearful of change, while too excessive liberalism fails to appreciate what has been received from predecessors.

Conclusion

It is hard to overestimate the value of this book. O’Callaghan shows how our contemporary culture simply cannot be understood without a deep grasp of its Christian roots. And furthermore, he shows what damage our culture has already suffered because the key tenets of rationality, freedom, equality and conquest have to the degree to which they have become unmoored from their Christian roots.

At the same time, these affirmations are never simplistic; O’Callaghan takes into account the great complexity of the relationship between faith and culture. And even though it is quite a short book, the author does not oversimplify the issues involved. For that reason, parts of the book will be challenging for someone unfamiliar with the issues involved.

Certainly, this book would make a wonderful basic text for a college course on faith and culture. It would also very beneficial for anyone interested in the deeper issues at play in our current “culture wars”, where much of the discussion is unfortunately as heated as it is uninformed by philosophy and theology.

AUTHOR

Fr Gavan Jennings

Rev. Gavan Jennings studied philosophy at University College Dublin, Ireland and the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome. He is co-editor of the monthly journal Position Papers. He teaches occasional… 

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Dear New York Times Executive Editor, Dean Baquet RE: Capitol Hill Stalemate

/in , , , , /by

Good day Deano,

I hope today finds you well today over at The New York Times, as their executive editor.  Well, it has been a busy couple of weeks over there on Capitol Hill.  Our elected officials are trying to iron out details of the $3,500,000,000,000 reconciliation bill.  This of course is tied to (held hostage) to the much needed $1,000,000,000,000 infrastructure bill.  This latter bill actually has 20% of the money dedicated to actual infrastructure, which seems very reasonable……..to some people, that is.   I’m not too sure about the other 80%.  Like Old Nancy says, “just pass it and we can read it later.” Always the consummate, honest, unbiased politician…..eh Deano, old sport.

CAPITOL HILL STALEMATE

It seems also, that we have some infighting in our own Democratic Party.  Crazy right? We usually only see this from the radical right, not the party of the people, Democrats. Let’s take a look at some of the key players and their stances and then examine what Democrats and Republicans are saying.  Of course, we will also look at Joey’s input in all of this.

KEY MODERATE PLAYERS

First, we have Senators Manchin and Sinema.  These two are fast becoming enemies of the liberal left, and rightly so!  These two are asking for the cradle to grave entitlements, Socialist/Communist bill to be scaled down considerably……sorry, I mean reconciliation bill, I keep doing that.  Senator Manchin says his cap is $1,500,000,000,000, while Senator Sinema has given no dollar figure.  Both are being hounded relentlessly for their stances.  Senator Sinema was actually accosted in a woman’s bathroom. Yep, chased right into a stall by someone who claimed to be an illegal alien. Joey even commented on the attack saying “it’s part of the process.”   Very Presidential like, unless it was say………Maxine Waters for instance, then it would be blatantly racist. Ah, Joey’s America, when an illegal alien can verbally assault and harass a sitting Senator with no repercussions.  Word is Joey called the Senator a racist because, she cut the illegal alien in line for the stall.  A protest march is being prepared as we speak. Well done Joey, we’ll done!  President Trump is a racist!

KEY (SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST) PROGRESSIVE PLAYERS

On the other side we have the part time bartender/Congresswoman AOC, and the rest of the squad.  I mean, what a great country we have.  Where can you go from working lady’s night or organizing a beer pong tournament at the local tavern, to being a key figure in how TRILLIONS of dollars are allocated to this once great country? Yes indeed, what a country we now have.

Of course, we have the major players.  The always even-keeled, Bernie Sanders (multimillionaire/owner of multiple homes).  The very approachable skilled negotiator, (self proclaimed, devout Catholic) Nancy Pelosi. The always crucial presence of Kamala “Heels” Harris, always a key player, in regards to decision making. They put old heels Harris on a plane to California, possibly thinking, “out of sight, out of mind at crunch time,” on the big vote day (which didn’t happen for the 3rd time Pelosi had promised it) And of course, the installed POTUS, negotiator, orator, unifier extraordinaire ……Joey Talibiden!

Of course, the right is screaming about this pork-filled entitlement farce of a bill. They’re saying Joey, Nancy and Jen Goebbels Psaki are delusional, claiming this $3,500,000,000,000 will cost ZERO dollars, yep, ZERO DOLLARS.  Is this the new math that they talk about?  They want to know if Joey’s severe cognitive decline is actually contagious?  They wanted to get specifics from Joey, but there was no time to get the teleprompter set up, and the guy who normally cuts the feed to Joey’s microphone and screen when he starts to babble, wasn’t available.  Besides it was getting close to the Bugs Bunny/ Roadrunner hour, which Joey never misses, I’m told.

Of course, it was beautiful seeing Joey show up to try and broker a deal, which did………..absolutely nothing.  Then to see him walking holding Nancy’s hand as he strolled the hall of the Capitol.  “Dr” Jill said this usually has a calming effect on Joey, this is what his health aides usually do.  By the way, the right is questioning when the “Dr” will be arrested for elder abuse?  Well, they asked Joey for comment and he said, “we’re going to work like hell to get this thing passed.”  Then he IMMEDIATELY headed over to the beach house in Delaware, for a much deserved break.  I mean it had been 4 days since his last jaunt to the compound.  It’s not like there is a lot going on right now anyway.  I mean ease up radical right , the man is not a machine.  President Trump is a racist!

WHAT TO DO NOW?

Well Deano, I think I have a plan to pass Joey’s fantastic Build Back Communism Bill. Why not have the esteemed “Dr” Fauci (plandemic expert), do a press conference, declaring a brand new deadly virus variant…….let’s call it, The Pelosi Debacle Variant!

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION STRATEGY REDUX

Seeing as how it appears that Nancy has lost her once ironclad authority over the house, we need to go to plan B, immediately.  Why not say, this PDV (Pelosi Debacle Variant) forbids the members from coming to Capitol Hill.   Then Old Fauci can say the only way this bill can be safely passed……..would be through mail in voting.  If not done this way,  Fauci can say the alternative would result in almost certain death.  Are you starting to follow me now Deano?

Ok, then they can start to tally the votes and it can be neck and neck into the night. News coverage could have us on the edge of our seats, simply riveting!  Then somehow, almost miraculously, when the voting is finished in the early morning hours……..the Democrats can garner 99% of the votes!  I mean, somehow the vote ended up 530 to 5, between both chambers of Congress; a miracle, right? Almost mathematically impossible…..well, then again, it actually is impossible.

LIBERAL LION

I can hear Senator Paul screaming from the roof tops that someone cast his vote fraudulently, preventing him from voting. (Sound familiar?)  Then, he points out that one of the mail in votes he saw was from Teddy Kennedy (1932-2009), the infamous “Liberal Lion.” A man of impeccable integrity, just not too good a driver or reporter of drowning victims. But a hell of a swimmer, he can swim a large body of water after a suspicious car wreck, before exhaustion sets in. That’s when he had to sleep for 12 hours (then afterwards speaking to lawyers and confidants), before reporting this drowning victim to police, minor detail..……what a liberal icon.  But let’s not waste time on these pesky details. Viola, problem solved, in regards to this annoying voting issue, what do you think Deano?   Maybe you should run it by your boss AG Sulzberger.  Let me know what Ole Slushy thinks about this, buddy.

Then of course, the radical right can start screaming bloody murder, drama queens that they are.  But it then it falls on deaf ears with the DOJ, KGB, sorry, I mean FBI and also the news and media outlets, even your pristine outlet Deano, Pravda….. I mean the NY Times. Possibly, the FBI will be busy with the Clinton Russian collusion conspiracy sham which backfired, or they may be possibly shredding documents in regards to our Olympic women athletes sexual coverup coup by them….they must be busy.  Maybe, they could reach out to bipartisan level headed  Alyssa Milano to show her outrage, in regards to these poor athletes, who the FBI tried to silence.  They must have available agents though, we know there has never been any man power dedicated to voter fraud.

JOEY HITS THE ROAD

It seems Joey is now hitting the road to push his Build Back Communism Bill. I understand he is putting in backbreaking 2 hour work days.  I also understand teleprompters are being set up at a feverish pace nationwide.  With the exception of course, of anywhere near the Southern  border debacle.  Not to worry though VP Kalamity Harris (Border Czar Expert), has that territory.  She has to squeeze it into her demanding schedule, between bakery sampling’s, interviews on the View, Ellen, CNN and the always important college football game coin tosses.  I understand these sports venues have their own chant for the installed POTUS, “ – – – –  Joe Biden,” also know as FJB.  I believe he is the first installed POTUS to have his own personal chant, very impressive.  That’s Joey, always breaking down barriers.

My major concern with Joey crisscrossing this once great country is of course climate change.  I mean, I am weeping , inconsolable actually, as I type this just thinking of the “carbon footprint”, destroying the world.  Between this and Heels Harris jaunting off to Viet Nam to accomplish………….well, President Trump is a racist.  Or Heels jetting out to California for a one nighter, all while Joey was walking the halls of the Capitol, looking for Barack Hussein.  No word if she flew out to her affluent hamlet of Brentwood California, where she may have left a light on, or possibly looking up old friends like Willie Brown.  Climate change, carbon footprint darn it!!  Wait a minute, wait a minute my mistake, this is not the time to use this narrative Deano, my bad, sorry.  I’ll just wait till a Conservative gets on a plane, then we can rip them a new one buddy.  Whew, that was close. I can put the tissues away now.

