Georgia Governor Orders Probe Into ‘sloppy’ November 2020 Vote Counts in Fulton County thumbnail

Georgia Governor Orders Probe Into ‘sloppy’ November 2020 Vote Counts in Fulton County

By John Solomon

Brian Kemp says some audited results from state’s largest county are “inconsistent” and erroneous. One count of 950 votes for Biden actually appears to be just 92.

In a rare act for a state chief executive, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp has referred the audited November 2020 election results in the state’s largest voting metropolis to the State Election Board after multiple reviews found significant problems with absentee ballot counting that included duplicate tallies, math errors and transposed data.

Kemp referred Fulton County’s risk-limiting audit results this week to election regulators, saying he was not asking for any changes to the declaration that Joe Biden beat Donald Trump but was alarmed by the level of sloppy vote counting in the county that includes the city of Atlanta.

The errors could have skewed the audit totals reported to the state by several thousand votes, according to a 36-item summary Kemp included with his letter. Biden was declared the state’s winner by about 12,000 votes.

“The data that exists in public view on the Secretary of State’s website of the RLA Report does not inspire confidence,” he wrote in his referral letter. “It is sloppy, inconsistent, and presents questions about what processes were used by Fulton County to arrive at the result.”

Kemp’s referral comes several months after a Just the News investigative report first raised questions about the audited election tallies Fulton County reported to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office after conducting a hand count known a risk-limiting audit.

Just the News reported the tally sheets Fulton County used for the audit/recount absentee ballots did not match totals from ballot images, in some cases appeared to include duplicate counts, and used batch numbers that did not correspond to existing ballot stacks.

A separate review conducted by Georgia lawyer Bob Cheeley, likewise, found irregularities this summer.

The referral to the State Elections Board is likely to add fuel to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s push to place Fulton County elections into state receivership, meaning state officials and not county workers would supervise the next few elections.                   

Kemp wrote he first learned of the problems when a Georgia citizen named Joseph Rossi compared the audit tally sheets to ballot images, and found similar problems as those enumerated in the Just the News article.

Rossi recently referred his concerns to Kemp’s office, which did a similar analysis and confirmed there appeared to be serious errors in the final audited tallies Fulton County reported to the state.

Kemp’s referral letter identified numerous instances in which batches of absentee ballots appeared to have been counted twice.

For instance, one batch of ballots that awarded 93 votes to Biden and just four for Trump “appears to be duplicated” on the final report to the state, the letter said….

*****

Continuer reading this article, published November 19, 2021, at Just the News.

Why Should Academic Departments Have Foreign Policies? thumbnail

Why Should Academic Departments Have Foreign Policies?

By Robert Spencer

When did academic departments decide they had to declare themselves on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute but on no other foreign policy question? And why are they so eager to express their visceral hatred of the Jewish state? A report on this disturbing phenomenon is here: “Academic departments must steer clear of anti-Israel activism,” by Richard L. Cravatts, Israel Hayom, November 12, 2021:

The obsessive loathing of Israel by large swathes of academia was evident this past spring as Hamas showered Israeli population centers with more than 4,000 rockets and mortars. Instead of denouncing genocidal aggression on the part of Hamas, these woke, virtue-signaling moral narcissists took it upon themselves to condemn – in the loudest and most condemnatory terms — the Jewish state, not the homicidal psychopaths intent on murdering Jews….

There is a difference between an individual expressing an opinion on, say, social media. That opinion is his alone. No pressure has been placed on him to express it. But when academic departments put out what are presented as that department’s — presumably unanimous — opinion, those who may not agree with the majority seldom dare to express their minority opinion in the daggers-drawn atmosphere of current academic life, where dissent is only for the tenured, and even they must be very brave, to express solidarity with, or sympathy for, the embattled Jewish state that has been so demonized in the swamps of academe.

At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Cary Nelson, former president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and professor emeritus of English, challenged the propriety of departments authoring statements of support for the Palestinian cause while vilifying and denouncing Israel in the process. Four academic units at Illinois had issued anti-Israel statements in the spring – the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Asian American Studies, and the Department of History – prompting Nelson and 43 of his fellow faculty to write a letter to Chancellor Robert Jones and Provost Andreas Cangellaris.

In that letter, the faculty noted that “the statements in question were not issued by individual faculty or groups of faculty. They were subscribed to by departments … [and] have been placed on websites and disseminated through social media and email, which created the impression that the unit was speaking for all or most of the faculty within it. This represents a worrisome development. And it is worrisome irrespective of one’s views on the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.”…

These “departmental opinions” are the result of an atmosphere of intellectual intimidation, with those not subscribing to the majority view nonetheless being “spoken for.” Did absolutely every faculty member, for example, in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, agree that Israel is an arch-villain? Or was such an opinion presented by a handful of anti-Israel activists, without the agreement or even, possibly, the knowledge, of all of that department’s members? Did the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies decide, as in the Soviet Union, that “for the good of the Party” no dissent could be allowed and simply rode roughshod over those who dared to even mildly disagree with the kind of hysterical language that is used to blacken Israel’s image? And did the members of that same department not know, or not care, that it is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience”? It is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their menfolk, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often receive no punishment at all. It is Israel that guarantees the legal equality of men and women, and it is the Palestinians who violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it rages against those who defend their rights.

Academic life is supposed to be dedicated, among other things, to the pursuit of the truth. Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife, professors have the great privilege of time – time to investigate matters of interest to them, time to weigh competing claims, time to analyze, to praise and to blame. The May conflict was only a few days old when academic departments issued their summary judgments against Israel. There is a rush to judgment when it comes to Israel. What led these departments to think they had to express the “department’s” opinion, instead of letting individual faculty members have their say, or if they wished, choose to say nothing at all? Why this insensate urge to force a false consensus, through veiled threats of retribution if someone fails to toe the anti-Israel line – threats that too often are successful? Those who disagree with the consensus find it more prudent to simply remain silent, rather than make enemies of fellow members of the department. For non-tenured faculty, it’s obvious why such a choice is made. But even tenured faculty may want to keep their heads down, avoid trouble, concentrate on their own work, and hope that the madness passes.

For academic departments to pronounce with such authority, on things they know so little, or nothing, about, is intolerable. Academics who have no special knowledge of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict presume that their opinions deserve special respect. They should be heeded simply because they are professors, no matter how distant their field may be from what they pontificate about. As an example, let’s look at how four departments at the University of Illinois presented what we were to assume were the collective views of its members.

Let’s start with the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois, which denounces Israel in hysterical terms, charging it with the “illegal occupation of Palestinian land”; a “siege, indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza”; “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people”; and, echoing the venomous blood libel promoted by Rutgers professor Jasbir Puar, among others, the “deliberate maiming of Palestinian bodies.”

First, there is no “illegal occupation of Palestinian land.” Israel, in a war of self-defense started in May by Gamal Abdel Nasser, won by force of arms both Gaza and Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank). The victory in the Six-Day War did not create Israel’s claim to these territories, but allowed it to exercise its preexisting claim. Israel has a right, under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, to establish “close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land? All the land from the Golan in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean in the west – the land that the League of Nations intended to be part of the future Jewish National Home. Have these professors of urban planning read the Mandate for Palestine? The San Remo Treaty? Article 80 of the U.N. Charter? U.N. Security Council Resolution 242? Don’t be silly.

Israel gave up Gaza in 2005, pulling out all 8,500 Israelis who had been living the Strip. There is no “siege” of Gaza, as the Department of Urban Planning at the University of Illinois insists. Electricity, water, and natural gas are all supplied by Israel to the people of Gaza. There is no attempt to keep out any medicines or food. There is a blockade, but that is on goods that can be used by the terror group Hamas, which has run Gaza since 2007, in attacks on Israel. Thus, the supplies allowed into Gaza of some building materials, such as cement, are limited. For they are deemed to be “dual-use” materials, because they can be used innocuously to build apartments, but can also be used to build such things as emplacements for rocket launchers and terror tunnels.

There are no “indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza.” Israeli pilots pinpoint their targets; there is no carpet bombing. Hamas places its weapons, its rocket launchers, its command-and-control centers, in or next to schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, even mosques. Israel tries very hard to minimize civilian casualties. When a target has been chosen, the Israelis warn inhabitants to leave the building, through various means – telephoning, leafletting, emailing, and use of the “knock-on-the-roof” technique. Ordinarily the Palestinians have between 15 minutes and two hours to leave. There have been no “massacres in Gaza.” In the 11-day conflict this past May, of the 260 Palestinians killed, 225 of them were determined, through the tracking of death notices, to have been Hamas fighters; 25 of them were senior commanders of the terror group. Only a few dozen of those killed could have been civilians. And there were no reports of any “massacres.” The professors in the Department of Urban Planning were simply throwing in Israel’s direction whatever grotesque charges they could fabricate against the Jewish state, counting on some of it to stick.

Similarly, there has been no “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people.” The IDF, as British Colonel Richard Kemp has noted, is the “most moral army in the world.” It makes heroic efforts to protect civilian lives through every possible method of warning inhabitants in or near buildings soon to be hit. Israeli pilots have been known to call off their mission if they spot children too near to the target; this happened several times during the May war.

Let’s look at the less extreme statement of the History Department at the same university.

The Executive Committee of the Department of History issued a briefer statement by email that condemned “the state violence that the Israeli government and its security forces have been carrying out in Gaza” and “standing in solidarity with Palestine and support for the struggle for Palestinian liberation” – “liberation” being a euphemism for the Middle East without Israel and free of Jewish sovereignty on Muslim land.

The statement was put out in an email, as if all members of the History Department agreed to its contents. By what right did the “Executive Committee” presume to speak for the whole department? And why does it describe as Israeli “state violence” a war that began on May 10, when Hamas launched hundreds of rockets at civilian areas of Israel, and Israel did what any nation-state would do – it fought back in defense of its people, hitting in response Hamas rockets, rocket launchers, command-and-control centers, fighters, and a network of terror tunnels? What should Israel have done? Simply let those 4,500 rockets that Hamas flung toward Israeli cities such as Ashdod and Ashkelon land without trying to hit back, in self-defense, at Hamas – its weapons depots, its rocket launchers, its fighters – so that it could no longer launch those rockets? Why is this self-defense described as “state violence”? Would America have done differently?

As for that claim of “standing in solidarity with Palestine , and support or the struggle for Palestinian liberation,” as Richard Cravatts, correctly notes, that is code for the replacement of Israel, “from the river to the sea,” by a Palestinian state. That’s what the History Department’s members – all of them – are made to seemingly endorse. How many of them are happy with that?

Immersed in the ideology of multiculturalism and the intersectionality of oppression, the Department of Asian American Studies condemned “the ongoing 73 years of settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people” and “the exploitation, theft and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine. To this, we say no more.”

