if this kind of inhumanity and carnage is heralded as some kind of ‘benefit to planet’, their is a madness afoot. The ruling class has lost its collective mind and they mean to take us down.
In the latest effort to reduce emissions from agriculture, Ireland said it may kill 200,000 cows. Meanwhile, climate activists have American farms and ranches in the crosshairs.
Climate activists are coming for livestock producers and farmers.
European governments have been targeting the agriculture industry for several years. The Telegraph reports that Ireland’s government may need to reduce that country’s cattle herds by 200,000 cows over the next three years to meet climate targets.
In an effort to reduce nitrogen pollution, Reuters reported the European Union last month approved a $1.6 billion Dutch plan to buy out livestock farmers.
Front And Center
Now the Biden administration is targeting American agriculture.
Special President Envoy For Climate John Kerry recently warned at a climate summit for the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the human race’s need to produce food to survive creates 33% of the world’s total greenhouse gasses.
“We can’t get to net-zero. We don’t get this job done unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution,” Kerry said.
Microsoft Billionaire Bill Gates also is obsessing about cattle emissions, providing financial support to companies that are developing seaweed supplements and gas masks for cows.
It’s ‘Groupthink’
Katy Atkinson, an agricultural advocate who raises cattle in Albany County, told Cowboy State Daily that this conversation on emissions from the industry isn’t considering the beneficial impacts of cattle to the environment and the climate.
“Groupthink happens a lot around the climate change conversation. We get tunnel visioned on one piece of it without considering the full ramifications of what’s going to happen if we remove cattle from the land,” Atkinson said.
She said cattle contribute to drought resistance, soil health and wildfire reduction. Just before cattle were introduced to North America and the industry began raising them, Atkinson said there were thousands of buffalo roaming the plains.
Cows and buffalo are both ruminants, which is a type of animal that brings back food from its stomach and chews it again. These animals’ digestive systems produce methane emissions. Today’s cattle population is similar in numbers to that of the buffalo herds.
“So, the methane emissions from ruminant animals aren’t anything new,” Atkinson said.
Trapping Carbon
Cattle also benefit plant life, Atkinson said.
“You need ruminant animals to forage grasses, because they’re the only things that can,” she explained.
Pigs, for example, are monogastric and can’t break down high fiber content in grasses. Cow’s digestive system can break the grasses down, and then they fertilize the ground.
So, through proper cattle grazing management, Atkinson said the cattle she’s raising are helping plants to grow.
In the atmosphere, the methane they burp out — most of it is released through the mouth of the animal — breaks down in 10 to 15 years into carbon dioxide and water. The plants that cattle help to grow use that carbon dioxide. The carbon then gets put back into the soil through the grasses’ roots.
“So the cattle are essential in helping to keep that carbon trapped in the ground,” Atkinson said.
Atkinson said cattle have other benefits to the climate that are being ignored in the focus on just their emissions. Whenever soil cracks or fissures, it releases carbon into the air.
The animals walking upon the soil compacts it and helps keep the carbon trapped in the soil.
She said one study done by the University of Florida found that between 10% and 30% of the world’s carbon storage is found under the feet of U.S. cattle.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-05 12:51:212023-06-05 12:51:21Plans to Slaughter 200,000 Farting Cows to Save Planet from ‘Global Warming’ Inbox
So BLM and Antifa can burn down cities, murder innocent people, loot and riot and it’s righteous raising tens of millions of dollars from America’s biggest corporations but children singing the National Anthem pose a threat. Drag shows for children are promoted by the Democrat government but children singing the National Anthem pose a threat.
It’s revolution time.
A children’s choir singing the Star-Spangled Banner were told to stop singing by Capital Police because it was considered a “demonstration.”
Police told the Choir Director to stop “Because this is considered a demonstration and we don’t allow demonstrations in the Capitol.”… pic.twitter.com/SGJMJXUV1B
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-05 12:51:202023-06-05 12:51:20Children’s Choir Singing the Star Spangled Banner Forced to Stop by Capital Police ‘Because It Was Considered a Demonstration’
An unspoken social contract used to link community to the existence of strong authority.
As a long-time former editor of Governing magazine, Alan Ehrenhalt is an expert on local political and governance issues in America. More than a quarter of a century ago, he wrote a little-known classic which is essential reading for all those interested in community.
In the years following the release of “The Lost City,” the extraordinary strength of civic life in mid-20th century America was brought to a far larger audience by Professor Robert Putnam.
Here, Ehrenhalt takes the reader on a tour of Chicago (and by extension, America) by focusing on the lives of the parishioners in St Nicholas of Tolentine parish, the people in the African-American urban ghetto of Bronzeville and those living in the new and prosperous suburb of Elmhurst.
Ehrenhalt’s analysis also demonstrates the greater social harmony enjoyed by those labouring under the various constraints of the unspoken social contract which linked community to the existence of strong authority.
Across all three communities, a strong religious pervaded, but particularly in St Nick’s parish, as it was affectionately known.
Here, we get a sense of what urban Catholicism in America was really like. Chicago, Ehrenhalt writes, was the largest American archdiocese, containing more than two million practising Catholics, along with 400 parishes (a number that was then growing by six parishes on average each year) and 300,000 parochial school students.
Here as elsewhere, Irish priests presided over a diverse range of European ethnicities. Not only did the church draw together the great bulk of parishioners each Sunday, it was also the centre for most of the social activity.
For the men, the Holy Name Society reigned supreme, with activities ranging from bowling leagues and golf outings to Eucharistic Adoration and attendance at packed monthly talks.
For women – here as elsewhere the more religiously committed of the sexes – there was the Altar and Rosary Society, whose members cleaned the church, prepared food for parish meetings and promoted Marian devotions within every family home.
In this setting, the source of the authority was clear. The saintly Monsignor Fennessy strode through the parish in his cassock, imparting wisdom in his Irish brogue, while at the same time, his intimidating and authoritarian curate Father Lynch – who had served as a Marine chaplain on the bloodiest beaches during the Pacific campaign – handled the day-to-day running of such a large parish.
Aside from the religious conformism within a pre-Vatican II parish, Ehrenhalt details the various ways in which those living inside the parish’s boundaries had fewer choices than their modern counterparts: including when it came to the jobs they did or the stores they shopped in.
Some were far less fortunate. Black Chicagoans had far less say over where they could live, let alone what they could do with their lives.
In this community known as Bronzeville, institutions such as black churches, black businesses and social institutions (such as the Chicago Defender newspaper) and the Democratic Party machine were of paramount importance.
The exodus to suburbia was one of the most consequential social processes in the 20th century, and Ehrenhalt’s third profile is of one such community to the west of the city, where many World War II veterans flocked to raise their families in peace and prosperity.
In Elmhurst, civic society had to be created almost from scratch, and the spirit of this epoch allowed for this: indeed, it necessitated it.
“The new suburbanites were not fleeing community, or even the particular communities they were leaving behind… But they believed, with the faith of the 1950s, that community was something they could simply recreate in the place they were moving to. And they did everything they could to recreate it, with an energy that sometimes bordered on compulsiveness,” the author writes.
Throughout the book, Ehrenhalt is at pains to avoid engaging in a nostalgia-driven argument, and he freely acknowledges that the near-universal popularity of social clubs, functions and organisations carried with it disadvantages for those who would have preferred a more detached or independent life.
There were also real limits to the meaningfulness of much of this togetherness. One burst of enthusiasm in Elmhurst led to the creation of a new Presbyterian church which quickly developed into a large congregation.
This new suburban religiosity, though, had clear parallels with the rise of popular preachers who Ehrenhalt suggests “seemed to offer religion as something comfortable and almost effortless, a pleasant reassurance against personal doubt and insecurity.”
Ehrenhalt cannot be fairly accused of looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses, and he also makes clear that the restoration of a greater sense of community (which most people today likely aspire to) can hardly come about with the restoration of social authority (which most people today would likely recoil from).
“Authority and community have in fact unravelled together, but few mourn the passing of authority,” he reflects.
Disciplinarian teachers, stern parents and harsh clerics who preached an uncompromising Gospel were never popular, but they played an important role in preserving an orderly way of life.
Indeed, Ehrenhalt notes the way in which the common perception of widespread social repression prior to the social revolution of the 60s (including in popular history and literature) often comes directly from the pen of those who were disgruntled with their minority status within a broadly contented social milieu.
“Much of the image of American Catholic life in those years comes from the work of former Catholics who considered the church they grew up in not only authoritarian but destructive of their free choices and creative instincts,” Ehrenhalt explains, before adding that “[i]f you visit a working-class Catholic parish in a big city, and ask the older parishioners what they think of the church in the days before Vatican II, they don’t tell you that it was tyrannical or that it destroyed their individuality. They tell you they wish they could have it back.”
Ehrenhalt vivid description of Chicago’s neighbourhoods in the heyday of civic engagement and the subsequent decline ties in neatly with the work of other authors who have focused on community, and in particular the ground-breaking work of Robert Nisbet.
As with the central argument of “The Lost City,” Nisbet’s criteria for defining community made clear that some form of authority had to exist – which he observed came about through habit or custom.
