How To Remedy The Campus Groupthink That Targeted Us thumbnail

How To Remedy The Campus Groupthink That Targeted Us

By Christina Crenshaw

Academic freedom, free thought and free speech are under assault on our nation’s college campuses. And it’s not just conservative white men, or the Federalist Society at Ivy League schools such as Yale University, that are under attack. It is also women, including women of color, who are caught up in this new “cancel”-meets-“consequence” culture.

We are college professors/scholars who have experienced cancel culture’s swift and ugly rage, and we both suffered professional damage as a result. One of us is white. The other black. It doesn’t matter if you teach at a private Christian university like Baylor in Texas, where Dr. Crenshaw taught, or at a public university like Christopher Newport (pictured) in Virginia, where Professor Nelson taught and is currently a scholar in residence (the first black woman to hold such a vaunted title in the school’s 60-year history).

Both of us share a common Christian faith and more socially conservative viewpoints, but we are also champions for women’s rights, we believe in the necessity of discussing gender and race as it intersects for us as women, and we have been respectful and engaged for years in dialogue with other marginalized groups including the LGBTQ+ community, even when our respective values or opinions are in conflict. Yet, both of us were attacked by that very community for asking a simple question on Twitter (Nelson) and making a statement of biological and genetic fact (Crenshaw). We will address our stories further down in this piece.

The important point here, however, is that we are in the middle of a seriously flawed sociological and generational shift that has redefined the way we have courageous conversations (or not) on our college campuses. Free speech no longer exists if you do not lock, stock, and barrel embrace diversity and inclusion statements or the LGBTQ+ community.  We both have been told that we may have “free speech” but that there will be “consequences” to us professionally and personally for said speech. With all due respect, if those are the new rules of free speech in America, we don’t want to play the game.

This has been a decade-long slide as our nation bows to the power of the PC police and “wokeism.” In 2018 and 2019, we had the #metoo and #timesup movements, which highlighted the kinds of sexual assault and harassment contemporary women still combat in patriarchal systems like Hollywood, Fortune 500 companies and yes, in academia. In 2020, after the horrific George Floyd murder, we collectively recognized a need for increased national conversations on racial injustice, policing and racial reconciliation. But 2021 just might be the year that cancel culture defined the future of diversity of thought and opinion in academia. A brand new report by FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) spotlights “speech codes” on over 500 college campuses across the country. And the findings are troubling and chilling, to say the least.

Many American universities and some in the U.K. (see Sussex University) have embraced a culture of compulsory groupthink regarding certain “marginalized” groups and points of views; if we differ we can be publicly protested, threatened, harassed, slandered and demeaned by the very groups who loudly demand respect and acceptance from the rest of us. It’s hypocritical, and it must be challenged openly.

Let’s break down how campus cancel culture works because both of us are intimately familiar with the toxic experience. It usually starts with a professor or scholar who has a very visible social media presence or public profile. They innocently ask a question on said platform, as Scholar Nelson did on Twitter about a bisexual comic book character, or offer commentary on something controversial, as Dr. Crenshaw did by talking about transgender bathroom policies. Both of us were respectful and reasonable by all standards. But then a small but vicious mob retaliates first on social media with outraged responses, doxxing, and threats. And then they take it out of the public square and into the workplace at the university where none of what was said originated or has anything to do whatsoever with our students, the faculty, or staff.

The aggrieved use words like “unsafe,” “violence,” “triggered,” and it matters not if the accused offender apologizes, welcomes dialogue, or the like. The apology is attacked as insufficient. Then they destroy the professor’s professional reputation on campus, on the Internet, and to the media. They create damning online petitions, or actual campus petitions to have the “offender” fired and worse (they threaten your physical safety and that of your family, as was the case with Dr. Crenshaw). The mob eventually moves on to another target of their wrath but not before wreaking havoc on their canceled victims’ professional and personal lives. It is a very effective way to silence dissent.