According to the Department of Asian-American Studies, then, since its very founding in 1948, Israel has been engaged in “settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people.” But there were no “settlers” in 1948, or 1958, or 1968. There was “violence” in 1948, but it was the violence started by five Arab armies that attacked the Jewish state on May 15, 1948, ignoring Israel’s offer of peace, as they tried to snuff out the young life of the nascent state of Israel. Israel was fighting for its survival, as it would have to again do so in the wars of 1967 and 1973. Those people denounced as “settler-colonials” in 1948 consisted of the following: Jews whose families had been living uninterruptedly in the Land of Israel for centuries; Zionist pioneers who had, beginning in about 1900, been making aliyah, buying land from Arab and Turkish landowners and settling on it; Jews who had fled Arab lands where they had lived for centuries, with many more of them –some 850,000 in all – fleeing in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with most of them choosing to settle in Israel; Jews who had managed to escape from Europe just before World War II; Jews who had survived the Nazis and arrived in Israel from DP camps after the war. These were the people, so many of them survivors of terrible ordeals in Europe and in Arab lands, who are now being denounced by this all-knowing “Department of Asian-American Studies” in Illinois as “settler-colonials,” for managing to find refuge in what would become, in 1948, the tiny Jewish state, and then for helping to rebuild that ancient Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel.

Another point to consider: the Asian-American Studies Department statement includes this: “the exploitation, theft, and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine.” So, we are told, this “exploitation, theft, and colonization” by Jews goes on everywhere, including Palestine. Isn’t this a statement that would not be out of place in Mein Kampf?

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies signed a statement, “Gender Studies Departments in Solidarity with Palestinian Feminist Collective,” along with some 100 other gender-studies departments. With the characteristic pseudo-intellectual babble that currently dilutes the scholarly relevance of the social sciences and humanities, the “solidarity statement” pretentiously announced that “as gender-studies departments in the United States, we are the proud benefactors of decades of feminist anti-racist, and anti-colonial activism that informs the foundation of our interdiscipline” [sic] and that “‘Palestine is a Feminist Issue.’”…

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies asserts that “Palestine is a Feminist Issue.” And so it is, but not in the way the good professors in the department seem to think. To repeat what I wrote yesterday on the subject: It is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience,” it is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their husbands, fathers, brothers, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often, receive no punishment at all. It Is the Palestinians who enforce dress codes on “their women,” who value the testimony of females as half that of males; who have girls and women inherit half what a male inherits. Israel, by contrast, guarantees the legal and social equality of men and women, while the Palestinians violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it inveighs against those who defend their rights.

Three points suggest themselves:

First, let every man and woman speak for himself or herself. Don’t force people into letting their Department speak for them. Not even professors should be made to suffer that.

Second, academics, like cobblers, should stick to their last.

Third, “whereof we do not know, thereof we should not speak.”

Come to think of it, the third point is really just the second one, expressed less succinctly. But it bears repetition.

COLUMN BY

HUGH FITZGERALD

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Labour MP claims Muslims are ‘suffering racial hatred’ after Liverpool jihad suicide bombing

Austria: Muslima had hundreds of images of ‘executions of unbelievers,’ wanted to sacrifice her life for ISIS

Nigeria: Muslims have murdered over 137,000 people in Benue state

France: Muslim prisoner screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ stabs two guards

Austria: Public broadcaster deletes report on persecution of Christians and Jews in Europe, without explanation

UN envoy: Taliban ‘unable to stem’ Islamic State growth as it spreads to ‘nearly all’ Afghan provinces

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

The Chinese Communist Who Understands America thumbnail

The Chinese Communist Who Understands America

By Habi Zang

There is a book about America whose author’s identity is as important to Washington, DC as the insights contained in its pages: America Against America, written by Wang Huning in 1989.

Few American intellectuals or politicians know of Wang Huning, notwithstanding that Wang is in charge of China’s propaganda and education, sitting on the fifth seat in the 19th Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Few, therefore, know that Wang has been the center of conversation among overseas Chinese dissidents who colloquially refer to Xi Jinping’s second term as the “Xi-Wang regime”; or that Wang is the brain behind Xi Jinping (2012-) and perhaps also his predecessors Jiang Zemin (1989–2002) and Hu Jintao (2002–12).

Right after Xi assumed office, I noticed something out of the ordinary in China’s political landscape. Almost overnight, the catchy phrase “Chinese Dream,” a rip-off of the term “American Dream,” flooded television, newspapers, the internet, and campuses. Though I cringed to see Xi fumbling through his first formal speech on the Chinese Dream, the way the propaganda apparatus marketed the insipid and seemingly exotic concept made me suspect that some people within that opaque power center must understand Western democracy in general and America in particular.

It is worth noting that though it is Wang’s most famous book, copies are no longer available on Amazon or China’s counterparts such as Taobao, JD.com, or Dangdang. No official English translation is offered. Indeed, the book is as mysterious as its author. One can, however, find an electronic scanned pdf version online.

Democracy in America

In August 1988, Wang—then a professor of international politics at Fudan University, one of the top ten universities in China—embarked on a six-month visit to the U.S. under the auspices of the American Political Science Association. Wang visited 30-plus cities, some 20 universities, and dozens of governmental organizations. He conversed with numerous Americans and foreigners alike. In substantive ways, Wang’s 1988 visit is reminiscent of Tocqueville’s travels in America a century and a half earlier.

Like Tocqueville, Wang’s trip culminated in a book that offers a panoramic view of America, as “a history, a culture, a nation, and a set of systems.” The America Wang depicted is meant to be nothing like the “dogmatic stereotypes” that its partisan antagonists or adherents in China used to peddle. To better understand socialism, we ought to better understand capitalism, notes Wang. America is his case study that allows him to explore “China’s path to power and prosperity.” But Wang also understands that the American polity is a unique product of what he calls “historical-socio-cultural” dynamics.

America fascinated—but did not tempt or intimidate—the young professor (then 33 years old) who spent his teenage years reading foreign literary classics while others (such as Xi) were “sent down to the countryside” during the Cultural Revolution. Wang had been an immensely prolific writer whose work ranged from political theory to political economy and political culture.

America Against America is a very apt title, as it conveys Wang’s overarching impression of a country that he calls “the America phenomenon.” As with “the China phenomenon,” it stands out in the 20th century. To the dispassionate and perceptive academic, America is a paradox, defined by its conflicts and contradictions.

One revealing example that piques Wang’s interest is the eternal tension—or even conflict—between freedom and equality, the two pillars of the American creed. Wang notes freedom is an “elastic” concept, subject to “various interpretations and usages,” driven by “different interests,” whereas equality is “more bounded.” Equality of conditions, when intertwined with freedom, will essentially lead to inequality in outcomes. What the Western (democratic) system guarantees can only be political equality, not economic or social.

The mainstream value, Wang concluded, was freedom. Wang writes, “in an age when individualism prevails, the value of equality can hardly dominate.” This statement runs contrary to the real 21st-century America where advocacy of equality has transmogrified over the past two decades into the demand for equity. This transformation happened in a society where atomized individuals were aggressively severing their bonds to traditions, cultural inheritance, family, and now even biology.

Though Wang did not fully grasp the relations among individualism, liberalism, freedom, and equality, his worry about individualism, which reached a climax in the last chapter entitled The Undercurrents of Crisis, was prescient in another way.

Imprinted with Confucian filial piety, Wang completely objects to the American familial mode which in his view is too individualistic, too contractual, too loose, and extremely lacking in “ren qing wei” (I find it almost impossible to fully translate this Chinese phrase which indicates a personal touch that transcends, or ought to transcend, private boundary).  Consequently, Wang notes, family is no longer the cell of American society, “the real cell is the individual.” This means that the American family has lost its societal function of educating the youth, supporting the elder, and ameliorating interpersonal conflicts. The government, therefore, had to take on the role of the nanny.

Wang sees perverted nihilistic individualism as the biggest threat to America because it dissolves the traditional Western value system, and when the value system collapses, Western democracy inevitably dies as well, says Wang.

An erudite academic, Wang’s field trip in America was accompanied and complemented by his broad reading of Western political thinkers from antiquity to modernity such as Aristotle, Augustine, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Hobbes, Locke, Tocqueville, Hegel, Marx, and contemporary writers such as Herbert Marcuse, Henry S. Commager, Samuel P. Huntington, Allan Bloom, Sidney Verba, Theodore Lowi, Robert Dahl, and many others. Little wonder why he was able to penetrate through superficial manifestations and into the essence of the American mind.

American political theorists, political scientists, and policymakers ought to read the book and then ask themselves this question—does anybody in Washington D.C. understand China as deeply and comprehensively?

American Traditions

Freshly off the plane, Wang wrote, “There are two kinds of visitors to America. One is concerned with how to enjoy America, and the other wonders what has made America.”

Wang is obviously among the latter. He interviewed many people for that question. Among many diverse answers such as abundant resources, encouragement of competition, innovative spirit, the Puritan work ethic, and others, Wang found one answer “most abstract and yet most valuable:” “tradition.” Wang thinks it is the time-honored cultural bequest that is fundamental to the development and stability of a society.

In Belmont Massachusetts, Wang observed approvingly what he called America’s “political DNA”—the township self-rule. For Wang, this institution was not only the origin of American governance but still was vibrant when he visited the United States. However, one can argue that Wang failed to recognize that state centralization had by then usurped the rule of the towns.

American localism is exceptional, notes Wang, who says “for any polity to function well, local government must be grounded in its particular history and ideas, and meet the local needs.” By contrast, “uniformity leads to minute adaptability.” Wang continues to note that Belmont township preserves America’s political DNA because what we now call the American experiment is built upon such townships. And the American War of Independence was precisely to preserve its self-rule.

Wang concludes, “political customs” and “political traditions” sometimes are more powerful than laws because “laws are written on paper whereas the former are engraved in hearts and minds.” Hence, Wang argues that it is Americans’ sacralization, as he calls it, of the Constitution that makes it transcend those pieces of yellowed papers to be vibrant and everlasting.

Sacralization is a unique feature that Wang identifies in America’s “colorful national character.” Wang writes, “The American nation does not have a disposition for mystification or deification, but it has a special nature that I call ‘sacralization.’” Wang noticed that Americans tended to sacralize certain qualities or phenomena they saw in politicians, athletes, businessmen, film stars, singers, technology innovators, as well as football games, national ceremonies, the military, and the space shuttle.

“It is of a cultic nature, but it is not a religious cult,” Wang writes, “pragmatic Americans find it hard to worship abstract, legendary, and invisible objects, but they can worship success, bravery, adventure, and wisdom in their own surroundings.” This sacralization of a spirit for Wang is what Rousseau means by “civil religion.” Wang’s following words are particularly illuminating: “The process of sacralization has a fundamental social function, which is to maintain and transmit the core values of society . . . It is here that people’s sentiments, ideas, beliefs, pursuits come into some kind of agreement . . . In such an individualistic, self-centered society, sacralization is the best mechanism for spreading core values.”