DOMESTIC TERRORISTS

Well it seems we are finally addressing the most important issue to date, domestic terrorists.  We have finally nailed down the biggest threat to National security.  It’s the parents of our children voicing their concern about what schools are indoctrinating children with, namely CRT.  That and arbitrary mask mandates, like the one the very credible Gavin Newsom has implemented.  You know, where K-12 graders must be inoculated as the vaccine is approved for their age groups………but teachers don’t have to be.  Seems very reasonable and fair Deano, what are these radical right wingers so upset about.

Well Joey isn’t standing for it!  He has ordered the DOJ to investigate these terrorists, and provide protection to these poor apolitical administrators.

CONSERVATIVES TAKE ON THINGS

Many on the right are outraged.  Claiming this Installed POTUS is a kowtowing disgrace.  This is what Conservatives say among his numerous gaffes, his most egregious acts are….

  • surrendering to the Taliban and leaving Americans and our allies to fend for themselves, on conditions dictated by these terrorists.
  • surrendering our Southern border to the tune of 200,000 illegal aliens a month, while vilifying the heroes of the border patrol that are doing an insurmountable job.  All while he spends long weekends in Delaware cowardly hiding and shirking responsibility to protect Americans and our borders.  All the while he has these illegal aliens transported in the dead of night throughout this once great nation.
  • surrendering major cities to escalating violent crimes, putting the onus on the problem being police officers, not the criminals and ridiculous revolving justice door. Empowering lackey Governors and Mayors in Democratic run cities…..De Boobio, Newsom, Lightfoot, etc .
  • trying to surrender our economy to absurd Progressive/Communist wish list to the tune of 3,500,000,000,000, which, in actuality, is closer to 5,000,000,000,000. All orchestrated by looney Bernie Sanders, the Squad and those who fear the Squad, namely Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer, and assorted other players. Talibiden has no clue, they claim, he just parrots what they feed in on the teleprompter and then runs away from reporters and their questions.
  • surrendering our children to indoctrination theories, and covid narratives that suit their agendas, that has parents (domestic terrorists) across the nation up in arms against them.

And much, much more.  Conservatives ask, name one positive thing this installed puppet has done for America so far, just one?  I mean really Deano are these right wing zealots kidding me? I mean Joey has done plenty, like……………………..well, President Trump is a racist.

LIES, LIES, LIES, AND THEN, MORE LIES

The radicals want to know if anyone, they mean anyone, can stop the pathological lying in this abysmal administration?  It is spreading worse than the Delta variant, Conservatives say.  From the king of liars the star Joey Talibiden, we have “Dr” Jill,  Blinken, Austin, (Daddy Warbucks) Mayorkas, Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders, AOC, Milley, Mackenzie, Harris, (she really doesn’t count, she hasn’t been seen in weeks).  But the one that makes my blood boil is them calling Peppermint Propaganda Patty a liar.  I, as you Deano,  know, that Little Red Lying Hood is pure and honest as the driven snow, the audacity of these ghouls, have they no shame. They also point to esteemed reporting agencies like your New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC  for peddling this ridiculous, biased, laughable tripe.

One last question for you Deano.  Is it true all of Joey’s lies and cheating all started way back in 1st grade.  Sources say, he was caught cheating on a Phonics test and when the teacher questioned him he said, it’s Trumps Fault!

Keep up the fantastic, apolitical, unbiased and professional work over there at the Old Gray Lady.  I’m sure Joey is very proud.  Give my regards to Slushy and the gang, we’ll talk soon.

Sincerely,

Chris Cirino

©Chris Cirino. All rights reserved.

Joe Biden’s Top 10 Blunders!

/in , , , , /by

“Never confuse a single defeat with a final defeat.” – F. Scott Fitzgerald

We all know that from day one of this illegal Biden regime acting like a power hungry rabid dictator or as a King, the blunders have come thick and fast. The illegal and unconstitutional acts just keep pouring out of their sick and evil anti American socialist mouths and minds.

I recently read a top 10 list from Newt Gingrich and I wanted to share it with you all. It is well written and worthy of all you readers of this blog. Enjoy and share. Remember that this list is a list that should anger you and ensure you want to fight this attack on our beloved Constitutional Republic.

How much more of this can we take? By Newt Gingrich.

As I’ve watched the events of the past few weeks – and thought about the nature of Joe Biden’s young presidency – I began to ask myself: How much more of this can we take?

In just seven months, President Biden has overseen a remarkable number of complete blunders. To make sense of them all and consider how to overcome them, I decided to make a list of them. Of course, it would take months of time and writing to list all the errors Biden has made in his 48 years in politics, so I decided to start at his inauguration in January. These are roughly in chronological order. It seemed impossible to rank them as so many of them could have lasting, unforeseeable consequences.

1 – Bipartisan Baloney

As I write in my upcoming book, Beyond Biden, which will be released on Nov. 2, the first major mistake Biden made was immediately failing to live up to the pledges he made in his inaugural address. In his inaugural address, Biden said: “Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together. Uniting our people. And uniting our nation.”
Had Biden actually led from the center as a bipartisan president, he would have quickly formed a strong coalition in Washington and built a strong majority. But, he didn’t. On day one in office, Biden signed 17 executive orders, most of which were highly partisan, with nine being direct reversals of popular, effective policies set by the previous administration. Biden’s day-one action message to a deeply divided America was that talk of bipartisanship was pure baloney.

2 – Destroying Our Energy Independence

Biden’s second big mistake was his aggressive effort to cripple America’s energy independence. In his early days of office, he recommitted America to the Paris Climate Accords, which restricts America while giving high-polluting countries such as China a pass. He canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, which cost Americans roughly 30,000 jobs and contributed to rising oil and gas prices. He also canceled oil and gas exploration in the arctic. Because of these destructive actions, Biden later had to crawl back to OPEC nations and grovel for them to increase production to lower prices.

3 – Giving in to Iran.

Desperate to salvage one of his former boss’s few achievements, Biden immediately sought to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal, which will not stop Iran from eventually developing nuclear weapons. It also freed up billions of dollars which Iran can now use in its continued effort to fund terrorism around the globe. This sent a clear message of weakness to our allies in the Middle East and will only benefit Iran – the world’s premier funder of terrorism.

4 – Kowtowing to China.

President Biden has consistently failed to stand up to China, which is our single biggest competitor. We know that the Chinese Communist Party intentionally withheld information about the spread of the COVID-19 virus as early as December of 2019. We know it lied to the world about the existence and origins of the virus – and used the World Health Organization to spread its propaganda. Biden has done nothing to hold the Chinese Communist Party to account – and has unconditionally recommitted American tax dollars to the WHO. Chinese Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping has no reason to believe the American government will be a serious competitor as long as Biden and the Democratic Party is running the country.

5 – COVID-19 Confusion.

Let’s be clear: The historically rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines is all thanks to President Donald Trump. Biden had nothing to do with empowering our private pharmaceutical sector to create the vaccines – or streamlining the regulatory structure so they could quickly get to Americans who needed them. Biden is responsible for setting incredibly low goals for vaccine distribution, leading a completely confused vaccine messaging campaign at the federal level, and further polarizing the country over vaccines by consistently demonizing Republican governors who didn’t toe federal lines – even when Republican states were experiencing fewer COVID-19 deaths than states with Democratic governors with extreme restrictions and higher infection rates.

6 – Surrender at the Southern Border.

President Biden has overseen the most porous, permissive, and lawless U.S.-Mexico border in generations. In July, illegal crossings at the southern border hit a 21-year high. This is remarkable, as border crossings typically drop off in the summer, because the desert heat becomes so dangerous. At the same time, deportations of illegal immigrants are at a record low. Biden has essentially surrendered the southern border to whoever wants to come in – including drug dealers, human traffickers, potential terrorists, and other violent criminals. The U.S. Border Patrol is deeply demoralized, and Americans are less safe. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court is beginning to roll-back some of Biden’s disastrous decisions and forcing it to re-implement measures that work – such as President Trump’s remain in Mexico policy.

7 – Betrayal at the Border.

I mention this as a separate failure because it is so dramatic and dismissive of Americans’ safety. Biden has allowed record numbers of people to illegally cross the border and stay in America during a global pandemic without any requirement that they be tested for COVID-19 or quarantined before going wherever they want. President Biden and Democrats impose strong restrictions on Americans in the name of defeating the virus, but they impose nothing on the people who are illegally entering the country. This is one of the clearest examples of the contempt this administration and national Democrats have for the American people. It is a complete betrayal.

8 – Bankrupting America.

