Bombs Away !! A Razor Thin Congressional Democrat Majority Is About to Transform and Break America and Must Be Stopped: Here’s How thumbnail

Bombs Away !! A Razor Thin Congressional Democrat Majority Is About to Transform and Break America and Must Be Stopped: Here’s How

By The Editors

The U.S. House and Senate Democrats are attempting to ram through over 2,500 pages of transformational legislation with a Senate reconciliation vote (50 + VP) and a House vote that has a 3 vote Democrat majority (smallest in past century). THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MANDATE FOR THIS. It is our belief that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer know their majorities are at great risk in November 2022 and with the disastrous record of President Biden thus far (Afghanistan, foreign policy, Covid, southern border, inflation, economy, energy, etc., etc.), they are desperate to cement their goal of permanent Democrat power with an entitlement state that cannot be reversed and irrevocably alters America and our individual sovereignty. Enormous increases in federal debt, crushing  tax burdens for all citizens, severe inflation beyond what is now occurring and economic stagnation are just some of the very predictable near and long term results. This progressive, socialistic legislation will cement this Democrat dream. It is the centerpiece of a Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez socialist conquest of America. IT MUST BE STOPPED.

The TAKE ACTION box below addresses this assault on Americans in greater detail. Be assured that the majority of U.S. citizens do not want this legislation. Please refer to the paragraphs in the TAKE ACTION link below. How can we stop this assault on American families, their values, individual liberty, citizenship, energy, small business, and future opportunity and economic growth for future generations? We must inform our U.S. Representatives and Senators that it is absolutely unacceptable to do this. We suggest the following themes in short emails easily sent (please cut and paste the messages below) to legislators from the TAKE ACTION link below. The email portals and phone numbers for the Arizona U.S. Representatives and Senators Sinema and Kelly (up for reelection in 2022) are there. It takes only a few minutes to inform them how you, your families, your neighbors and so many you know are against this perverse effort to transform America. Please do not hesitate – we are moving toward this cliff very quickly. Senator Sinema may (??) stay strong and not vote for it. Senator Manchin from West Virginia has said no to this but he has caved in the past – he should be contacted and strongly reminded his state is a deep red state and his constituents are vehemently against this. Senator Kelly is facing election in 14 months – his vulnerability is essential to point out. All U.S. Representatives face election every two years – make it clear that they are all at significant risk.

Here are four suggested messages for each of the following groups – 1. Senators Sinema and Manchin, 2. Senator Kelly, 3. AZ Democrat Representatives (5) and 4. AZ Republican Representatives (4). Please move on this – repetitively and forcefully make your voices heard and felt as often as possible. If this disaster is foisted on the nation, there is little chance to turn it back – entitlements are never removed. Ergo – BOMBS AWAY. Let it rip and do not relent in informing  them until this assault on every American and our great Republic is stopped.

(1) Senator Sinema (or Manchin),

Dear Senator Sinema (or Manchin),

I ask that you reject the pending legislation in the Senate that is moving toward a reconciliation vote (50 + the Vice-President). It is not a true reconciliation process but rather transformational legislation that has absolutely no bipartisan support and intended to produce one-party rule in America, truly an un-American legislative goal. As we move through the Covid pandemic of the past 18 months and recover the nation’s economy and some semblance of normal American life, passing this legislation will not benefit the nation, your constituents or our children’s future. Intellectual honesty demands that it be rejectedif this ‘budget’ reconciliation bill becomes law, every current issue or crisis in America will be worsened (debt, energy, strong inflation, immigration, taxes, healthcare, etc.) and the blame will be on the party that forced it into being – you and your party.

You have publicly stated your objections to this attempt to transform America with a single party vote with its huge expansion of the federal government, vastly more crushing debt and taxes on all, yes all, citizens. You are in an historic moment and I implore you to vote no on this legislation. You represent Arizonans (or West Virginians) but your vote greatly impacts all American citizens. The majority of your constituents are polling strongly against this legislation and its intended purpose. Please stay strong and vote no on what is clearly Bernie Sander’s vision of  America’s future.

(2) Senator Kelly:

Dear Senator Kelly,

You are at an historic moment in this nation’s history. As a new freshman Senator with an impending election, you have the ability to determine the outcome of the reconciliation bill being pushed through the Senate. Arizonans know that it is not a true reconciliation process but rather transformational legislation that has absolutely no bipartisan support and intended to produce one-party rule in America, truly an un-American legislative goal. As we move through the Covid pandemic of the past 18 months and recover the nation’s economy and some semblance of normal American life, passing this legislation will not benefit the nation, your constituents or our children’s future. Intellectual honesty demands that it be rejected – if this ‘budget’ bill becomes law, every current issue and crisis in America will be worsened (massive debt, energy, strong inflation, immigration, crushing taxes, healthcare, etc.) and the blame will be on the party that forced it into being – you and your party.

November 2022 is less than 14 months away. This legislation will determine the outcome of next year’s election despite multiple issues of great distress for the American people. I implore you to reject Senator Schumer’s (and Senator Bernie Sander’s) legislative attempt to transform America to one-party rule and vote no on what should never be passed without bipartisan support for all constituents of our Republic.

(3) Democrat U.S. Representatives (AZ):

Dear Representative …..,

As an Arizonan and American, I implore you to vote no on the pending 10,000 page (yes, 10,000 pages!) legislation in the U.S. House that will be subjected to a Senate reconciliation vote (50 + the Vice President) to pass. You know very well, as Speaker Pelosi does, that it is not a true reconciliation process but rather transformational legislation that has absolutely no bipartisan support and intended to produce one-party rule in America, truly an un-American legislative goal. As we move through the Covid pandemic of the past 18 months and recover the nation’s economy and some semblance of normal American life, passing this legislation will not benefit the nation, your constituents or our children’s future. Intellectual honesty demands that it be rejected – if this ‘budget’ bill becomes law, every current issue and crisis in America will be worsened (massive debt, energy, strong inflation, immigration, crushing taxes, healthcare, etc.) and the blame will be on the party that forced it into being – you and your party.

November 2022 is less than 14 months away. This legislation will determine the outcome of next year’s election despite multiple issues of great distress for the American people. I implore you to reject Speaker Pelosi’s and Senator Schumer’s (and Senator Bernie Sander’s) legislative attempt to transform America to one-party rule and vote no on what should never be passed without bipartisan support for all constituents of our Republic.

(4) Republican U.S. Representatives (AZ):

Dear Representative …..,

We know that the 10,000 page House bill that will be treated as a reconciliation bill in the Senate (50 + the Vice President) will get absolutely no Republican votes. I thank you for that. Arizonans know that it is not a true reconciliation process but rather transformational legislation that has absolutely no bipartisan support and intended to produce one-party rule in America, truly an un-American legislative goal. As we move through the Covid pandemic of the past 18 months and recover the nation’s economy and some semblance of normal American life, passing this legislation will not benefit the nation, your constituents or our children’s future.

I humbly implore you to publicly and forcefully call this egregious legislative attempt what it is – an attempt by a leftist dominated Democrat Party desperate to transform the nation to a progressive, socialist ruling class and one-party dominance. It is un-American, it is wrong and it is against everything this Republic with its founding principles is about.

The battle is now joined, the polling is not with the Democrats and despite your minority status, it is time to shout out the truth loud and clear to the public, to every U.S. House and Senate member and to the media – this is a Bernie Sander’s socialist assault on the nation and its citizens that will diminish our liberty, our people and our children’s future. Stand strong, be loud and clear and please influence every Democrat House member who is not radical – if this process becomes law, it will be disastrous  for their party and for each of them in 14 very short months but with incalculable and permanent damage to our nation and its future.

PURE EVIL: Fauci Under Fire For Puppy Experiments Using Disease-Causing Parasites thumbnail

PURE EVIL: Fauci Under Fire For Puppy Experiments Using Disease-Causing Parasites

By Pamela Geller

This isn’t medicine. This is Mengele.

Never forget that Fauci he is the highest-paid govt official, plus he has received several bonuses in addition to his almost $half a million salary.

  • A group of 24 bi-partisan lawmakers are demanding answers from Dr. Anthony Fauci after a nonprofit claims he permitted experimental drug testing on dogs
  • The White Coat Waste Project alleges that Fauci sent $375,800 to a Tunisian research lab where beagle puppies were force-fed a new drug
  • The report claims they were also locked in cages with sand flies that ate them alive and underwent a de-barking procedure to keep them quiet
  • The nonprofit has also revealed three other experiments involving beagles that were allegedly funded by Fauci
  • The lawmakers have called the experiments ‘cruel’ and a ‘reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds’
  • They expect Fauci to answer to the alleged misdeeds by November 19

By Natasha Anderson, Daily Mail, 24 October 2021

Dr. Anthony Fauci is under fire over after the White Coat Waste Project exposed that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on four experiments involving beagle puppies.

One of the alleged experiments involved a painful and ‘unnecessary’ de-barking procedure called a cordectomy, while others used the dogs as bait for flesh-eating sand flies.

In response, a group of 24 lawmakers, led by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), are now demanding Fauci provide answers about the experiments they believe to be ‘cruel’ and a ‘reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.’

‘According to documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project, and subsequent media coverage, from October 2018 until February 2019, NIAID spent $1.68million in taxpayer funds on drug tests involving 44 beagle puppies,’ the letter from lawmakers reads.

That larger amount encompasses a wider experiment which saw the beagles force-fed drugs before they were killed and dissected.

‘While documents state that the ostensible purpose of this study was to ‘provide data of suitable quality and integrity to support application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies,’ the FDA itself has recently stated that it ‘does not mandate that human drugs be studied in dogs.”

The experiments were done with funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of which Fauci has been director since 1984.

The White Coat Waste Project claims the NIAID provided a $375,800 grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagle puppies and locked their heads in mesh cages so sand flies could eat the dogs filled with hundreds of infected sand flies

The sand flies would gnaw on the dogs’ ears, eating them alive

Two weeks ago, the White Coat Waste Project revealed that close to $1.68million was spent on experiments on a total of 44 beagles at Sri International in Menlo Park, California, in which the puppies received cordectomies and were force-fed drugs before being killed and dissected.

Another $375,800 was provided as a grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagle puppies and locked their heads in mesh cages so sand flies could eat the dogs filled with hundreds of infected sand flies, the group revealed in August.

Fauci’s team had previously, in 2016, strapped the infectious sand flies to beagles at the NIAID lab in Bethesda, Maryland, allowing them to feed on the dogs for 22 months.

The White Coat Waste Project alleges that the dogs developed infectious legions before researchers killed and dissected them.

This procedure cost $18,430,917.

The White Coat Waste Project also revealed that close to $1.68million was spent on experiments on a total of 44 beagles at Sri International in Menlo Park, California, in which the puppies received cordectomies and were force-fed drugs before being killed and dissected +11

The White Coat Waste Project also revealed that close to $1.68million was spent on experiments on a total of 44 beagles at Sri International in Menlo Park, California, in which the puppies received cordectomies and were force-fed drugs before being killed and dissected

In 2016, Fauci’s strapped sand flies to beagles at the NIAID lab in Bethesda, Maryland, allowing them to feed on the dogs for 22 months

The White Coat Waste Project alleges that the 2016 experiment caused the dogs to develop infectious legions before researchers killed and dissected them +11

In September 2020, Fauci’s agency reportedly authorized a $424,000 grant for animal experiments at the University of Georgia, where healthy beagles were drugged and then intentionally infested with parasite-carrying flies +11

Rep. Nancy Mace demands answers from Fauci on animal experiments

In September 2020, Fauci’s agency reportedly authorized a $424,000 grant for animal experiments at the University of Georgia, where healthy beagles were drugged and then intentionally infested with parasite-carrying flies.

Records show the dogs were ‘vocalizing in pain’ during the experiments, before being killed.

The group of legislators has asked Fauci and his researchers to answer the following by November 19:

How many drug tests involving dogs have been funded by NIAID since January 2018? How much taxpayer money has been spent on this testing?

Since the Food and Drug Administration has clearly stated that it does not require dog testing for new drugs, why has NIAID continued to commission testing on dogs?

What has NIAID done to explore the use of non-canine and non-animal alternatives to meet FDA data requirements?

Has NIAID ever made any dogs available for adoption after the conclusion of an experiment or testing? If so, how many? if so, why not?