Wang did not overlook the religious side of the American mind, though. In a section called God on Earth, Wang discussed another paradox about America. Varied religious organizations and vivacious religious activities play a cohesive role in public life. They are what he called “Soft Administration.” Wang noticed that religion both maintained social order and promoted freedom of society. He concluded that what made religion work in America was its secularization, separation from politics, and non-superstitious nature.

For Wang, core values are fundamental to political stability and social cohesion. Little wonder why the 24-word “Core Socialist Values” have been at the forefront of Chinese propaganda since the 18th National Congress of the CCP (2012).

It seems that stability and cohesion preoccupy the mind of the then political theorist and now politician. That is why he attentively observed and meticulously documented America from the American creed to the gap between ideas and institutions; from neo-conservatism to modern liberalism; from market economy to all-encompassing commodification; from party politics to grass-roots movements; from religion to philanthropy; from political science to public policy and administration; from crime to alienation.

America Against America is a rare candid book about America because Wang wanted to understand the rival of socialism. It is almost impossible to speculate how Wang Huning, the “Emperor’s Teacher,” would advise Xi on how to deal with America, especially given the extreme opaqueness of the CCP regime. But it is alarming that at the center of the regime, a communist understands both America’s strengths and weaknesses. As the author of The Art of War Sun Tzu (544–496 BC) famously says, “If you know both the enemy and yourself, you will fight a hundred battles without danger of defeat.”

American political theorists, political scientists, and policymakers ought to read the book and then ask themselves this question—does anybody in Washington D.C. understand China as deeply and comprehensively?

*****

This article was published on November 15, 2021, and is reproduced with permission at Law & Liberty, a part of the Liberty Fund Network.

Top Kyle Rittenhouse Tweets thumbnail

Top Kyle Rittenhouse Tweets

By Dr. Rich Swier

Here’s some of the top tweets about America hero Kay Rittenhouse. Enjoy!

SELF DEFENSE: “Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed a convicted child rapist, Joseph Rosenbaum himself, that was charging him from behind.”

My fiery but mostly peaceful appearance on @foxandfriends regarding the #KyleRittenhouseTrial outcome and fake news media cartel response pic.twitter.com/ANRJSBKarx

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) November 20, 2021

I am feeling guilty about thoroughly enjoying the hell out of watching the lefties meltdown over the correct Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty jury verdict. No I’m not🤭 pic.twitter.com/KTDS4izRUk

— David A. Clarke, Jr. (@SheriffClarke) November 20, 2021

“I believe they came to the correct verdict and I’m glad that everything went well,” Rittenhouse said.

In his first public comments after being acquitted on 5 counts, #KyleRittenhouse said he thinks jurors reached the correct conclusion. https://t.co/2EA1TKLmkN

— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) November 20, 2021

Antifa rioted & damaged property in downtown Portland, Ore. as vengeance for the jury’s verdict in Kyle #Rittenhouse case in #Kenosha, Wisc. pic.twitter.com/rSZZhtmHLP

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) November 20, 2021

The lies collapsed around Kyle Rittenhouse in that courtroom, the same way they are collapsing every day across this country. Winter is here…and justice is coming.

Listen to their silence.

They know. https://t.co/ulpzP60co5

— Lara Logan (@laralogan) November 20, 2021

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial wasn’t just about self-defense.

It wasn’t just about gun rights.

You have to ask yourself: Do we have the right to protect the cities that we love from those who seek to burn them to the ground?

The jury delivered a resounding “yes.” pic.twitter.com/rfhmdbd7KK

— #ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) November 20, 2021

Rick Schroder explains helping bail out Kyle Rittenhouse – Los Angeles Times https://t.co/jrcHS0epMn

— Jack Posobiec ✝️ (@JackPosobiec) November 20, 2021

The acquittal of teenage gunman Kyle Rittenhouse ‘isn’t political at all’ but ‘is about an 18-year-old who wanted to do the right thing’, argues US Political Commentator @JackPosobiec.@MaajidNawaz pic.twitter.com/Nup1NzcRvX

— LBC (@LBC) November 20, 2021

DERSHOWITZ: “[Kyle Rittenhouse] should hire a very good defamation lawyer.” @AlanDersh @CarlHigbie pic.twitter.com/TgqrmQu70C

— Newsmax (@newsmax) November 20, 2021

Good day for Justice. The same day that #KyleRittenhouse’s right to self-defense was recognized, so was this man’s.

A black man from Gifford who shot SWAT members invading his house. https://t.co/PZV4B2OBde

— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) November 20, 2021

©All rights reserved.

ANOTHER RECORD LOW: Biden Plummets To Record Low to 36% In New Poll thumbnail

ANOTHER RECORD LOW: Biden Plummets To Record Low to 36% In New Poll

By Pamela Geller

How low can Biden’s poll numbers go?

Republican Governors are leading and delivering results for hardworking families.

Watch the latest from @GOPGovs pic.twitter.com/ogj1aEaZIr

— GOP (@GOP) November 18, 2021

More than two-thirds say inflation causing them to change spending habits: poll

At just 36% support, Biden slips to a record low in a new poll

President Biden‘s poll numbers keep heading in the wrong direction.

The president’s approval rating stands at 36%, with disapproval at 53% in a new Quinnipiac University national poll. That’s the president’s lowest level of public support in Quinnipiac polling since taking over in the White House in January.

Biden’s approval edged down a point and his disapproval trickled up a point from Quinnipiac’s October survey.

As expected, there’s a huge partisan divide, with Democrats by a 87%-7% margin giving the president a thumbs-up and Republicans disapproving by a 94%-4% margin. Only 29% of independent voters approve of how Biden’s handling his duties steering the country, with 56% disapproving.

The president stood at 49% approval and 51% disapproval in a separate national poll from Marquette University Law School that was also released on Thursday. Biden’s approval in the survey, conducted Nov. 1-10, was down nine points from Marquette’s last poll, from July.

Biden stands at 41% approval and 53% disapproval in an average of all the latest public opinion surveys that was compiled by Real Clear Politics.

The president received his lowest grades to date on four key issues in the new Quinnipiac poll, which was conducted Nov. 11-15. Biden stood at 45% approval and 50% disapproval on combating the coronavirus pandemic; 41%-48% on climate change; 34%-59% on dealing with the economy and 33%-55% on handling foreign policy.

“The President’s numbers are unsettling though slightly better than former President Trump’s approval at the same stage of his presidency,” Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy told Fox News.

“What may be most concerning is that overall ‘satisfaction’ is at an all-time low, and, significantly, 50% of those polled are ‘very dissatisfied,’” Malloy emphasized.

“That is a gut punch, accompanied by the handling of the economy number which has dropped 5 points from 39% approval to 35% since October the 6th.”

The poll also indicates the public’s split over whether the president cares about average Americans. And it suggests that a slight majority (52%-41%) say Biden’s not honest, and that a larger majority (57%-37%) say the president doesn’t have good leadership skills.

Biden’s approval rating hovered in the low to mid 50s during his first six months in the White House. But the president’s numbers started sagging in August in the wake of Biden’s much criticized handling of the turbulent U.S. exit from Afghanistan and following a surge in COVID cases this summer among mainly unvaccinated people due to the spread of the highly infectious delta variant as the nation continues to combat the coronavirus, the worst pandemic to strike the globe in a century.

RELATED TWEET:

OFFICIAL RESPONSE: Biden Says Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict Makes Him ‘Angry and Concerned’ https://t.co/fur11RgjV1

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) November 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

Why a Red Star Is Just as Offensive as a Swastika thumbnail

Why a Red Star Is Just as Offensive as a Swastika

By Craig J. Cantoni

The reasons can be found in the book Gulag and in the book Tunnel 29. 

Gulag, by Anne Applebaum, Anchor Books, New York, paperback edition, 2004, 677 pages

Tunnel 29, by Helena Merriman, Public Affairs, New York, hardback edition, 2021, 318 pages

Reviews by Craig J. Cantoni

Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist and is alleged to have communist sympathies. Yet when he speaks on college campuses, he isn’t vilified, shunned, canceled, and called a dangerous extremist. No doubt, that would be true even if he were to wear a communist red star or a hammer and sickle. But if he were to wear a swastika, he’d be booed off the stage or worse.

The author of Gulag, a Pulitzer Prize-winning book, mentions in the Introduction about experiencing a similar double standard in the treatment of the evils of communism and the evils of Nazism. Hardly a fascist or supremacist, she is a graduate of Yale and, at the time of the book’s publication, was a columnist and member of the editorial board of the Washington Post.

She had walked along a bridge in Prague where vendors were selling Soviet and communist memorabilia. People were eagerly examining and buying the items, like faithful Catholics treasuring artifacts from the early Church. Fascist memorabilia were not on display, evidently because of a prevailing belief that Nazism was evil but communism was not.

The book continues from that point to explain the reasons for the double standard and to detail the atrocities committed in the name of communism in the Soviet Gulag.

I recently reread the book because of the madness occurring on American college campuses and throughout society in the name of social justice—a madness that has led to an affection for socialism among American youth and to leftist apologists once again rewriting history about communism. My review of the book follows in the next section.

A more recent book on the evils of communism is Tunnel 29. If you prefer a history that reads like a suspense novel, it doesn’t get more thrilling than the book’s harrowing non-fiction account of East Germans risking their lives to escape to West Germany by climbing over or tunneling under the Berlin Wall. The author lives in England and has been a producer and reporter for the BBC.

The Berlin Wall could be a metaphor for the growing ideological divide in America. On the east side of the wall was everything that today’s progressive left-wing wants: free medical care, free child care, free education, subsidized housing, economic security, no class distinctions, and no income inequality. On the west side of the wall was a classical liberal democracy and a free-market economy, where there was hard work, economic insecurity, and unequal outcomes.

The wall was built by East Germany to keep its citizens from fleeing their progressive paradise for West Germany. There’s a lesson in this for America, but it’s not a lesson that is taught in K-16 classrooms.

Let’s take a closer look at Gulag and then Tunnel 29.

Gulag

Surveys say that about 36% of millennials have favorable views of socialism. This is from a generation that can’t do without a Peloton, iPhone, Starbucks, Subaru, Grub Hub, Trader Joe’s, and Nike shoes.

The survey results show how easy it is to convince people, including college-educated ones—or especially college-educated ones—to embrace injustice if the injustice is framed as social justice, equality, and equity. The Introduction of Gulag says that such framing is one of the reasons why the repression, terror, mass murder, and mass starvation of communism are seen as lesser evils than the evils of fascism.

Another reason is the culpability of past and present leftist intellectuals, academics, and reporters in ignoring the evils of communism, due to being in sync with the underlying tenets of Marxism. Their feeble excuse for looking the other way was, and continues to be, that Stalinism was an aberration and not a reflection of the true nature of communism. Actually, from the very start of the Bolshevik Revolution, before Stalin came to power, Lenin was a proponent of concentration camps. Also, of course, Stalin was not the dictator of other communist countries where mass incarceration and murder also took place, such as China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, and North Korea under the Kim dynasty.