Even more striking (and to some, off-putting) than Ehrenhalt’s emphasis on moral authority is the stress which he places on sin: the common belief that it truly existed, and that it had to be resisted.
Towards the end of “The Lost City,” Ehrenhalt revisits the three communities to show how much had changed. Gone are the lines outside the confessionals of the much more sparsely attended St Nick’s and gone are the cassocks which the priests once wore.
In Elmhurst, the close-knit and geographically based ties which were established so quickly had fallen apart to be replaced by much looser connections, with one of the key driving forces being the rise of two-job families where neither parent had the time needed “at home for the gestures of community that bound the original residents together.”
And while the residents of what was Bronzeville now had immeasurably more freedom in a racially integrated city, many of the more affluent black citizens had exercised that freedom to leave to find new homes in areas less plagued by social dysfunction and crime.
Ehrenhalt’s analysis is profound and has relevance far beyond Chicago. A similar decline to what occurred in St Nick’s parish can be witnessed in more extreme form in a country like Ireland, where the moral authority of the Catholic priesthood had been even more elevated, and where its fall from grace has been even more precipitous.
The author’s wise reflections on the false and ahistorical narrative which has been created about the recent past certainly deserves the attention of those aspiring to set right the historical record in time.
There is little hope of a sudden return to community, but Ehrenhalt notes the various examples in recent history (such as Victorian Britain) where ordered liberty was restored after a period of social disorder.
“For that to happen anytime soon,” he concludes, “the generations that launched the rebellion will have to force itself to rethink some of the unexamined ‘truths’ with which it has lived its entire adult life. It will have to recognise that privacy, individuality, and choice are not free goods, and that the society that places no restrictions on them pays a high price for that decision.”
Everything that has occurred since the publication of this book in 1996 suggests that those who have led the liberal charge towards ever greater permissiveness will not pause to consider what has been lost, as well as what has been gained.
Those who recognise the value of a communitarian bargain that places limits on our behaviour can still learn from Ehrenhalt and take heart from the prospect that what was torn down could yet again be recreated.
AUTHOR
James Bradshaw writes on topics including history, culture, film and literature. More by James Bradshaw
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-05 12:51:182023-06-05 12:51:18‘The Lost City: The Forgotten Virtues of Community in America’
On Wednesday, 21 state attorneys general filed a joint amicus brief in support of two Florida parents who are suing their daughter’s middle school for engaging in private talks with the then 13-year-old about her gender identity without her parents’ knowledge or consent.
The lawsuit filed by January and Jeffrey Littlejohn alleges that school officials at Deerlake Middle School in Tallahassee implemented a “transgender support plan” after their daughter questioned her gender at school without informing them. When January Littlejohn found out about the situation and confronted the school, she was “told by the school guidance councilor [sic] and vice-principal that they could not disclose what had been talked about in the meeting, and that Littlejohn’s daughter needed to give consent by-law for her parents to be informed about or be present for future discussions.”
“Eventually we did see the transgender support plan, which was a six-page document that they completed with my daughter, [who] was 13 at the time behind closed doors, where they asked her questions that would have absolutely impacted her safety, such as which restroom she preferred to use and which sex she preferred to room with on overnight field trips,” Littlejohn said.
The document also asked what names and pronouns the student preferred, as well as whether or not the student wanted to inform their parents about the transition. “The plan also stated to use her birth name when speaking to us in effect to deceive us of the social transition that had occurred,” Littlejohn explained.
After a federal district court in Florida sided with the school, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen led a coalition of 21 state AGs in filing an amicus brief in support of the Littlejohns’ continued legal fight.
“This is a very seminal case,” he contended on Thursday’s edition of “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” “I mean, look, you’ve got a situation here where a public school has basically inserted itself between a child and the child’s parents, and that should horrify everyone. What’s even more horrifying is that a federal district court in Florida found that that was okay, which is why we’re going up to the 11th Circuit.”
Knudsen continued, “It’s a long-standing facet of American jurisprudence that parents are the primary decision makers for their children. We call them minors for a reason. They haven’t reached the age of majority yet, to use a legal term. We don’t let minors join the military. We don’t let them consume alcohol. We don’t let them vote until they’re 18. And there’s good reason for that because their brains are not fully developed. We know this from science, but we also know from thousands of years of just being humans that parents are in a better place to make decisions for their children.”
In addition to Montana, the states who signed on to the brief include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.
In response to Perkins’s question about where a court ruling against the parents could lead, Knudsen was frank. “Does it go next to actual transitioning? Does it go to surgery? … You’re asking the right question — where does this end? That’s what’s so concerning about this.”
The Montana attorney general went on to assert that alternative forms of schooling have only increased in stature in recent years as a result of a variety of public education controversies.
“I would argue that between COVID and some of these crazy decisions that we’re getting out of some school districts, this has been a boon for homeschooling,” Knudsen said. “It’s been a boon for Christian education. It’s been a boon for private schooling. School choice has really benefited from this. And I don’t think the schools probably intended on that. But I think it’s a positive outcome here.”
Perkins concurred, commending Knudsen for his leadership in support of parental rights. “We’ve got to make sure that we have individuals like you that are protecting the rights of parents to make those decisions, because don’t think they’ll stop just with their gender transition. They’ll reach to try to keep [parents] from making educational choices.”
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-05 11:52:032023-06-05 11:52:03‘Horrifying’: 21 State AGs Back Florida Parents’ Lawsuit against School for Secret Trans Talks with Daughter
A pro-life Republican state representative lost his leadership position for saying that abortion is the fruit of the “Church of Satan.”
North Carolina State Representative Keith Kidwell (R-Beaufort) responded to a Democratic representative who tried to justify her decision to have an elective abortion by citing her church membership and belief in the “power of God.”
The exchange came during the General Assembly’s debate over whether to override the veto by Governor Roy Cooper (D) of a bill to protect most unborn babies from abortion beginning at 12 weeks.
State Rep. Diamond Staton-Williams (D-Cabarrus) said she and her husband decided to abort their third child “after much consideration, thought, and, of course, prayer.”
She did not say whether she had an abortion before or after 12 weeks. Yet she said the bill would remove a “God-given right.”
She then implied her Christian faith endorsed her decision to have an abortion. “I am someone who has grown up in the church and believes in the power of God. I know that I go through trials and tribulations. I know we all will,” said Staton-Williams. “And I know that, ultimately, I have been given the freedom of mind to make decisions for myself.”
Rep. Kidwell reportedly said privately to another Republican on the floor that any church that supports abortion sounds like the “Church of Satan.”
The Satanic Temple does, in fact, teach that “The Satanic Abortion Ritual” is “a sacrament which surrounds and includes the abortive act.” The rival Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey, eschews the term “sacrament” but declares that abortion “should be within the rights of the pregnant person.”
“I think it’s using the Lord’s Name in vain to say you would make a decision to have an abortion as a result of prayer,” North Carolina Values Coalition Executive Director Tammi Fitzgerald — who was in the chamber when the exchange took place — told The Washington Stand. Lawmakers should only present their stand as biblical “if it conforms with Scripture.”
Invoking her childhood church membership seems “an apparent attempt to shield herself from criticism” for embracing harmful policies, David Closson, director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. He noted that Staton-Williams has also “touted her progressive views on LGBTQ issues,” such as membership in an LGBT pressure group’s “Electeds for Equality,” a group of politicians “who publicly align themselves with the larger movement for LGBTQ” political power.
“Let’s be clear what is happening here: The representative is cloaking anti-biblical views, positions that directly contradict the Bible’s clear teaching, into religious-sounding language in an attempt to find a middle way. But there is no middle way when it comes to these issues. You are either on the side of Scripture or against it,” Closson told TWS.
Democrats have increasingly attempted to shroud their support for abortion-on-demand and LGBTQ issues in religious rhetoric. U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who calls himself a “pro-choice pastor,” has said, “I think that human agency and freedom is consistent with my views as a minister.” The Bible tells Christians, “Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God” (I Peter 2:16).
Other Democrats regularly speak of abortion-on-demand only in religious language. “The right to have an abortion is sacred,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) last June. “The right to an abortion is non-negotiable. Reproductive freedom is sacred,” said the Twitter account of Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.).
But “the Bible’s teaching on life, marriage, and sexuality is straightforward, and no attempt to find a middle way on these issues will ultimately prove successful,” Closson told TWS.
House leaders proved more successful in leveraging outrage over Kidwell’s comments to wrench him out of House leadership. “To challenge a person’s religion when they share a deeply personal story … that is beneath the dignity of this House, and that is beneath the dignity of any elected office,” fumed House Minority Leader Robert Reives (D).
Yet Bell’s decision did not mollify local Democrats, who demanded Kidwell step down from office altogether. Dare County Democratic Party Chair Susan Sawin said Kidwell’s belief that Christianity does not endorse abortion renders him “unfit to serve.” Kidwell, one of the founders of the state’s House Freedom Caucus, has regularly drubbed his Democratic opponents at the polls, carrying more than 60% of his district in both of his elections.