‘De-barking beagles and poisoning puppies in experiments with our tax dollars is a national disgrace that’s uniting Republicans and Democrats, and we applaud Rep. Nancy Mace and her colleagues on both sides of the aisle for holding the NIH accountable for this government waste and animal abuse,’ Justin Goodman, Vice President of Advocacy and Public Policy at taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project, said in a statement provided to DailyMail.com.

Neither Fauci nor the NIAID immediately responded to our request for comment.

The animal testing allegations come after Fauci was accused of lying to Congress by claiming the US did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab blamed for creating COVID.

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.

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

Get Smart About What Really Happened in the 2020 Election

By J. Christian Adams

After the last election, many of us hoped for a champion to undo voter fraud, that certain thing that drove President Donald Trump from office. A “Kraken.” A powerful force of nature, a metaphor of strength, rising from the depths, restorative of truth and proper process. And unlike the Kraken of legend and Hollywood, a purported force of good.

Failure to understand the complex architecture and confusing events of the 2020 election makes it more likely that something like it will happen again. Indeed, the destabilizing forces at work in 2020 are emboldened by their success. The philanthropic streams of money that fueled the 2020 outcome still exist. They are looking toward the 2022 midterm elections to do it all over again.

That is why it is important to understand the complex mechanics that steered the outcome in 2020, so they do not happen again, so they do not further destabilize our political process.

Two ingredients drove the outcome in 2020: First, private philanthropy injected into government election offices and, second, a banana-republic style suspension of agreed-upon election rules. You didn’t need much outright voter fraud when these two ingredients combined to poison the 2020 election.

First, ponder the private philanthropy. The most lethal poison injected in the 2020 election was essentially legal. It worked like this.

In the months before the 2020 elections, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). Prior to Zuckerberg’s largess, CTCL had an annual budget around $600,000 per year. 2020 would be a very good year for them.

The CTCL took “ZuckBucks” and with extreme, strategic precision, re-granted it to thousands of government election officials to “help” them conduct the 2020 election. It converted election offices in key jurisdictions with deep reservoirs of Biden votes into Formula One turnout-machines.

It is true that some small red counties got some CTCL money, but that was a fig leaf. Red counties took their grants and bought printers or paper. The real action was in the big cities, where hundreds of millions of dollars running through election offices fueled a ground game that, before 2020, the Democratic Party could only dream about.

Consider Philadelphia. Philadelphia’s annual election office budget was about $9.5 million. The CTCL gave Philadelphia $10 million in one burst in the summer of 2020 to spend by election day. And boy did Philadelphia spend the money. They hired new city employees — fresh from local activist groups — to go door to do and deliver ballots. Since they worked for the election office, everything was “legal.” They bought radio advertising on Spanish and urban radio stations; “get out the vote, vote by mail, no need for any witnesses anymore!”

The government election office in Philadelphia used that $10 million grant to implement a dream of some partisans: turn a government election office into a massive turnout machine.

But wait, isn’t this illegal?

Who says so? For starters, you are free to be as stupid as you want and give the government your money. There is no prohibition on that, except in the states that have since banned it, but more on that later. Second, the Philadelphia government spending spree didn’t mention the word Democrat. It didn’t mention Biden. It didn’t need to.

It’s obvious. A facially impartial and hyper-funded campaign to turn out votes in Philadelphia, will end up turning out votes for Joe Biden, and that is precisely what happened. Neutral actions, wholly lacking any facial partisan taint, were hyper-fueled with philanthropic dollars to turn out record numbers of voters in Philadelphia.

They just happened to nearly all vote for Joe Biden, and no matching effort was conducted in red counties. You could not convert dollars in sparsely populated counties into turnout machines the same way you could in concentrated urban cores.

And it wasn’t just Philadelphia. It was the surrounding deep-blue counties of Delaware, Montgomery and Bucks. They also received massive CTCL grants. And it wasn’t just eastern Pennsylvania. The same model was deployed in Pittsburgh, Detroit, Lansing, Milwaukee, Madison, Atlanta, Phoenix and urban cores across the USA.

By now you should be getting the picture. By now you can see their diabolical genius.

Understanding this architecture explains so many other parts of the 2020 election. For example, it explains the urban turnout explosion. Trump had unprecedented support among black voters. But so what? Trump’s 15% of the black vote in Detroit was swamped in absolute terms because turnout there soared by 92,891votes. Trump even had 20% of the black vote in Atlanta but overall DeKalb’s turnout soared by 54,550 votes — 80% were opposed.

The more urban turnout, the bigger the Biden win.

This also explains the record number of undervotes. City employees in Philadelphia delivering ballots to be voted at the front door didn’t have time to worry about down-ballot races. Who cares about dogcatcher when you have a bigger mission? That is precisely why undervotes were so common in places where CTCL money was saturating the ground game. Get the oval next to “Biden” filled in, move on to the next front door, repeat, all of it perfectly legal.

The CTCL money did not fund voting integrity systems. It only funded a massive ground game to harvest blue ballots. It built processes to get those ballots distributed in urban cores, voted, and back in to be counted.

Mission accomplished. CTCL fueled a ground game that got the result it set out to get. And who are you to complain, after all, because it was rooted in increasing urban turnout. You wouldn’t dare complain about increased turnout, would you? The plan had the side benefit of silencing critics.

Did this plan go unnoticed? A few of us noticed this architecture spooling up in the spring, and warned about it. But most of the country was focused elsewhere, including the campaign. It is disappointing to have seen it coming. Now, after the fact, some states are fixing the problem and banning private money to government election offices.

They should ban it. Florida, Texas, Arizona, Georgia and Iowa have prohibited election offices from receiving private money. In the old days, we might refer to this sort of behavior as bribery of government officials. The CTCL attached strings to their grants: that is the problem.

Now the second big ingredient that completes the architecture that explains the outcome of the 2020 elections: banana-republic style suspension of the rules based on COVID.

All across America, leftists and Democrats — some of the same leftists who helped cook up the Zuckbucks scheme — were suing states to break down rules and laws.

Remember, election laws are enacted ahead of time for a reason — so we can all agree on the rules before the game. In Monopoly, the price of Boardwalk shouldn’t drop below $400 just because I land on it and want it for $20. Following rules provides confidence that the process was fair, even to the losers of an election.

That did not happen in 2020, and all across the nation, especially in swing states, the rules were thrown out in the name of an emergency. In Nevada, the state rushed to all of the mail-in ballots being sent automatically, even though the Public Interest Legal Foundation had documented tens of thousands of dead registrants, vacant lots and commercial addresses on the voter rolls.

Other states suspended their laws: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Arizona, North Carolina, and more.

In Virginia, the law said that mail ballots had to come in by election day or three days after election day, but only if they were postmarked by election day. Virginia state election officials ignored the law and issued rules to accept late ballots without any postmark. They called it “fair.”

In response, I brought a lawsuit on behalf of county election officials who alleged that the Virginia Constitution’s anti-suspension clause was violated. George Mason authored this limit on government power, saying that the executive cannot change the laws the legislature wrote. That one of our nation’s founders included such a provision speaks to the wisdom of those giants from over two centuries ago.

A Virginia court struck down the bureaucrat’s guidance and ordered that any late ballots had to have a postmark. In other states, the outcomes were not so positive. State and federal courts across the country were quick to capitulate to suspensions of election laws because of COVID.

In Philadelphia, these two ingredients – Zuckbucks and banana-republic style lawlessness, combined over and over again. COVID litigation forced the city to open new voting centers where people could roll in and vote with mail-in ballots in contravention of regular Pennsylvania law. Guess who helped pay for this new expense: That’s right — Zuckbucks. But because the new centers were not part of the law, observers were not allowed in to watch, as they are in normal voting precincts. Because the voting centers were created on the COVID fly, election officials did what they pleased, and banned everyone from observing the process.

Across the country, states abandoned rules related to witnesses’ signatures, to who can vote by mail, and to what has to be done to validate a mail ballot. City employees roamed door to door with armfuls of blank ballots, knocking and pushing people at home to vote in a process entirely foreign to state laws. Ballots were collected and delivered by others who had been strictly banned from touching someone else’s ballot before COVID. Over and over, the rules broke down.

Let me be clear, there was voter fraud in 2020. But this time, it was bigger than voter fraud. This time, it moved hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of votes. In no election in my experience has voter fraud ever moved that many votes. This toxic 2020 plan was bigger, and more stealthy — and largely legal. After all, how is it illegal if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court orders it?

Most of all, it requires you to get smart about how election process works to begin to understand it.

Airplane accidents rarely have one cause. Usually a series of failures combine to create a catastrophe. Without one, the catastrophe does not occur.

The 2020 election was similar. Alone, all of the COVID changes might not have collapsed the process. But COVID-justified suspensions of the rules were matched with a $350 million-dollar ground game from a partisan philanthropist. These dollars fueled the bodies that rushed into the legal gaps created by COVID. The two ingredients combined to break down all of the guardrails.

The election of 2020 was, in fact, a free for all. You did not need voting machines controlled from outer space, or a centralized conspiracy to commit voter fraud, to get the outcome we got. You do not need fraud when you have almost 100,000 new voters turning out in Detroit. A billionaire and a banana-republic style breakdown of the law can go a long way to driving someone out of the White House.

*****

This article was published on October 21. 2021, and is reproduced with permission from the Gatestone Institute.

Is Larry Summers Channeling Benjamin Anderson? thumbnail

Is Larry Summers Channeling Benjamin Anderson?

By James L. Caton

Larry Summers, who served as U.S. Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, and head of the National Economic Council in the early years of the Obama administration began sounding the alarm on the possibility of inflation several months ago. Until recently, I suspect few would have described him as an inflation hawk. And yet, he has been making the rounds of late to warn about the possibility of a “collision between fiscal and monetary policy.”

As someone who has supported fiscal expansion as a means of promoting macroeconomic stability, Summers has been unusually cautious. He seems to believe that the size of the output gap was not large enough to merit the unprecedented level of monetary expansion that has been administered by Jerome Powell.

In February, Summers participated in a discussion with Paul Krugman where he outlined his concerns. He notes that:

  1. The stimulus of 2020 was about twice the size of the output gap in the same year. The proposed stimulus for 2021 was, at the time, 4 times the size of the projected output gap.
  2. Unemployment compensation provided to the bottom 30% of earners was more than double their losses from Covid-19.

Elsewhere, Summers explains that the current labor shortage will drive up wages and that we have already seen monthly rents for new tenants increase by 17 percent, on average, above the rents paid by previous tenants.

Summers believes that the “toxic side effects of QE” are not being recognized by policymakers. In an interview, Larry Summers used a rather peculiar metaphor to describe this situation.:

So, I look at that dwindling hole. Then I look at expenditures that aren’t hard to add into the multiple trillions, and I see substantial risk that the amount of water being poured in vastly exceeds the size of the bathtub.

When I heard Summers use this metaphor, my mind was drawn to a passage I first read over a decade ago from Benjamin Anderson in his reflection on the Great Depression. In referring to monetary policy that preceded the initiation of the Great Crash in October 1929, he wrote:

When a bathtub in the upper part of the house has been overflowing for five minutes, it is not difficult to turn off the water and mop up. But when the bathtub has been overflowing for several years, the walls and the spaces between ceilings and floors have become full of water, and a great deal of work is required to get the house dry. Long after the faucet is turned off, water still comes pouring in from the walls and from the ceilings. It was so in 1928 and 1929.

Consistent with both statements is the belief that the monetary policy provided more stimulus than was merited by prevailing economic conditions. And consistent with Summers’ belief that excessive monetary support can be toxic, Anderson bemoans the extensive damage that can occur when the water spigot is left on for too long.

A Common Theme

While Summers and Anderson have contrary views with regard to fiscal stimulus, both recognize that there is an upper limit to the benefits of monetary expansion. Anderson viewed the Federal Reserve as financing a boom in stocks across the 1920s. “[T]he Federal Reserve System used them [open market operations] deliberately for the purpose of relaxing the money market and stimulating bank expansion in 1924 and 1927. At a time when unusual circumstances called for extra caution, they abandoned the old standards and became daring innovators in the effort to play God.” 