Still, another reason for communism being seen as less evil than the National Socialism of the Third Reich is the belief that communism’s travesties were committed for reasons of class and economics, not for reasons of race or ethnicity—as if being imprisoned, tortured, and killed for the former reasons is somehow better than being imprisoned, tortured and killed for the latter reasons. In any event, it’s a myth that disfavored races/ethnicities weren’t subjected to mass arrests in the Soviet Union. In fact, Poles, Balts, Chechens, Tartars, and eventually Jews were targeted for arrest.

It’s true that Soviet concentration camps were different from Nazi concentration camps because they were not established as death camps per se. But regardless, widespread and gruesome deaths were the outcome in the Soviet camps, as detailed in Gulag. You need a strong stomach to read about the ways in which inmates were tortured and killed.

Fascism deserves to be hated. But in their hatred of fascism, today’s socialists conveniently forget that National Socialism was a mix of nationalism and socialism, not a mix of nationalism and capitalism. The Third Reich didn’t own the means of production, but as Hitler explained, it didn’t need to, because he controlled the industrialists. A debate for another day is whether the United States has free-market capitalism, or crony capitalism, or mercantilism, or fascism, or some combination of these.

A common thread weaves through fascism, communism, slavery, colonialism, and other forms of subjugation throughout history and the world: The victims were dehumanized, categorized, stereotyped, and blamed for socioeconomic problems that weren’t their doing. Such rhetoric in the Soviet Union was a precursor to the evils that followed. To quote from Gulag:

From the late 1930s, as the wave of arrests began to expand, Stalin took this rhetoric to greater extremes, denouncing the “enemies of the people” as vermin, like pollution, as “poisonous weeds.” He also spoke of his opponents as “filth” which had to be “subjected to ongoing purification—just as Nazi propaganda would associate Jews with images of vermin, of parasites, of infectious disease.

The “woke” movement in the United States has shades of such demonization. Those placed in the ill-defined and elastic category of “white” are seen as the product of privilege and the beneficiaries of institutional racism. They’re also seen as stumbling blocks to the woke utopia of social justice, diversity, and inclusion—just as aristocrats, industrialists and the bourgeoisie were seen as stumbling blocks to the attainment of a proletariat paradise of Bolshevism. Likewise, wokes see themselves as morally superior to non-wokes.

Perceived enemies of wokes aren’t sent to concentration camps, as were enemies of the state under communism; but they can be canceled, vilified, ostracized, and have their careers ended for not adhering to the party line. Also, they and their children often have to endure reeducation in the form of critical race theory, which is taught in corporate and government seminars and in K-12 classrooms.

Such humiliation was common but much more severe in the Soviet Union. To quote again from the book:   “Before their actual arrest in Stalin’s Soviet Union, ‘enemies’ were also routinely humiliated in public meetings, fired from their jobs, expelled from the Communist Party, divorced by their disgusted spouses, and denounced by their angry children.”

China’s Cultural Revolution employed the same tactics.

Communists also “ate” their own, which should serve as a warning to today’s wokes. After the Bolshevik Revolution, the winning faction of Marxists proceeded to exile, imprison or shoot their former comrades in the losing faction for having a different interpretation of Marxism. A similar dogmatic mindset can be seen in the way that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attack their fellow progressives for not being radical enough.

Incidentally, speaking of AOC, she recently said that a woman of color like herself can’t depend on being protected by her peers in Congress. This was in reaction to Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar’s juvenile and unacceptable animation of himself as a cartoon character using a sword to attack a cartoon image of her.

Woman of color? AOC is whiter than this Italian writer and has immensely greater political power and privilege. She and others of her ilk want Americans to see themselves through their actual or imagined epidermis and then are surprised by the backlash.

As another warning to wokes, George Orwell experienced firsthand how communists turn on each other. His book, Homage to Catalonia, describes his disillusionment in fighting with the communists against fascist Franco in the Spanish Civil War. The communists had split into two opposing factions:  those dedicated to the Soviet Union’s worldwide communism movement and those just interested in defeating Franco. The Communist International undermined the locals. 

Gulag concludes with estimates of the number of prisoners and deaths in the Soviet Union. There were an estimated 28 million prisoners between 1930 and 1948, in a country that had a population of 170 million in 1939. Some historians have tried to calculate how many of them died, but archival data are not reliable. It’s also difficult to calculate how many Russians died in total as a result of the Red Terror, the Civil War, the famines stemming from collectivization, the mass deportations, the mass executions, the concentration camps and mass murders of Stalin’s reign, the camps of the 1920s, and the camps of the 1960s through the 1980s. The Black Book of Communism gives a figure of 20 million.

Whatever the number, communism, like fascism, is not something to be celebrated or endorsed, especially by those who espouse social justice.

Tunnel 91

This book is a much easier read than Gulag but is also an indictment of communism. It is largely based on interviews with an 80-year-old German who ended up East Berlin as a kid after his family became refugees at the end of World War II. He would go on to escape to West Berlin, where in 1961, he would watch the construction of the Berlin Wall, which would separate him from his family in East Berlin. Later, he would lead two efforts to dig a tunnel from West Berlin to East Berlin so that his family and friends, as well as the family and friends of the other diggers, could escape to the West.

It is a thrilling story of grit, determination, and courage.

Not only was it dangerous work, but if the diggers were discovered by the East German police, they could be imprisoned, tortured, or shot. The same for their families in East Germany. There was a high probability of being discovered, because the East German Stasi had thousands of spies in both East and West Berlin, including in government agencies in West Berlin.

In fact, hundreds of East Germans were caught trying to escape over the wall, under the wall, or, using forged papers, through checkpoints between the East and West. It speaks to their desire for freedom that they were willing to risk being shot or spending years in solitary confinement in a dreadful East German prison.

Stasi files, which were opened after the fall of the Soviet Union, document the surveillance, repression, and brutalities employed to keep East Germans from attempting to escape. There was a thick file on virtually every family. 

A takeaway from the book is the same as the takeaway from Gulag: Communism, like fascism, is not something to be celebrated or endorsed, especially by those who espouse social justice.

A Concluding Personal Note

Many decades ago, when I was in eighth grade, the nuns at my parochial school showed a film of the Nazi death camps being liberated, complete with footage of the stacks of bodies, the piles of hair and eyeglasses, the half-burned corpses in the ovens, and the emaciated prisoners with blank stares who had somehow stayed alive.

Wondering how humans could be so cruel to other humans, I bought the 900-page book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, when it came out in paperwork. That led me to a lifetime of reading history, literature, and moral philosophy in trying to find the answer.

For the first two decades of my intellectual journey, I almost never ran across a book (or movie) that told the story of the evils of communism. That’s because popular books and movies on the Third Reich and the Final Solution far outnumbered those on communism’s mass murders and concentration camps. Among the first books that I read on the subject was Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago.

Books and movies on Joe McCarthy alone seemed to outnumber books like Solzhenitsyn’s. McCarthy has been so vilified by history for his witch hunts for communists in the State Department and Hollywood that “McCarthyism” has become a pejorative to denote right-wing extremism. But it took me a long time to realize that if the bullying drunkard had gone after Nazis instead of communists with the same zeal and unethical methods, he’d probably be lionized by history and Hollywood.

The double standard continues today, not only with the likes of Bernie Sanders being cheered on college campuses but in the difference in usage of the adjectives “right-wing” and “left-wing.” The former, which conjures images of jackboots and stiff-armed salutes, is used by reporters, commentators, academics, and authors as a pejorative about eight times more than the latter.

It’s no wonder that 36% of millennials have favorable views of socialism.

Florida’s 7th Largest County FLIPS from Blue to Red! thumbnail

Florida’s 7th Largest County FLIPS from Blue to Red!

By Christian Ziegler

Governor Ron DeSantis’ relentless Conservative leadership and his unwillingness to back down from a fight is a showcase of exactly what citizens are looking for in elected officials.

And in response to the Governor’s successful record in Florida, in-state voters are fleeing the Democrat Party, more Pro-Freedom Conservative voters are flocking to Florida and our Republican Party is growing because of it.

We also have an incredibly committed and focused team dispatched across the state. They are at the flea markets, gun shows, libraries, community events, rallies, etc. registering voters. Tough job, but they are doing it well.

This is the formula for success in the Republican Party – An activated grassroots team hitting the streets to educate voters about the importance of having strong Conservatives – like Ron DeSantis – in office.

Great work by our Pinellas GOP Leadership Team – Chairman Todd Jennings, State Committeeman Mark Phillips and State Committeewoman Pam McAloon.

AND a huge THANK YOU to our State Party Chairman Joe Gruters, Local County Leadership, Staff and Volunteers across the state who are helping to make the most important swing state in the country ruby red!

©Christian Ziegler. All rights reserved.

LET’S GO BRANDON, FLORIDA: Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Bills to Protect Employees & Families from COVID Mandates thumbnail

LET’S GO BRANDON, FLORIDA: Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Bills to Protect Employees & Families from COVID Mandates

By Pamela Geller

Watch it live.

RELATED ARTICLE: OSHA Suspends Implementation of Biden’s Vaccine Mandate

RELATED TWEETS:

We just banned public AND private vaccine passports!

— Representative Mike Loychik (@MikeLoychik) November 18, 2021

Live from Brandon, FL: Gov. DeSantis Protects Employees and Families from COVID Mandates.https://t.co/5oWS4MJvNS

— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) November 18, 2021

Gov. Ron DeSantis signs newly-passed bills limiting COVID shot mandates in Florida

BRANDON, Fla. — Gov. Ron DeSantis signed four bills Thursday meant to hobble coronavirus vaccine mandates in Florida.

[ … ]

The laws state the following:

– Private Employer COVID-19 vaccine mandates are prohibited

  • Employees can choose from numerous exemptions, including but not limited to, health or religious concerns; pregnancy or anticipated future pregnancy; and past recovery from COVID-19.
  • Employees can choose to opt for periodic testing or PPE as an exemption.
  • Employers must cover the costs of testing and PPE exemptions for employees.

– Employers who violate these employee health protections will be fined

  • Small businesses (99 employees or less) will face $10,000 per employee violation.
  • Medium and big businesses will face $50,000 per employee violation.

– Government entities may not require COVID-19 vaccinations of anyone, including employees

– Educational institutions may not require students to be COVID-19 vaccinated

– School districts may not have school face mask policies

– School districts may not quarantine healthy students

– Students and parents may sue violating school districts and recover costs and attorney’s fees

Read the full article.

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

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

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

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

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

Biden Treasury Nominee Saule Omarova Wants to “Bankrupt” Energy Companies thumbnail

Biden Treasury Nominee Saule Omarova Wants to “Bankrupt” Energy Companies

By Adam Houser

President Joe Biden has nominated Saule Omarova to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in the Department of the Treasury. That move is making headlines thanks to Omarova’s prior comments on bankrupting energy companies.