Just when American jobs were beginning to be revived following the global pandemic, Biden has reinstituted regulations which make it harder to hire people and suggested an $8 trillion spending plan – including $1 trillion in non-infrastructure infrastructure projects and another $3.5 trillion in liberal pipedreams. It is as if he is intentionally reliving the disastrous Jimmy Carter presidency. Biden’s rabid spending will not create jobs. It will continue to hike inflation, weaken the U.S. dollar, weaken Americans’ retirement accounts, and lead the Democrats to instinctively try to raise taxes. He is doing everything he possibly can to hamstring the economy and keep us in the pandemic depression.

9 – Surrendering in Afghanistan.

Of course, the most recent and glaring example of Biden’s failure is his disastrous surrender and withdrawal from Afghanistan. His decision to pull all our military forces out and surrender our most effective evacuation facility (Bagram Airfield) before safely evacuating American civilians and civil servants is a quintessential example of how and why he is incapable of leading America. It forced Biden to then recommit twice as many American soldiers to the evacuation effort as were there before we left (and created a much more dangerous environment). On Thursday, we learned that suicide bombers killed more than 60 people, including 12 U.S. service members, and injured many more at the airport in Kabul. These are the first America service members to be killed by enemies in Afghanistan in the last 18 months. Biden’s failure in Afghanistan is now unfortunately deeply real to at least 12 more American families. He should be ashamed of himself.

10 – Failing to Surrender his Ego.

The last and greatest of Biden’s failures is his inability to acknowledge his own incompetence. Throughout this process, I have been unable to find a single positive thing Biden has done for Americans. He continues to implement and impose his failures on our nation. It is costing Americans their jobs, their peace of mind, and now their lives.

Again, I wonder: How much more of this can we take?

Post note by Fred Brownbill. The above truly is a very small example of this insane administrations failures. Failures in domestic, international and economic policies. It hasn’t just been a failure. It is a purely unmitigated disaster. America is now the laughing stock of the world and our enemies are getting bolder and stronger daily as we grow more cowardly and weaker daily. Taiwan and the Middle East are two areas that are at great risk not just from China in regards to Taiwan but from a nuclear armed Iran who has and will continue to threaten the entire region. The race issue is now so much more dominant as is anger and hatred. The middle ground so loved by Americans is gone. The extremists in the New Socialist Democrat Party have moved so far left as to have removed any common ground.

America. We are down to the last few months to save this constitutional republic from total demise. What ever it takes is what ever it takes.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

Biden Plan Would Sabotage U.S. Economic Competitiveness in One Huge Way, Analysis Finds

/in , , , , , , , , /by

That’s not ‘Building Back Better’—it’s shooting ourselves in the foot.  

President Biden has heralded his $4.5+ trillion spending proposals and accompanying tax hikes as an investment in “leading the world versus letting it pass us by.” Yet, paradoxically, a new analysis exposes one huge way Biden’s plans would make the US less competitive on the global stage.

Key to financing the spending plans is a proposed increase in the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 26.5 percent. When factoring in state corporate taxes, the US’s average corporate tax rate would reach a whopping 30.9 percent. And according to a new Tax Foundation analysis, this punitive level of business taxation would be the third-highest corporate tax rate among developed countries, outstripped only by Colombia and Portugal.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE TAX FOUNDATION INFOGRAPHIC

Why is this a problem?

Well, the US would become a less attractive place for business investment, which is bad news for entrepreneurs, workers, and customers alike. Businesses would understandably be less likely to conduct business in the US when they could go to dozens of other developed countries with lower tax rates. As a result, our economic competitiveness would suffer.

“Returning to near the top of the OECD in corporate tax rates would… disincentivize investment and encourage firms to shift profits and locate elsewhere, resulting in fewer job opportunities for Americans and less tax revenue for the U.S. government,” the analysis explains.

Yikes.

Biden claims his tax-and-spend agenda is meant to reassert America’s dominance. But the costly tax hikes the president seeks would set our economic competitiveness back on the global stage. That’s not “Building Back Better”—it’s shooting ourselves in the foot.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

WATCH: New Biden Vax Mandate Doesn’t Make ANY Sense (Here’s Why)

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Like this story? Click here to sign up for the FEE Daily and get free-market news and analysis like this from Policy Correspondent Brad Polumbo in your inbox every weekday.

WATCH: Fauci and HHS Officials Plot for ‘A New Avian Flu Virus’ to Enforce Universal Flu Vaccination

/in , , , , , , /by

Medical Kidnap reported the following as participants at the Milken Institute meeting:

Joining Fauci, Rick Bright, and Michael Specter at this event were: Margaret Hamburg, Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Medicine, Bruce Gellin, President, Global Immunization, Sabin Vaccine Institute, Casey Wright, CEO, FluLab.

Explosive Video of Fauci and HHS Plotting for a New Outbreak to Enforce mRNA.

Watch:

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT

Michael Specter: Why don’t we blow the system up? I mean obviously, we can’t just turn off the spigot on the system. We have and then say, hey everyone in the world should get this new vaccine that we haven’t given to anyone yet. But there must be some way that we grow vaccines mostly in eggs the way we did in 1947.

Fauci: In order to make the transition from getting out of the tried-and-true egg growing which we know gives us results that can be beneficial, I mean we’ve done well with that. There must be something that has to be much better. You have to prove that this works and then you’ve got to go through all of the clinical trials: phase 1, phase 2, phase 3, and then show that this particular product is going to be good over a period of years. That alone, if it works perfectly, it’s going to take a decade.

Bright: There might be a need or even an urgent call for an entity of excitement out there that’s completely disruptive, that’s not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes.

Fauci: So we really do have a problem of how the world perceives influenza and it’s going to be very difficult to change that unless you do it from within and say, I don’t care what your perception is, we’re going to address the problem in a disruptive and in an iterative way because she does need both.

Bright: But it is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of novel avian virus could occur in China somewhere. We could get the RNA sequence from that.. to a number of regional centers if not local, if not even in your home at some point, and print those vaccines on a patch of self-administer.

©All rights reserved.

An Important Church and State Battle in Seattle

/in , , , , , , , /by

We have all seen the horrible violence in Seattle in the last year or so. But now there’s a new battle, virtually under the radar.

In 1932, the Union Gospel Mission began serving the poor and downtrodden in Seattle. But now this ministry which has been serving millions of meals through the years and providing many other services may have to shut its doors because of a decision by the Washington Supreme Court.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is defending the mission. They write:

“A Washington Supreme Court decision forces a religious nonprofit, Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, to hire employees who do not share the organization’s religious beliefs.”

The mission chose not to hire a potential candidate to work for them, who by his own profession does not share their beliefs. He is not a Christian. So he sued. Yet, Christianity is at the core of what they do.

Scott Chin, the president of the mission, told Virginia Allen of Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal (9/27/21):

“We are 89 years old and [at] Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, we exist to love and serve and share the Gospel with our homeless neighbors. We do that by providing food and shelter, addiction recovery services, job placement services, and legal services.”

For example, their website explains one aspect of their mission:

“11,751 of our neighbors in the greater Seattle area are homeless. Every night, Search + Rescue vans drive to the darkest places in the greater Seattle area to hand out life-saving supplies and care to men and women.” Who knows how many homeless they might have spared from freezing to death?

But all of their good works for Christ might grind to a screeching halt because the Washington Supreme Court is ignoring the true meaning of the First Amendment.

On June 12, 1788, James Madison, a key architect of the Constitution, declared:

“There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion.”

The founders did not intend for the state to run the church, nor did they intend for the church per se to run the state—however, that’s a far cry from saying the church would have no influence in the state.

A month after he was sworn in as our first president, George Washington wrote a group of Baptists: “If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.”

In short, if you believe that the Constitution allows for government to interfere with religious organizations, you’ll find no support from the father of our country.

The legal battle is an important one, says Chin: “And so we’ve asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on this critical issue, ‘Does the government have the power to punish religious organizations for living and operating consistently with their faith in this way?’”

Appealing to the U. S. Supreme Court is always a long shot. But the irony is that the Supreme Court has even spoken on this type of issue.

Imagine a Supreme Court decision in which both the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Antonin Scalia agreed upon. Ginsburg was as far left as they get, and Scalia was far right. But they both agreed on this: A religious organization has the autonomy under the Constitution to hire according to its religious beliefs.

This was a 2012 case out of Missouri involving a Lutheran school, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC.

In the unanimous decision (9-0), Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.”

Jeremy Dys—Special Counsel for First Liberty Institute, which fights for religious liberty—told me:

“No one should be surprised when a religious organization acts religiously. It is only surprising—and unconstitutional—when the state insists a religious institution shed its faith commitments or be punished.”

If the mission loses this case, imagine the potential impact on the hungry and downtrodden of Seattle. But for the Left, this isn’t about suffering people. Despite First Amendment protections and clear Supreme Court rulings, these dedicated secularists are wholly devoted to undermining the influence of religion and religious organizations in America—and we see the results as our society comes unglued around us.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

Worldview is Central to Determining Views on Abortion

/in , , , , , , , /by

The month of October kicks off “Respect Life Month” in the Catholic Church, and with the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled to hear the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case on December 1, Christians across the country have begun praying in earnest for the case that could overturn Roev. Wade. How will Americans react to the possibility of the Court altering the long-standing Roe ruling concerning abortion?