If we are going to preserve “diversity” along with free speech and free thought, here are some recommendations for America’s college campuses:

  1. Redefine the language of inclusivity to be for all, not just so-called marginalized groups. The LGBTQ+ narrative demands inclusivity and espouses tolerance, but it does not reciprocate. That must change and all faculty and students must be protected and defended by university officials.
  2. We need to stop conflating the race and sex conversations; they are not the same. Segregating people on the basis of skin color is racist. Separating people on the basis of their biological sex is safe and honors our immutable differences apparent at birth.
  3. Work on free speech policies: Speech is not violence. Colleges have elevated micro-aggressions over macro-aggressions. There is a difference between speech that expresses an opinion and speech that levels a threat, and we have to discern the difference and respond accordingly. Not everyone can affirm or capitulate to every facet of the LGBTQ+ narrative or that of other groups. For many people of faith, for example, narratives around sexuality and gender identity infringe upon their religious interpretation and expression (as well as common sense and science).
  4. Develop campus dialogues that include all voices. Professor Nelson was silenced for weeks as a half-dozen forums were held without her being present and faculty/students publicly ranted and labeled her a racist, homophobic bigot. Dr. Crenshaw was called transphobic over sound comments she made as a parent about basic biology. The trans identity movement contradicts biology, but it has been protected by institutions such as the CDC, which now refers to pregnant mothers as “birthing people” who “chest feed.” Additionally, the ACLU had to apologize for revising the words of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to eliminate female pronouns and make them gender inclusive. This is how far we have shifted to protect groupthink.
  5. We need to practice correction versus coddling. Irate students and faculty have changed the culture on campus to one of compliance or consequences — faculty are now terrified, particularly conservative faculty, to speak out, get on social media or otherwise express opinions when they can be ruined for not holding fast to diversity, equity and inclusion policies. It’s thought control at its worst. What are we teaching students? Not how to dialogue and argue, but how to destroy other people’s reputations for disagreeing or sharing a faith position.

In the final analysis, we are teaching a new generation of students to attack good people rather than bad arguments. We are teaching them to destroy professional reputations and careers when their feelings get hurt. That is not a formula for success once they leave the college campus. Instead, we need to teach them how to make good counter-arguments, state their case beyond emotion, and make room for good people to disagree on the basis of freedom of religion and free thought.

Sophia A. Nelson is a scholar in residence at Christopher Newport University.

Christina Crenshaw is an associate researcher at Dallas Theological Seminary and a fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum.

*****

This article was published on December 16, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from the Independent Women’s Forum.

Hillsdale College Imprimis: The January 6 Insurrection Hoax thumbnail

Hillsdale College Imprimis: The January 6 Insurrection Hoax

By Roger Kimball

Notwithstanding all the hysterical rhetoric surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, two critical things stand out. The first is that what happened was much more hoax than insurrection. In fact, in my judgment, it wasn’t an insurrection at all.

An “insurrection,” as the dictionary will tell you, is a violent uprising against a government or other established authority. Unlike the violent riots that swept the country in the summer of 2020—riots that caused some $2 billion in property damage and claimed more than 20 lives—was, as Tucker Carlson said shortly after the event, a political protest that “got out of hand.”the January 6 protest at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. lasted a few hours, caused minimal damage, and the only person directly killed was an unarmed female Trump supporter who was shot by a Capitol Police officer. It

At the rally preceding the events in question, Donald Trump had suggested that people march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”—these were his exact words—in order to make their voices heard. He did not incite a riot; he stirred up a crowd. Was that, given the circumstances, imprudent? Probably. Was it an effort to overthrow the government? Hardly.

I know this is not the narrative that we have all been instructed to parrot. Indeed, to listen to the establishment media and our political masters, the January 6 protest was a dire threat to the very fabric of our nation: the worst assault on “our democracy” since 9/11, since Pearl Harbor, and even—according to Joe Biden last April—since the Civil War!

Note that phrase “our democracy”: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and various talking heads have repeated it ad nauseam. But you do not need an advanced degree in hermeneutics to understand that what they mean by “our democracy” is their oligarchy. Similarly, when Pelosi talks about “the people’s house,” she doesn’t mean a house that welcomes riff-raff like you and me.