“For example for certain troubled industries and firms that are in transitioning,” Omarova said, “here, what I’m thinking about is primarily the coal industry and oil and gas industry. A lot of the smaller players in that industry are going to probably go bankrupt in short order, at least we want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change.”

In a statement to Fox News, AAF founder Tom Jones said: “Calling to bankrupt the fossil fuel industry that drives nearly our entire economy is dangerously misinformed. Yet the Biden administration is nominating zealots like Saule Omarova to serve in our government as they attempt to destroy American energy jobs and stifle innovation.”

Omarova was also a member of a Marxist Facebook group as late as 2019. According to the Washington Times, in a tweet in 2019, Omarova offered praise for the former Soviet Union, saying: “Until I came to the US, I couldn’t imagine that things like gender pay gap still existed in today’s world. Say what you will about old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Market doesn’t always ‘know best.’”

The Fox News article can be read here, while the Washington Times article can be accessed here.

*****

This article was published in November 15, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from CFACT, Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow.

Biden Treasury Nominee Saule Omarova Was Once Arrested For Shoplifting At TJ Maxx, Police Records Show thumbnail

Biden Treasury Nominee Saule Omarova Was Once Arrested For Shoplifting At TJ Maxx, Police Records Show

By The Daily Caller

President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) was arrested for allegedly shoplifting merchandise at a TJ Maxx, according to a police report.

Cornell Law School professor Saule Omarova, who Biden picked to head the OCC in September, was arrested in 1995 for an alleged retail theft of $214 in TJ Maxx merchandise, according to police records posted by the American Accountability Foundation, a conservative watchdog group. Her arrest had previously been reported by Fox News, but the police report offers new details on the incident.

She asked to pay for the items, and cooperated fully with the security guard, according to the report. Her charges were later dropped through Wisconsin’s first offender program, Fox News reported.

Omarova’s Senate Banking Committee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, and she is likely to meet stiff opposition from Republicans who have harshly criticized her policy positions. She has called for the federal government to “bankrupt” the oil and gas industry in order to address climate change, and has also refused to hand over her thesis titled “Karl Marx’s Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution” to members of the banking committee.

BREAKING: AAF unearths Biden nominee Saule Omarova’s arrest records from 1995 when she stole hundreds of dollars in merchandise from a T.J. Maxx.

Omarova has no respect for our laws, system of government, or our economy.

But Biden wants to put her in charge of American banks. pic.twitter.com/G5rlu6MLDT

— BidenNoms, A Project of AAF (@bidennoms) November 17, 2021

Omarova also once praised the Soviet Union for its gender equality, remarking that there was no “gender pay gap” in the former socialist country.

Omarova allegedly stole several bottles of cologne, along with shoes, belts, and socks from a Wisconsin TJ Maxx, according to the police report. She reportedly placed the items in her bag and covered them with clothes before exiting the store, at which point she was confronted by a TJ Maxx security guard.

The White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment as to whether the incident affected Omarova’s nomination.

COLUMN BY

AILAN EVANS

Tech reporter. Follow Ailan on Twitter @AilanHEvans.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Quintessential A**hole Industry’: Biden Treasury Nominee Has Harsh Words For Financial Service Jobs

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Former Architect of American Abortion Industry Speaks Out Against It thumbnail

Former Architect of American Abortion Industry Speaks Out Against It

By Jerry Newcombe

One-time notorious abortion doctor and key architect of the abortion movement, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, is speaking from the grave. His message: Embrace life.

Over the weekend, author Terry Beatley spoke at a local right-to-life event here in South Florida. Beatley had met with Nathanson in 2009 (about a year before he died), and he gave her a charge to continue spreading the pro-life message. He told her, “teach the strategy of how I deceived America” to accept abortion.

Nathanson’s message is most relevant these days, as the U. S. Supreme Court is possibly rethinking its infamous abortion decision from 1973, Roe v. Wade.

Bernard Nathanson, M.D. performed or oversaw some 75,000 abortions. After his conversion to the pro-life side—initially as an atheist, then later as a Catholic—he wrote the book, Aborting America, and made the film, “The Silent Scream.”

The recent 2021 film, Roe v. Wade, told the story of the push for abortion from Nathanson’s point of view. I saw a sneak peek of the entire film— watching the whole thing at my desk for two hours, mesmerized.

Nathanson was the “abortion king.” He was the architect of the abortion industry. He co-founded NARAL, which initially was called the National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws (now, National Abortion Rights Action League).

When Beatley met with Nathanson in his New York City home, it changed the trajectory of her life. He basically asked her to tell America how they sold abortion to us through a series of deceptions. She has since created the “Hosea Initiative,” based on the Bible verse in which God says, “My people perish for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).

Beatley tells the story in her 2016 book, What If We’ve Been Wrong? Keeping My Promise to America’s “Abortion King.” Dr. Richard Land, president emeritus of Southern Evangelical Seminary, notes, “Dr. Bernard Nathanson left a very important mission for Terry Beatley.”

I interviewed Beatley on my radio show, exploring what Nathanson relayed to her.

She told me: “Dr. Bernard Nathanson is not just one of many former abortionists. I think one of the main things we should know is that he’s the father of the abortion industry in America. The idea of ambulatory, in-out, same-day service surgery abortions. That was a fairly new concept that he master-minded. This idea of having these so-called ’clinics‘ set up all across the United States.”

Beatley goes on, “After he initiated eight points of propaganda to deceive Americans and the courts of our land, Dr. Nathanson ended up becoming 100 percent, unequivocally pro-life. That was as an atheist, and later he became a child of God on December 8, 1996…It’s a story that every American should know.” Nathanson was baptized without fanfare at St. Patrick’s Cathedral after his conversion.

In his book, The Abortion Papers (1983), Nathanson wrote, “I believe that an America which permits a junta of moral thugs to foist an evil of incalculable dimensions upon it, and continues to permit that evil to flower, creates for itself a deadly legacy: a millennium of shame.”

Beatley relates the main points of Nathanson’s erstwhile strategy to deceive America, the first being: “They framed the debate, and they framed it around the word ‘choose.’” The use of euphemism, concealing the killing of a child under the positive word “choice,” was highly effective.

She continues with other points of Nathanson’s strategy: “They used the complicit media because Nathanson was quick to realize that most of the reporters were young and female, and he would tell them almost anything…and they would believe anything he’d tell them.”

And what did he tell them? “He’d tell them fabricated facts, i.e., lies. He would say that a million women a year were having back alley abortions. And 5,000-10,000 women a year were dying due to complications. Those were bald-faced lies.”

How else did Nathanson, by his own account, deceive America into accepting baby-killing? “Dr. Nathanson would say that 60 percent of Americans wanted abortion on demand legalized….The real percentage was one-tenth of one percent.”

Other parts of the strategy included:

  • Repeating the lies again and again so they become accepted as true.
  • Working to decriminalize abortion since many people assume something is acceptable if it is legal.
  • Implementing what they called “the Catholic strategy.” The overall goal was to neutralize and divide a major foe of the abortion industry–including massive support for “pro-choice Catholic” politicians.

Many of these lies are still with us. America has been sold a bill of goods by the abortion industry. We must admit, sadly, that too many Americans have unthinkingly bought them.

Beatley says Nathanson’s final charge was: “Love one another. Abortion is not love. Stop the killing. The world needs more love.” This story reminds me of the line: A lie travels half-way around the world, while truth is still putting on its boots.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

Is The AR-15 on Trial or a Defendant? thumbnail

Is The AR-15 on Trial or a Defendant?

By Charles M. Strauss

OK, I want to write this before the jury reaches a verdict.

From the closing arguments, I conclude:

  • The prosecutors are complete idiots.
  • The defenders are no prizes. They may have snatched defeat from the jaws of certain victory.

Here are the biggest errors that I thought the defenders made. (Keep in mind that I am not a criminal defense lawyer and I have never tried a case in court.)

  • They based the self-defense case re Rosenbaum on the premise that Rosenbaum “might have” taken Rittenhouse’s gun and used it against him. That should have been their secondary, backup argument. Their primary argument should have been “It is a myth that you cannot shoot an unarmed man.”  The prosecutors made a huge deal about that, going on and on about how Rittenhouse brought a gun to a fistfight, and he was too cowardly to duke it out like a man, and even saying “you cannot shoot an unarmed man like that.” Right after the closing arguments ended, Katie Pavlich, on Fox News, pointed out that “more people are killed with hands and feet than with AR15s.” She was right, and the prosecutor was wrong, but the jury doesn’t know that, because the defenders didn’t tell them. The defenders should have had an expert witness telling the jury, “More people are killed with hands and feet than with AR15s.” 

They should have emphasized that there is a difference between “deadly force” and a “deadly weapon.” The law says you can shoot somebody to protect yourself against “deadly force”; it says nothing about a “deadly weapon.” Defense lawyer: “Can an unarmed man kill you?” Expert witness: “Hell yes. Here are the stats.” That would also have neutralized the prosecutor’s assertion that Huber’s skateboard was not a deadly weapon because parents buying their children skateboards for Christmas are not buying them deadly weapons. We can hope that the jurors are smart enough to figure out that parents buy their children baseball bats (and many other things), which can be used as deadly weapons. The defenders should also have asked the jurors if they would be OK with being hit in the head with a skateboard swung full force. (And asked the prosecutors if they would like to demonstrate to the jury how harmless a skateboard is, by volunteering to be hit in the head with one.) However, “deadly weapon” is beside the point; the issue is “deadly force,” not “deadly weapon.” The defenders should have said that over and over. Rosenbaum and Huber were both quite capable of inflicting deadly force on Rittenhouse without taking his gun away.

Also, the definition of “deadly force” includes not only death but “serious bodily injury.”  The defense needed to emphasize that. The expert witness should have told the jurors that people who get beaten with hands and fists sometimes die, but more often they get fractured skulls, permanent brain damage, loss of vision (or loss of an eye), broken jaws, crushed testicles, broken backs, lacerated livers, collapsed lungs, and occasionally they end up confined to wheelchairs as quadriplegics, being fed with a spoon for the rest of their lives. Let the jurors imagine themselves like that. That would have neutralized the prosecutor’s stupid “duke it out like a man” argument.