Many Americans wonder why abortion remains such a high-profile issue after all these years. The explanation is simple. Almost 50 years ago, seven appointed—not elected—justices decided that killing unborn babies should be a constitutionally-protected act. Since that time, more than 62 million unborn babies have been killed in our nation.

Rest assured, that fact has not gone unnoticed by the God who knitted together those babies in the wombs of their mothers.

Recent worldview research provides helpful insight into Americans’ views about abortion. The annual American Worldview Inventory undertaken by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University shows that after a half-century of energetic public debate about abortion, the abortion perspectives of millions of Americans remain surprisingly tenuous and pliable.

Keep in mind that very few adults are capable of applying a biblical worldview to this (or any other) issue. Although 51 percent of Americans think they have a biblical worldview (according to a Center for Biblical Worldview survey), the American Worldview Inventory reveals that only six percent of Americans actually have one. Since most Americans (88 percent) are driven by a Syncretistic worldview—an inconsistent, unpredictable combination of elements originating in various competing worldviews—the nation’s thinking about the morality and permissibility of abortion is more likely to be based on current emotions and popular thought, not on biblical principles related to life.

Indeed, the American Worldview Inventory underscores the morally wayward thinking of Americans. Not quite four out of 10 adults (39 percent) believe that life is sacred. An equal proportion of Americans argue that life is what we make it or that there is no absolute value associated with human life. The remaining two out of 10 adults possess a variety of other views about life, including outright uncertainty as to whether or not life has any intrinsic value.

Views about life are closely related to worldview and faith commitments. For instance, more than nine out of every 10 adults (93 percent) who have a biblical worldview believe that human life is sacred. Eight out of every 10 (81 percent) SAGE Cons (i.e., the Spiritually Active, Governance Engaged Conservative Christians) possess that view as well. Surprisingly, only six out of 10 theologically-determined born-again Christians (60 percent) say that human life is sacred. Those proportions dwarf those among people associated with non-Christian faiths (25 percent) or those who are spiritual skeptics (15 percent).

Many people are surprised to discover that Millennials are not a pro-life generation. Less than one-quarter of them (22 percent) believes that human life is sacred. Meanwhile, twice as many in Gen X and a slight majority of Boomers and their elders contend that human life is sacred.

Americans’ views about abortion continue to shock many observers. For instance, two out of three adults (64 percent) either say that the Bible is ambiguous in its views about abortion or that they don’t know what those views are. For a nation where roughly seven out of 10 adults call themselves “Christian,” that represents a mindboggling degree of biblical ignorance concerning one of the most high-profile social issues of the past half-century.

Not everyone falls into that vacuum of wisdom, though. More than nine out of 10 people who have a biblical worldview—a group known as Integrated Disciples—reject the notion that the Bible contains ambiguous ideas about abortion. Similarly, eight out of 10 SAGE Cons reject that position as well.

But the idea that the Bible is ambiguous about abortion is held by a variety of population segments. More than 70 percent of people who draw heavily from non-biblical worldviews—specifically, Marxism, Secular Humanism, Modern Mysticism, Postmodernism, and even Moralistic Therapeutic Deism—believe the Bible can be interpreted multiple ways regarding abortion. At least seven out of 10 adults aligned with a non-Christian faith or spiritual skeptics also embrace that point of view. And two-thirds of adults under the age of 50 harbor that misconception as well.

Given these perspectives, then, it should not shock us to find that nearly six out of 10 adults (57 percent) believe that a woman who chooses to have an abortion because her partner has left and she believes she cannot reasonably take care of the child is making a morally acceptable decision. Again, the survey shows that such a decision is a direct reflection of one’s worldview. Just two percent of the Integrated Disciples support abortion under such circumstances. In contrast, more than eight out of 10 who are adherents of other worldviews support that decision. That includes 89 percent of those who often draw their worldview from Postmodernism; 88 percent who often rely upon Secular Humanism; 82 percent who draw frequently from Modern Mysticism; and 81 percent who lean heavily upon Marxist philosophy.

Previous research by the Cultural Research Center also revealed that national opinion is roughly equally divided as to whether the Supreme Court should overturn its disastrous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. The subgroup numbers line up similarly to the segmentation patterns related to the responses to the other abortion-related questions described earlier. In general, those most desirous of the Court overturning the 1973 ruling are led by Integrated Disciples (67 percent consider a reversal of Roe to be a priority) and by SAGE Cons (74 percent). Those who want the Court to affirm Roe are led by groups that are not favorable to Christianity.

The Court’s ultimate decision, whatever it may be, will not satisfy everyone—or, perhaps, even a majority of Americans. But for biblically informed Christians, the abortion issue is not about pleasing a majority of the public or persuading a majority of jurists; it is a matter of understanding and obeying God’s principles and standing for His truth.

COLUMN BY

George Barna

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Government Strong-Arming Fuels American Distrust

/in , , , , /by

According to Pew Research, in the early 1960s nearly 80 percent of Americans trusted the federal government “to do what’s right just about always/most of the time.” Today, that number hovers around 20 percent.

Is it any wonder why? The Biden administration refuses to control our borders, betrays friends, and bewilders allies in Afghanistan, and is reverting to the failed tax-and-spend policies typical of the Left. But now there’s something else that is troubling millions of Americans: A new and dangerous push for mandatory vaccinations in both public and private sectors.

President Biden is planning to issue a new federal requirement that “all businesses with 100 or more employees have to ensure that every worker is either vaccinated for COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing for the coronavirus.” This would affect no less than 80 million people in the workplace.

Last month, a survey of corporate executives indicated that nearly half “plan to institute a vaccine mandate.” And it’s not just the big companies: Forbes Magazine reports on another recent poll showing that 75 percent of small business owners “would fire workers for failing to comply with their vaccination policies.” Some firms, including some major health care providers and even United Airlines, are already doing this.

What’s going on? Since when did the federal government have the legal right to demand that citizens of a free republic accept a specific and, for many Americans, unnecessary medical treatment? And what happened to the belief that mature adults could make wise decisions for themselves and their children?

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is a graduate of Duke University School of Medicine. He joined “Washington Watch” to warn Americans about some of the claims being made by the federal government about vaccines. He mentioned “a study out of Israel [of] two and a half million people” showing “that if you’ve had the disease … the odds of you getting hospitalized [are] seven times less than if you’ve only been vaccinated.”

“This isn’t an argument against being vaccinated,” Senator Paul made clear. In fact, he noted that he believes people in “high risk groups” should be vaccinated. However, he said, “for the people [who] have already had the disease … there is really no evidence that you have to get vaccinated or that the vaccine is better than natural immunity.”

Maybe even more striking is the Senator’s comment that “the Biden administration is not following the science.” Thousands of doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals now have immunity from COVID due to working with victims of the disease for many months before there were vaccines. Why should they be, as Senator Paul said, “slapped away” in “callous disregard” for their brave service?

The senator faulted Dr. Anthony Fauci for much of the problem. “He disseminates more bad information and misinformation than probably anybody ever has in the history of public health,” said Senator Paul, citing the example of Dr. Fauci’s insistence that Americans wear masks of any kind, even though “cloth masks don’t work.”

We Americans are not subjects of a group of our “betters” in a far-distant capital. We are citizens whose liberty has been hard-won and must be vigorously defended. Whatever one believes about vaccines, no elected or appointed official has the constitutional authority to demand that we accept an injection we do not want.

If policymakers want to restore the public’s faith in their government, one way not to do it is to treat free people like wayward children, or worse, subjects who must be quiet and do whatever they are told.

RELATED ARTICLES:

School Boards Want FBI Protection from Parents

Worldview is Central to Determining Views on Abortion

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column and video are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Democrat Senator Feinstein Introduces Bill to Require VAX to Fly on ALL Domestic Flights

/in , , , , , , /by

Nazi tactics, plain and simple, the end of America.

​FEINSTEIN INTRODUCES BILL TO REQUIRE VAX TO FLY ON DOMESTIC FLIGHTS

By: The DC Patriot, October 4, 2021:Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has introduced a bill, The U.S. Travel Public Safety Act, that would require travelers on domestic flights in the U.S. to be vaccinated for COVID-19, test negative, or have had a previous infection.​If passed, it would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to consult with the Federal Aviation Administration to develop national vaccination standards and procedures related to COVID-19 and domestic air travel.

Feinstein said on twitter, “We can’t allow upcoming holiday air travel to contribute to another surge in COVID cases. Today, I introduced legislation requiring passengers on domestic flights to be vaccinated, test negative or be fully recovered from a previous COVID illness.”

The bill would allow air passengers who don’t have proof of vaccination or a negative test to provide “written or electronic documentation of recovery from COVID-10 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s White House coronavirus adviser said in September he “would support that if you want to get on a plane and travel with other people that you should be vaccinated.”

United Airlines announced it is firing about 600 employees who chose not to comply with the company’s vaccine requirement, while Frontier Airlines has announced similar policy requiring employees to be vaccinated or provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test. Frontier’s deadline for vaccination was October 1.

Most airlines have expressed opposition to a vaccine mandate, with the issue of the logistics of enforcement required.