I just alluded to Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed supporter of Donald Trump who was shot and killed on January 6. Her fate brings me to the second critical thing to understand about the January 6 insurrection hoax. Namely, that it was not a stand-alone event.

On the contrary, what happened that afternoon, and what happened afterwards, is only intelligible when seen as a chapter in the long-running effort to discredit and, ultimately, to dispose of Donald Trump—as well as what Hillary Clinton might call the “deplorable” populist sentiment that brought Trump to power.

In other words, to understand the January 6 insurrection hoax, you also have to understand that other long-running hoax, the Russia collusion hoax. The story of that hoax begins back in 2015, when the resources of the federal government were first mobilized to spy on the Trump campaign, to frame various people close to Trump, and eventually to launch a full-throated criminal investigation of the Trump administration.

From before Trump took office, the Russia collusion hoax was used as a pretext to create a parallel administration shadowing the elected administration. Remember the Steele dossier, the fantastical document confected by the “well-regarded” former British spy Christopher Steele? We know now that it was the only relevant predicate for ordering FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page and other American citizens.

But in truth, the Steele dossier was just opposition dirt covertly paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. From beginning to end, it was a tissue of lies and fabrications. Everyone involved knew all along it was garbage—rumors and fantasies fed to a gullible Steele by shady Russian sources. But it was nonetheless used to deploy, illegally, the awesome coercive power of the state against a presidential candidate of whom the ruling bureaucracy and its favored candidate disapproved.

The public learned that the Democratic National Committee paid for the manufactured evidence only because of a court order. James Comey, the disgraced former director of the FBI, publicly denied knowing who paid for it, but emails from a year earlier prove that he knew all along. And what was the penalty for lying in Comey’s case? He got a huge book deal and toured the country denouncing Trump to the gleeful satisfaction of his anti-Trump audiences.

What was true of Comey was also true of the entire intelligence apparat, from former CIA Director John Brennan to Congressman Adam Schiff and other Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee to senior members of the FBI. All these people said publicly that they had seen clear evidence of collusion with Russia. But they admitted under oath behind closed doors that they hadn’t.

General Michael Flynn, Trump’s original National Security Advisor, had his career ruined and was bankrupted as part of this political vendetta. Meanwhile James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, John Brennan, Peter Strzok, and all the rest of the crew at the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies suffered nothing. When it came to light that an FBI lawyer altered an email in order to help get a FISA warrant—in other words, that he doctored evidence to spy on a political opponent, which is a felony—he got probation.

The recent news that Special Counsel John Durham is indicting Michael Sussman, a lawyer who covertly worked for the Clinton campaign and lied to the FBI, is welcome news. But it seems like small beer given the rampant higher-level corruption that saturated the Russia collusion hoax.

At least 74 million citizens voted for Donald Trump in 2020, which is at least 11 million more than voted for him in 2016. Many of those voters are profoundly disillusioned and increasingly angry about this entire story—the years-long Robert Mueller “investigation,” the two impeachments of President Trump, the cloud of unknowing that surrounds the 2020 election, and the many questions that have emerged not only from the January 6 protest at the Capitol, but even more from the government’s response to that protest.

Which brings me back to Ashli Babbitt, the long-serving Air Force veteran who was shot and killed by a nervous Capitol Police officer. Babbitt was a useful prop when the media was in overdrive describing the January 6 events as an “armed insurrection” in which wild Trump supporters, supposedly at Trump’s instigation, attacked the Capitol with the intention of overturning the 2020 election.

According to that narrative, five people, including Babbitt, died in the skirmish. Moreover, it was said, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was bludgeoned to death by a raging Trump supporter wielding a fire extinguisher. That gem of a story about the fire extinguisher, reported in our former paper of record, The New York Times, was instantly picked up by other media outlets and spread like a Chinese virus.

Of course, it is absolutely critical to the Democratic Party narrative that the January 6 incident be made to seem as violent and crazed as possible. Hence the comparisons to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. Only thus can pro-Trump Americans be excluded from “our democracy” by being branded as “domestic extremists” if not, indeed, “domestic terrorists.”