  • The defenders, in their closing argument, should have said the words “beyond a reasonable doubt” over and over. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense does not need to prove that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense; the prosecution needs to prove that Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense. And they need to prove that ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Of course, if you think Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, then your verdict is Not Guilty. But if you think there is at least a reasonable possibility that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, then your verdict is also Not Guilty. The only way to arrive at a verdict of Guilty is if you think that it’s ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ preposterous, outlandish, unreasonable to even think that Rittenhouse might have acted in self-defense; that no reasonable person could see anything that looked like self-defense.”
  • They could have done a better job addressing the “provocation” instruction that the prosecutors sneaked in at the last minute. “Imagine somebody who holds up a liquor store at gunpoint. A customer pulls a gun, but the robber shoots him first. Can the robber claim self-defense, because he only intended to rob, not shoot, and he was forced to defend himself against the customer? Of course not. That would be absurd. The provocation law was designed to avoid such absurd results. It certainly does not apply to Rittenhouse. And if Rittenhouse’s only “provocation” was having a gun, then why did all the many, many other people carrying guns not provoke many, many other attacks? You saw the videos. Did you see Rittenhouse provoke anybody? No, you didn’t. Did you see him provoke anybody beyond a reasonable doubt? No, you didn’t. This provocation business is a desperate, last-minute Hail Mary tactic by the prosecution. Not Guilty.”
  • When your enemy is destroying himself, don’t interfere. The prosecutor acted like a jerk, and surely alienated the jurors. But then the defenders came along and also acted like jerks. They got personal, for no good reason. Just point out that the prosecutor said the video would show Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum, but the video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse. Leave it there. There is no reason to say “The prosecutor is a liar.” Let the jury figure that out for themselves.

You watched the trial; you know this is an open and shut case and that Rittenhouse should never have been charged, much less tried. But what about the jurors? Maybe they have the common sense to figure out for themselves that a skateboard can inflict deadly force, and so can an unarmed man. (“Poll the jurors, Your Honor. How many have been in bar fights?”) Maybe they will read the jury instructions and figure out the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard by themselves, without being reminded by the defenders. Maybe. But maybe not. The prosecutors’ arguments were foolish, but there are plenty of foolish people in the world who think it perfectly reasonable to say “A 17-year-old with an Assault! Rifle! automatically forfeits the right to claim self-defense. I mean, come on, it’s an Assault! Rifle! Guilty by reason of possession of an Assault! Rifle!” Are there such people on the jury?

This Is Not Your Father’s Normal Democratic Party thumbnail

This Is Not Your Father’s Normal Democratic Party

By Deroy Murdock

The Democratic Party’s so-called moderates have had it with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; and other members of the “squad.” These “centrists” are laboring to separate themselves semantically from these neo-Marxists, although their differences end there.

These “middle of the road” Democrats call themselves “normal.” If they keep parroting that word, their feathers will turn green.

  • “If you want a senator who runs as a socialist, feeds the [Republican Party] attack ads, & didn’t help with infrastructure, I’M NOT YOUR GUY,” Rep. Conor Lamb, D-Pa., recently pleaded via Twitter. “I’m a normal Democrat who supports jobs & wins elections.”
  • Rep. Donald McEachin, D-Va., said voters want to “return to normal as quickly as possible.”
  • Speaking about President Joe Biden, Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., said, “Nobody elected him to be [former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt]. They elected him to be normal and stop the chaos.”
  • “People are fatigued and confused, and they want to get back to their normal lives,” observed New Jersey state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat.
  • Democrat campaign operative Howard Wolfson prescribed a “course correction” and an embrace of “bipartisan normalcy.”

When these allegedly moderate Democrats call themselves “normal,” this suggests that those further left are abnormal. How insulting! The squad should demand an immediate apology. Indeed, it is the Democrats’ new normal.

The American Conservative Union’s recently modernized website makes it a snap to review senators’ and House members’ votes clear back to 1972. Running from zero for most liberal to 100 for most conservative, the ideological spectrum cleaves into thirds: left (zero to 33 American Conservative Union ratings), middle (34 to 66), and right (67 to 100). Moderate Democrats should inhabit this center slice.

Good luck finding them there.

“Normal” Democrats who loudly claim to be in the middle are on the left—often deeply so.

Lamb, for starters, has a 9.04 lifetime American Conservative Union rating—24.96 points from the centrist border.

The aforementioned McEachin clocks in at 5.68. Spanberger? 10.53. Weinberg votes conservatively 1.98% of the time.

The New Democrat Coalition styles itself as the natural home of centrist House Democrats. Nonsense. This group’s leadership is planted firmly, solidly, deeply left:

  • New Democrat Coalition Chairwoman Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., rates 3.48. She stands left of Ocasio-Cortez, who sports a more conservative 5.23 American Conservative Union rating.
  • “Centrist” Whip Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., votes in precise, North Korean-style lockstep with Ocasio-Cortez at 5.23.
  • Vice Chair for Policy Scott Peters, D-Calif., is New Democrat Coalition’s most right-wing leader, with a whopping score of 8.2.
  • All eight non-freshmen New Democrat Coalition leaders are within American Conservative Union’s farthest-left decile. Those who represent moderate House Democrats vote conservatively less than 10% of the time. In what world does this put them at the center of anything?

Historically, Democrats have marched further left than Republicans have headed right. In 1980, House Democrats averaged a 26 American Conservative Union rating. In 1990, 20. In 2000, 16. In 2010, six. And in 2020, three.

Republicans began at 68 in 1980, peaked in 2010 at 89, and fell back to 74 last year. Across 11 years that I sampled, Democrats averaged 17 and Republicans 76. Democrats were closer to zero than Republicans were to 100.

For 2020, three Republican Party senators and 34 Republican House members rated in the middle third versus zero Democrat senators and only one House Democrat: New Jersey’s Jefferson Van Drew with a 46. He since has defected to the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, “centrist” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., is not. The West Virginian has a 26.55 rating. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., has a mere 14.59. Phony supposed middle-roader Biden earned a 13.

American Conservative Union ratings confirm that Republicans are America’s more moderate party.

“The data speak for themselves,” American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp told me. “The most radical elements of the left have hijacked the Democrat Party.”

Moderate Democrats are now mythical creatures, like dragons and unicorns. Nothing remains but leftists and far leftists. Your father’s normal Democrat Party is far, far away.

*****

This article was published on November 15, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal.

‘Completely Absent’: Arizona Law Enforcement Leaders Slam Mark Kelly thumbnail

‘Completely Absent’: Arizona Law Enforcement Leaders Slam Mark Kelly

By Collin Anderson

‘Mark Kelly scares the hell out of us’

Top Arizona law enforcement officials say Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.) is “completely absent” on public safety and border security, a situation that one police representative says “scares the hell” out of his officers.

Kelly has repeatedly criticized President Joe Biden’s lack of urgency on the southern border crisis as a record number of illegal immigrants attempt to cross into the country. For National Border Patrol Council president Brandon Judd and Arizona Police Association president Justin Harris, however, Kelly has failed to match his rhetoric with action. Both Judd and Harris said Kelly has never reached out to their respective organizations, a snub that Judd called “concerning.”

“It appears that he’ll give lip service to a topic, but then when push comes to shove, he’s right in step with his party. And we know that as far as his party goes with border security, they’re missing in action,” Judd told the Washington Free Beacon. “He’s never reached out to us, and that is what’s concerning, because we have people reaching out to us all the time on both sides of the aisle.”

Harris accused Kelly of playing politics with the border crisis as he looks to secure reelection in 2022 in a state that has soured on Biden and his policies. Just 36 percent of Arizona voters approve of the president, according to a November Civiqs survey, and 63 percent “hold the Biden administration and its policies responsible for the current immigration and border crisis,” a July Federation for American Immigration Reform poll shows. Kelly’s own approval rating has taken a 12-point hit among the state’s suburbanites, a general voting block that has already helped deliver double-digit Republican gains in Virginia and New Jersey.

“Mark Kelly scares the hell out of us, because it looks like he’s doing this for Mark Kelly,” Harris said. “My membership is scared that we’re one or two elections away from Arizona turning into a Chicago or a New York or a California. So when it comes to my association and our law enforcement communities and families, Mark Kelly scares the hell out of us.”…..

*****

Continue reading this article, published November 15, 2021 at The Washington Free Beacon.

Longtime Texas Democrat switches to GOP thumbnail

Longtime Texas Democrat switches to GOP

By Bethany Blankley

Longtime Democratic state Rep. Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City announced Monday he is switching to the Republican Party of Texas.

He made the announcement at a news conference with Gov. Greg Abbott and House Speaker Dade Phelan of Beaumont, both Republicans.

“Friends, something is happening in South Texas, and many of us are waking up to the fact that the values of those in Washington, D.C., are not our values, not the values of most Texans,” Guillen said. “The ideology of defunding the police, of destroying the oil and gas industry and the chaos at our border is disastrous for those of us who live here in South Texas.”

“After much consideration and prayer with my family, I feel that my fiscally conservative, pro-business, and pro-life values are no longer in-step with the Democrat Party of today, and I am proudly running as a Republican to represent House District 31,” Guillen said.

Abbott praised Guillen’s decision, using the opportunity to talk about President Joe Biden’s and Democrats’ policies that he said will lead lead to fewer oil and gas jobs in Texas.

“Ryan Guillen talked about the importance of oil and gas jobs. They are good-paying jobs here in Texas. The Republican Party will not allow the Democrats to crush the oil and gas jobs with the Green New Deal,” Abbott said. “We do not support lawless open borders in the state of Texas. We will step up and support our border.”

Guillen was one of the youngest ever elected to the Texas Legislature at age 24. He comes from a family of public school teachers, war veterans, and cattle ranchers. A sixth-generation South Texan, he grew up working at his family’s feed store and as a ranch hand on the family farm. He later received a degree in Agriculture, and was a local high school Ag teacher before he ran for office.

Guillen has been considered the least liberal of Democrats in the state House. He voted for open carry. He’s been a staunch advocate for creating jobs, cutting taxes and red tape, maintaining Texas’ position as an energy leader, protecting property rights and the rural way of life, fostering greater efficiency and transparency in government, among other initiatives, according to his official House bio.

Guillen is actively involved in the community, hosting a seasonal Dairy Queen Listening Tour in every county in the district, a Weekly Coffee during legislative sessions, and a Virtual Community Summit to be available and accessible to constituents. He also hosts a Student Legislative Session and a Legislative Internship Program to educate and inspire young adults.

The last state lawmaker to change parties was also a South Texas Democrat who switched to the Republican Party in 2012, Rep. JM Lozano, R-Kingsville.

*****

This article was published on November 15, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

Hamas-linked CAIR accuses College Democrats of America of ‘Islamophobia’ thumbnail

Hamas-linked CAIR accuses College Democrats of America of ‘Islamophobia’

By Robert Spencer

Democrats supporting Israel’s self-defense against the “Palestinian” jihad? That isn’t allowed. Hamas-linked CAIR is ensuring that the miscreants get back in line, and pronto. Independent thought? Pshaw! That’s only for “right-wingers.”

Muslim advocacy group accuses College Democrats of ‘Islamophobia

by Sean Salai, Washington Times, November 12, 2021:

A Muslim advocacy group is accusing the College Democrats of America of “Islamophobia” for harassing one of their officers on social media over pro-Palestinian comments she made online as a child.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) this week called in a letter for the Democratic Party-affiliated group to open an “independent investigation” with the intent of disciplining or expelling the unnamed members who “repeatedly harassed” Rollins College senior Nourhan Mesbah on social media when she ran successfully for national vice president in August.