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker told the New York Times in August, “Requiring vaccinations to travel and not requiring vaccinations to do anything else around the country isn’t something we’re looking to do.” He also emphasized “It would be physically possible to do without enormous delays in the airline system.”

Talking along the same lines, Delta Airlines CEO Ed Bastian also has argued, “The logistical challenge of getting vaccination paperwork and understanding exemptions, would cause a massive crimp on the operations.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Young Mother Dies After Mandated Vaccination

/in , , , , , /by

Jessica Berg Wilson didn’t Want To Lose Her Job, Obituary Gets ‘Misleading’ Label When Posted to Twitter.

Democrat party of murder.

“Jessica Berg Wilson, 37, of Seattle, Washington, passed away unexpectedly September 7, 2021 from COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) surrounded by her loving family,” …. An Oregon woman’s obituary has gone viral after her family blamed side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on her death, and minced no words calling out state and local governments for their “heavy-handed vaccine mandates.”

Mother Dies of Vaccine-Induced Blood Clot, Obituary Gets ‘Misleading’ Label When Posted to Twitter

By Elizabeth Stauffer, The Western Journal via Flag and Cross, October 4, 2021:

Jessica Berg Wilson’s obituary described the Seattle woman as “an exceptionally healthy and vibrant 37-year-old young mother with no underlying health conditions” who “died unexpectedly on Sep. 7 from COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT).”

The obituary on Legacy.com continued: “Jessica fully embraced motherhood, sharing her passion for life with her daughters. Jessica’s motherly commitment was intense, with unwavering determination to nurture her children to be confident, humble, responsible, and to have concern and compassion for others with high morals built on Faith.”

“Jessica’s greatest passion was to be the best mother possible for Bridget and Clara. Nothing would stand in her way to be present in their lives,” it said. “During the last weeks of her life, however, the world turned dark with heavy-handed vaccine mandates. Local and state governments were determined to strip away her right to consult her wisdom and enjoy her freedom.

“She had been vehemently opposed to taking the vaccine, knowing she was in good health and of a young age and thus not at risk for serious illness. In her mind, the known and unknown risks of the unproven vaccine were more of a threat.
take our poll – story continues below

“But, slowly, day by day, her freedom to choose was stripped away. Her passion to be actively involved in her children’s education—which included being a Room Mom—was, once again, blocked by government mandate. Ultimately, those who closed doors and separated mothers from their children prevailed.

“It cost Jessica her life. It cost her children the loving embrace of their caring mother. And it cost her husband the sacred love of his devoted wife. It cost God’s Kingdom on earth a very special soul who was just making her love felt in the hearts of so many.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Project Veritas: Pfizer uses foetal tissue in the vaxx

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Facebook Whistleblower Is a Democrat Activist Demanding Big Tech and Government Crack Down on Free Speech [Video]

/in , , , , , /by

There is more to the story than meets the corrupt media eye. Make no mistake, this whistle blower is merely a Democrat device to hijack the censorship issue of conservatives and instead, shut down free speech.

Two sides to the story:

Facebook Whistleblower Is a Democrat Activist Demanding Big Tech and Government Crack Down on Free Speech

Republicans Pretend They Cannot See What’s Going On:

By: Sundance Conservative Treehouse, October 5, 2021:

The transparency of this operation was/is brutally obvious. Frances Haugen appears on CBS 60-Minutes as a Facebook “whistleblower”, and already had a congressional hearing lined up for 48 hours later? C’mon man… did the lessons of Sandra Fluke or Christine Blasey Ford not register with anyone?

Former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen is a left-wing activist with a long history of giving money to far-left fellow travelers including congressional moonbat AOC. Haugen is the Blasey-Ford of 2021 and her objective is to further advance the premise of censorship and political targeting under the guise of protecting children.

The leftist ruse was obvious when Ms. Haugen began demanding (during her scripted congressional testimony) that social media platforms start clamping down on expressions of free speech in order to protect the user.  The demand is for more central command and control authority over what you read, review, discuss and debate on the internet.  It is frustrating to see the UniParty play out this pantomime as if the American electorate cannot see the strings on the puppets.

Everything prior to Frances Haugen appearing today was scripted and planned; including the false “whistleblower” narrative.  Everything taking place in the Senate hearing today was scripted and planned in advance.  Political activist and left-wing ideologues want freedom censored and shut down.  It is one long continuum of stopping any push-back against oppressive government.

Remember, the Fourth Branch of government is only possible because the U.S. Senate supports it.  The control mechanism to target opposition works through a Public-Private partnership between the U.S. Intelligence apparatus and Big Tech social media platforms.  The U.S. Intelligence agencies are collaborative partners with Big Tech {LINK}.  That is why Google, Amazon (owns the cloud),  Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are all now connected to the portals of the Five Eyes intelligence operation.

There’s a very strong possibility the Facebook/Insta blackout yesterday was associated with the new system merging that took place.  It’s not a conspiracy theory.  They admitted it out loud in June of this year, when the biggest names in Big Tech announced they partnered with the Five Eyes intelligence network, ultimately controlled by the NSA, to: (1) monitor all activity in their platforms; (2) identify extremist content; (3) look for expressions of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE); and then, (4) put the content details into a database where the Five Eyes intelligence agencies (U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand) can access it.

DHS, FBI and DOJ openly admitted their intent to define domestic political opposition as extremists.

July 26 (Reuters) – A counterterrorism organization formed by some of the biggest U.S. tech companies including Facebook (FB.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) is significantly expanding the types of extremist content shared between firms in a key database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias, the group told Reuters.

Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos – often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence – and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.

The firms, which include Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it. (read more)

Think about that sentence structure very carefully. They are “adding to” the pre-existing list…. admitting the group (aka Big Tech) already has access to the the intelligence-sharing database… and also admitting there is a pre-existing list created by the Five Eyes consortium.

Obviously, who and what is defined as “extremist content” will be determined by the Big Tech insiders themselves. This provides a gateway, another plausible deniability aspect, to cover the Intelligence Branch from any oversight.

The volume of metadata captured by the NSA has always been a problem because of the filters needed to make the targeting useful. There is a lot of noise in collecting all data that makes the parts you really want to identify more difficult to capture. This new partnership creates a filtration system in the metadata that circumvents any privacy protections for individuals and gives Big Tech the authority to censor viewpoints that concern them.

Fast forward a few months, and a “whistleblower’ pops up advocating for Big Tech social media to do more controlling of speech on their platforms?

Once you see the strings on the Marionettes it is impossible to return yourself to that place before where you could watch the pantomime and not see them!

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Madness: UCLA Suspends Professor for Refusing to Assign Grades Based on Skin Color

/in , , , , /by

 

My latest in PJ Media:

This is the state of American academia today: Gordon Klein has taught courses in business law, tax law, and financial analysis at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management for no fewer than forty years. He is a respected academic who has been on CNBC and quoted in the Wall Street Journal for his economic expertise. But now, after being suspended, he has filed suit in California Superior Court against the university regents over his suspension. Klein has a good case: He was suspended from teaching at UCLA for the crime of refusing to discriminate and treat his black students differently from how he treated others.

“I was suspended from my job,” Klein explained, “for refusing to treat my black students as lesser than their non-black peers.” His ordeal began on June 2, 2020, when “a non-black student in my class on tax principles and law emailed me to ask that I grade his black classmates with greater ‘leniency’ than others in the class.”

In a sane society, a “non-black student” who demanded that black students be graded with greater “leniency” than others would be castigated as a racist. But in the Left’s funhouse mirror ethics, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and treating students differently based on race is racial justice.

The student wrote to Klein: “We are writing to express our tremendous concern about the impact that this final exam and project will have on the mental and physical health of our Black classmates.” Klein believes that the student was using an online racial justice form letter: “There was no project in this class, and it was unclear to me who the ‘we’ in this case was. I suspected the student simply used a form letter he found online and neglected to change the subject.”

The letter went on to claim that black students were too traumatized by racism to do well on the final exam: “The unjust murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, the life-threatening actions of Amy Cooper and the violent conduct of the [University of California Police Department] have led to fear and anxiety which is further compounded by the disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on the Black community. As we approach finals week, we recognize that these conditions place Black students at an unfair academic disadvantage due to traumatic circumstances out of their control.” It concluded: “This is not a joint effort to get finals canceled for non-Black students, but rather an ask that you exercise compassion and leniency with Black students in our major.”

Klein notes that “in a subsequent conversation with a university investigator,” the student who wrote the letter made it clear that he “intended that the requested adjustments apply to Black students and not the class generally.” To strengthen the case, the student invoked the Anderson School of Management’s “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” agenda, which stresses that a “commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion as fundamental to achieving Anderson’s mission.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©rights reserved.

National School Boards Association Calls on Biden to Police Parents Using Domestic Terror Laws

/in , , , /by

Editors’ Note:  There has been an increasing number of statements by public officials of late that parents are not the number one stakeholder in the education of their children. Hence the term “public school” should be best termed a “government school”, because teachers’ unions, educational bureaucrats, and elected school board officials, are increasingly taking the view that school children belong to the state, to be molded as they see fit. Public participation in the process should be excluded while the public pays the bills. As parents push back, their rights are being thwarted and the educational establishment wishes to label differences of opinion as “domestic terrorism”. Both developments are frightening and must be resisted. Either that or get your children out of public schools.