Compared to Summers, Anderson is quite conservative. Yet, Summers recognizes the theoretical limits of monetary policy. Summers has represented his views as “simple arithmetic.” Even before the crisis, Summers critiqued modern monetary theory (MMT). When asked why the U.S. can’t take advantage of its status as the world’s reserve currency, referring to its dominant position as an international media of exchange, Summers responded that “we won’t have the reserve currency forever if we do that. . . . In all things economics is a matter of balance.”

During our graduate studies, Peter Boettke constantly reminded my colleagues that “economics puts parameters on people’s Utopias.” No doubt. This is a universal of economics. And it is such recognition that separates the economist from the ideologue. I disagree with a number of policy stances promoted by Larry Summers, but I would be a fool to say that he is ignorant of macroeconomic theory.

Summers believes that fiscal policy should be used to promote better environmental outcomes and to improve equity while also accepting, as Alex Salter has argued, that the use of monetary policy for these aims is a recipe for disasterSummers is also “nervous” about the Fed setting out “to target the unemployment rate of particular groups without regard to inflation [as] that would be a good way to make really serious inflation.”

The Fed needs to concentrate on monetary policy. This is a serious job that requires serious focus. Perhaps Summers recognizes that the post-2008 monetary framework has created a fiscal Fed. Or maybe he will.

Summers’ demands for limits to the aims of monetary policy might be politically feasible under the old Volcker-Greenspan regime. Under that monetary regime, inflationary pressure placed strict limits on the expansion of the balance sheet. The political incentives now faced by both politicians and Fed officials promote precisely the sort of oversized fiscal expansions that we have observed in the last two years, the same expansions that Summers decries. 

The post-2008 framework has incentivized the destabilization of monetary policy. The sooner we recognize this fact, the sooner we can seriously discuss a solution to the problem.

*****

This article was published on October 13, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from AIER, American Institute for Economic Research.

Afghan refugees: Do we know what we’re getting into? thumbnail

Afghan refugees: Do we know what we’re getting into?

By Robert Spencer

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

Today at the Young America’s Foundation conference at the Reagan Ranch Center.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ilhan Omar Wants State Department to Fight ‘Islamophobia’

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

0 0 Robert Spencer 2021-10-24 05:22:59Afghan refugees: Do we know what we’re getting into?

VIDEO: Florida Man Who Became a Congressman Signs Off House Speech With ‘Let’s Go, Brandon!’ thumbnail

VIDEO: Florida Man Who Became a Congressman Signs Off House Speech With ‘Let’s Go, Brandon!’

By Robert Spencer

My latest in PJ Media:

On the House floor Thursday, a Florida man named Bill Posey, a Republican who has represented the Sunshine State’s 8th Congressional District since 2009, had a great deal to say about the dumpster fire that is Joe Biden’s handlers’ presidency, but his speech is much more likely to be remembered for how he ended it than for what he actually said: Posey concluded his remarks by saying, “Let’s go, Brandon!”

By now the whole world knows that “Let’s go, Brandon!” really means “F*** Joe Biden,” a secret code that everybody is in on, born when an NBC reporter tried vainly to cover for a NASCAR crowd that was chanting “F*** Joe Biden” while she interviewed driver Brandon Brown by claiming that it was chanting “Let’s go, Brandon.” Now “Let’s go, Brandon” has become a chart-topping rap hit and a wry expression of Americans’ dissatisfaction with the corrupt gang of socialists, internationalists, open-borders advocates, and worse that is running things, fronted by a man who, it is increasingly obvious, is barely even there.

Posey surveyed the way things are going as Biden’s handlers’ Build Back Better slogan has become Destroy More Things More Quickly, and said the regime’s program could not “pass a straight-face test.” Posey added: “Based on the false promise that he would unify America, President Biden got into the Oval Office. And my friends on the other side of the aisle gained a razor-thin majority in the House and Senate. But you know, we know, we all know, everybody knows the unification promise was a lie, and your majority is going to be short-lived. So you must feel compelled to rush through a radical agenda before the midterms.”

As a result, Posey said, Americans are “understandably frustrated” and “actually very angry,” and cannot be counted on to “sit back and take it much longer.” He said that Americans want Democrats “to help put America back where you found it and leave it the hell alone.” And then: “Let’s go, Brandon!”

Posey explained to Fox News: “Listen to my speech – like many Americans, I’m frustrated seeing the country quickly decline and the erosion of our civil liberties due to Washington’s policies designed to turn America upside down like the vaccine mandates, silencing parents at school board meetings, rampant crime, broken borders, rising gas and food prices, the weaponizing of the IRS, and a $5 trillion Green New Deal to restructure our lives.”

Indeed. Biden’s handlers have made a mess of things with remarkable speed, and the Florida Congressman didn’t even come close to mentioning all of them. He didn’t say anything about the Afghan refugees who are coming into the country by the tens of thousands despite the fact that no one knows who many of them are, and coming as they are from a jihadi hotspot, it is only reasonable to conclude that at least some of them could be jihad terrorists.

There is more. Read the rest here.

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

TAKE ACTION To Impeach Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin – Sign The Petition thumbnail

TAKE ACTION To Impeach Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin – Sign The Petition

By Robert Spencer

Instead of fighting the enemy, he was fighting Americans.


Sign the Freedom Center’s petition to Remove Secretary Austin NOW! –  CLICK HERE.


Americans are dead and our credibility is in ruins. Meanwhile the man at the top of the military chain of command is blaming everyone else while using the dead for political cover.

When Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he suggested that any criticism of his disaster in Afghanistan would impugn the heroism of American soldiers who fought and died in the war. It was a shameless performance in which Austin blamed everyone else while using the soldiers he sacrificed as human shields.

Indian intelligence sources revealed that the ISIS-K suicide bomber who murdered 13 American military personnel at the Kabul airport had been released from Bagram Air Base by the Taliban.

The decision to pull out of Bagram had been reached at a secret meeting in the Pentagon’s “extreme basement” attended by Austin, Gen. Milley, and Secretary of State Blinken.

Any final decision would have had to be signed off by Biden and by Austin.

It’s understandable that Austin keeps coming up with excuses for the disaster that led to the death of more American personnel in one day than in the last two years of war in Afghanistan.

Austin is at the top of the military chain of command and answers only to the man in the Oval Office. No one is more responsible for the military disaster in Afghanistan than Austin except for the man who gave him his orders. But it was Austin who promised Senate members that if he were confirmed, he would speak his mind and stand up to Joe Biden.

“I certainly wouldn’t be here if I believed the last four years of my life left me too familiar with current operations to change course when needed, too close to scrutinize people with whom I once served, or too afraid to speak my mind to you or to the President,” Austin had assured the Senate Armed Service Committee during his confirmation hearing.

It was one of the many broken promises that Austin left in his wake during his brief tenure. The Secretary of Defense had promised to end the war in Afghanistan “on terms favorable to the United States”, had assured that, “Afghan security forces have the capability and capacity to project security and stability in Afghanistan in 2021 and beyond”, and that he would work to “ensure that the U.S. military and our Afghan partners have the capacity and capability necessary to protect U.S. personnel, our allies and partners, and our interests.”

Austin vowed to represent national interests, to be independent and flexible, and to keep American soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan and in the United States safe.

As the Afghanistan disaster unfolded, Austin showed off all of his abandoned promises.

He explained that he could not rescue the Americans trapped behind enemy lines. “I don’t have the capability to go out and extend operations currently into Kabul.” Austin acknowledged that Americans were being assaulted by the Taliban. “We’re also aware that some people, including Americans, have been harassed and even beaten by the Taliban.” he admitted, but all he had to offer was a protest that he had registered with “the designated Taliban leader.”

In eight months under Austin’s leadership, U.S. military forces had gone from a dominant force to being unable to stop the Taliban from beating Americans in the streets of Kabul.

This disgraceful betrayal was implemented by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

No single military figure had done as much to radicalize the military, undermine military readiness, shatter international alliances, and destroy America’s credibility abroad.

Austin’s opening statement at his confirmation hearing made no mention of Afghanistan or the Taliban, or even Al Qaeda, ISIS, and terrorism. Instead he vowed to fight the “enemies” that “lie within our own ranks” and “rid our ranks of racists and extremists” by which he meant anyone who wasn’t on board with critical race theory and the rest of his radical leftist agenda.

In February, Austin held his first press conference at which he discussed the Biden administration’s illegal military occupation of Washington D.C. He also mentioned that, “I told our allies that no matter what the outcome of our review, the United States will not undertake a hasty or disorderly withdrawal from Afghanistan.”

NATO allies were promised that, “There will be no surprises. We will consult each other, consult together and decide together and act together.” As the British and other NATO allies have made clear, there was no consultation and there were no joint decisions. Instead Biden and Austin made disastrous unilateral moves while leaving the nations that had aided us holding the bag.

But Austin was spending far more time fighting conservatives in the military than fighting the enemy. While white personnel were being told that they were oppressors, and minority personnel were encouraged to believe that they were victims of white racism, the planning for a full evacuation from Afghanistan was being pushed off as it was an unimportant matter.

Defense Secretary Austin kept sloganeering about “a responsible and sustainable end to this war” and promised, “we want to do this methodically and deliberately”. Instead, he abandoned Bagram Air Base, cutting off the only safe evacuation route, and pulled all but 600 military personnel out, only to rush troops back at the last minute for a “hasty” and “disorderly withdrawal”.

Austin had also promised that U.S. military weapons wouldn’t fall into the hands of the Taliban.

“We’re going to responsibly retrograde all of our capabilities,” Austin had falsely promised.  “We’re going to account for all the people and resources that are working with us.”

Instead, Austin left the Taliban as the best armed Sunni Jihadist group on the planet.

While Austin was vowing to fight all the “racists and extremists” in the military, he was ignoring a report to the Pentagon’s Inspector General which warned that “Al Qaeda is gaining strength in Afghanistan while continuing to operate with the Taliban under the Taliban’s protection” and that “Al Qaeda capitalizes on its relationship with the Taliban through its network of mentors and advisers who are embedded with the Taliban, providing advice, guidance, and financial support.”

Al Qaeda functioned in relation to the Taliban the way that America did to the Afghan government as an embedded supportive force providing money and strategic insights. The Taliban had not only failed to turn on Al Qaeda, but the terrorist group that had attacked America on September 11 was playing the role of the wizards behind the Taliban curtain.

In response to Senate questions, Austin wrote that the “Taliban have agreed to take concrete steps to ensure that al Qaeda never again is able to use Afghanistan’s soil to threaten the security of the United States or our allies. If confirmed, I will review the Taliban’s progress toward implementing their commitments with regard to al Qaeda.”

The Taliban implemented their commitments to Al Qaeda, not to Austin. The Haqqani Network, longtime Al Qaeda allies, control Kabul and the terrorist group freely operates in Afghanistan.

“We are committed to a responsible and sustainable end to this war while preventing Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups that threaten the interest of the United States and our allies,” Austin had said. But the report to the Pentagon IG had already made it clear that Taliban control over Afghanistan would mean the return of Al Qaeda.

What happened wasn’t a surprise, it was inevitable.

“The whole community is kind of watching to see what happens and whether or not al Qaeda has the ability to regenerate in Afghanistan,” Austin told reporters during his post-defeat tour.

As usual, he was late to the party.

“We put the Taliban on notice that we expect them to not allow that to happen,” he said, referring to Al Qaeda using Afghanistan to launch attacks against the United States. The “notice” will be as effective as the one about the Taliban beating Americans at checkpoints.

But Austin had made it his priority to use the military against fellow Americans, whether in Washington D.C. or within the ranks of the military, while betraying Americans to the Taliban.

“This all occurred in a span of about 11 days. Nobody predicted that, you know, the government would fall in 11 days,” Austin whined during an ABC News interview.

Every Biden administration official had latched on the same dishonest talking point.

As the Washington Post noted, “On Sept. 27, 1996, Taliban forces captured Kabul overnight, flooding in from all directions after a 15-day sweep of the country.” There were plenty of intelligence estimates warning of a rapid Taliban takeover. But Austin didn’t have to wait until there were only 11 days left. What was he doing since Kamala Harris swore him in on Jan 25?

Where were all those “responsible” and “methodical” plans he had been promising all along?

Instead of planning how to keep Americans safe, Austin spent those months waging war on Americans with a militarization of Washington D.C. and with a purge of the military. And when 13 American military personnel died because of his actions at the Kabul airport, the dead heroes proved to be men and women, white and Latino, who represented the spectrum that Austin was trying to divide with the big lies of critical race theory and a hunt for “extremists”.