After Staton-Williams’s comments, the Republican-controlled legislature voted to overturn Cooper’s veto of the life-protecting bill, which the Democrat vetoed at a massive outdoor rally on May 13, the day before Mother’s Day. Republicans needed exactly 60% of the total vote to uphold the Care for Women, Children and Families Act (S.B. 20). The GOP held exactly that margin — 72 out of 120 members of the General Assembly and 30 out of 50 senators — after Rep. Tricia Cotham (R-Charlotte) switched parties in April. Both chambers enacted the pro-life protections by overriding Cooper’s veto on May 16 in separate, party-line votes.
“I’d just like to thank the heroic efforts of Republicans in the House and Senate of finding common ground and passing historic legislation that will save thousands of unborn babies. It was no less than a miracle that they were able to pass a bill,” Fitzgerald told TWS.
Yet the dueling narratives and continuing fallout over the debate “reminds us that worldview is always just beneath the surface of the day’s headlines,” Closson concluded.
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-05 11:52:022023-06-05 11:52:02GOP Rep Calls Abortion the Fruit of the ‘Church of Satan,’ Loses His Leadership Position
House Republicans have threatened to initiate contempt proceedings against FBI Director Christopher Wray over his defiance of a House Oversight Committee subpoena, which demands an unclassified document it suspects will expose Joe Biden’s complicity in his family influence-peddling scheme. Wray reportedly agreed to turn over the document on Friday. At the same time that it has seemingly stonewalled Congress to protect Democrats, the Department of Justice (DOJ) — of which the FBI is a part — is unashamedly pursuing other legal battles that are widely perceived as partisan.
In a May 3 subpoena, the House Oversight Committee directed Wray to turn over all FD-1023 forms containing the word “Biden” produced during June 2020 by Tuesday, May 30. An FD-1023 form is a standard form for internal FBI communications. The highly specific request was based on “whistleblower disclosures” alerting them to the existence of “an unclassified FD-1023 form that describes an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions,” wrote House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in an accompanying letter. “It has been alleged that the document includes a precise description of how the alleged criminal scheme was employed as well as its purpose.”
However, the FBI refused to comply with the subpoena or even acknowledge the existence of the document. “They are not above the law,” said House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who called Wray and told him to send the document on Tuesday, the deadline. “We have jurisdiction over the FBI, which they seem to act like we do not.”
In a Tuesday press release, Chairman Comer announced, “Today, the FBI informed the Committee that it will not provide the unclassified documents subpoenaed by the Committee. The FBI’s decision to stiff-arm Congress and hide this information from the American people is obstructionist and unacceptable.” He stated his intention of “taking steps to hold the FBI Director in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena.”
After talking to Wray, Comer issued another press release on Wednesday, “Today, FBI Director Wray confirmed the existence of the FD-1023 form alleging then-Vice President Biden engaged in a criminal bribery scheme with a foreign national. However, Director Wray did not commit to producing the documents subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee.” Wray “offered to allow us to see the documents in person at FBI headquarters,” but Comer made “clear that anything short of producing these documents … is not in compliance with the subpoena” and would result in contempt proceedings.
In response to mounting pressure and possible contempt charges, Wray agreed to turn over the document on Friday.
Wray’s pretense for withholding the document was that it might reveal a confidential human source. But Grassley responded, “The FBI has apparently leaked classified information to the news media in recent weeks, jeopardizing its own human sources,” yet refuses “to provide a specific unclassified record” to Congress.
Wray’s action (or inaction) constitutes “defiance of a legitimate congressional subpoena,” Grassley warned. Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy agreed, writing that Wray is “about to be held in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena that he has no lawful basis to defy.” He explained that “the executive branch can legitimately defy congressional subpoenas” in circumstances where the legislature attempts “to usurp or undermine the constitutional authority of the president,” but that those circumstances are irrelevant to the FBI, which Congress created.
The only plausible reason for Wray’s stonewalling tactics is to shield President Biden by withholding information that is at best embarrassing and at worst criminal. The House Oversight Committee is conducting a widespread investigation into the Biden family, which has begun to unearth what appears to be a sordid web of foreign influence-peddling. From a partial review of bank records, the committee has already tracked over $10 million in foreign cash — from places like China, Ukraine, and Romania — through 21 shell corporations to at least nine members of the Biden family — for no discernable reason other than Biden’s influential position as vice president under Barack Obama.
Oddly enough, the DOJ’s protection of the Biden family seems to do less with his position as president and more with his affiliation as a Democrat. Earlier this month, news broke that a former federal prosecutor had reported bribery allegations to the DOJ as early as October 2018 — while Biden held no governmental office, and while Trump was in the White House — but was ignored.
Meanwhile, political figures who are not Democrats can expect the DOJ to target them and their family members just as zealously as they shield the Bidens. On Wednesday, May 31 — the same day Wray told Comer he would not deliver the subpoenaed document — the DOJ announced it had filed a civil action against 13 coal companies owned or operated by Jim Justice III, son of West Virginia Governor Jim Justice, Jr. (R), to collect $7.6 million in penalties. The press release alleged the companies had committed 130 violations of federal law over a five-year period (2018-2022) and had received “over 50 cessation orders.”
The timing of this announcement raised suspicions. A poll conducted last week of the West Virginia Senate race showed Governor Justice leading incumbent Senator Joe Manchin (D) by 22 points. It’s too much to ask anyone to believe that, after 50 cessation orders over five years, the DOJ just happened to file suit a week after a poll showed Justice III’s father with a massive lead over an incumbent Democratic senator. “Utterly brazen,” responded Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas). “When I said the Biden DOJ is the most political & partisan DOJ in history, I wasn’t kidding…” It’s also noteworthy that the alleged violations began in 2018, the year after Governor Justice switched to the Republican party.
The DOJ’s political interference was also on display in its refusal to prosecute Rachael Rollins. As U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, Rollins leaked “non-public, sensitive” information acquired in her official capacity in an attempt to help Boston City Councilman Ricardo Arroyo in the Democratic primary for Suffolk district attorney against Kevin Hayden, then the interim D.A., according to a 161-page report published in May by the DOJ’s internal watchdog agency, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Rollins, who resigned in May, then “falsely testified under oath” by denying she had leaked non-public information. Although the OIG recommended prosecution, the DOJ declined to prosecute Rollins.
It’s not that the DOJ is too busy to investigate alleged wrongdoing by those on the political Left. No, they’re working hard not to investigate. An IRS whistleblower who participated in the DOJ’s investigation into Hunter Biden, the president’s son — which has dragged on since at least 2018 without charges — said last week, “There were multiple steps that were slow-walked — were just completely not done — at the direction of the Department of Justice.” He added that the “deviations from the normal process” were “way outside the norm.” Instead of correcting the discrepancies or speeding up the investigation, the DOJ (not knowing the whistleblower’s identity) got the IRS to remove the entire team from the investigation.
To the uninitiated, the notion that America’s premier federal law enforcement agency has hopelessly prostituted the integrity of its mission for the short-term benefit of left-wing politicians sounds far-fetched, even conspiratorial. But when one monitors their actual behavior, evidence of politicization soon becomes overwhelming. The question, “is the DOJ politically biased?” becomes such a foregone conclusion that it seems to belong in a TV advertisement, right after the question, “Can Geico really save you 15% or more on car insurance?”
Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis said last week, “I think the DOJ and FBI have lost their way. I think that they’ve been weaponized against Americans who think like me and you, and I think they’ve become very partisan.” He said he would replace Wray on Day One and “[clear] out people who are not doing the job.” He isn’t the only one who thinks that should be done.
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-05 11:52:012023-06-05 11:52:01Under Investigation for Partisan Behavior, DOJ Commits More Partisan Behavior
For most CEOs, Pride Month couldn’t have come at a more inopportune time. As companies like Target, Bud Light, and others desperately try to control the flames burning down their brands, this annual test of LGBT loyalty is putting most businesses in a position they’d rather not be in: outraging an already agitated consumer base or ticking off the lobby they’ve worked two decades to appease. Faced with the choice of becoming unprofitable or politically unacceptable, what will the big companies do?
Already, Newsweek is pointing out the surprising hesitancy of otherwise woke brands to go all in on June 1. After plastering the rainbow and progress flags across their platforms last year, North Face, Lego, and Miller Lite were unusually quiet on the social media front this time. “Other brands — such as Target, Bud Light and Adidas — have yet to post, despite doing so in June of last year,” reporter Aleks Phillips points out. Not surprisingly, all three are facing blistering criticism after either replacing women with trans-identifying men or aggressively marketing gender confusion to kids. “Of the accounts reviewed by Newsweek, only Kohl’s and PetSmart had defied critics so far in posting Pride Month content.”
“They’re feeling the pinch,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins acknowledged on “Washington Watch.” Target and Bud Light are significantly cratering, with Anheuser-Busch scraping and clawing for any idea that would bring them back to solvency. Target CEO Brian Cornell, who bragged that the stores’ controversial “tuck-friendly” swimwear and other trans merchandise was “great for our brand,” is eating those words this week after their stock was officially downgraded by JP Morgan after an astonishing $12.4 billion in losses. “I really think we should help them out and downgrade [the stock] even further by refusing to shop there,” Perkins insisted.