 

A group representing school boards across the country asked President Joe Biden to enforce federal statutes that combat terrorism to address violence and threats directed toward school board members and public schools in a Wednesday letter.

A letter from the National School Boards Association asked the Biden administration to use statutes such as the Gun-Free School Zones Act and the USA Patriot Act to stop threats and violence directed toward school board members over actions that could be “the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes,” according to the letter.

“America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat,” the National School Boards Association wrote in the letter. The letter asks for “federal law enforcement and other assistance to deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation.”

On top of requesting federal aid, the letter noted several other issues related to school boards, which have been battlegrounds for culture wars over mask rules, COVID-19 vaccinations, schools reopening, critical race theory, and remote learning.

“Unfortunately, it appears that the NSBA believes that parents, who are trying to get a seat at the table in order to have a say in their children’s education, are domestic terrorists,” Ian Prior, executive director of Fight for Schools, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “It really goes to show that the educational industrial complex is not there to cooperatively work with parents to shape a premiere educational system for their children, but is rather beholden to special interests that only care about their political power.”

The letter also called on Biden to use the U.S. Postal Service “to intervene against threatening letters and cyberbullying attacks,” citing growing threats from “extremist hate organizations showing up at school board meetings.” The letter blamed “propaganda purporting the false inclusion of critical race theory within classroom instruction” for “attacks against school board members and educators.”

“This propaganda continues despite the fact that critical race theory is not taught in public schools and remains a complex law school and graduate school subject well beyond the scope of a K-12 class,” the letter added.

Education Week pressed Chip Slaven, National School Boards Association interim executive director and CEO, who said the organization’s main goals in calling for a coordinated effort between local, state, and federal law enforcement was “safety and deterrence” over incidents that “are beyond random acts.”

“What we are now seeing is a pattern of threats and violence occurring across state lines and via online platforms, which is why we need the federal government’s assistance,” Slaven told Education Week.

The letter also cited “watchlists,” which are “spreading misinformation that boards are adopting critical race theory curriculum and working to maintain online learning by haphazardly attributing it to COVID-19.”

In Loudoun County, Virginia, members of an “anti-racist” Facebook group created a list of parents and teachers to retaliate against for their anti-critical race theory stance. The online group included Beth Barts, a member of the Loudoun County School Board, which prompted an effort led by parents and community members to remove her and five of her fellow board members.

Shortly after the discovery of the Facebook group, an advisory board at Loudoun County Public Schools posted, but later deleted, social media messages that declared anti-critical race theory activists “can and will” be silenced.

*****

This article was published October 1, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal.

VIDEO: Parents = Terrorists? Insane!

/in , , , , , /by

School Board Member Bridget Ziegler discusses the DOJ threatening to crackdown on parents.

Last night, my wife and Sarasota County School Board Member, Bridget Ziegler joined Congressman Ken Buck on Shannon Bream’s Show to discuss the Department of Justice threatening to treat concerned parents showing up at School Board meetings as “Domestic Terrorists”.

Watch the clip. Then share it.

Let’s be honest about what the REAL threat here is, that the Biden Administration is attempting to squash parents. Parents are becoming incredibly effective advocates at the local level.

Their voices are being heard, School Boards are experiencing accountability for the first time, and the moms and dads in their 20s, 30s and 40s who are getting involved with politics for the first time are realizing just how radical Democrats have become and the impact that out-of-touch School Board Members have on their children.

That is not good for Democrats in 2022 and they are now deploying tactics to help suppress dissent ahead of the mid-term election season.

Do not let it intimidate you. And I encourage you to continue to do your homework and peaceably express support and/or dissent in reaction to the actions of your elected officials.

©Christian Ziegler. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: AG Garland Sics FBI on Parents Opposed to Critical Race Theory

RACE: A Four-Letter Word Guaranteed to Offend Everyone

/in , , , , /by

Every day brings horror stories of racial discrimination and racial preferences.

Told a couple of folks I was going to write about race. “Don’t go there,” said one. “Leave it alone,” said the other. ‘Nuff said. I couldn’t resist.

America is obsessed with race. That is just how we live. Social justice warriors and woke media – that’s just about all US media – keep the subject in front of us 24/7. You can’t escape it. Identity politics is race-based. Every day brings horror stories of racial discrimination, racial preferences, Black Lives Matter, White privilege, racial reparations, cancelling and confrontations in the streets, courts, universities and elsewhere over matters having to do with race.

The racial angle is everywhere.

  • The Washington Post Sports section tells us that “‘Race-norming’ kept former NFL players from dementia diagnoses. Their families want answers.”
  • The National Institutes of Health reports on “Racial Differences in Perceived Food Swamp and Food Desert Exposure and Disparities in Self-Reported Dietary Habits”
  • The Associated Press notes that “People of colour more exposed to heat islands, study finds.”
  • Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben, beloved figures on American supermarket shelves, were cancelled, their smiling faces having suddenly been deemed racist.
  • The professional football team in our nation’s capital is no longer the Washington Redskins, that term after nearly a century having been discovered to be racist.

Some of the same people who blow a cork about race tell us that race really doesn’t exist, arguing that it is merely a “social construct.” Yet they track racial statistics obsessively.

Here are a few such US race-related stats. In the 1960 Census, America was 88.6 percent White, and almost all the rest were Black.  The brand new state of Hawaii provided a few Asians.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 changed everything. It abolished the National Origins Formula with immigration based on the composition of the existing population and opened immigration to the world.  Why was this done? The old system was deemed racially discriminatory. The real reason? Cheap labour.

Thus the 2020 Census is quite different. It has the US at 61.5 percent White, 18.7 percent Hispanic or Latino, 13.4 percent Black, 7.0 percent Asian, 2.0 percent American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.4 percent Some Other Race, and 0.4 percent Pacific Islander.  Yes, this adds up to more than 100 percent, but that is because some Hispanic/Latino folks also identify as White, and numerous others also claim dual identities.

The big media takeaway from all this is about what is going on with White folks. One news outlet after another pointed out that in the 2020 Census, for the first time in history, the US White population declined.

According to demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution, the outright decline in America’s White population has come eight years sooner than projected.He wrote, “Twenty years ago if you told people this was going to be the case, they wouldn’t have believed you… The country is changing dramatically.”

Dramatically and fast.

The White Non-Hispanic category of the US population is now below 60 percent. White population declined in 26 states. The age-18-and-under cohort declined in 31 states and is now majority non-White. 2011 was the first year that non-White births outnumbered White ones. Dr Frey calls this a “cultural generation gap.”

While Census analysts tell us that the US will be majority non-White – aka “majority-minority” – by 2045, that point is likely to be reached much earlier, possibly even by 2030. All US population growth in the last decade has been non-White.

Hispanics comprised 50 percent of US population growth in the last Census. In the last thirty years America’s Hispanic and Asian populations have doubled, and Blacks held steady at around 12.5 percent.

In the last decade the US had the slowest population growth since the first national census in 1790, with the exception of the Great Depression.

As expected, in woke America whenever the subject of race comes up, bigotry rears its ugly head: Here’s a tweet from Michael Moore, American film maker and uber-left superstar:

If the word “White” had been replaced with “Black,” “Asian,” “Hispanic” or “Native American,” Moore would have been banished forthwith to his palatial pad in rural Michigan. Looks like Mr Moore, a White guy, has a problem with White folks. Weird.

The absence of media outrage at Mr Moore and other White-bashers reflects a worrisome double standard. The culture war on Whites (which is being waged by  many Whites themselves) gathers steam by the day. Leftist Critical Race Theory is taught in schools. We hear day-in-and-day-out about racism, which the media would have us believe is an attitude exclusive to Whites. In woke America it is more socially acceptable to have an axe murderer in the family than a racist.

But when somebody bashes White folks, woke moralizers fall silent. Perhaps the fact that the White vote leans solidly Republican has something to do with it. Were it not for White voters, conservatism in the US would be running on fumes.

This profoundly discordant state of affairs spells trouble ahead. Since 1965, too many people from too many places have come too fast to the West. Identity politics meant that assimilation was never an option. Consequently, America is now thoroughly balkanized. There is no longer an American nation. Social cohesion is kaput. Today’s multicultural America is more diabolically divided than ever, at least since the Civil War (1861-1865).

The Austro-Hungarian Empire had so much diversity that interpreters were needed on the floor of parliament. It did not survive the shock of World War I.

What will become of the USA?

COLUMN BY

Louis T. March

Louis T. March has a background in government, business and philanthropy. A former talk show host, author and public speaker, he is a dedicated student of history and genealogy. Louis lives with his family… More by Louis T. March.

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

France Aghast After a Huge Report on Sexual Abuse in The Catholic Church

/in , , , /by

But not everything in the report adds up.

France is reeling after yesterday’s release of a report on child sexual abuse. An estimated 216,000 victims suffered abuse between 1950 and 2020, according to the Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse in the Church (CIASE).