The real extremists were Austin, Milley, and Biden.

Like most leftists, Secretary of Defense Austin could not take the idea of an external enemy seriously. Radicals striving to take power focus all their efforts on fighting internal enemies. And while Austin fought other Americans, Al Qaeda and the Taliban claimed Afghanistan.

Along with untold billions in military equipment, including Black Hawk helicopters, drones, armored vehicles, and a treasure trove of assault rifles and heavy weaponry.

On his post-defeat tour, Austin has claimed that the disaster, “will be studied in the days and months ahead”, and admitted that, “No operation is ever perfect, there are lessons to be learned.” What those lessons are, he hasn’t bothered sharing with the rest of the country.

Austin may not be especially bright, but he is a career military man who reached the pinnacle of his profession. He knew that the Afghanistan withdrawal would be a disaster and that is why he reportedly advised Biden to conduct it in stages, instead of in one fell swoop. Biden ignored his advice and Austin shrugged because he didn’t care about Afghanistan, he cared about “racism”.

The real lesson here is on the dangers of putting radicals with racial grudges in charge of the United States military. The Afghanistan rout was not an unexpected surprise, it was the cumulative effect of radicalism, incompetence, and apathy by a politicized and disloyal brass.

While Austin was fighting enemies at home, he enabled enemies abroad. He made fellow American military personnel into his enemies and they died at the hands of true enemies.

The betrayal in Afghanistan began with a betrayal at home.

COLUMN BY

DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ilhan Omar Wants State Department to Fight ‘Islamophobia’

UC Berkeley study claims that ‘Islamophobia undermines and weakens women’s rights’

UK: Three children from jailed Islamic State families handed to families in Britain to start new life

India: 3200 Islamic State sleeper cells with 32000 jihadis active in Kerala, with Pakistani support

Afghanistan: Shia community fearful amid deadly mosque attacks and ongoing persecution from Sunnis

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

Biden’s ‘Jabs Not Jobs’ Policies. thumbnail

Biden’s ‘Jabs Not Jobs’ Policies.

By Dr. Rich Swier

“If getting vaccinated is simply a matter of individual health, there is little reason for planners to exercise control over the public.” – Jon Miltimore


QUESTION: Are Personal Heath Decisions Yours or the Biden Administrations?

Biden and his administration are all in to force you to get jabbed, even our military. If you don’t then, well, you can lose your job. In the military you could be court marshalled and/or dishonorably discharged. Watch Tucker Carlson’s exposé of a propaganda PowerPoint used by U.S. Army to justify mandatory vaccines.

There is growing evidence that clearly shows deaths are increasing worldwide after COVID-19 shots. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson reported, through June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a US Health and Human Services Department division, recorded 358,379 adverse events after vaccinations, including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious illnesses.

Dr. Robert Wachter, chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, stated in a New York Times column, “Remember when the early vaccine studies came out, it was like nobody gets hospitalized, nobody dies. That clearly is not true.”

Some Governors are having none of these vaccine mandates. Governor Ron DeSantis has called for a special session of the Florida legislature to address this issue of personal health decisions. Watch:

Business Insider reported the following about the side effects of getting jabbed:

Dose 2 usually comes with more severe side effects

The most common side effect for all three authorized US vaccines is pain or swelling at the injection site: Nearly 92% of participants in Moderna’s clinical trial developed this side effect. in Pfizer’s trial, 84% of participants reported that, as did 49% in Johnson & Johnson’s.

Other common side effects include fatigue, headache, and body or muscle aches. About 65% of vaccine recipients in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s trials, and 38% in Johnson & Johnson’s, developed fatigue.

For those who haven’t had COVID-19 before, side effects tend to be more numerous and severe after the second dose.

How many Americans have lost their jobs due to Biden’s jabs mandate?

The GOP Times reported:

  • According to the Associated Press, “Advocate Aurora Health has fired about 440 employees for not abiding by the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.”
  • A total of 1,887 Washington state employees have either quit their jobs or been fired for failing to comply with Gov. Jay Inslee’s (D) coronavirus vaccine mandate amounting to approximately 3% of the workforce of the state as reported by The Hill.
  • GOP Newsfeed reported that 117 nurses of the Houston Methodist Hospital system filed a wrongful termination suit against the hospital due to their vaccine mandate, however, a total of 153 employees were terminated.
  • According to Reuters, “New York State’s largest healthcare provider, Northwell Health, has fired 1,400 employees who refused to get COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a spokesman, Joe Kemp.”
  • The Intelligencer reported that the impact is being felt keenly in New York City where about 10% of approximately 5,000 of the city’s public hospital workforce “remained unvaccinated and were not allowed to work.”’

Matthew Holloway in his article This is How Many Americans Have Been Forced Out of Work Because of Jab Mandates notes:

Conservatively speaking 8,880 Americans are without work today as a direct result of the Biden-Harris vaccine mandate. However, many thousands still are conducting work actions such as Boeing employees such as in Everett, Washington where hundreds of employees walked off the job in protest of the mandate. And in New York City and Chicago where anywhere up to 31% of New York’s Police officers and up to 40% of FDNY employees could find themselves unemployed. Or similarly in Chicago where so far 21 officers have been suspended without pay, a number that could grow to almost 2,000 officers

Read the full article.

These numbers will only increase as more government entities enforce Biden’s jab mandates. We are beginning to see more and more Americans not going to work in protest against being forced against their wills to get jabbed. The most recent example was when Southwest Airlines pilots stayed home after their CEO announced a policy that they get jabbed or get fired.

Civil disobedience is on the rise and Biden’s approval ratings are falling like a rock.

As Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy stupid.”

To Get Jabbed or Not To Get Jabbed

A new paper in the European Journal of Epidemiology that analyzed 168 countries and 2,947 US counties found that higher vaccination rates were not associated with fewer COVID-19 cases.

I have been through four pandemics. The most recent were SARS and H1N1 under the Obama administration. This is the first time that anyone has “mandated” that individuals be jabbed, i.e. take the Covid vaccines.

With every passing day, the case for vaccine mandates grows weaker and weaker.@SenatorBrakey highlights data from @DrJBhattacharya to show that an abundance of scientific research undermines the justifications for #Covid_19 vaccine mandates.https://t.co/V7BoxGHLLz

— Jon Miltimore (@miltimore79) October 8, 2021

Here’s an October 19, 2021 video from The Olympian showing how jabbed tyranny is being implemented by the governor of Wisconson:

Conclusion

Watch Tucker Carlson discuss the ramifications of vaccine mandates.

Healthcare is strictly a doctor and patient issue. Government intervention “literally hurts” and does not help patients, healthcare workers and employers. You and your doctor know best what is good for you and your long term health.

Once  you government can mandate that you must get jabbed or else, then what other powers will they take from you?

Many American’s are asking what’s next?

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

1 Horrifying Discovery Forced the Swedes to Bar Their Young People from Taking Moderna’s Vaccine

Kerry Promises to Create Auto Jobs IN MEXICO as Part of Biden’s Green New Deal

COVID-19: The Weaponization Of Fear

NIH Confirms It Funded Wuhan Gain-of-Function Research, Now Fauci Could Spend 5 Years in Jail

AG Merrick Garland Admits Federal War On Parents Sprang From School Boards Letter, Not Evidence thumbnail

AG Merrick Garland Admits Federal War On Parents Sprang From School Boards Letter, Not Evidence

By Jordan Davidson

Editors’ Note:  While we are not great fans of Mitch McConnell, it should be said that he kept Merrick Garland from becoming a Supreme Court Justice. Garland has proven to be a menace to a free society and it is a wonder this clown could ever have been a Federal Judge. That leading Democrats would nominate such a man first to the Supreme Court, and then as Attorney General certainly shows again where the party is on matters of law and liberty. Again, blaming bungling Joe Biden solely for putting this man in power avoids confronting the deep rot within the Democrat Party.

Attorney General Merrick Garland admitted on Thursday that the basis for targeting and potentially charging parents concerned about what their children are learning in schools with domestic terrorism was a letter from the National School Boards Association, not real evidence.

“When did you first review the data showing this so-called disturbing uptick?” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan asked during a House Judiciary hearing on Thursday.

“I read the letter, and we have been seeing over time—” Garland began before Jordan interrupted him.

“So you read the letter? That’s your source?” Jordan asked incredulously. “Is there some study, some effort, some investigation someone did that, said there’s been a disturbing uptick, or you just take the words of the National School Board Association?”

Garland then confirmed it wasn’t until NSBA contacted him that his department began to investigate claims of violence and terrorism.

“Well, the National School Board Association, which represents thousands of school boards and school board members, says that there are these kinds of threats. When we read in the newspapers reports of threats of violence—” Garland said before Jordan interjected again.

“The source for this … was the National School Boards Association letter,” Jordan reiterated before his time expired.

The NSBA sent a letter to the Biden administration last month begging federal law enforcement to use domestic terrorism laws to target parents who oppose anti-science mask mandates for children and the infiltration of racist curriculum in schools. The school board organization claimed federal action was warranted to “deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation.”

Most of the incident examples the NSBA used to justify intervention by the Biden administration did not escalate to a level that even yielded arrests or charges on the local level, yet Garland quickly directed the FBI and state attorneys to address “a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools.”

Multiple state school board associations reported that they were not consulted before the NSBA sent its letter to the Biden administration. While a handful of the state associations simply said they were unaware of the NSBA’s letter until it was published, most state groups condemned the national association’s request to use domestic terrorism laws to target parents and said the protests they’ve experienced have not warranted law enforcement involvement beyond the local and state level.

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association voted unanimously to withdraw from its parent organization in protest of the national organization’s political war on parents.

During his hearing, Garland also confirmed that no one involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot has been charged with “insurrection.”

*****

This article was published on October 21, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Federalist.

The Telescreens in Your Home Are Watching Your Every Move thumbnail

The Telescreens in Your Home Are Watching Your Every Move

By Robert Spencer

A woman who uses the apt TikTok handle @my.data.not.yours has posted a video detailing the truly shocking extent of Amazon’s surveillance of her daily life. She requested “all the data Amazon has on me,” explaining, “I have two Dots and one Echo.” Between them, these devices have collected an astonishing amount of data. She goes through the folders Amazon sent her and says of one audio folder,: “There are 3,534 short audio clips in this file alone.” This is, she says, “so scary.” Yeah.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO

The problem isn’t that any of the audio clips contain some kind of compromising information. What they contain is trivial, as she notes of one of them, “This one is of me turning on a light.” However, she continues, “I then clicked on Contacts and it turns out they have a full list of my contacts from my phone and I never remember syncing that.” Also, “The very last thing that I didn’t know that they had, I could have assumed that they have but I don’t love that they have, is my location.” She adds, “I’m not totally comfortable with everything they have.”

She shouldn’t be. In 1984, the citizens of the totalitarian dystopia Oceania are required to have a telescreen in their homes, and can never shut it off. Not only does it blare the regime’s lies and agitprop at them twenty-four hours a day, but it can and does listen in on them, without anyone ever knowing exactly when they’re being listened to.

The hapless proles of Oceania had no other choice but to allow this surveillance; Orwell would be aghast to see modern-day Americans not only willingly inviting surveillance of their daily activities but happily paying for the devices that enable it.

Many of the viewers of the video, however, found it difficult to see why it would be “so scary” that Amazon would have thousands of recordings of people turning on light bulbs and asking Alexa to play some Tony Bennett. According to the New York Post, one commenter thought the TikToker was making a mountain out of a molehill: “It’s scary that people with Echo Dots and Alexa’s etc [sic] don’t know that Amazon records you and keeps the recordings.” Another added, “Can someone explain to me why this is ‘scary’? I’m not interesting enough to care if they have my contacts or audio.”

Sure. The telescreen operators in 1984 no doubt collected oceans of utterly trivial and uninteresting data as well. Then it was someone else’s job to wade through it all in order to discover anyone who may have dared to utter anti-regime sentiments. Once the mechanism for surveillance is in place, what is there to prevent it from being used by the unscrupulous for nefarious purposes?

There is more. Read the rest here.