“I do think we’re at a tipping point,” he said to Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on Thursday. “It’s one thing to push the whole LGB [agenda],” Perkins insisted, “But this transgender thing … [is] a bridge too far. … [Americans are] seeing their children and grandchildren transformed by this ideology. And it’s frightening. … And when you have corporate America jumping on the bandwagon, pushing this, and it’s in your face at every turn, [then this becomes] a different moment.”
Mohler, like most people, can’t understand why major American corporations aren’t counting the cost of their social extremism. Everyday people “aren’t buying … the revolutionary stuff they’re selling,” he insisted. And yet, even Anheuser-Busch, who’s taken an absolute beating on Wall Street since its partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, can’t bring itself to cut those controversial ties. Just last week, in the midst of one of the biggest PR scandals of the century, leaders poured gas on the fire with another $200,000 donation to the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce. This, after losing an eye-popping $27 billion since April.
“That’s a huge number,” Stephen Soukup shook his head. “I saw a story earlier today that Bud Light is selling for $.14 a can. …You have distributors … who are turning in their franchise credentials because they can no longer make a living distributing Anheuser-Busch products. … This is pretty much unprecedented in American consumer behavior,” he said, “and it’s really caught a lot of people off guard and has done a lot of damage to some of these companies.”
“Target is struggling as well,” “The Dictatorship of Woke Capital” author told Perkins on “Washington Watch” last week. “[They’ve] had their roughest week in the markets in probably a decade. You know, shareholders are selling saying that we don’t want to be part owner of a corporation that cares less about us than it does about pressure groups.”
Soukup believes brands need to take a much more cautious approach to their activism, especially on this issue. “My advice to businesses would be eschew the entire woke capital complex [and] say, ‘Look, we’re not playing that game anymore. We’re not political. What we want to do is make the best widgets we can. We want to be the best business that we possibly can, do the best for our employees, do the best for our customers, and especially do the best for our shareholders.’ They should be getting out of the game of politics all together.”
Amazingly, though, even brands with deep Christian roots seem content throwing their values overboard. News that Chick-fil-A, a favorite chain of conservatives, had embraced the diversity, equity, and inclusion fad, came as a big blow to families, who’d believed that this longtime holdout could weather the cultural storm.
“Their woke roosters have come home to roost,” Perkins warned about the Cathys empire. “But this is not new,” he pointed out. “… Over the last decade, [they’ve been] backing further and further away, even to the point of funding groups that have Drag Queen Story Hours. [They’ve] funded the Southern Poverty Law Center and cut off all Christian organizations like Salvation Army because their views on marriage were too ‘radical.’”
Of course, Perkins said, “[I]t’s even more offensive when an organization that has prospered off of its Christian holdings and drawn in Christians then walks down this same path. Maybe [it’s] not as bad as Target. I mean, you’re not blinded by rainbow flags when you walk in, but it’s a betrayal, quite frankly.”
Mohler agreed, hoping that “sounder policies will prevail [at Chick-fil-A].” But until then, he urged, “Christians [need to say], ‘We really are not going to do business with a company that violates and flaunts its violation of what we believe is Christian morality.”’ And while we “don’t have a choice as to whether we pay our taxes [which finances plenty of objectionable things] we do have a choice about where we buy our socks,” the seminarian insisted. “And it turns out that, these days, that can be a pretty powerful moral question. And so I want to affirm what you’re saying here. We are stewards, and it is required of stewards that they be found faithful. And that means that we can’t live in willful ignorance of what these companies are putting right in our face.” That’s why, he believes, “We’ve reached a really crucial moment.”
A moment, Perkins believes, that the church’s years of silence and acquiescence has led to. “I wish we didn’t have to be at this point, [but] I am somewhat encouraged that people still have enough resolve to push back.”
And push back they have, running from brands like Anthropologie, Adidas, Anheuser-Busch, Calvin Klein, Disney, Hershey, Jack Daniels, Kohl’s, Lego, Levi Strauss, Maybelline, Nike, North Face, Sports Illustrated, Starbucks, and Target, whose in-your-face transgender advocacy has millions of Americans taking their business elsewhere. It can be morally complicated, Mohler agreed, since no national corporation is probably “pure” in this area. “[But] at the very least,” he said, “these companies that are so aggressive [are hearing from Christians], ‘That’s the last product I’m going to buy from them.’”
Personally, Mohler said, “I believe all kinds of people will lie to me. But when they put the pride flag out front, I take them at their word. I think we know exactly what that means.”
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-05 11:52:002023-06-05 11:52:00Woke Brands Back Off Pride Month as American Fury Grows
“They destroyed my life for a lie—now they’re threatening me with 24 years potential prison over January 6. But it’s not just me on trial, not just me they want to crush—it’s all of us.” — John Strand, Artist • Activist • American.
If you have not heard the story of John Strand then please visit his website to understand why he is being targeted. Watch what really happened on January 6th, 2021 at the Capitol.
What happened to him can happen to all of us. #We’reNext!
On September 27th, 2022, a Washington, D.C. jury declared me guilty of all five J6 charges brought against me by the federal government.
I will appeal every charge.
I am completely innocent of these charges, both as a legal matter and as a moral matter before God.
I know this with absolutely certainty, because the law requires mens rea[sic] to convict a person of these charges; I alone know my true intent and my state of mind during the events of January 6th, and they were never inappropriate or criminal. As I testified at my trial, my sole purpose for being in D.C. that week and in the vicinity of the Capitol that day was to protect and support my employer in fulfilling her prearranged and permitted speaking obligations.
I did not condone or encourage any of the violent or criminal activities at the time, and now that I have learned much more specifically of the trauma and damages inflicted on brave officers and other innocent persons, I am even more deeply grieved and angered by the terrible actions of some that caused so much pain and destruction for so many. This unlawful and inexcusable behavior greatly undermined the noble pursuit of upholding the rule of law, which was the primary purpose of many prior protests in 2020 leading up to January 6, and of the protest scheduled on that day as well.
I am grateful to the judge presiding over my case for handling the courtroom in a fair and reasonable manner, and for kindly permitting me to remain on pre-trial release conditions pending my sentencing.
It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge the Herculean efforts of Mr. Stephen Brennwald and my entire legal defense team, as well as the fervent prayers and support of my family and many American citizens across the nation. I humbly request your continued prayers as I follow God’s calling in my life to stand for truth and pursue justice, both on my own behalf and for every American.
To God be the glory.
🇺🇸 #WeAreJ6
THE TRUTH IS ON TRIAL
John writes,
Corruption and selective prosecution are the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime; they excuse their behavior by classifying it as “lawful”…but they arbitrarily determine when, where, and who to apply only those laws that advance their agenda, and they maliciously change and control both definitions and access to information. Thanks to Tucker Carlson, we can see they knowingly lied, and actively hid exculpatory evidence–an explicit and outrageous violation of the law.
In reality, this is a complete subversion of the rule of law, violating the sacred Constitutional principle of Equal Protection. They operate using lies and confusion to keep the public compliant—and to crush any dissent.
RULE OF LAW IS ON TRIAL
J6 is just the most recent political opportunity instigated and weaponized to target anyone departing from the regime’s approved narrative and their ruthless agenda, and to further terrorize and demoralize the public into instinctive self-censorship—intimidating them from even the thought of exercising independence and free speech.
FREE SPEECH IS ON TRIAL
Sadly, it has largely succeeded—most Americans, even those generally committed to classical values and Constitutional integrity, have wilted into silence and apathetic disassociation, abandoning the hundreds of innocent citizens caught in the tyrannical machinery. Most defendants have succumbed to the intense pressures of a completely biased and weaponized DOJ, accepting abhorrent plea deals under threat of certain conviction by an utterly dishonest and politicized kangaroo court circus.
IT MUST STOP.
Which means, it must BE stopped, by a choice—an intentional decision to disrupt the endless momentum of the runaway totalitarian bureaucratic state.
Amen. May God protect John and the many others who have been falsely imprisoned for simply attending a mostly peaceful rally in Washington, D.C. on January 6th, 2021.
The only violence done on J6 was done by the Capitol police and others who killed Ashly Babbit. This violence continues and is aimed at “we the people” by our own government.
Who will speak for we the people?
The only way to free John and the other J6 political prisoners is to elect a patriot to become president.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-04 23:51:142023-06-04 23:51:14J6 Patriot John Strand’s Story of Persecution and Prosecution for Doing Nothing Wrong
Anthony Esolen:Jeannine Gramick, a nun, indulges men who dress up as Catholic nuns. Does she also condone their grooming, enticing, and seducing?
Ever quick to embarrass faithful Catholics who do the hard and thankless work of attempting to reintroduce sanity to a society gone mad with sexual sin, and rendered lonely and embittered amidst the madness, Sister Jeannine Gramick – co-founder of the heretical New Ways Ministry, probably the most notorious pro-LGBT+ group that claims to be Catholic – has written a letter to the management of the Los Angeles Dodgers, praising them for honoring the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at the club’s forthcoming “Pride Night.”