The harassment includes the members’ “liking” a social media comment that read in part: “Boot this jihadist out, no room for racist totalitarianism,” CAIR says.

In the letter sent this week to College Democrats President Jalen Miller, CAIR’s national deputy director Edward Mitchell also accuses the CDA members of “weaponizing” an “anti-Muslim” political ad against Ms. Mesbah over the pro-Palestinian comment she said she regretted making online as a 13-year-old.

“Anti-Muslim bigotry is not unique to any particular party, and no party is immune to it,” Mr. Mitchell told The Washington Times on Friday.

“The perception is that only the Republicans have a problem with Muslims, but the truth is that you find Islamaphobia [sic] on the Democratic side, too,” he added.

Ms. Mesbah declined to discuss the incident, which erupted after the ad featuring her childhood comment prompted fellow College Democrats to accuse her of antisemitism and push for her censure.

The letter includes testimony from several Muslim members of the organization, including College Democrats Muslim Caucus Chair Tyrese Rice, who complained on Ms. Mesbah’s behalf about the “bigoted and imbalanced implications of the organization” at both the state and national levels.

“There was a lack of Muslim representation and an underlying stigma against discussion [of] related topics and concepts,” Mr. Rice said about the College Democrats when he first joined them.

Another comment in the letter from an anonymous student says CDA perpetuates a culture of hostility toward “Palestinian liberation” and silences Muslim students who speak up about it.

“By creating a space to allow Muslim members to be called ‘jihadist[s]’ among other names, we have abandoned our progressive ideals,” the student writes.

The College Democrats have not responded to Mr. Mitchell’s letter, and their spokesman did not respond Friday to telephone and email requests for comment.

Reached Friday afternoon, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee declined to comment on the dispute….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Police conceal face of Muslim migrant rapist of 15-year-old girl in asking people to watch for him

Bangladesh: Hindu population steadily declining in the face of Muslim persecution

Burkina Faso: Muslims murder at least 19 people in jihad raid on military police post

UK taxpayers to back solar project in Turkey up to $291,000,000

Turkey: No Budget from Government for Schools Run by Armenians, Jews and Greeks

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

Watch Mike Lindell’s Historic Interview With President Donald J. Trump. thumbnail

Watch Mike Lindell’s Historic Interview With President Donald J. Trump.

By Jamie Glazov

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

In this new video: Mike Lindell achieves an historic interview with President Donald J. Trump, asking the president questions he has never been asked.

EDITORS NOTE: This Glazov Gang video and report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

0 0 Jamie Glazov 2021-11-17 08:37:46Watch Mike Lindell’s Historic Interview With President Donald J. Trump.

Climate Models Overlook Benefits of CO2 and ‘Lukewarming,’ Data Scientist Says thumbnail

Climate Models Overlook Benefits of CO2 and ‘Lukewarming,’ Data Scientist Says

By Kevin Mooney

Rather than relying on climate change models that could be the basis of expansive and costly regulations, policymakers should instead question those models, focusing on the legitimacy of their underlying assumptions.

So said The Heritage Foundation’s chief statistician at a recent climate change conference in Las Vegas that preceded the international summit in Glasgow, Scotland, that concludes today.

While the Biden administration continues to pursue regulatory policies based on a concept known as the “social cost of carbon,” increased carbon dioxide emissions have led to a “greening of the planet,” Kevin Dayaratna, principal statistician and data scientist for The Heritage Foundation said in his presentation at the Heartland Institute’s 14th International Climate Change Conference.

The nonprofit, Illinois-based free-market think tank attracted dozens of scientists, economists, and academics from across the globe to the conference, which ran from Oct. 15 to 17.

The Heartland Institute also hosted a Climate Reality Forum in Glasgow on Nov. 2 and 3 during the two-week United Nations Climate Change Conference.

The Heartland Institute is a co-sponsor of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which has brought together scientists, researchers, and scholars from across the globe who dispute U.N. findings that point to catastrophic climate change. Dayaratna is among the researchers who have advised policymakers to refrain from enacting anti-carbon measures in the name of averting climate change.

“Regardless of one’s predictions on the extent of human influence on climate change, commonly proffered solutions by lawmakers here, such as carbon taxes and ‘cap and trade,’ will have no meaningful impact on altering the climate anyway, as we’ve demonstrated in prior Heritage Foundation research,” Dayaratna told The Daily Signal, the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.

Dubious Assumptions on Social Cost of Carbon

The social cost of carbon is typically defined as “the economic damages per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions,” according to Dayaratna’s slide presentation at the Heartland conference.

There are three statistical models the Obama administration used to measure the long-term economic impact of carbon dioxide emissions over a particular time horizon, Dayaratna explained. They are the DICE model, the FUND model, and the PAGE model.

The Biden administration recently reinstituted Obama-era climate-modeling exercises that attempt to calculate the social cost of carbon. But an “honest cost/benefit analysis” of carbon dioxide emissions is not possible under current modeling practices, Dayaratna said. That’s because the assumptions built into the climate models overstate recent warming trends while failing to account for the positive attributes of carbon dioxide, the data analyst told his audience.

“The benefits of CO2 may outweigh the damages,” Dayaratna said.

“In fact, when more realistic assumptions about how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide emissions are plugged into the climate models, many of the damages disappear from the forecasts,” he added.

“Is global warming necessarily a bad thing?” he asked, answering his own question: “CO2 in the atmosphere can increase agricultural productivity.”

One of Dayaratna’s slide presentations included a satellite image of “the Greening of the Earth” that occurred from 1982 to 2009. The Heritage Foundation statistician also cited a newspaper article in The Guardian dating back to 2004 that described how Pentagon officials told then-President George W. Bush that climate change over the following 20 years could “bring the planet to the edge of anarchy” and that “nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine, and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.”

The fact that those predictions of a catastrophe have not materialized demonstrates that there’s still much to learn about climate change and that climate models such as those used to calculate the social cost of carbon are “highly sensitive to assumptions” that may not be accurate, Dayaratna warned.

“‘Settled science’ is an oxymoron,” he said. “Science is never settled.”

Understating Benefits of Carbon Dioxide

Dayaratna is the co-author of a peer-reviewed research article that explores “the implications of recent empirical findings about CO2 fertilization and climate sensitivity on the social cost of carbon in the FUND model.”

He and his colleagues selected the FUND model because, unlike the other models, the FUND model accounts for the possibility of agricultural benefits.

Nevertheless, they conclude that even the FUND model understates the benefits of carbon dioxide.

There is “overwhelming evidence that CO2 increases do have a beneficial effect on plant growth, so models that fail to take these benefits into account overstate the [social cost of carbon],” the research article says. “The recent literature on global greening and the response of agricultural crops to enhanced CO2 availability suggests that the productivity boost is likely stronger than that parameterized in FUND.”

After making “reasonable” adjustments to “agricultural productivity specifications” in combination with “moderate warming” forecasts that can be plugged into climate models, Dayaratna finds that there are “social benefits” to what he describes as the “lukewarming” the planet has experienced.

“There has indeed been man-made global warming, but the extent to which humans have contributed to it over the last century has been vastly overstated,” Dayaratna told The Daily Signal in an interview.

To use a term coined by Pat Michaels of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I like to refer to it as ‘lukewarming.’ The climate models also greatly overstate the amount of warming that is likely to occur going forward. Human CO2 emissions are indeed responsible for some warming, but much of it is the result of natural influences and this ‘lukewarming’ we have experienced, which is fairly mild, has benefits that are overlooked.

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless, nontoxic gas. It is a key element of photosynthesis and thus has agricultural benefits, and to consider it only as a pollutant that solely has deleterious effects is a mistake.

Dayaratna offered some advice for policymakers and the public at the conclusion of his Oct. 16 presentation.

“Models are highly sensitive to assumptions, and the Biden administration is using these same models,” he said. “We need to think seriously about the administration’s estimates, and the assumptions that went into producing them.”

If not, Dayaratna cautioned, predictions as inaccurate as those provided to Bush in 2004 could beguile the public into accepting costly regulatory policies that do not square with scientific observations.

*****

This article was published on November 12, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal.

Environmental Solutions, Not Social Overhaul thumbnail

Environmental Solutions, Not Social Overhaul

By Dominick Sansone

The Glasgow climate summit and recent bold climate proposals are more about politics and do little to actually help the global environment.

The recent climate summit in Glasgow saw world leaders gather together to unanimously declare—as articulated by U.S. President Joe Biden himself—climate change as the “[paramount] challenge of our collective lifetimes.” Calling on the world community to devote themselves to confronting this “existential threat,” Biden cited his own administration’s lofty goal of reducing carbon emissions by at least 50 percent in the lead up to 2030.

“High energy prices only reinforce the urgent need to diversify sources, double down on clean energy development, and adapt promising new clean energy technologies.” This will ostensibly manifest through the type of long-term development envisioned in the massive infrastructure bill currently making its way through Congress.

As previously stated in this publication, the United States—as well as the developed economies of Western Europe—is hardly the primary cause of concern for those who would wish to see lower carbon emissions on a global scale. Substantial growth projected in greenhouse gas emissions is largely due to developing countries, such as India and China, which are poised to continue increasing their reliance on coal. The latter country has already set plans in motion to build increased capacity for the high carbon-emitting fuel, while the former currently sees about 70 percent of its electricity output derived from coal.

That does not mean that the United States needs to simply disregard its levels of carbon emissions. The U.S. still relies on dirtier forms of petroleum for 35 percent of its energy consumption, and coal for 10 percent. Prioritizing a transition to natural gas, in addition to the energy security made possible through independence from imports, would see real movement in measurable reductions to U.S. emissions. Instead, with the price of natural gas doubling in part due to the Biden administration’s policy choices, the use of coal has subsequently increased by 22 percent in 2021. Despite upending U.S. energy independence, the president apparently sees no irony in shamelessly asking for OPEC to increase production in an effort to reduce gas and oil prices.

The attempts of developed Western nations to subsidize policy that radically overhauls the energy landscape have a less than stellar record. Echoes of the Obama-era Solyndra scandal still reverberate in the energy industry. Germany’s attempt to heavily subsidize wind and solar in the 2010s led to a significant increase in burning coal, due to the inability of the former two to provide energy without interruption. Although the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline may imply a more realpolitik approach in Berlin to ensuring a stable and clean source of fuel, coal burning still tops wind as the country’s primary source of electricity.

While U.S. renewable energy investment continued to rise by significant amounts throughout the Trump administration—despite claims that the former president heavily favored the oil and gas industries—frozen windmills in Texas this past winter, although not responsible for blackouts, displayed the danger of relying entirely on fickle renewables. The impact of the weather freezing the turbines led to a 60 percent drop in wind-energy production compared to the previous week.