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

Besides All the Crime in Chicago, There’s Also Jihad Terror Plotting thumbnail

Besides All the Crime in Chicago, There’s Also Jihad Terror Plotting

By Robert Spencer

My latest in PJ Media:

Chicago under the misrule of its woke mayor Lori Lightfoot is already a sinkhole of gang violence, drug abuse, and vaccine tyranny, and it’s even worse than you think. On Monday, the Justice Department announced that “an Illinois man pleaded guilty today to attempting to provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and Al-Nusra Front (ANF).” On the same day, another Chicago man was convicted of providing support to ISIS. If this sort of thing keeps up, the skyrocketing crime rate in the Windy City may be the least of Lightfoot’s troubles.

Chicago’s Dilshod Khusanov, 36, according to the DOJ, will be deported after he serves a prison term. He “encouraged individuals to travel to Syria to wage violent jihad, or holy war, in 2014 and 2015. For example, on Sept. 28, 2014, Khusanov urged co-conspirator Akmal Zakirov to engage in jihad: ‘I hope that the only [reason] that is preventing you from jihad is some mistakes and flaws that are occurring among the other fighters.’ Khusanov explained that it would be better to help those fighters, rather than criticize them.”

Khusanov was part of a group of jihad plotters inside the United States who raised money to help get ISIS jihadis to the front lines: “Later in 2014, two Brooklyn residents, Abdurasul Juraboev and Akhror Saidakhmetov began planning to travel to Syria to fight for ISIS.” To further this goal, “a group of individuals in a domestic network based in New York and elsewhere, including Khusanov, worked together to raise and contribute money to help fund that trip to Syria.”

This group began discussing ways to finance Saidakhmetov’s trip to Syria; two members of the group “also agreed to solicit money from others to fund Saidakhmetov’s travel.” They were the ones who contacted Khusanov, who then “arranged for money to be deposited in Zakirov’s bank account before Saidakhmetov’s scheduled departure.”

All of this came to naught, however, when Saidakhmetov was “arrested in February 2015 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, as he boarded a plane bound for Istanbul, Turkey, a transit point for foreign fighters bound for Syria.”

Osadzinski, meanwhile, a former student at Chicago’s DePaul University, was also at work aiding ISIS, apparently independently of Khusanov’s cell. According to the Voice of America, he “wrote a computer code to help IS bypass programs designed to block the group’s propaganda.” He exclaimed that he couldn’t just “sit in the chair while Muslims are dying”; he began studying how to make bombs, and spoke about the massacres he would perpetrate “once I get my gun and explosive belt.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UC Berkeley Students Happily Pledge Money to Help the Taliban Kill Americans Inside the U.S.

Minneapolis: Muslim migrant cop who shot unarmed woman to death gets nearly five years in prison

Greece: Muslim migrants march with flag of pro-Sharia Pakistani group

Ilhan Omar introduces legislation to create Special Envoy for monitoring and combating ‘Islamophobia’

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

Why the Push Is on to Make Pandemic Life ‘Permanent’ thumbnail

Why the Push Is on to Make Pandemic Life ‘Permanent’

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

COVID-19 is new. But the reaction to the crisis is starting to look familiar.


One year after Americans were ordered to close down society for “two weeks to flatten the curve,” Bloomberg columnist Andreas Kluth warned, “We Must Start Planning for a Permanent Pandemic.”

Because new variants of SARS-COV-2 are impervious to existing vaccines, says Kluth, and pharmaceutical companies will never be able to develop new vaccines fast enough to keep up, we will never be able to get “back to normal.”

“Get back to normal” means recovering the relative liberty we had in our already overregulated, pre-Covid lives. This is just the latest in a long series of crises that always seem to lead our wise rulers to the same conclusion: we just cannot afford freedom anymore.

Covid-19 certainly wasn’t the beginning. Americans were told “the world changed” after 9/11. Basic pillars of the American system, like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, were too antiquated to deal with the “new threat of terrorism.” Warrantless surveillance of our phone, e-mail, and financial records and physical searches of our persons without probable cause of a crime became the norm. A few principled civil libertarians dissented, but the public largely complied without protest.

“Keep us safe,” they told the government, no matter the cost in dollars or liberty.

Perhaps seeing how willingly the public rolled over for the political right during the “War on Terror,” authoritarians on the left turbocharged their own war on “climate change.” Previously interested in merely significantly raising taxes and heavily regulating industry, they now wish to ban all sorts of things, including air travelgasoline-powered cars, and even eating meat.

Since Covid-19, however, even the freedom to assemble and see each other’s faces may be permanently banned to help the government “keep us safe.”

Assaulting our liberty isn’t the only characteristic these crisis narratives have in common. They share at least two others: dire predictions that turn out to be false and proposed solutions that turn out to be ineffective.

George W. Bush warned Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” capable of hitting New York City within 45 minutes. He created the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA to prevent, among other things, a “mushroom cloud” over a major American city.

Twenty years later, we know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the terrorist threat was grossly exaggerated, and the TSA has still never caught a terrorist, not even the two people who tried to set off explosives concealed in their shoes and underwear, respectively.

The only effective deterrent of terrorism so far has been the relatively calmer foreign policy during the four years of the Trump administration, during which regime change operations ceased and major terrorist attacks in the United States virtually disappeared.

Predictions of environmental catastrophe have similarly proven false. Younger people may not remember that in the early 1970s, long before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was born, environmentalists were predicting worldwide disasters that subsequently failed to materialize. In 1989, the Associated Press reported, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” The same official predicted the Earth’s temperature would rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years.

Ocasio-Cortez is famous for predicting in 2019, “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” But Al Gore had warned in 2006 that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” So, isn’t it too late anyway?

As with the war on terrorism, the war on climate change asks us to give up our freedom for solutions that don’t work. Assuming climate change proponents have diagnosed the problem correctly and haven’t exaggerated the threat—huge assumptions by themselves— implementing their proposed solution won’t solve the problem, even by their own standards.

Its proponents know this. The U.S. has already led the world in reducing carbon emissions without the draconian provisions of the Green New Deal. If you listen to them carefully, the Green New Deal’s proponents propose the U.S. give up what freedom and prosperity remain to them merely as an example to developing nations, whom they assume will forego the benefits of industrialization already enjoyed by developed countries because of the shining example of an America in chains and brought to its economic knees to “save the earth.”

Fat chance, that.

The latest remake of this horror movie is Covid-19. While undeniably a serious pathogen that has likely killed more people than even the worst flu epidemics of the past several decades (although this is hard to confirm since public health officials changed the methodology for determining a virus-caused death), the government and its minions have still managed to grossly exaggerate this threat.

Gone is any sense of proportion when discussing Covid-19. Yes, it is certainly possible to spread the virus after one has been vaccinated or acquired natural immunity. But how likely is it? Is it any more likely than spreading other pathogens after immunity?

If not, then why are we treating people with immunity differently than we have during more dangerous pandemics in the past? Similarly, it is likely possible for asymptomatic people to spread the virus—a key pillar of the lockdown argument—but again, how likely is it?

The theory Covid-19 could be spread by asymptomatic people was originally based on the case of a single woman who supposedly infected four other people while experiencing no symptoms. Anthony Fauci said this case “lays the question to rest.”

The only problem was no one had asked the woman in question if she had symptoms at the time. When it turned out she did, the study on her was retracted. A subsequent study “did not link any COVID-19 cases to asymptomatic carriers,” and yet another after that concluded transmission of the disease by asymptomatic carriers “is not a major driver of spread.” Yet, policies based on this falsehood, like lockdowns and forcing asymptomatic people to wear masks, remain in place.

Most importantly, none of the government-mandated Covid-19 mitigation policies work. No retrospective review conducted with any semblance of the scientific method has found a relationship between lockdowns, mask mandates, or social distancing and the spread of Covid-19. In fact, the most recent study suggests lockdowns may have increased Covid-19 infections, in addition to all the non-Covid excess deaths they caused.

Over and over, authoritarians overhype crises to scare the living daylights out of the public and propose solutions that have two things in common: they demand more of our freedom and they don’t work. It’s always all pain and no gain. One wonders how many repetitions of this crisis drill it will take before the citizens of the so-called “land of the free” finally think to ask:

Why is freedom always the problem?

This article was republished with permission.

COLUMN BY

Tom Mullen

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom’s writing, visit www.tommullen.net.

RELATED TWEET:

American Airlines employees protest outside headquarters over vaccine mandatehttps://t.co/Wv2KLwZv90

— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) October 23, 2021

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

Courage. Now. thumbnail

Courage. Now.

By Pamela Geller

Well done. They’ll try to destroy this woman and smear her good name – like they’ve done to my colleagues and me. Protect her – at all costs.

Say no to the Woke Revolution

By Bari Weiss

A lot of people want to convince you that you need a Ph.D. or a law degree or dozens of hours of free time to read dense texts about critical theory to understand the woke movement and its worldview. You do not. You simply need to believe your own eyes and ears.

Let me offer the briefest overview of the core beliefs of the Woke Revolution, which are abundantly clear to anyone willing to look past the hashtags and the jargon.

It begins by stipulating that the forces of justice and progress are in a war against backwardness and tyranny. And in a war, the normal rules of the game must be suspended. Indeed, this ideology would argue that those rules are not just obstacles to justice, but tools of oppression. They are the master’s tools. And the master’s tools cannot dismantle the master’s house.

So the tools themselves are not just replaced but repudiated. And in so doing, persuasion—the purpose of argument—is replaced with public shaming. Moral complexity is replaced with moral certainty. Facts are replaced with feelings.

Ideas are replaced with identity. Forgiveness is replaced with punishment. Debate is replaced with de-platforming. Diversity is replaced with homogeneity of thought. Inclusion, with exclusion.

In this ideology, speech is violence. But violence, when carried out by the right people in pursuit of a just cause, is not violence at all. In this ideology, bullying is wrong, unless you are bullying the right people, in which case it’s very, very good. In this ideology, education is not about teaching people how to think, it’s about reeducating them in what to think. In this ideology, the need to feel safe trumps the need to speak truthfully.

In this ideology, if you do not tweet the right tweet or share the right slogan, your whole life can be ruined. Just ask Tiffany Riley, a Vermont school principal who was fired—fired—because she said she supports black lives but not the organization Black Lives Matter.

In this ideology, the past cannot be understood on its own terms, but must be judged through the morals and mores of the present. It is why statues of Grant and Washington are being torn down. And it is why William Peris, a UCLA lecturer and an Air Force veteran, was investigated for reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” out loud in class.

In this ideology, intentions don’t matter. That is why Emmanuel Cafferty, a Hispanic utility worker at San Diego Gas and Electric, was fired for making what someone said he thought was a white-supremacist hand gesture—when in fact he was cracking his knuckles out of his car window.

In this ideology, the equality of opportunity is replaced with equality of outcome as a measure of fairness. If everyone doesn’t finish the race at the same time, the course must have been defective. Thus, the argument to get rid of the SAT. Or the admissions tests for public schools like Stuyvesant in New York or Lowell in San Francisco.

In this ideology, you are guilty for the sins of your fathers. In other words: You are not you. You are only a mere avatar of your race or your religion or your class. That is why third-graders in Cupertino, California, were asked to rate themselves in terms of their power and privilege. In third grade.

In this system, we are all placed neatly on a spectrum of “privileged” to “oppressed.” We are ranked somewhere on this spectrum in different categories: race, gender, sexual orientation, and class. Then we are given an overall score, based on the sum of these rankings. Having privilege means that your character and your ideas are tainted. This is why, one high-schooler in New York tells me, students in his school are told, “If you are white and male, you are second in line to speak.” This is considered a normal and necessary redistribution of power.

Racism has been redefined. It is no longer about discrimination based on the color of someone’s skin. Racism is any system that allows for disparate outcomes between racial groups. If disparity is present, as the high priest of this ideology, Ibram X. Kendi, has explained, racism is present. According to this totalizing new view, we are all either racist or anti-racist. To be a Good Person and not a Bad Person, you must be an “anti-racist.” There is no neutrality. There is no such thing as “not racist.”

Most important: In this revolution, skeptics of any part of this radical ideology are recast as heretics. Those who do not abide by every single aspect of its creed are tarnished as bigots, subjected to boycotts and their work to political litmus tests. The Enlightenment, as the critic Edward Rothstein has put it, has been replaced by the exorcism.