The Sisters will be honored, says Sister Gramick, for their “financial assistance to those in need.” The Sisters are gay men got up in sexually fetishistic garb, mocking the dress of Catholic women religious. But, says Sister, even though their “choice of clothing” may be “offensive to some,” though not offensive to her, that offensiveness, which Sister does not take seriously, must not be allowed to “trump the works of mercy.”
I’ll wager that many a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan provided monetary assistance to the poor, so long as they were white. No doubt the Roman legions took care of the widows and orphans of their fellow legionnaires. King Leopold of Belgium had a heart for the Congolese, and they paid for his care in blood. Crocodiles were said to shed tears before they devoured their prey, and doctors who shoulder people out of this world with an easy needle full of poison claim to have soft hearts too. And I can well imagine their shedding a public tear while they pack their bags and leave the grieving family with the task, sometimes not entirely unpleasant, of settling the details of the funeral and the disposal of the beloved remains.
If you say that the comparisons are unfair, I ask, “Why are there Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at all?” They have defined themselves by the evil they do, though they do not see it as such, or they do see it, but they choose it anyway. Why should there have been a Ku Klux Klan, if not for terrorizing blacks (and later on, because it is hard to keep the acid of evil contained, Catholics and others)? Why should there be assisters of suicide in the first place?
If you say that the Sisters are harmless, I wonder what world you are living in, or, supposing that you are in possession of ordinary faculties of observation and judgment, how you can live in this one with such ease. Your soft head does not so much astonish me as your hard heart.
In the world I live in, in the nation we share, many millions of children grow up without a married mother and father.
In the world I live in, children and young people have been visited with a plague of sexual confusion which, as to its scope and the madness and the destructiveness of its character, is unprecedented in human history.
In the world I live in, unless they possess a heroic commitment to virtue, most young people will bring to their marriages, if they marry at all, a sorry series of sexual train wrecks, betrayals, and acts of animal indulgence, not boding well for their married future.
In the world I live in, the innocence of children is attacked on all sides, even in places where they should be held safest, such as schools, libraries, and parks.
The Klan gave all they had to prolonging, propagating, and making more profound the evil of racism. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, though they do not, in themselves, possess the sheer numbers that the Klan once boasted, do the like. They exist to prolong, propagate, and make more profound the evils of the Lonely Revolution.
It is easy to oppose racism here and now, when everyone understands and takes for granted that segregation was evil and stupid. What’s hard was to be someone like the novelist and reformer George Washington Cable, who wrote against the habits and feelings of many of his own people in the postbellum South, for the sake of justice and for their own moral and social welfare.
It was easy to oppose sexual vice at the Harvard of the Puritans. What’s hard is to do so at Harvard now, when you know that if you do, you are likely to make your name odious to your fellow students, your professors, and prospective employers.
We may therefore turn Sister Gramick’s words back at her. Why does she have no mercy for the children – in this case, mainly the boys, to whom she seems never to give a second thought – who must be spectators of the fetish? Why does she have no mercy for the many and various victims of a world gone mad with sexual selfishness?
Even if she does not take seriously the many warnings against sexual sin that Scripture sounds, from Genesis through the prophets, from the Gospels to the letters of Paul to Revelation, why is she numb to the vast social and personal harm that it has caused? Why should little children be burdened with broken families, parades of sex interests in and out of their homes, and the lewd and the vile and the chaotic everywhere in public?
And what about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? Where is their mercy? Where is their simple human decency? Someone who actually thinks about other people and their welfare would never do what they do, or appear as they appear, in front of children and young people – and that is quite aside from the thoughtless coarsening of public morals.
But the answer to my question is in plain sight. They want people to see them, especially children and young people. Grooming, enticing, seducing; the message is clear. “Look at us! Aren’t we great? Come join us someday, and have a lot of fun!”
I daresay that Sister Gramick knows very well that that is the message. She does not care. If that message gets to a young person and lures him into that life, she will be ready to cheer. Easiest thing in the world.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2023-06-04 09:42:062023-06-04 09:42:06VIDEO CLIPS: President Donald J. Trump’s Townhall with Sean Hannity
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-04 10:51:462023-06-04 10:51:46VIDEO CLIPS: President Donald J. Trump’s Townhall with Sean Hannity
J6 Unmasked: Silent Capitol Police security footage altered by adding audio from another source during a montage that aired at the select committee’s first primetime hearing last June.
By: John Solomon and Nicholas Ballasy, Just The News, June 2, 2023:
The Democrat-led House Select Committee to Investigate Jan. 6 doctored a key piece of its evidence, adding audio to silent U.S. Capitol Police security footage used to create a dramatic video montage for the opening of its primetime hearings last summer, according to a Just the News review of the original raw footage and interviews.
Farmers in South Dakota are facing egregious intimidation tactics by a private company that wants to use eminent domain to confiscate valuable farmland for carbon-capture pipelines.
Summit Carbon Solutions requested a restraining order against Brown County farmer Jerad Bossly.
The company claims he threatened the lives of its representatives who showed up unannounced to survey his property, a farm that has been in his family for four generations.
He told The New American that when they arrived, he was about 12 miles away, working in a field. His wife was home, recovering from gallbladder surgery, and was taking a shower when the Summit surveyors knocked at her door. They entered the house, but finding no one there, they proceeded to an outbuilding where one of them walked in. In the tweet below you can see footage from one of Bossly’s security cameras, which captured all of this movement.
Next, the Summit staff walked out onto the Bossly’s property and started setting up a tripod. By that time, Mrs. Bossly, with Jerad on the phone, confronted them and asked them to leave. Jerad said that the sheriff should be present if the company wanted access to his land. So the surveyors left.
His wife called Jerad back later that day to say a detective had just left the farm. Summit had reported Bossly for threatening to kill the surveyors. They also charged him with contempt of court for interfering with their survey activities.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-04 10:51:442023-06-04 10:51:44South Dakota Farmers Face Land Theft By Climate Hoaxers
The total number of births in the United States remained flat in 2022 compared to pre-pandemic levels, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC reported 3,661,220 provisional births in the United States in 2022, which is about 3,000 fewer births than in 2021 in what the CDC calls a “nonsignificant decline. The total number of births in 2022 also remained below pre-pandemic levels after the birthrate slightly rebounded in 2021 following the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The number of births in dropped in 2020 from pre-pandemic levels in 2019, when the CDC recorded more than 3.7 million births. In 2020, that number dropped to 3,613,647 births before rebounding slightly in 2021 to 3,664,292 births, according to CDC data.
The CDC noted that the number of births from 2014 to 2020 was declining an average of 2 percent each year, which included a drop of 4 percent from 2019 to 2020. From 2020 to 2021, the birth rate rose about 1 percent, the CDC added.
While the total number of births in the U.S. remained flat from 2021 to 2022, birth rates among teenagers and young women hit a record low in 2022. The birth rate among 15- to 19-year-olds decreased by 3 percent to about 13.5 births per 1,000 women.
The Associated Press leads off this report with the rather milquetoast observation that birth rates in the United States last year “didn’t return to pre-pandemic levels.” That’s true, but it obviously doesn’t tell the entire story. The birth rate in the United States had been steadily declining with only a few exceptions for well over a decade. A very slight increase was recorded in 2021, but it was largely attributed to couples who had decided to postpone pregnancies during the early, uncertain days of the pandemic in 2020 when a significant drop was registered. Over this same decade, there was also a very measurable shift in the demographics of age in terms of who is having children. And all of this could have serious, long-term consequences for the country.
U.S. births were flat last year, as the nation saw fewer babies born than it did before the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Thursday.
Births to moms 35 and older continued to rise, with the highest rates in that age group since the 1960s. But those gains were offset by record-low birth rates to moms in their teens and early 20s, the CDC found. Its report is based on a review of more than 99% of birth certificates issued last year.
A little under 3.7 million babies were born in the U.S. last year, about 3,000 fewer than the year before.
Simply looking at the raw number of successful births doesn’t tell the whole story. The reality is that the average number of births per woman in any society that’s required to maintain a stable population over the long run (known as the replacement rate) is roughly 2.1 births per woman. We have now dropped below 1.7. That’s not quite as bad as what we’re seeing in Japan, which is in the middle of an actual population crisis, but that’s the direction we appear to be heading in.
Since Joe Biden came to office, at least 5 million illegal migrants have been identified crossing the border plus 2 million gotaways. That’s close to the entire population of NYC. And Mayorkas is on TV telling us the border is closed while blaming previous administrations https://t.co/KTmXoaI39N
Don’t worry, folks. The border is “calm”, the New York Times proclaims. America has been invaded by 7.5 million illegal migrants, with numbers soaring exponentially and the Biden administration is congratulated for how “calm” the process is. 😡 😤#Betrayalhttps://t.co/CqgGdGN9z2
In 2021, the Muslim Brotherhood praised Democrats for siding with jihad terrorists against Zionist attacks. Their gratitude wasn’t far fetched. For the first time, Gallup has found this year that “Democrats’ sympathies in Middle East shift to Palestinians.” In fact, the Palestinian “resistance” has become a key element of the Democrat platform.
To reflect that fact, Jill Biden, on her first trip to the region as First Lady, includedJordan, Egypt, and Morocco on her tour agenda, but she snubbed Israel.