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution accords American citizens the right to a speedy trial. But most of the political prisoners of January 6—many of whom have been kept in solitary confinement—are still waiting to be brought to trial. And although the media was full of predictions that they would be found guilty of criminal sedition, none has.

Indeed, the prosecution’s cases seem to be falling apart. Most of the hundreds who have been arrested are being charged with trespassing. Another charge being leveled against them is “disrupting an official proceeding.” This is a felony charge designed not for ceremonial procedures like the January 6 certification of the vote, but rather for disrupting Congressional inquiries—for example, by shredding documents relevant to a Congressional investigation. It originated during the George W. Bush administration to deal with the Enron case.

The indisputable fact about January 6 is that although five people died at or near the Capitol on that day or soon thereafter, none of these deaths was brought about by the protesters. The shot fired by Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd that hit Ashli Babbitt in the neck and killed her was the only shot fired at the Capitol that day. No guns were recovered from the Capitol on January 6. Zero.

The liberal commentator Glenn Greenwald further diminished the “armed insurrection” narrative in an important column last February titled “The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot.” The title says it all. Kevin Greeson, Greenwald notes, was killed not by the protesters but died of a heart attack outside the Capitol. Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke that day. Rosanne Boyland, another Trump supporter, was reported by The New York Times to have been inadvertently “killed in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line.” But later video shows that, far from that, the police pushed protesters on top of Boyland and would not allow other protesters to pull her out.

Four of the five who died, then, were pro-Trump protesters. And the fifth? Well, that was Officer Sicknick—also a Trump supporter, as it turned out—who, contrary to the false report gone viral of The New York Times, went home, told his family he felt fine, but died a day later from, as The Washington Post eventually and grudgingly reported, “natural causes.” No fire extinguishers were involved in his demise.

***

The January 6 insurrection hoax prompts lots of questions.

Why, for example, did the government mobilize 26,000 federal troops from all across the country to surround “the people’s house” following January 6? Why were those troops subjected to FBI vetting, with some of them sent packing?

Why is there some 14,000 hours of video footage of the event on January 6 that the government refuses to release? What are they afraid of letting the public see? More scenes of security guards actually opening doors and politely ushering in protesters? More pictures of FBI informants covertly salted among the crowd?

My own view is that turning Washington into an armed camp was mostly theater. There was no threat that the Washington police could not have handled. But it was also a show of force and an act of intimidation. The message was: “We’re in charge now, rubes, and don’t you forget it.”

In truth, there is little threat of domestic terror in this country. But there is plenty of domestic conservatism. And that conservatism is the real focus of the establishment’s ire.

It is important to note that while the government provides the muscle for this war on dissent, the elite culture at large is a willing accomplice. Consider, for example, the open letter, signed by more than 500 “publishing professionals” (authors, editors, designers, and so on), calling on the industry to reject books written by anyone who had anything to do with the Trump administration.

These paragons pledged to do whatever they could to stop “enriching the monsters among us.” But here’s their problem: over 74 million people voted for Trump. That’s a lot of monsters.

Many people have been quoting Benjamin Franklin’s famous response when asked what sort of government they had come up with at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. “A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.” Right now, it looks like we can’t. It looks as if the American constitutional republic has given way, as least temporarily, to an American oligarchy.

As the years go by, historians, if the censors allow them access to the documents and give them leave to publish their findings, may well count the 2016 presidential election as the last fair and open democratic election in U.S. history. I know we are not supposed to say that. I know that the heads of Twitter and Facebook and other woke guardians of the status quo call this view “The Big Lie” and do all they can to suppress it. But every honest person knows that the 2020 election was tainted.

The forces responsible for the taint had tried before. Hitherto, their efforts had met with only limited success. But a perfect storm of forces conspired to make 2020 the first oligarchic installation of a president. It would not have happened, I think, absent the panic over the Chinese virus. But that panic, folded in a lover’s embrace by the Democratic establishment, was not only a splendid pretext to clamp down on civil liberties; it also provided an inarguable excuse to alter the rules for elections in several key states.

“Inarguable” is not quite the right word. There could have been plenty of arguments, and many lawsuits, against the way the executive branches in these states usurped the constitutionally guaranteed prerogative of state legislatures to set the election rules when they intervened to allow massive mail-in voting. But the Trump administration, though foreseeing and complaining about the executive interventions, did too little too late to make a difference.