“The church failed to see or hear, failed to pick up on the weak signals, failed to take the rigorous measures that were necessary,” Jean-Marc Sauvé, the president of the commission, told the media in Paris. For years, the church showed a “deep, total and even cruel indifference toward victims.”

“The Catholic Church is thus, with the exception of family and friendship circles, the environment in which the prevalence of sexual violence is by far the highest,” the report said.

The report is massive – about 2,500 pages of background, analysis, and testimony from victims – so even the French will have difficulty in assessing it. However, an executive summary – which has also been published in English – makes available the report’s principal conclusions and recommendations.

To the eternal shame of the Catholic Church, there have been a number of reports on sexual abuse around the globe and their findings are always the same: a large number of priests abused children in the decades after World War II. Bishops covered it up, sometimes with the complicity of the police. This has been the story in Australia, Ireland, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany.

However, it’s always helpful to look at the fine print and not just the headlines. Is this report fair?

I don’t want to be misunderstood. As I wrote about the report of Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Sexual Abuse, these are “horrifying stories of abuse by men (they are nearly all men) and women consecrated to God. They are deplorable and inexcusable and cry out to the Almighty for redress. The lives of many innocent children have been ruined.”

The only decent response to the testimony of the victims is rage. Perhaps barbaric punishments, like stoning to death, should be revived for these barbaric crimes.

But we live in a civilised society. The guilty must be punished, but they must first be proven guilty. They have a right to an advocate to speak in their defence. And guilt is not proven simply by citing a few headlines.

Unfortunately, media coverage of the French report, in my estimation, has been very poor. Journalists have plucked a few startling figures from the executive summary with very little critical sense. If French Catholics want to reform their Church, they have to work with facts, not emotions.

Here are a few issues that call for further explanation.

(1) The report’s executive summary is headed: “Sexual Violence in the Catholic Church France 1950 – 2020”. One would assume that all the statistics relate to these seven decades. But this is not the case. It appears the statistics also include the years 1940 to 1949 (pages 125 and 151 of the Report). At one point it states that “the period 1941-1969 accounted for 55.9% of the violence committed against minors by clerics and religious — i.e. approximately 121,000 minors.”

It’s not clear how much abuse happened in the 1940s, but including it in the figures for 1950 to 2020 inflates the total abuse significantly.

(2) The horrifying headline figure of 216,000 is an estimate, according to the New York Times, “ a projection based on a general population survey, archival analysis, and other sources”. In short, it is an informed guess. When studying clerical abuse of children, any number greater than zero is infinitely too much. But readers of the report need to understand that the figure of 216,000 is an extrapolation. Like all such figures, it has its limitations – especially considering that many of the perpetrators and victims must have died decades ago. Only an experienced historical statistician is capable of assessing whether they are realistic.

(3) The report says that between 2,900 to 3,000 priests and religious were perpetrators of sexual violence. Since there were 115,000 clergy in France during this period, the rate of offending is roughly 3 percent. This, the Commission noted, is much less than corresponding figures for other countries, which range between 4.4 percent and 7.5 percent. Perhaps it is even less, given that the data includes the 1940s.

(4) The most damning allegation in the report is that the Catholic Church is the most dangerous place for children in France. What evidence is there of this? Not much.

A bar chart on page 233 of the report depicts the incidence of abuse: in the family (3.7%), unknown (2.1%), friends of the family (2.0%), friends (1.8%), clergy (0.82%), lay Catholic employees (0.4%), holiday camps (0.38%), and public schools (0.34%).

However, the figure for public schools excludes public boarding schools, although this is only disclosed in a footnote. If abuse in this setting is included, the percentage for public schools rises to 0.49%. Why was it excluded?

In any case, the figure for public schools is simply not credible. While the public eye is currently on the Catholic Church, France’s public schools have a scandalous record for sexual abuse.

In 2015, the minister for education, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, was forced to admit that 16 teachers had been allowed to continue working in schools even though they had convictions for paedophilia on their record. Homayra Sellier, founder of Innocence en Danger, an NGO dedicated to child abuse victims, told the media that this was just the tip of the iceberg. “The ministry of education has covered this up for years. The government has never been inclined to listen to these stories.” She estimated that there were “thousands” of cases in public schools.

As I pointed out above, the figures in the report are rubbery, but in the 50 years from 1970 to 2020, 75,000 children were allegedly abused by clergy – that’s 2,500 a year. Is that more or less than the number in public schools? It is far from clear.

(5) The report states starkly that “The Catholic Church is the place where the prevalence of sexual violence is at its highest, other than in family and friend circles.” This invites two questions. First, how does the Commission know this if Protestant and Muslim communities have not been investigated with the same rigour? How about the French military, whose soldiers were alleged to have been involved in horrific abuse of children in the Central African Republic a few years ago. How about sporting associations?

Second, the report uses the present tense, “is”. It fails to analyse the abuse by decades, but it does indicate that more than half of the abuse (55.9%) happened before 1970 and that it declined up until 1990. Thereafter the picture is murkier. Less than half the abuse (44.1%) happened in the 50 years to 2020. It appears that things did improve. Perhaps in the 1960s the Catholic Church might have been the worst place, but is that still the case? Like many of the startling allegations highlighted by the media, this withers under closer scrutiny.

The report is grim and depressing. If one act of sexual violence on a child is enough for the earth to open beneath a clerical perpetrator – how about 216,000? However, it’s important for the French Church to demand the full truth. The Commission’s analysis is surprisingly imprecise; it’s not necessarily accurate.

And a lot is at stake. The report’s recommendations, for instance, include a revision of how priests observe the seal of confession.

In the United States, a newspaper columnist concluded after a similar report in Pennsylvania that “It is time to face the horrible truth: The Catholic church is a paedophile ring … Like a criminal syndicate, it is time for the Church to be broken apart and cleaned out.” France has a long, long history of anti-clericalism and its enemies could try to use this report to écrasez l’infâme, in the words of Voltaire, to crush the loathsome beast.

It’s absolutely necessary to get the facts right. The victims of clerical sexual abuse deserve justice, but justice must always be based on truth.

COLUMN BY

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. More by Michael Cook.

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Panic Has Led to Government “Cures” That Are Worse than the Disease, History Shows

/in , , , , , , /by

Let’s take the novel coronavirus seriously, but let’s not throw reason, prudence, or the Constitution out the window.

Anyone who’s seen the John Hughes movie Ferris Beuller’s Day Off probably remembers the scene where Ferris’s economics teacher (Ben Stein) explains the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to a roomful of bored, sleeping students. The scene is brilliant for many reasons, perhaps most so because it perfectly demonstrated how some of the most boring things in history are also the most important.

Smoot-Hawley was, of course, one of the great blunders in history.

Passed in 1930 over the objection of more than a thousand economists, the legislation increased tariffs (which were already high) on imports to protect US industries and farmers, sparking a trade war that deepened the Great Depression. It’s a perfect example of authorities taking decisive action to alleviate a crisis—and making things much worse.

What many forget is that Smoot-Hawley didn’t cause the Depression. It was a response to the Depression. Indeed, it may never have passed at all without the catalyst—the Stock Market Crash of 1929—that sent the nation into a frenzy. Senate Republicans had defeated the GOP-controlled House bill the previous year, but trade restrictionists found a convenient crisis in Black Tuesday, which triggered widespread hysteria, allowing the law to squeak through. (President Hoover opposed the bill but signed it anyway because of political pressure, which included resignation threats from several Cabinet members.)

Designed to protect Americans during the economic crisis, Smoot-Hawley proved disastrous. Imports fell from $1,334M in 1929 to just $390M in 1932. Global trade fell by roughly 66 percent, government data show. By 1933 unemployment was 25 percent, the highest in US history.

To “correct” things, Americans elected Franklin D. Roosevelt, who launched a series of federal programs—which made the crisis even worse. The rest, as they say, is history.

Smoot-Hawley and the New Deal are hardly the only examples of government actions making a panic worse.

In his book Basic Economics, the economist Thomas Sowell recounts several instances in which governments turned small problems into major ones by using blunt force—often price controls—to respond to public panic about rising costs of a given commodity.

One of the more famous examples of this is the gasoline crisis of the 1970s, which started when the federal government took a small problem (temporary high costs of gasoline) and turned it into a big one (a national shortage).

It began when OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), a newly formed oil cartel, cut oil production, causing fuel prices to rise. To address the rise, the Nixon administration (and later the Ford and Carter administrations) resorted to price controls to keep fuel prices low for consumers.

The result? Mass fuel shortages across the country that led to long lines and many Americans unable to buy fuel. This “energy crisis,” as it was dubbed at the time, in turn wreaked havoc on the automotive industry.

As Sowell explains, however, there was not an actual scarcity of gasoline. There was nearly as much gas sold in 1972 as the previous year (95 percent, to be precise). Similarly, Americans in 1978 consumed more gasoline than in any other previous year in history. The problem was the resources were not being allocated efficiently because of state-imposed price controls.

The energy crisis was entirely predictable, two Soviet economists (who had vast experience in the arena of central planning-induced shortages) later observed.