The Zionist Organization of America has blasted the Biden Administration’s “phony, dangerous antisemitism strategy” that the ZOA says enables antisemitism.
First Lady Jill Biden plans to avoid Israel during her trip to the Middle East, North Africa, and the Iberian Peninsula.
In a Tuesday thread on Twitter, the president’s wife revealed that she is visiting the Muslim-majority countries “to build on our longstanding partnerships and meet with young people across the region” to discuss the future.
She highlighted attending the wedding of Jordanian King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein’s son, Crown Prince Hussein bin Abdullah, who is set to marry Saudi-born Rajwa Al Saif on June 1 at Zahran Palace.
Jill Biden’s trip will also include Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and Portugal, The Associated Press reported.
“Government to government, people to people, and heart to heart, we will continue to strengthen our relationships in the region and reaffirm our commitment to the future of young people around the world,” the first lady stated….
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-04 10:51:422023-06-04 10:51:42Jill Biden Snubs Israel on First Visit to Middle East as First Lady
The popular fashion magazine Glamour UK is featuring a pregnant woman who identifies as male as a front cover model for its June 2023 edition.
“I’m a pregnant trans man and I do exist. No matter what anyone says, I am literally living proof,” the model, Logan Brown, said in an interview with the magazine.
The cover quickly drew backlash.
“Glamour magazine wants you to believe a man is pregnant….THIS IS A BIOLOGICAL WOMAN THAT IS PREGNANT!!! Men can’t get pregnant ONLY women can!!” radio host Graham Allen wrote on Twitter.
“To be fair, she’s no less attractive than other recent Glamour cover models. Apparently BLM requires that beauty be CANCELED,” political commentator Ann Coulter wrote.
Kaeley Triller, co-founder of the pro-life group Hands Across The Aisle, ridiculed the magazine for denigrating womanhood.
“When ‘trans men’ make the news, it’s usually because they’re doing something womanly, like having babies,” Triller wrote. “A woman chopped her hair off and got pregnant, and this is cover story material.”
Introducing Logan Brown, GLAMOUR’s June Pride cover star ❤️
“I’m a pregnant trans man and I do exist. No matter what anyone says, I’m living proof.”
“Shame on you @GlamourMagUK for mocking women and everything they have to go through during pregnancy!” wrote Oli London, an internet personality who frequently criticizes transgenderism.
Brown became pregnant by her “non-binary” drag queen male partner Bailey Mills, according to Glamour.
“I met Bailey nearly two years ago. We’ve not even been together that long, to be honest,” she said. “That’s why it’s a big shocker that we’re even having a baby together.”
Brown says that when she found out she was pregnant, “all my manlihood that I’ve worked hard for, for so long, just completely felt like it was erased.”
“I had to get to the point of being confident with who I am and being a pregnant man,” Brown added. “I’ve started educating people on it.”
It is impossible to deny how far left all of America’s institutions have shifted in the past few years. Corporate board rooms, the media, sports teams and even the military all chant the same dogma and insist that you comply.
How did that happen? As Ernest Hemingway wrote on how one goes bankrupt, “gradually, then suddenly.” Indeed, our leading institutions face a moral bankruptcy unprecedented in American history.
This could not have happened without the left’s successful “long march through the institutions.” This term, made famous by radical academics in the 1960s, refers to the strategy used by “New Left” students of that era. They aimed to achieve long-term social and and political change by infiltrating and subverting key institutions, particularly the elite universities they often attended.
These radicals were the progenitors of the critical theories that plague our offices and our children’s schools today. They knew these ideas could never be sold democratically to the American public, so they instead sought to disrupt disciplines — sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and cultural studies — that were more amenable to their critical perspectives.
Through their research, teaching, and activism, they eventually came to dominate entire departments or even university leadership. This power was then used to launder their ideology to a new generation of students who would unquestioningly carry it with them into the “real world.”
A new Harvard survey on faculty political leanings reveals that the left’s long march was more successful than they likely ever dreamed. A whopping 75% of Harvard faculty identifies as “liberal” or “very liberal,” while only 2.5% identifies as conservative. A minuscule 0.4 percent identifies as “very conservative.”
Nationally, less than a third of American identify as “liberal” but Harvard and other schools show over 75% professors identify as liberal. That does not happen randomly. It takes a consistent culture of intolerance for opposing viewpoints… https://t.co/6bwWivEFKG
As law professor Jonathon Turley points out, these figures massively overrepresent liberals compared to society overall. Roughly equal portions of Americans identify as conservative or moderate, while only 26% identify as liberal. More Harvard faculty identify as “very liberal” (32%) than Americans overall identify as “liberal.”
The figure is representative across large swathes of American academia. In 1969, one in four college professors was at least moderately conservative. Now, liberals outweigh conservatives on campus by roughly 12 to one.
Yet Harvard’s stark disparity stands out more than the rest because it is the best that American education has to offer — or at least it used to be.
Nevertheless, its name is still intrinsically associated with excellence and prestige that few other universities are accorded. If you are a Harvard graduate, you are likely to impact the highest levels of American power in whichever field you choose to pursue.
That is precisely the point. By capturing the Harvard banner, radical activists then got to decide what constituted excellence and prestige. Their radical ideologies gained the legitimacy associated with the Harvard name and serve as an example for lesser universities to follow. Molded by these new definitions, Harvard graduates carry them out to the world where they shape the halls of power in business, government, and media.
Harvard boasts the most alumni who later became CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. With 41 alumni CEOs, Harvard dwarfs the nearest runner up, the University of Pennsylvania, by almost double.
Harvard also has the largest number of Nobel Prize winners at 161. It boasts the largest number of Supreme Court justices in history, with four Harvard graduates currently on the bench.
Harvard also has the largest number of U.S. military Medal of Honor recipients (18) for any non-military school. This included 8 generals throughout history.
Given this legacy, Harvard will continue to recruit America’s brightest and most ambitious young minds. Many of them are likely pre-existing liberals, but many of them will not be. Blinded by the allure of the Harvard name, they will make themselves vulnerable to the ubiquitous leftism of their professors.
Even those who see what’s happening will likely go along to get along. If they do not bend the knee, all their hard work will be for naught, and their aspirations will crumble beneath them.
Conservatives must accept that the purpose of academia — to foster intellectual curiosity and challenge rigid ways of thinking — no longer exists as we all once imagined. The long march, which occurred gradually over decades, hit suddenly in the Trump era. There is no sign the radicals will allow dissent within Harvard or any other university any time soon.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-03 22:51:292023-06-03 22:51:29The Source Of The Marxist Takeover Of American Institutions Is So Obvious It Hurts
The U.S. Senate passed legislation late Thursday night to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, and the bill is now headed to President Joe Biden’s desk.
The legislation passed with 17 Republicans joining 46 Democrats to suspend the debt ceiling until Jan. 2025. Five Democrats broke with their party. Ahead of the June 5 deadline, the federal government will now avoid a default on its debt.
Here Are The 17 Republicans Who Voted For Unlimited Spending:
Arkansas Sen. John Boozman
West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito
Maine Sen. Susan Collins
Texas Sen. John Cornyn
North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer
Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst
Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley
North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven
Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran
Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski
Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin
Utah Sen. Mitt Romney
South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds
South Dakota Sen. John Thune
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis
Indiana Sen. Todd Young
After passing the legislation, Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who supported the bill, released statements detailing why they voted in favor of the legislation.
“Four months after Speaker McCarthy invited President Biden to begin negotiating a resolution to the looming debt crisis, an important step toward fiscal sanity will finally become law. Thanks to House Republicans’ efforts, the Fiscal Responsibility Act avoids the catastrophic consequences of default and begins to curb Washington Democrats’ addiction to reckless spending that grows our nation’s debt.”
On the Senate floor, Sen. Cornyn said, “This bill will reduce federal spending by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, which is a strong start in the fight to right America’s financial ship.”
However, Republicans who voted against raising the nation’s debt ceiling, such as Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz had different tones.
“On the debt ceiling, my view is the most important deficit we face is the trade deficit with China. Every dollar represents jobs lost (60k & counting in Missouri), industry lost, communities decimated. We’ve got to quit making China rich & get good blue-collar jobs back in USA. This deal doesn’t do that. So I’m a no,” Hawley, who voted against the legislation, said in a statement Thursday.
Cruz said: “While there were some good elements to this deal, such as reclaiming some unspent Covid-19 funds, there were a lot of elements that were disappointing. I’m upset this agreement did not cut more, and I’m frustrated this agreement adds a lot to the debt in exchange for relatively few spending cuts.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-03 22:51:282023-06-03 22:51:28Here Are The 17 GOP Senators Who Voted For Unlimited Spending
If you thought election interference was bad in 2016 and 2020, just wait.
In free societies, you just read the newspaper. In unfree ones, you understand that the meaning of one story can only be found by cross-cutting it with a seemingly unrelated story.
Sheer coincidence. And if you think it’s not, you’re a conspiracy theorist, election denier, DOJ denier and a spreader of disinformation who also needs to be investigated by the DOJ.
While the Biden admin and the Dems have mixed feelings about Manchin, they really don’t want to lose the WV Senate seat especially since, unlike Georgia, they’re not just going to be able to get it back by focusing on demographics and minority voter turnout. And that seat would prove to be quite crucial in holding on to the Senate.