What we call “cancel culture” is really the justice system of this revolution. And the goal of the cancellations is not merely to punish the person being cancelled. The goal is to send a message to everyone else: Step out of line and you are next.

It has worked. A recent CATO study found that 62 percent of Americans are afraid to voice their true views. Nearly a quarter of American academics endorse ousting a colleague for having a wrong opinion about hot-button issues such as immigration or gender differences. And nearly 70 percent of students favor reporting professors if the professor says something that students find offensive, according to a Challey Institute for Global Innovation survey.

Why are so many, especially so many young people, drawn to this ideology? It’s not because they are dumb. Or because they are snowflakes, or whatever Fox talking points would have you believe. All of this has taken place against the backdrop of major changes in American life—the tearing apart of our social fabric; the loss of religion and the decline of civic organizations; the opioid crisis; the collapse of American industries; the rise of big tech; successive financial crises; a toxic public discourse; crushing student debt. An epidemic of loneliness. A crisis of meaning. A pandemic of distrust. It has taken place against the backdrop of the American dream’s decline into what feels like a punchline, the inequalities of our supposedly fair, liberal meritocracy clearly rigged in favor of some people and against others. And so on.

“I became converted because I was ripe for it and lived in a disintegrating society thrusting for faith.” That was Arthur Koestler writing in 1949 about his love affair with Communism. The same might be said of this new revolutionary faith. And like other religions at their inception, this one has lit on fire the souls of true believers, eager to burn down anything or anyone that stands in its way.

If you have ever tried to build something, even something small, you know how hard it is. It takes time. It takes tremendous effort. But tearing things down? That’s quick work.

The Woke Revolution has been exceptionally effective. It has successfully captured the most important sense-making institutions of American life: our newspapers. Our magazines. Our Hollywood studios. Our publishing houses. Many of our tech companies. And, increasingly, corporate America.

Just as in China under Chairman Mao, the seeds of our own cultural revolution can be traced to the academy, the first of our institutions to be overtaken by it. And our schools—public, private, parochial—are increasingly the recruiting grounds for this ideological army.

A few stories are worth recounting:

David Peterson is an art professor at Skidmore College in upstate New York. He stood accused in the fevered summer of 2020 of “engaging in hateful conduct that threatens Black Skidmore students.”

What was that hateful conduct? David and his wife, Andrea, went to watch a rally for police officers. “Given the painful events that continue to unfold across this nation, I guess we just felt compelled to see first-hand how all of this was playing out in our own community,” he told the Skidmore student newspaper. David and his wife stayed for 20 minutes on the edge of the event. They held no signs, participated in no chants. They just watched. Then they left for dinner.

For the crime of listening, David Peterson’s class was boycotted. A sign appeared on his classroom door: “STOP. By entering this class you are crossing a campus-wide picket line and breaking the boycott against Professor David Peterson. This is not a safe environment for marginalized students.” Then the university opened an investigation into accusations of bias in the classroom.

Across the country from Skidmore, at the University of Southern California, a man named Greg Patton is a professor of business communication. In 2020, Patton was teaching a class on “filler words”—such as “um” and “like” and so forth for his master’s-level course on communication for management. It turns out that the Chinese word for “like” sounds like the n-word. Students wrote the school’s staff and administration accusing their professor of “negligence and disregard.” They added: “We are burdened to fight with our existence in society, in the workplace, and in America. We should not be made to fight for our sense of peace and mental well-being” at school.

In a normal, reality-based world, there is only one response to such a claim: You misheard. But that was not the response. This was: “It is simply unacceptable for faculty to use words in class that can marginalize, hurt and harm the psychological safety of our students,” the dean, Geoffrey Garrett wrote. “Understandably, this caused great pain and upset among students, and for that I am deeply sorry.”

This rot hasn’t been contained to higher education. At a mandatory training earlier this year in the San Diego Unified School District, Bettina Love, an education professor who believes that children learn better from teachers of the same race, accused white teachers of “spirit murdering black and brown children” and urged them to undergo “antiracist therapy for White educators.”

San Francisco’s public schools didn’t manage to open their schools during the pandemic, but the board decided to rename 44 schools—including those named for George Washington and John Muir—before suspending the plan. Meantime, one of the board members declared merit “racist” and “Trumpian.”

A recent educational program for sixth to eighth grade teachers called “a pathway to equitable math instruction”—funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—was recently sent to Oregon teachers by the state’s Department of Education. The program’s literature informs teachers that white supremacy shows up in math instruction when “rigor is expressed only in difficulty,” and “contrived word problems are valued over the math in students’ lived experiences.”

Serious education is the antidote to such ignorance. Frederick Douglass said, “Education means emancipation. It means light and liberty. It means the uplifting of the soul of man into the glorious light of truth, the light only by which men can be free.” Soaring words that feel as if they are a report from a distant galaxy. Education is increasingly where debate, dissent, and discovery go to die.

It’s also very bad for kids.For those deemed “privileged,” it creates a hostile environment where kids are too intimidated to participate. For those deemed “oppressed,” it inculcates an extraordinarily pessimistic view of the world, where students are trained to perceive malice and bigotry in everything they see. They are denied the dignity of equal standards and expectations. They are denied the belief in their own agency and ability to succeed. As Zaid Jilani had put it: “You cannot have power without responsibility. Denying minorities responsibility for their own actions, both good and bad, will only deny us the power we rightly deserve.”

How did we get here? There are a lot of factors that are relevant to the answer: institutional decay; the tech revolution and the monopolies it created; the arrogance of our elites; poverty; the death of trust. And all of these must be examined, because without them we would have neither the far right nor the cultural revolutionaries now clamoring at America’s gates.

But there is one word we should linger on, because every moment of radical victory turned on it. The word is cowardice.

The revolution has been met with almost no resistance by those who have the title CEO or leader or president or principal in front of their names. The refusal of the adults in the room to speak the truth, their refusal to say no to efforts to undermine the mission of their institutions, their fear of being called a bad name and that fear trumping their responsibility—that is how we got here.

Allan Bloom had the radicals of the 1960s in mind when he wrote that “a few students discovered that pompous teachers who catechized them about academic freedom could, with a little shove, be made into dancing bears.” Now, a half-century later, those dancing bears hold named chairs at every important elite, sense-making institution in the country.

As Douglas Murray has put it: “The problem is not that the sacrificial victim is selected. The problem is that the people who destroy his reputation are permitted to do so by the complicity, silence and slinking away of everybody else.”

Each surely thought: These protestors have some merit! This institution, this university, this school, hasn’t lived up to all of its principles at all times! We have been racist! We have been sexist! We haven’t always been enlightened! I’ll give a bit and we’ll find a way to compromise. This turned out to be as naive as Robespierre thinking that he could avoid the guillotine.

Think about each of the anecdotes I’ve shared here and all the rest you already know. All that had to change for the entire story to turn out differently was for the person in charge, the person tasked with being a steward for the newspaper or the magazine or the college or the school district or the private high school or the kindergarten, to say: No.

If cowardice is the thing that has allowed for all of this, the force that stops this cultural revolution can also be summed up by one word: courage. And courage often comes from people you would not expect.

Consider Maud Maron. Maron is a lifelong liberal who has always walked the walk. She was an escort for Planned Parenthood; a law-school research assistant to Kathleen Cleaver, the former Black Panther; and a poll watcher for John Kerry in Pennsylvania during the 2004 presidential election. In 2016, she was a regular contributor to Bernie Sanders’s campaign.

Maron dedicated her career to Legal Aid: “For me, being a public defender is more than a job,” she told me. “It’s who I am.”

But things took a turn when, this past year, Maron spoke out passionately and publicly about the illiberalism that has gripped the New York City public schools attended by her four children.

“I am very open about what I stand for,” she told me. “I am pro-integration. I am pro-diversity. And also I reject the narrative that white parents are to blame for the failures of our school system. I object to the mayor’s proposal to get rid of specialized admissions tests to schools like Stuyvesant. And I believe that racial essentialism is racist and should not be taught in school.”

What followed this apparent thought crime was a 21st-century witch hunt. Maron was smeared publicly by her colleagues. They called her “racist, and openly so.” They said, “We’re ashamed that she works for the Legal Aid Society.”

Most people would have walked away and quietly found a new job. Not Maud Maron. This summer, she filed suit against the organization, claiming that she was forced out of Legal Aid because of her political views and her race, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

“The reason they went after me is that I have a different point of view,” she said. “These ideologues have tried to ruin my name and my career, and they are going after other good people. Not enough people stand up and say: It is totally wrong to do this to a person. And this is not going to stop unless people stand up to it.”

That’s courage.

Courage also looks like Paul Rossi, the math teacher at Grace Church High School in New York who raised questions about this ideology at a mandatory, whites-only student and faculty Zoom meeting. A few days later, all the school’s advisers were required to read a public reprimand of his conduct out loud to every student in the school. Unwilling to disavow his beliefs, Rossi blew the whistle: “I know that by attaching my name to this I’m risking not only my current job but my career as an educator, since most schools, both public and private, are now captive to this backward ideology. But witnessing the harmful impact it has on children, I can’t stay silent.” That’s courage.

Courage is Xi Van Fleet, a Virginia mom who endured Mao’s Cultural Revolution as a child and spoke up to the Loudoun County School Board at a public meeting in June. “You are training our children to loathe our country and our history,” she said in front of the school board. “Growing up in Mao’s China, all of this feels very familiar…. The only difference is that they used class instead of race.”

Gordon Klein, a professor at UCLA, recently filed suit against his own university. Why? A student asked him to grade black students with “greater leniency.” He refused, given that such a racial preference would violate UCLA’s anti-discrimination policies (and maybe even the law). But the people in charge of UCLA’s Anderson School launched a racial-discrimination complaint into him. They denounced him, banned him from campus, appointed a monitor to look at his emails, and suspended him. He eventually was reinstated—because he had done absolutely nothing wrong—but not before his reputation and career were severely damaged. “I don’t want to see anyone else’s life destroyed as they attempted to do to me,” Klein told me. “Few have the intestinal fortitude to fight cancel culture. I do. This is about sending a message to every petty tyrant out there.”

Courage is Peter Boghossian. He recently resigned his post at Portland State University, writing in a letter to his provost: “The university transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a social justice factory whose only inputs were race, gender and victimhood and whose only output was grievance and division…. I feel morally obligated to make this choice. For ten years, I have taught my students the importance of living by your principles. One of mine is to defend our system of liberal education from those who seek to destroy it. Who would I be if I didn’t?”

Who would I be if I didn’t?

George Orwell said that “the further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” In an age of lies, telling the truth is high risk. It comes with a cost. But it is our moral obligation.

It is our duty to resist the crowd in this age of mob thinking. It is our duty to think freely in an age of conformity. It is our duty to speak truth in an age of lies.

This bravery isn’t the last or only step in opposing this revolution—it’s just the first. After that must come honest assessments of why America was vulnerable to start with, and an aggressive commitment to rebuilding the economy and society in ways that once again offer life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the greatest number of Americans.

But let’s start with a little courage.

Courage means, first off, the unqualified rejection of lies. Do not speak untruths, either about yourself or anyone else, no matter the comfort offered by the mob. And do not genially accept the lies told to you. If possible, be vocal in rejecting claims you know to be false. Courage can be contagious, and your example may serve as a means of transmission.

When you’re told that traits such as industriousness and punctuality are the legacy of white supremacy, don’t hesitate to reject it. When you’re told that statues of figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass are offensive, explain that they are national heroes. When you’re told that “nothing has changed” in this country for minorities, don’t dishonor the memory of civil-rights pioneers by agreeing. And when you’re told that America was founded in order to perpetuate slavery, don’t take part in rewriting the country’s history.

America is imperfect. I always knew it, as we all do—and the past few years have rocked my faith like no others in my lifetime. But America and we Americans are far from irredeemable.

The motto of Frederick Douglass’s anti-slavery paper, the North Star—“The Right is of no Sex—Truth is of no Color—God is the Father of us all, and all we are brethren”—must remain all of ours.

We can still feel the pull of that electric cord Lincoln talked about 163 years ago—the one “in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”

Every day I hear from people who are living in fear in the freest society humankind has ever known. Dissidents in a democracy, practicing doublespeak. That is what is happening right now. What happens five, 10, 20 years from now if we don’t speak up and defend the ideas that have made all of our lives possible?