These facts, however, are all irrelevant to those attempting to place climate as the central axiom around which to enact a new green-centric policy agenda. That is because their true goal is radical social reorganization based on equity-based notions of justice. The acolytes of transformational programs such as the Green New Deal are not interested in pragmatic, if gradual, steps that would allow the United States to practically and effectively become more energy efficient; rather, they are interested in recasting society according to ideological principles.

This is not the rambling of conspiracy theorists who envision an underground lair of technocratic elites laying the foundations for a one-world government—it is the words of the agenda’s own proponents. Vice President Kamala Harris, in collaboration with Green New Deal champion Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, last year introduced the Climate Equity Act (CEA) in the Senate, in order to “center [the fight against climate change] in justice and equity.” Equity, as aptly described  by James Lindsay, is shifting resources and shares in a system so as to ensure that outcomes proportionally resemble the envisioned conception of fairness.

Harris’s cosponsoring of the CEA is not an aberration in an otherwise moderate climate policy; it is rather a testament to the Biden administration’s wholesale buy-in to the radical green agenda. The 46th president has additionally created the new Office of Domestic Climate Policy, headed by chief of staff Maggie Thomas who has previously stated that there is “no role for natural gas” in the nation’s energy mix, short-term or otherwise. Instead, she supports a goal of 90 percent of electricity production coming from renewables by the year 2035. Another new establishment under the Health and Human Services Department is the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity, tasked with the stated mission of “protecting vulnerable communities” from the impact of climate change. It is easy to see how these vaguely defined executive appointments not beholden to an electorate could morph into centralized authorities for enforcing a radical equity-based agenda—in fact, they would likely welcome the task in their mission statement.

During the Glasgow summit, President Biden additionally took it upon himself to apologize for the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords during the Trump administration. Trump had originally withdrawn from the pact under the auspices of its disadvantageous impact on U.S. industry. Citing a commitment to the American workers, Trump criticized the deal as resulting in “lost jobs, lowered wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.” Considering the achievement of (now eliminated) energy independence, the United States becoming a net exporter of oil in 2019 for the first time in its history, a continued growth in renewables, and all while still managing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, one has to question how exactly participation in the Paris Accord was in the national interest of the United States.

The answer is that it wasn’t. It wasn’t even really advantageous to the interest of reducing global carbon emissions. As previously stated, if multilateral agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord actually wanted to invest resources in the areas which are most crucial to reducing carbon emissions—in other words, where they would receive the greatest return on investment—they would focus almost exclusively on the challenges posed by developing countries.

This, however, is not the concern of those who seek to overhaul the world economy and hamstring western industry along the way. Those interested in a recasting of society are not concerned with actual concrete steps that would practically allow the United States to approach reductions in carbon, as well as more energy efficient solutions, through innovation and ingenuity. They are also not interested in prioritizing energy security for American citizens.

At the summit, Prince Charles called for a “war-like footing” on the climate issue, proclaiming the need of a “Marshall-like plan.” Another Brit, much greater and deserving of our attention, previously stated that there are those who will seek to perpetuate a sense of crisis in times of peace, so as to justify the individual citizen’s subjugation to the state. “The argument…that economic crises are only another form of war, such that we must live our lives in a perpetual state of war…this, of course, is the socialist view.” These words were written by Winston Churchill in defense of the U.S. Constitution, as a response to (ironically) the big-government views of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.

According to Churchill, once the government found a seemingly just cause that it could utilize to incite the passions of its people, it would then be able to manipulate their desire to do good for its own purposes. After the individual is brought under the “subjugation of the executive government,” Churchill continued, “socialism…[allows] the rulers to demand of him in time of peace sacrifices only tolerable in a period of national self-preservation.”

Those who wish a radical overhaul of society—whether out of a genuine belief in the greater good or from a selfish desire for power—have found an issue that allows them to invoke a sense of moral superiority. What higher duty is there than responsible stewardship of our natural home, the earth? We must be on our guard that our desire to live up to this task does not blind us to the schemes of those who would seek personal advantage from our goodwill.

*****

This article was published on November 12, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

VIDEO: Comcast Censors VAXX Injured 13-Year Old Girl Who Volunteered for Pfizer Trial thumbnail

VIDEO: Comcast Censors VAXX Injured 13-Year Old Girl Who Volunteered for Pfizer Trial

By Conservative Commandos Radio Show

A new TV ad that spotlights Pfizer vaccine-related injuries suffered by 13-year-old Maddie de Garay was killed Friday late afternoon by Comcast attorneys after initially accepting the ad on Thursday.  The ad was slated to run multiple times before and during the FDA’s VRBPAC Meeting on Pfizer Data on its COVID-19 Vaccine for Children 5-11.

After initially accepting the 60 Second TV Ad, Comcast attorneys killed it at the last minute.

Live Journal reported in an article titled “Maddie de Garay” reported:

Twitter censored a video from Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s Monday press conference that depicts a mother discussing her daughter’s adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Maddie de Garay, a 12-year-old girl from Cincinnati, Ohio, was hospitalized several times after receiving her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. She participated in a clinical trial from December 2020 to January 2021. In a now-censored clip shared on Twitter, Maddie’s mother Stephanie discussed what happened after Maddie was vaccinated.

“On January 20th, Maddie received her second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine as a participant in the clinical trial for 12 -and -15-year-olds. Stephanie said. “All three of our kids volunteered and were excited to participate in the trial as a way to help us all return to normal life. My husband works in the medical field and I have a degree in electrical engineering. We are pro-vaccine and pro-science — which is why we agreed to let Maddie and her two older brothers volunteer for the trial.”

“She had painful electrical shocks down her neck and spine that forced her to walk hunched over,” Stephanie said. “She had extreme pain in her fingers and toes, and it actually made them turn white, and they were cold whenever you touched them.”

12-year-old Maddie was enrolled in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial.

Read the full article here.

Maddie’s mother set to testify at an FDA meeting.

In 2019, Pfizer Spent $2.4 Billion in Advertising 

Watch: 12-Year-Old Volunteer Volunteer in a COVID Vaccine Study and Is Now in a Wheelchair

Maddie’s Ad

Here’s a partial transcript.

“I’ve waited 7 months for Pfizer or the FDA to acknowledge what happened to my daughter and they haven’t.  They tried to ignore her injuries.  With these ads, she will finally have the chance to be in the room with them, to be seen by them, and for her voice to be heard.”

Despite almost no publicity, the public can submit public comments to the FDA for its VRBPAC meeting on Pfizer Data taking place 10/26 for Children ages 5-11.

This is Maddie – she’s 13 and wants to be a pediatric nurse. 

When the COVID vaccine became available she volunteered to test it. She said she wanted to help other kids.

 (pause)

This is her now.

(pause)

There are thousands of others like her. They are ignored by the FDA, by the media. She believed it when they said it was safe.

She stepped up to help America. Who’s going to step up for Maddie?

Stephanie, Maddie’s mother, who has voted Democratic in the last two elections narrates the ad.

“She wanted to help others, to help the world get back to normal,” said Stephanie.  “She now has lost the ability to walk and relies on an NG tube for all of her nutrition.”

The new physicians treating Maddie asked her about her “anxiety” that was put in her charts in March of 2021, two months after her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.  Maddie looked them straight in the eye and said, “I did not have anxiety before and do not have anxiety now other than from the doctors who have not believed me.”

“She received her vaccine on January 20 and came into our room in the middle of the night, she said she didn’t feel right and couldn’t sleep.  She has been waiting 8 months to be acknowledged by Pfizer, the FDA, and CDC and has not even received acknowledgment from any of them, not an email, a phone call, or a text.  Nothing.  At least with this ad, we know that Maddie will be in the room with the decision-makers and if that can help innocent children in the future not become victims injured by the Pfizer covid vaccine then that is a win in our minds.”

“I’ve waited 7 months for Pfizer or the FDA to acknowledge what happened to my daughter and they haven’t.  They tried to ignore her injuries.  With these ads, she will finally have the chance to be in the room with them, to be seen by them, and for her voice to be heard.”

Despite almost no publicity, the public can submit public comments to the FDA for its VRBPAC meeting on Pfizer Data taking place 10/26 for Children ages 5-11. A link to submit a public comment can be found here.

The video is just one in a series named “The Unacknowledged – the Victims of the Vaccine.” And is a component of a national education effort organized by the not-for-profit organization, the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation.

According to the FDA and CDC, the government’s only way to record injuries and deaths attributed to vaccines is the website called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or, VAERS by self-reporting or by a healthcare professional reporting.  According to VAERS, which is overseen by the FDA and CDC, there have been:

  • 13,627 Post-COVID Vaccine Reported Deaths / 22,501 Total VAERS Reported Deaths,
  • 55,821 Post-COVID Vaccine Reported Hospitalizations/133,592 Total VAERS Reported Hospitalizations,
  • 623,341 COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports

Maddie de Garay volunteered for the Pfizer trial for 12–15-year-olds and received her first dose on 12/30/20 and her second dose on 1/20/21.  At free the approval for the Pfizer vaccine for 12–15-year-olds in May, she was unblinded and confirmed that she got the vaccine.

Maddie’s symptoms occurred almost immediately after the second dose in the Pfizer trial.  For example, according to medical records and her mother’s documentation, within 12 hours Maddie experienced:

  • Fever 101-102
  • Electric shocks up and down spine to neck
  • Fingers/hands turned white, were swollen and were ice cold when you touched them
  • Tachycardia (she said her heart felt like it was being ripped out through her neck)
  • Severe abdominal pain
  • All over body muscle/nerve pain and spasms – you couldn’t touch her anywhere and she said it even hurt to lay down
  • She walked hunched over and with her toes up
  • Severe headache
  • Nausea
  • Blood in her urine
  • CRP was 2.90

Maddie continued to decline over the following 3 months and developed these symptoms:

  • Unable to walk
  • Lost feeling below her waist
  • Tremors
  • Convulsions/Passed out
  • Nausea, vomiting, difficulty swallowing and eventually unable to swallow any liquids or solids    (Ng tube placed which she still has)
  • Gastroparesis, stool blockage that she was hospitalized for a clean out
  • Urinary retention requiring a catheter that is still a problem today
  • Brain fog, mixing up words, memory loss
  • Muscle weakness throughout body to the point she could not even bathe herself
  • Loss of neck control and muscle spasms
  • Rash all over her arm
  • White tongue
  • Throat pain
  • Bone pain in arm where she got injection
  • Feet peeling
  • Skin peeling on head
  • Reflux, feeds even come up through her Ng tube
  • Weight gain (only getting feeds so not overeating)
  • Heavy periods with clumps of blood
  • Inability to sweat or control her body temperature

RELATED ARTICLE: Grieving Mother Appeals To President Biden Ahead Of FDA Meeting

EDITORS NOTE: This Conservative Commandoes Radio column and video are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.