What will the Biden administration and the hand inside the puppets do to hang on to it? You’re getting a taste of it.
If you thought election interference was bad in 2016 and 2020, hang on to your horses, this is going to be the big one. If the Dems can stay in power, they will transform the country. If they lose power, no one in the DOJ will actually go to jail, but some of those folks start to take the “lock ’em up” rhetoric seriously in no small part because they may not say “lock ’em up”, but they do mean it. So expect lots of investigations and the sheer operational power of their machine unleashing not just ballot harvesters but FBI agents and everyone willing to do their dirty deeds for them in exchange for a government job.
Nice life you have here, would be a real shame if something were to happen to it.
#Antifa and supporters of children’s pride events retreated following a fight outside Saticoy Elementary in Los Angeles. Mostly Armenian-American families gathered to protest the school’s pride celebrations. pic.twitter.com/bUTSYgpRLB
Republicans, snatching defeat from the arms of victory.
Are you confused about why our government can not come up with clear policies? Why no one takes responsibility for their actions? Why there is a lack of COMMON SENSE? Lack of clarity? Why all the bills are designed to make the middle class poorer.
Policies that fail to make sense but are expensive? Why Americans are ignored? Why America is ignored? Why Americans are made to feel guilty about hard work ethics? Why reading and math skills are lacking? Why is American Patriotism demonized?
This indoctrination in our schools, about 3 generations worth, instills total reliance on the government with individuals incapable of making decisions. They can only make choices of the “choices” provided by their government.
Is the new parental choice bill in Florida merely a device to monitor and control those taking the scholarship money? Our money. Common Core Standards (CCS) accomplished their goal. The Globalist, elite, evil thieves need a constant flow of bodies for trained workers. Global citizen to become the workforce. The purpose of education is: To confuse, so the child will only be capable of pressing an APP for answers. Ignorant people require less of their government. The government becomes the “NANNY STATE”, taking care of…and CONTROLLING… the ignorant populace!
How did this happen? “Why are our elected officials allowing the Destruction of America?”
The answer is simple: “THIS IS WHAT IS LEARNED IN SCHOOL.”
As Abe Lincoln said, “Whatever is learned in school today – is in government tomorrow.”
So what do our students learn? America is not special. Eliminate borders. Bye, bye, America. Americans are Evil. Evil Americans caused all of the world ills and must pay for those ills. Families are evil; It is Ok to kill, do drugs, be perverted, government public school instills American guilt complex. Therefore, America must be destroyed and replaced with a New World Order – with a One-World Government, controlled by the Communist, Totalitarian United Nations.
Paid by the American people.
There are no truths, only values made up as needed by your government. A Sacred cow is created that can become the victim who will find other victims. A non-profit NGO is formed. Donations are collected. Once the cash” donations” begin to dwindle, a new sacred cow is born. Tug that heart. Whatever group is the flavor of the month gets the attention for fundraising. You have been taught you are only as good as the group you belonged to. You are only one individual, your voice doesn’t count. You, alone, cannot make a difference. You must become the group, your new family. Everything you do is now for the good of the group. for the sake of the group…for FAIRNESS, for SOCIAL JUSTICE. We must save American democracy!
We are watching the destruction of America. We can fight back. Start off by complimenting the 71 (R) Representatives and the 31 (R) Senators who voted against giving the democrats a blank check to implements O’Biden’s green programs. The only thing that we gained from that irresponsible debt limit bill is McCarthy and the other RINOS showed us who they are. They MUST GO. They chose their donors over you. We must fight back. Go to your AG if crimes we committed in your state sue them. Sue the Department of Education for destroying our children and pushing gender change and mutilation as normal. Know your enemy. They are afraid of us getting together acting as one is their biggest fear. More boycotts. Money is all they understand. They are sick evil people and want to own and control everything you own. We were winning. They lie.
It is time for us to stop “doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. We all knew eventually Kevin and Ronna would screw us. Kevin gave the debt ceiling away with nothing in return. He gave the Marxists a blank check for 2 years. Ronna is refusing to help Grassroots organize recruiting campaigns. Stop giving the RNC money.
Our boycotts work. Bud, Target, Sales down. Retail stores sales down. Sadly we have more to add Chick-fil-A for they have gone woke. Also add Northface, Kohls and Petsmart to your list. If you want our patriots shopping list to see for yourself where these corporations give there money to ask us! 561-301-1601. Vote with our Fingers in November and with your wallet all year long. FYI: Northface, who protests against oil sells polyester clothes. We are suffering from affirmative action.
Get with your legislators to get us out of the WHO (UN communist World Health Organization). Remind them of the Supremacy clause. The Federal government has no standing. NO treaty or whatever they want to call it is supreme over the Constitution. If we allow this to happen, we will never have a fair election and we ill lose all our rights. We will always be under the UN with some emergency like: climate emergency, pandemics, race/hatred emergency. And to make it better the WHO determines what is an emergency. when to call it. The their protocol which is usually wrong must be followed.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-03 11:51:142023-06-03 11:51:14Everything is Connected; Nothing is Random; Everything is Planned; All Plans are Based on Lies
April 19, 2023, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. formally announced his 2024 Democratic presidential campaign. Early polls show he’s got nearly 20% of the Democratic vote
Democratic Party officials are doing everything they can to avoid public debates, and their media allies are not giving Kennedy the opportunity to share his views either
May 17, 2023, Krystal Ball, cohost of the online show “Breaking Point,” interviewed Kennedy. According to Ball, Kennedy’s “vaccine skepticism” and “antivaccine advocacy” is a “red line” that disqualifies him from holding the highest office
She repeatedly interrupted Kennedy with Big Pharma talking points — putting her own ignorance on public display — and didn’t allow him to answer her questions. Kennedy asked her to show him where he got things wrong many times, and she deflected with broad generalities
Several journalists and political commentators, including Jimmy Dore, Viva Frei, Kim Iversen and Glenn Greenwald have critiqued Ball’s attempted smear. In the end, the only one who looked bad was Ball herself
April 19, 2023, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. formally announced his 2024 Democratic presidential campaign.1 Early polls show he’s got nearly 20% of the Democratic vote. Unfortunately, Democrat Party officials are doing everything they can to avoid public debates, and their media allies seem hellbent on not giving Kennedy the opportunity to share his views either.
May 17, 2023, Krystal Ball, cohost of the online show “Breaking Point,” interviewed Kennedy,2,3 or perhaps more accurately, debated him herself. Ball told Kennedy she disagrees with his views on vaccines, and claimed Democratic voters by and large share her opposition. According to Ball, Kennedy’s “vaccine skepticism” and “antivaccine advocacy” is a “red line” that disqualifies him from holding the highest office.
Antiscientific Shilling for Big Pharma
In the video playlist above, comedian Jimmy Dore of “The Jimmy Dore Show” dissects Ball’s hatchet job of an interview, pointing out Ball’s “poor journalism, rudeness and irresponsible, antiscientific shilling for corporate interests.”
She repeatedly interrupted Kennedy with Big Pharma talking points — putting her own ignorance on public display — and didn’t allow him to answer her questions. Kennedy asked her to show him where he got things wrong many times, and she deflected with broad generalities.
When Kennedy pointed out that countries with the lowest COVID jab rates had far lower COVID cases and mortality, Ball insisted that there were “many other factors” that played into that, such as the high rate of obesity in America, and the fact that we don’t spend as much time outside in the sun as people in Africa.
Never mind the fact that obesity and sun exposure recommendations were never part of the COVID response. Not only did U.S. health authorities not offer any guidance on reducing obesity, but they closed parks and beaches and told everyone to spend as little time outdoors as possible.
The only solution they provided was the “vaccine.” If it worked, we ought to have far better outcomes than countries like Africa that didn’t follow our COVID response guidelines, like staying indoors and getting jabbed multiple times. But we didn’t.
Basically, Ball is admitting — seemingly without realizing it — that factors such as obesity and sun exposure were more important than the jab, because places with lower obesity rates and greater sun exposure fared better even with low jab rates.
Shocker: Ball ‘Hasn’t Seen’ Key Data
Perhaps most shocking of all, when Kennedy points out that we now have data4,5,6 showing that the effectiveness of the COVID shots rapidly wanes and becomes negative after six or seven months, so that you’re then MORE likely to get COVID, she says she “hasn’t seen that!”
How could she possibly have missed it? That by itself tells you she doesn’t know anything beyond what the Big Pharma PR departments have told her.
One consolation here is that the original “Breaking Points” video7 on YouTube only has 288,768 views as of this writing, whereas Dore’s critique of her smear job, posted the following day, has over 524,000 YouTube views.8 “Breaking Points” also lost about 4,000 subscribers in the days following this seriously botched interview.
Interestingly, many of “Breaking Points”’ own subscribers were also sorely critical of her performance. In fact, one day after the video aired, 79% of viewers had given it a thumbs-down. So, perhaps her pro-vaccine, pro-pharma stance isn’t as popular as she thinks.
Conflict of Interest at Play?