Liberty. Equality. Freedom. Dignity. These are ideas worth fighting for.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report 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.

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

Biden on Energy Crisis: Begging Others to Save Him From Himself thumbnail

Biden on Energy Crisis: Begging Others to Save Him From Himself

By Tim Murtaugh

Editors’ Note: We agree very much with the sentiments in the article to follow, but we caution about too much emphasis being placed on the bungling of “Bare Shelves Biden”.  This is a crisis of policy more than the shortcomings of a simple political hack. It  extends well beyond the President who can’t even read a telepromter. The current supply chain crisis, the spike in energy prices, millions sitting at home with 11 million jobs unfilled, is the product of long held policy positions held by the entire Democrat Party and inherent in its “progressive ” agenda. We worry that Biden will be ditched at some point by the party, when he becomes a heavy liability. He may have even been chosen, with his cognitive short comings well known, so he could be ditched at some point. The aim might be to create enough chaos to justify the sacrifice a political animal on the alter of socialism, and then send in a new team of smarter operatives to exploit the crisis they themselves have created.  Therefore, while the criticism of Biden is well deserved, it should be remembered that he is just the errand boy and did not invent these failed ideas. As current anger builds, it would do well for conservatives to emphasize this is much more than the failure of one man. It is the failure of ideas and the failure of an entire political party.

President Joe Biden is drowning in a sea of crises of his own creation, and Americans are the ones who are paying the price.

There’s an ongoing humanitarian and national security calamity at the southern border.

Thirteen U.S. service members are dead, and an unknown number of our citizens remain stranded in Afghanistan following Biden’s disastrous withdrawal.

COVID-19 is still rampant, despite Biden’s promises that he would defeat the virus, while his vaccine mandate has divided the country.

Americans are not taking the millions of jobs available and the economy is stalled, as many have chosen the option of being paid by the government to stay home instead of working.

Biden’s administration failed to identify the growing supply chain disruption, which did not occur overnight and threatens to further strangle the economy. Labor shortages are a contributing factor, including a lack of truck drivers to help unload ships and transport goods (see the above point about workers not accepting available jobs).

And energy prices continue to rise, helping to drive mounting inflation and hurting Americans—especially those with moderate or low incomes—at a time when the economy should be hitting its stride coming out of the pandemic lockdowns.

It is on the costs of energy where Biden’s failures are most starkly visible.

On his very first day in office, Biden scrapped the Keystone XL pipeline, killing 11,000 jobs in the process and making good on his campaign promise to be hostile to the fossil fuel industry.

Continuing his assault on natural resource development, Biden suspended oil and natural gas leases in Alaska.

Former President Donald Trump had propelled America to energy independence, but Biden has purposely squandered it. His policies are designed to reduce domestic production of petroleum, meaning we have become necessarily more reliant on foreign sources.

Biden’s approach has been an economic disaster.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the price of crude oil has jumped by 64% to a seven-year high. The cost of natural gas has doubled in just six months. Heating oil is more expensive by 68%, just in time for winter. And gasoline is over $3 per gallon on the national average, up by almost a dollar over the past year.

Energy costs are one driver of inflation, which is already a concern and could get worse.

The situation he created has led Biden into embarrassing situations where he has been forced to plead for rescue.

Over the summer, his administration begged OPEC to increase oil production to combat rising gasoline prices. It refused.

This month, Reuters reported that the Biden White House has approached domestic oil and gas producers, asking for help. These are the very companies that Biden has been demonizing and now he wants them to save him from himself.

Anne Bradbury, the chief executive officer of the American Exploration and Production Council, explained who the culprit is.

“By pursuing policies that restrict supply and make it harder to produce oil and natural gas here in America, Americans will have to pay more for their energy,” she said.

But never fear, White House press secretary Jen Psaki indicated that the higher prices just mean that Biden’s policies are going according to plan.

“Certainly, we all want to keep gasoline prices low, but the threat of the crisis—the climate crisis—certainly can’t wait any longer,” she said on Oct. 6.

One week later, Psaki appeared to soften the message somewhat, in recognition of how higher energy bills affect people, but attempted to mislead about the scope of the problem.

“[T]he American people are, of course, impacted by rising prices of gas in some parts of the country—not all,” she said.

This, of course, is not true. Gas prices are higher in all 50 states.

White House chief of staff Ron Klain then underscored the indifference of the Biden administration to the concerns of regular Americans by approving of a tweet from Harvard economist Jason Furman, who labeled “economic problems we’re facing,” such as “inflation, supply chains, etc.,” as merely “high-class problems.”

Klain quote-tweeted Furman and enthusiastically agreed, posting “This,” with two hand emojis pointing to Furman’s original post.

For Americans still struggling, it must be jarring that the White House chief of staff thinks rising grocery bills—driven by fuel prices and inflation—are “high-class problems.”

Such a callous dismissal of real-world issues, the endorsement of an Ivy League elitist view that working people are just imagining things, simply feeds the prevailing belief that Biden simply is bad at his job.

But rather than face reporters or describe to Americans what he’s doing to combat these severe economic problems—and all of the other crises he’s inflicted on the country—Biden has almost entirely avoided taking questions.

On the rare occasions that he comes to the cameras to deliver remarks, most often he finishes speaking, turns around abruptly, and returns to the recesses of the White House.

It’s an apt image presented by an administration that is usually very concerned about visuals and symbolism.

Biden is leaving the lasting impression that, as he does to members of the press, he is simply turning his back on the American people.

*****

This article was published on October 18, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal.

The Real Crisis Is Closer To Home

By Sohrab Ahmari

China is a serious rival to the United States, as demonstrated by a recent hypersonic missile test, but war in the Pacific will not solve America’s problems.

The Twitter barbs wrote themselves: While U.S. generals dabbled in critical race theory and fretted about nail polish online, China tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile that careered around the earth before cruising toward its target, striking within two-dozen miles of it. The weekend test left the American national-security apparatus baffled and embarrassed.

“The test showed that China had made astounding progress on hypersonic weapons and was far more advanced than U.S. officials realized,” noted the Financial Times, which broke the story over the weekend. Hypersonic missiles of this kind whiz through the air at five times the speed of sound, or about 3,850 miles per hour. Their lower altitudes and cruising capabilities pose a different sort of challenge to missile-defense systems than do traditional ballistic missiles, which by definition follow a more predictable path from launch to target.

It was yet another warning, if one were needed, that the People’s Republic is a very serious power, indeed.

Our own national-security apparatus is downright farcical by comparison. Its leaders guided the United States into a strategic ditch, squandering blood and treasure on pointless nation-building wars whose sum effect was to further destabilize an already volatile  Middle East and North Africa. What with Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blabbering about “white rage,” and another general, Jo Clyborne, griping on Twitter recently about the Army’s policy against French manicures, our military brass and “nat-sec” elites deserve all the ridicule they get, and then some.

But on the right, especially the so-called new right, the mockery can often go hand-in-hand with a perilous temptation: a mindless China hawkishness that would do little to reverse the underlying trends driving American decline (both relative and absolute). If anything, such hawkishness could allow GOP foreign-policy elites to derail any hope of a populist-led domestic revival. Instead, they would channel popular anger—over Covid, industrial offshoring, elite entanglement with Beijing, and so on—into another generation of dumb conflicts. China could thus serve as a great red herring (pun intended).

Instead of asking why, for example, the United States doesn’t build its own semiconductors, we could end up committing extraordinary resources to defending imperial outposts that are ultimately indefensible, such as Taiwan, which, I’m sorry to have to say, is part of China’s civilizational sphere and will be reabsorbed sooner or later.

Instead of holding domestic elites accountable for rendering U.S. supply chains utterly vulnerable to external shocks, we could end up electing China hawks who would, at best, gesture lamely at shoring up manufacturing in the homeland.

Instead of confronting head-on our own polarization and internal ideological incoherence, we could make of Beijing another total enemy to mobilize the Forces of Democracy and Freedom, as the hawks and liberal internationalists would have it; this, even as the same ruling elite continues to national-securitize dissent, probing parents who object to CRT in schools.

This isn’t to say that Washington should seek to accommodate China in every way and at every step. The populist right should by now have learned to shrug off the D.C. hawks’ tendency to reduce every geopolitical question to a 1930s-style choice between appeasement and courageous war-making. By all means, we should punish intellectual-property theft and industrial espionage and continue to seek a more balanced trade relationship. By all means, we should uphold existing treaty obligations in the Pacific, not least by maintaining credible deterrence. And by all means, let’s squeeze U.S. elites who profit off China-entanglement while lecturing U.S. workers on wokeness.

My point, rather, is that Americans should ask whether our (undeniable) decline vis-à-vis China—evidenced by the fact that the hypersonic test apparently took our “intelligence” community by surprise—is rooted mainly in internal or external factors.

If the contradictions have mainly internal roots, then a ferocious external policy can only serve to paper over them, without fundamentally resolving them. Not that China is without its own contradictions. But your average D.C. China hawk thinks screaming “Xinjiang” and “Umbrella Movement” amounts to a penetrating critique. Meanwhile, China’s strategists are attuned in a much deeper way to America’s internal crises, as well as to their own.

Witness Wang Huning, the top Communist Party intellectual brilliantly profiled by N.S. Lyon for Palladium magazine. A former university professor who left academe to join the Politburo Standing Committee, Wang is the author of the 1991 book America Against Itself, based on his travels in the United States. In Lyon’s able summary, Wang describes America as a society racked by

deindustrialization, rural decay, over-financialization, out of control asset prices, and the emergence of a self-perpetuating rentier elite; powerful tech monopolies able to crush any upstart competitors operating effectively beyond the scope of government; immense economic inequality, chronic unemployment, addiction, homelessness, and crime; cultural chaos, historical nihilism, family breakdown, and plunging fertility rates; societal despair, spiritual malaise, social isolation, and skyrocketing rates of mental health issues; a loss of national unity and purpose in the face of decadence and barely concealed self-loathing; vast internal divisions, racial tensions, riots, political violence, and a country that increasingly seems close to coming apart.

Read the whole thing.

America’s ruling classes might have many of these crises on their radar, Wang argues, but in the end, they can only offer one-off techno-scientific tweaks that don’t get to the bottom of the problem: “a radical, nihilistic individualism at the heart of modern American liberalism.” In other words, we have a profound political problem on our hands with no easy fixes, if any. But meanwhile, for the love of God, let’s stop blustering about saving democracy in Taiwan and Hong Kong.

*****

This article was published on October 19, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

Chicago: Man converts to Islam, writes computer code for ISIS, his lawyer says ‘liking ISIS is not illegal’ thumbnail

Chicago: Man converts to Islam, writes computer code for ISIS, his lawyer says ‘liking ISIS is not illegal’

By Robert Spencer

From whom did Thomas Osadzinski learn about Islam? Where did he go to mosque? Is that mosque being investigated? Why not?

US Student Faces Prison for Helping Islamic State

Associated Press, October 19, 2021:

CHICAGO — A former Chicago college student was convicted Monday of attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State group.

Thomas Osadzinski, 22, wrote a computer code to help IS bypass programs designed to block the group’s propaganda, prosecutors said. The former DePaul University student, who was born in a Chicago suburb, was living in the city when he was arrested in 2019 during an FBI sting. He faces up to 20 years in prison.

His attorney, Joshua Herman, said during closing arguments that the case centered on the right to free speech and that Osadzinski had the right to watch and share the videos.

“Liking ISIS is not illegal,” Herman said in court.

But prosecutors alleged Osadzinski worked in coordination or at the direction of IS. Authorities said Osadzinski boasted in communications about his computer skills and ability to speak Arabic, and he bragged that he would use a gun and explosives to elude authorities if need be….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State jihadi in Afghanistan sues British Home Secretary to return to UK, says he’s afraid of the Taliban

UK: Five jihadis were all referred to counterterror program before attacks, but it ‘focuses on right-wing threat’

Australia: Muslim speaker at pro-Palestinian rally screams: ‘Oh Allah, give us the necks of the Jews!’