In an economy with rigidly planned proportions, such situations are not the exception but the rule—an everyday reality, a governing law. The absolute majority of goods is either in short supply or in surplus. Quite often the same product is in both categories—there is a shortage in one region and a surplus in another.

No one likes high gas prices, but the energy crisis of the 1970s wasn’t truly a crisis until the government created it. Nor was the result unique. Similar examples can be found throughout history, from the grain shortages in Ancient Rome brought about by Diocletian’s “Edict on Maximum Prices” to the mortgage crisis in 2007 and the financial crisis that ensued.

This might seem obvious in hindsight, yet similar mistakes are made today during crises, just on a smaller scale. To address alleged crises in housing, California and Oregon recently passed rent control laws that will surely have a devastating impact on residents in those states. Similarly, anti-price gouging laws (and social pressure) regularly lead to mass shortages during national emergencies.

As America endures the most frightening pandemic in a century, the COVID-19 outbreak, it’s important that decisions affecting the lives, liberties, and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people are being reached through reason, not collective fear.

Pandemics are clearly different from economic depressions and fuel shortages, but some of the same lessons apply. Like an economic panic, pandemics incite mass fear, which can lead to flawed and irrational decision making.

We know that human beings by nature are prone to crowd-following, especially during periods of social unrest and panic. This instinct has resulted in some of the greatest tragedies in human history.

COVID-19 may very well prove to be every bit as dangerous as we’ve been led to believe. Epidemiologists, vaccine researchers, and other medical experts agree it’s highly contagious and deadly, especially for certain at-risk demographics (the elderly and people with compromised immune systems and lung damage, for example). Yet many of the same experts disagree on the scope of the COVID-19 threat.

One of the problems medical professionals are encountering is they simply don’t have a lot of reliable data to work with.

“The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable,” John P.A. Ioannidis, an epidemiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford University who co-directs the university’s Meta-Research Innovation Center, recently wrote in Stat.

Let’s face it: pandemics are scary. This is probably doubly true in the age of social media, when the scariest models tend to be the ones most shared, which fuels even more panic. Because of the heightened level of fear, it’s not unreasonable to think public officials could “follow the crowd,” which is a bad idea even when the crowd isn’t totally petrified.

“Crowds do not reason….they tolerate neither discussion nor contradiction, and the suggestions brought to bear on them invade the entire field of their understanding and tend at once to transform themselves into acts,” wrote Gustave Le Bon in his seminal 1895 work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind.

It’s no secret or coincidence that crises—foreign wars, terrorist attacks, and economic depressions—have often resulted in vast encroachments of freedom and even given rise to tyrants (from Napoleon to Lenin and beyond). In his book Crisis and Leviathan, the historian and economist Robert Higgs explains how throughout history, crises have been used to expand the administrative state, often by allowing “temporary” measures to be left in place after a crisis has abated (think federal tax withholding during World War II).

“When [crises occur] … governments almost certainly will gain new powers over economic and social affairs,” wrote Higgs. “For those who cherish individual liberty and a free society, the prospect is deeply disheartening.”

Let’s take the novel coronavirus deadly seriously, but let’s not throw reason, prudence, or the Constitution out the window while doing so.

If we do, we may find the government’s “cure” for the coronavirus cure is even worse than the disease.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Households Brace for Higher Winter Heating Costs as Natural Gas Prices Vault

Hey Nancy Pelosi, Here Are 4 Easy Things to Cut From the $3.5 Trillion Spending Plan

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Truth Will Set Us Free from Vaccine Mandates

/in , , , , , , , /by

In new footage released by Project Veritas, three Pfizer scientists admit that natural immunity to the coronavirus likely offers better protection than the vaccine. Yet the CDC refuses to even address the possibility of natural immunity, and various vaccine mandates America’s tyrants are considering allow no exemption for natural immunity.

Natural immunity is not some magic code, nor does it suggest genetic superiority. The term simply refers to someone who has contracted COVID-19, and whose immune system developed the tools to successfully fight off the virus. Those immune defenses remain in the person’s bloodstream even after the virus has been eliminated. After 18 months of data, the administration’s utter silence on natural immunity, an obvious, viable alternative to vaccination, has grown deafening.

Nick Karl, who works directly on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, said natural immunity probably produced “more antibodies,” leading to a stronger immune response against a second infection. Karl also said persons who contracted the virus will produce “antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus,” retaining immunity even to mutated strains.

If that’s true, why isn’t the company saying so publicly? Pfizer scientist Rahul Khandke explained that Pfizer forces employees into “hours and hours” of seminars where they are told, “you cannot talk about this in public.” Chris Croce, Senior Associate Scientist for Pfizer, said the corporation had pushed aside successful monoclonal antibody treatments to focus on vaccines because of money. “Our organization is run on COVID money now,” added Croce. Croce said he feels “like I work for an evil corporation because it comes down to profits, in the end.” Pfizer hit the mother lode in the first quarter of 2021 with $3.5 billion in revenue from its COVID-19 vaccine, as part of a total revenue income increase of 45 percent over the first quarter of 2020.

Aside from Croce’s oddly anti-business sentiments (after all, corporations exist precisely for “profits, in the end”), if Pfizer executives are deliberately withholding vital information from the public for their company’s bottom line, it is one of the most despicable con games ever played on the American public.

Even worse, public officials seem to be parroting the talking points developed by the pharmaceutical corporations who stand to profit. “I’m at a loss to understand the actions of the CDC,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University, said on “Washington Watch.” The CDC guidelines instruct people “to make all these changes in our life in order to do an impossible goal.”

He explained that zero COVID cases nationwide is not a feasible end goal. As Australia has discovered, no amount of government control can eradicate it — not lockdowns, not vaccines. “We have no technology to … eradicate the disease,” he said. “This disease will circulate forever.”

Bhattacharya isn’t preaching doom and gloom. Instead, “we need to tell people to stop being so scared about it,” he insisted. COVID vaccines and natural immunity both provide defense against severe infections that could lead to hospitalization or death. “[The] right sort of sequence is: get vaccinated, and then don’t worry so much about being infected,” he said. The CDC “should be telling people how to manage the risk around the disease” instead of “vaccine mandates, which are essentially ripping society apart.”

Because we are better equipped with vaccines, effective treatments, and hospital protocols, COVID-19 “is no longer the kind of disease it was last year,” said Bhattacharya. “Let’s tell the population.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Manchin Walks the (Red) Line to Courageously Defend Hyde

A Tribute to Todd Akin

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action video and column are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

AG Garland Sics FBI on Parents Opposed to Critical Race Theory

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , /by

In a memorandum issued on Monday, Attorney General Merrick Garland has directed the FBI to combat purported “threats of violence” against school administrators from so-called “hate groups” — by which he means parents justifiably outraged over the leftist indoctrination that passes for K-12 education in American schools.

Garland expressed concern about a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools… While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.”

Garland announced his 30-day plan to combat the reported problem, which will include the FBI working with U.S attorneys across the country to discuss “strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.”

The memorandum arrived less than a week after leaders of the National School Boards Association wrote President Joe Biden a letter claiming that “many public school officials are also facing physical threats because of propaganda purporting the false inclusion of critical race theory within classroom instruction and curricula. This propaganda continues despite the fact that critical race theory is not taught in public schools and remains a complex law school and graduate school subject well beyond the scope of a K-12 class.”

Fact check: The only propaganda here is Critical Race Theory (CRT), which most assuredly is being taught in K-12 public schools all across the country.

Left-dominated schoolboards across the country, who are responsible for establishing racist indoctrination curricula like CRT, are now demonizing legitimately concerned parents as domestic terrorists, and our Attorney General, who backs such indoctrination, intends to threaten those parents with the coercive power of the FBI.

Merrick Garland

4 Known Connections

On June 15, 2021, Garland announced the unveiling of the Biden administration’s new “First National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” an initiative designed to combat what Garland viewed as one of America’s most serious problems: “domestic terrorism” carried out mostly by conservative adherents to a doctrine of “white supremacism.” Below are some of Garland’s remarks from that day, remarks in which he: (a) cast the Trump supporters who had breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6 as uniquely evil; (b) warned of the allegedly enormous threat posed by violent white supremacists; (c) likened such people to genocidal Islamic terrorists; and (d) gave anecdotal examples of past terrorist incidents that had been perpetrated exclusively by whites:

  • “Our current effort comes on the heels of another large and heinous attack, this time the January 6th assault on our nation’s capital…. Over the 160 days since the attack, we have arrested over 480 individuals and brought hundreds of charges against those who attacked law enforcement officers and obstructed justice and used deadly and dangerous weapons to those ends.”
  • “In March, [America’s intelligence and law-enforcement agencies] concluded that domestic violent extremists posed an elevated threat to the homeland in 2021. Our experience on the ground confirms this; the number of open FBI domestic terrorism investigations this year has increased significantly. According to an unclassified summary of the March Intelligence Assessment, the two most lethal elements of the domestic violence extremist threat are racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists and militia violent extremists. In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.”

To learn more about Merrick Garland, click here.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hundreds of Thousands of “Domestic Terrorists” AKA Parents, Stand Up to Biden Regime and School Boards

Biden DOJ Goes to War Against Parents

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.