Dore also points out that Ball has an interesting conflict of interest that makes this attempted smear job look all the worse. It turns out she’s very close to another Democratic candidate running for president, Marianne Williamson. In fact, Williamson officiated Ball’s wedding.
Did Ball focus on the vaccine issue rather than allowing Kennedy to present a broader view of his platform in the hopes that voters will be attracted to Williamson instead? Would Ball challenge — and dismiss — Williamson in the same way, even though Williamson has very similar concerns about Big Pharma and vaccines as Kennedy does?
What’s more, as noted by Kim Iversen in the video below, Ball supported lockdowns during the pandemic and never informed her viewers that she was making money from long-distance education.
To her credit, Ball did list two vaccine studies in defense of her position below her interview with Kennedy, as well as one study provided by Kennedy’s team, saying people could read them and make up their own mind. Well, Kim Iversen, a former host of “Rising” who now has her own online show, did just that.
In the video above, Iversen reviews the evidence presented by both parties. The first piece of evidence Ball would like you to review is a mathematical modeling study9 of the global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination. According to this mathematical model, the mass injection campaign prevented 14.4 million deaths across 185 countries between December 2020 and December 2021.
Three of the funding sources for this paper were directly from Bill Gates through his foundations, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI and the World Health Organization for whom he is also the primary funder. On top of that, Gates also has significant influence over the National Institutes of Health,10 which is another funder of this paper.
The second paper Ball thought was crucial was a Stanford paper11 published in June 2022 that found getting the COVID jab after having the infection provided additional protection. Here, one of the researchers has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron and Serimmune, and five are employees of an institution that manufactures the COVID-19 vaccine.
Kennedy provided a Cleveland Clinic paper12,13 published April 19, 2023, which found that vaccine effectiveness varied from a low of 4% to a high of 29% depending on the dominant variant in circulation, and that the risk of contracting COVID increased with time since the last shot and rose with the number of doses received. The funding for this research? None. Hence no conflicts of interest. The Cleveland Clinic simply compiled and analyzed its own employee data.
‘Breaking Point’ Is Establishment Media
While “Breaking Points” is advertised as anti-establishment news, Ball’s interview with Kennedy is but one of the latest examples of why that’s not true. As noted in the Viva Frei video above (Canadian lawyer David Freiheit posts YouTube interviews under the pseudonym Viva Frei), every time “the rubber hits the road,” every time the stakes are high, “Breaking Points” stands with the corporate establishment and parrots the official narrative.
So, the “anti-establishment” façade is just that. A façade. And in her interview with Kennedy, that became really apparent. Not everyone will agree with Viva Frei on this point though.
Independent investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald (see video below), while disagreeing with Ball’s handling of the interview, stresses that he respects her journalism. Yet Greenwald also makes the case that Ball’s “red line” argument is one that is only employed by establishment figures against those who are anti-establishment.
So, he basically makes a similar point as Viva Frei. He just gives Ball the benefit of the doubt and assumes she’s been unwittingly and sort of unconsciously influenced by establishment propaganda, as opposed to being part of it.
What Views Count as Disqualifying?
In his May 18, 2023, System Update episode (above), Greenwald commented:
“I’ve long been interested in, and I’ve often written about, the idea that once a politician adopts a view that is so disagreeable that it renders them completely off limits from consideration for support, they almost get put into this camp of being crazy or a conspiracy theorist, or people just too unhinged to even consider supporting, no matter how much agreement one might have with them.
I first observed this dynamic in the 2012 election … Why was Ron Paul’s pro-life position a ‘red line’ but Obama’s support for the drug war or his view that he had the right to assassinate American citizens using drones — all with no due process … the embodiment of extremism and radicalism — why was that not a ‘red line’? How was that determined? …
Given that the same argument has arisen in the context of RFK Jr’s challenge to Biden, to argue that RFK is off limits but Joe Biden, chief advocate of the war in Iraq, chief architect of the U.S. prison state, an ardent supporter of the drug war, that he, Joe Biden … has not crossed any red lines, I think is really worth exploring.
How are certain politicians declared disqualified, and whose interests are served by this framework, and specifically, who gets called crazy in our political discourse and why? [C]alling them crazy or declaring them too strange, too unhinged and too bizarre is … only wielded by the establishment against critics of the establishment.
In other words, establishment figures have all the space in the world to endorse the most deranged, the most unhinged, the craziest policies but as long as you’re in alignment with establishment orthodoxy, you will never be declared crazy, no matter how crazy those ideas are.
This is a tactic reserved only for those who question prevailing establishment orthodoxy … It’s a very potent and pervasive form of propaganda that requires our constant vigilance.
If we let our guard down at all, we’re all susceptible to being influenced by that … I think analyzing how this tactic is wielded, and how it manifested here, is of the utmost importance.”
Laymen Should Leave the Debating to Experts
Like Dore, Greenwald goes on to review several clips from Ball’s interview with Kennedy, followed by his own take on the exchanges. Here are select parts of Greenwald’s commentary in which I think he makes some valuable points:
“First of all, you can see that Krystal is explicitly acknowledging that she doesn’t have the same level of information and knowledge, she hasn’t devoted anywhere near the amount of time to this question as RFK, Jr. and for that reason, she’s explicitly saying, ‘I don’t want to actually engage with you on the merits.’
She keeps trying to switch the question to a political or punditry question of, well, look, right or wrong, there are a lot of Democratic voters out there who share my views, who think you’re wrong on vaccines. How do you intend to persuade them?
But he wants, rightly so, after having been accused of being wrong … to hear what the basis is for her view that he’s wrong, He wants to engage the substantive debate — that’s part of why he’s running.
And he goes on to say, after listening to her try and make the case, that she’s parroting establishment outlets, that she’s parroting what the health establishment and what health policy officials have just repeated over and over, to the point that I think even well-intentioned people like Krystal start absorbing it to be true. And this is what I think is such an important point.
In order to have a public platform where you opine strongly on vital issues, like whether the benefits of vaccines have been oversold, whether their harms and risks have been minimized and concealed, I really think you have an obligation to have that opinion be steeped in some very in-depth knowledge …
And so, if you’re going to come and tell Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to his face that he’s not only wrong when it comes to vaccine skepticism, but is so wrong that it’s crossed over this red line, then I think you have the obligation to be prepared to engage on the merits and to construct an argument …
He spent years working on this. Remember, RFK, Jr. was for 20 years or so a very widely regarded environmental activist working on issues of harmful waste by corporations and toxic dumping. He’s a very serious person. He is not some extremist or marginalized figure who just emerged out of the blue and started … talking about vaccines.
This is a very deeply developed view, which does not mean I agree with it. I don’t have the knowledge to agree with it or not. But what I know is this: health officials in the United States and in the West were proven to be not just wrong, but dishonest, repeatedly, throughout the COVID [pandemic] …
We also know that all kinds of claims about the Pfizer vaccine and other vaccines were false to the point of being just deceitful. There are famous clips of people they send to propagandize the public, Rachel Maddow and others, even Dr. Fauci himself, saying that the vaccine prevents transmission … something that turned out to be a complete lie …
So, whether I’m persuaded or not by what RFK, Jr. has to say about vaccines … I know for sure we benefit from having these questions debated. That’s the reason the DNC wants to pretend RFK, Jr. doesn’t exist.
They’re petrified of him for reminding Americans not only of how much we were deceived on almost every aspect of the COVID pandemic, including the vaccines, but how much damage it has done from all the policies that we enacted based on these false claims …
So, at the very least, I think that if you have a public platform, you have a responsibility to encourage and … foster debate on these most critical questions, especially when it comes from highly informed people who are challenging and dissenting from establishment orthodoxy, especially on debates where they have been proven over and over to lie and to be proven wrong.
So, Krystal Ball has every right to insist that she disagrees with RFK’s skepticism on vaccines, but … it’s a big jump to say I’m going to use the privilege and the responsibility I have with my public platform to opine on issues that I really haven’t done the work necessary to have a reliable opinion on.
I think the only default position there — if you’re going to comment on those issues without the sufficient knowledge — is to encourage skepticism. To say, I want to hear these debates. We need more transparency and [the] right to have these questions raised, rather than telling somebody that they’re not only wrong but so wrong that they’ve crossed a ‘red line.’
Which is completely in alignment with what the DNC is trying to do — to say that both Marianne Williamson and RFK, Jr. don’t even deserve to be heard, they don’t even deserve to be considered primary opponents to Joe Biden.
If you ask a DNC official, they’ll say it’s already done. Biden has no primary challenger; he’s our nominee, without a single vote being cast, without any debate being held, precisely because their strategy is to encourage people to believe that RFK, Jr. is … so wrong that no matter how much else you might like him on other issues … he shouldn’t be someone that you’re willing to get near; he crossed a red line.
This is the establishment tactic that I think Krystal Ball, in this case … [has] propagated … [H]ours of work on a question this complex is nowhere near enough to opine that emphatically, and to tell someone they’re off limits, that they’ve crossed a red line. So … I think it’s … illustrative of how this propaganda tactic functions, often implicitly.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-06-03 11:51:132023-06-03 11:51:13VIDEO: How the Media Hopes to Silence RFK Jr.