France: Muslim migrant rapes his ‘too Westernized’ daughter, her brother stabs her

India: Muslim cleric says ‘this is our country,’ calls on Muslims to ‘create the fear of Allah’

UK’s Johnson: ‘We will never allow those who commit acts of evil to triumph over the democracy’

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

Biden’s $3.5T Spending Plan Ought To Be Called The Build Bigotry Better Act thumbnail

Biden’s $3.5T Spending Plan Ought To Be Called The Build Bigotry Better Act

By Deroy Murdock

President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act should be rechristened the Build Bigotry Better Act. And then it should be buried in a shallow grave on Capitol Hill.

This socialist tax-and spendathon, currently pushed by Biden and top congressional Democrats, reputedly would devour $3.2 trillion. As if! Once stripped of accounting gimmicks and augmented with $200 billion in debt-service obligations, this leviathan’s true, 10-year cost totals $5.9 trillion. That equals $41,172 for each of America’s 143.3 million taxpayers.

But this extravaganza’s eye-popping tab is just one of its fatal flaws. This bill’s policies are nightmarish at any price. Atop $2.3 trillion in tax increases, lush entitlements, and unicorn-powered Green New Deal experiments, BBBA is a lavish slush fund for critical race theorists.

Final legislation likely will emerge, fully formed, from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office — if the Democrat Party’s left and far-Left wings ever flap in unison.

For now, BBBA’s current draft rambles on, Biden-like, for 2,465 mind-numbing, bankruptcy inducing pages. Within this text, one race-fueled time bomb after another just waits to explode if, God forbid, Biden signs this measure into law:

• To qualify for $39.6 billion in federal grants, a government school system must submit “a local facilities master plan to address the health, safety, education equity, enrollment diversity, environmental sustainability, and climate resiliency of the public-school facilities operated by such agency.” (Page 55)

• This bill earmarks “Tuition assistance for Alaska native-serving institutions, Asian-American and Native-American Pacific-Islander serving institutions, Native American-serving nontribal institutions, native Hawaiian-serving institutions, and predominantly black institutions.” (Page 127)

Irish need not apply.

• The $1 billion “Electric Vehicle Charging Equity Program” would “give priority to projects that…utilize or involve locally owned small and disadvantaged businesses, including women and minority-owned businesses.” (Page 465)

A white guy named Elon Musk knows a little about electric vehicles. Is he eligible for a charging-equity grant?

• BBBA mandates “promoting equity” in Medicaid’s home- and community-based services. (Page 575)

• $1 billion, in part to employ “faculty from racial and ethnic groups who are underrepresented among the medical and other health professions.” (Page 676)

• $175 million for maternal-health facilities that display “racial and ethnic disparities,” even if unrelated to racism. (Page 696)

• $100 million for “cybersecurity workforce development and education” at “minority-serving institutions and community colleges.” (Page 897)

• $750 million for research on Family and Medical Leave benefits and disparities involving “race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age, national origin, family composition, or living arrangements.” (Page 1,288)

• Pursuant to federal decree, employers must provide, “to the extent available,” information on the races, sexes, sexual orientations, gender identities, and other characteristics of paid-leave beneficiaries “for the purposes of promoting equity.” (Page 1,310)

To fathom BBBA’s priorities, consider how many times it mentions these terms according to a keyword search of the legislation:

• Equity – 44

• Ethnic – 41

• Racial – 34

• Race – 21

• Merit – 4

• Equality – 0

This bill will dispatch countless federal ethnocrats to decide who is white, Black, or otherwise and then deny or disburse billions of taxpayer dollars due to applicants’ complexions.

BBBA will underwrite a brigade of racial bean counters to obsess over melanin and decide which people can or cannot convert their pigmentation into paydays. This op-ed alone outlines a $42.6 billion race-driven jackpot.

“Critical race theory is an ideology that is almost entirely subsidized by taxpayers,” says Chris Rufo, senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute. “The theories were developed in publicly-financed and publicly-subsidized universities, and now they are being installed as ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ departments in every government agency in the nation. It is not an organic philosophy. It’s an elite-driven, parasitic ideology whose host is the state.”

Rufo believes that BBBA’s systemic racialism will suck Uncle Sam even drier.

“The Biden Administration wants to accelerate this process and install critical race theory ideology further into the bureaucracy of the federal government,” Rufo tells me. “It must be stopped. It must be resisted. ‘Ban critical race theory’ should be the conservative slogan moving forward.”

One of former President Donald J. Trump’s top advisers also sounds the klaxons over this looming danger.

“President Biden’s reconciliation bill is not a stimulus package. It’s not an infrastructure proposal. It’s not pork barrel spending. No, it’s the radical, fundamental and explicit reordering of American society around the Marxist concept of racial equity,” warns Stephen Miller, founder of America First Legal, a public-interest law firm.

“Equity is the sanitized term of choice deployed by the hard-Left to encompass the entire panoply of government policies that institutionalize Critical Race Theory into the machinery of government,” Miller tells me. “Equity is CRT put into practice: It demolishes and replaces equality as the foundational principle of American life and wields fearsome federal government power to exclude, punish, prejudge, evaluate, stereotype, segregate, and obsessively categorize American citizens on the basis of skin color.”

The fact that it weaponizes federal racial fetishism is just one of 5.9 trillion reasons why Joe Biden’s abominable Build Bigotry Better Act deserves blistering defeat.

*****

This article was published on October 18, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The National Center For Public Policy and its Project 21, Black Leadership Project.

DOJ Threatens To Criminally Prosecute Parents Who Object To School Policies thumbnail

DOJ Threatens To Criminally Prosecute Parents Who Object To School Policies

By Maya Noronha

On Monday, Attorney General Merrick Garland directed all U.S. Attorneys and the FBI to meet with law enforcement leaders across the country to collaborate in investigating parents who protest critical race theory and other school policies.

DOJ’s announcement comes a week after the National School Board Association (NSBA) requested federal assistance from President Biden to combat “the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.” NSBA characterized the substance of the threats as related to mask policies and critical race theory:

Coupled with attacks against school board members and educators for approving policies for masks to protect the health and safety of students and school employees, many public school officials are also facing physical threats because of propaganda purporting the false inclusion of critical race theory within classroom instruction and curricula.

Despite multiple federal lawsuits charging public schools with teaching critical race theory, in their letter to Biden, NSBA contended that critical race theory is not being taught to elementary and high school students:

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

In a press release, DOJ outlined its plans:

[Our] efforts are expected to include the creation of a task force…to determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes, and ways to assist state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement where threats of violence may not constitute federal crimes.

Heritage Foundation’s Legal Fellow GianCarlo Canaparo and Senior Advisor Mike Howell criticized DOJ’s announcement, writing:

Garland has demonstrated, disappointingly, that he is beholden to powerful leftist political groups and perfectly happy to let them use the threat of federal government’s law enforcement power to suppress their critics’ right to free speech. The promised independence of the DOJ is a farce….[I]t is more important to Garland to spend scarce law enforcement resources appeasing liberal interest groups than on more pressing national concerns.

What’s so concerning about this announcement is the thought that DOJ seems poised to use the threat of prosecution to squelch protest and suppress dissent. To be clear, threats and physical violence are illegal under state law. Speech and protest, by contrast, are constitutionally protected.

The involvement of parents in the education of their children is important, and we should teach children how to engage others on policy with respect and civility. Acts of violence are recognized as federal crimes, and the federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement should pursue all colorable cases against perpetrators only to the extent permitted by law, and regardless of the motivation of the perpetrators. The federal government should not join the protesters, threatening federal prosecution and discouraging parents from sharing their views.

*****

This article was published on October 7, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Independent Women’s Forum.

Student Loan Indebtedness and Social Justice thumbnail

Student Loan Indebtedness and Social Justice

By Craig J. Cantoni

Editors’ Note:

Brought to America’s youth by unjust universities and an unjust government.

The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story about student loans. It was another story in a long list of stories over the years about the loan scams perpetrated by the bastions of social justice, universities, and by the main funder of social justice initiatives, the federal government, as enabled by both political parties.

Stories like this fuel the growing public sentiment to excuse student loan debt.

The story in question was about shenanigans at Baylor University, a private school with a religious founding but apparently without a moral compass. Like so many universities, it was consigning students to indebtedness while it was raising tuition way beyond the inflation rate and building swank facilities and a new football stadium.

Universities get the student loan money but taxpayers get the shaft if the borrowers default. In other words, the schools don’t have a monetary incentive to cut costs or be honest with parents and students about their expected return on investment. It’s a system designed by a madman.

At the same time, it’s difficult to be sympathetic with the parents and students featured in the Journal story, especially the main character. A public school administrator making $75,000 a year, she has a master’s degree from Baylor and $231,000 in federal loans for herself and her two kids. Apparently, a master’s degree from Baylor doesn’t teach someone enough to know how to conduct an internet search on student loans and the return on investment of different degrees—or how to use one of the scores of financial calculators on the internet that do the calculations for you in a matter of minutes.

Her reason for sending her kids to an expensive school like Baylor? In her words, she didn’t want to send her kids somewhere less expensive such as community college where they would overachieve. Huh?

Of course, the article said nothing about her lifestyle—whether she lives above or below her means. For all we know, she could be driving a $60,000 luxury car.

The article also mentioned nothing about the father of her children and why he isn’t helping with his kids’ college expenses. It’s become so normal for men to be missing from the household that such questions aren’t asked.

I’m typing this in my home in Tucson, where the University of Arizona is located—and where my son got a bachelor’s and master’s in engineering. His total cost over the five years for tuition, room, and board was about the same as the average price of a new car or a lifetime of expensive milkshakes, er, coffee, at Starbucks.

If the last point seems like hyperbole, consider this: If a 25-year-old were to begin investing $5 a day instead of spending the money at Starbucks, the investment would grow to over $200,000 by the age of 65, assuming an investment return of 5%, compounded monthly.

In addition to his scholarships and internships, my son worked for two years as a resident hall assistant in one of the oldest dorms on campus, one that had communal bathrooms and bare-boned facilities. The job subsidized his room and board, and he saved money by not eating on campus. Instead, he took the bus to a supermarket to buy groceries, which he kept in a refrigerator in the dorm’s kitchen.

No big deal. A little suffering in college makes for a better education and a better human being.

He graduated without any debt, and, given his current employment, the ROI on his degrees is very high.

The son takes after the dad, who worked through college and leveraged a degree from a no-name university into a rewarding career. But that was in an era in which colleges didn’t gouge students while indoctrinating them in social justice.

In any event, when the government ends up excusing college debt, as it definitely will, my son will be paying part of the student debt incurred by others. That’s called social justice, a misnomer if there ever was one.

Arizona AG: Facebook ‘Direct Facilitator’ of Immigration Crisis thumbnail

Arizona AG: Facebook ‘Direct Facilitator’ of Immigration Crisis

By Discover The Networks

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is calling on the Department of Justice to investigate Facebook for allegedly aiding illegal immigration into the United States by allowing people to post instructions on the social media platform about how to illegally enter foreign countries.

Facebook admitted in a private letter to Brnovich that it lets people share information on how to illegally immigrate or be smuggled into the U.S. so that they can have a chance at being granted asylum. Now, the Arizona AG is asking U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to open an investigation into the social media giant’s “facilitation of human smuggling at Arizona’s southern border and stop its active encouragement and facilitation of illegal entry.”

Brnovich says that Facebook’s “policy of allowing posts promoting human smuggling and illegal entry into the United States to regularly reach its billions of users seriously undermines the rule of law.”

“The company is a direct facilitator, and thus exacerbates, the catastrophe occurring at Arizona’s southern border,” the Arizona attorney general added. “To the extent that Facebook is complicit in such activity, our office will pursue all legal means to hold the company accountable. We expect the Department of Justice to take an equally firm stance against Facebook’s facilitation of human and [alleged] sex trafficking.”


Facebook

19 Known Connections

Facebook Sends Messages to Some Users Asking About “Extremist” Friends

On July 1, 2021, The Epoch Times reported that some Facebook users had been receiving messages from the social media giant warning them about the potential threat of “extremist” elements around them. “Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?” one message read. “We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support.” Other Facebook users received warnings that they may have been “exposed to harmful extremist content recently,” and that “violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment.” All of the Facebook messages provided an on-screen button that users could click to “Get Support.” That button led to another Facebook page about extremism.

A Facebook spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times that Facebook was indeed running the warnings to some users as a test. “This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content, or may know someone who is at risk,” said the spokesperson. “We are partnering with NGOs and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future.”

To learn more about Facebook, click here.

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