Among the many sobering realities that the 2020 election brought home is that in our current and particular form of oligarchy, the people do have a voice, but it is a voice that is everywhere pressured, cajoled, shaped, and bullied. The people also have a choice, but only among a roster of candidates approved by the elite consensus.

The central fact to appreciate about Donald Trump is that he was elected president without the permission, and over the incredulous objections, of the bipartisan oligarchy that governs us. That was his unforgivable offense. Trump was the greatest threat in history to the credentialed class and the globalist administrative state upon which they feed. Representatives of that oligarchy tried for four years to destroy Trump. Remember that the first mention of impeachment came 19 minutes after his inauguration, an event that was met not only by a widespread Democratic boycott and hysterical claims by Nancy Pelosi and others that the election had been hijacked, but also by riots in Washington, D.C. that saw at least six policemen injured, numerous cars torched, and other property destroyed.

You will search in vain for media or other ruling class denunciations of that violence, or for bulletins from corporate America advising their customers of their solidarity with the newly-installed Trump administration. As the commentator Howie Carr noted, some riots are more equal than others. Some get you the approval of people like Nancy Pelosi and at least the grudging acceptance of oligarchs of the other party. Others get the FBI sweeping the country for “domestic terrorists” and the lords of Big Tech canceling people who defend the protesters’ cause.

Someday—maybe someday soon—this witches’ sabbath, this festival of scapegoating, and what George Orwell called the “hideous ecstasy” of hate will be at an end. Perhaps someday people will be aghast, and some will be ashamed, of what they did to the President of the United States and people who supported him: the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, for instance, proposing to put Senator Ted Cruz on a “no fly” list, and Simon & Schuster canceling Senator Josh Hawley’s book contract.

Donald Trump is the Emmanuel Goldstein (the designated principal enemy of the totalitarian state Oceania in Orwell’s 1984) of the movement. But minor public enemies are legion. Anyone harboring “Trumpist” inclinations is suspect, hence the widespread calls for “deprogramming” Trump’s supporters, who are routinely said to be “marching toward sedition.”

Michael Barone, one of our most perceptive political commentators, got it right when he wrote of the rapid movement “from impeaching incitement to canceling conservatism.” That is the path our oligarchs are inviting us to travel now, criminalizing political dissent and transforming policy differences into a species of heresy. You don’t debate heretics, after all. You seek to destroy them.

Donald Trump’s accomplishments as president were nothing less than stunning. Trump was, and is, a rude force of nature. He accomplished an immense amount. But he lacked one thing. Some say it was self-discipline or finesse. I agree with a friend of mine who suggested that Trump’s critical flaw was a deficit in guile. That sounds odd, no doubt, since Trump is supposed to be the tough guy who mastered “the art of the deal.” But I think my friend is probably right. Trump seems never to have discerned what a viper’s nest our politics has become for anyone who is not a paid-up member of The Club.

Maybe Trump understands this now. I have no insight into that question. I am pretty confident, though, that the 74 plus million people who voted for him understand it deeply. It’s another reason that The Club should be wary of celebrating its victory too expansively.

Friedrich Hayek took one of the two epigraphs for his book, The Road to Serfdom, from the philosopher David Hume. “It is seldom,” Hume wrote, “that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Much as I admire Hume, I wonder whether he got this quite right. Sometimes, I would argue, liberty is erased almost instantaneously.

I’d be willing to wager that Joseph Hackett, confronted with Hume’s observation, would express similar doubts. I would be happy to ask Mr. Hackett myself, but he is inaccessible. If the ironically titled “Department of Justice” has its way, he will be inaccessible for a long, long time—perhaps as long as 20 years.

Joseph Hackett, you see, is a 51-year-old Trump supporter and member of an organization called the Oath Keepers, a group whose members have pledged to “defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The FBI does not like the Oath Keepers—agents arrested its leader in January and have picked up many other members in the months since. Hackett traveled to Washington from his home in Florida to join the January 6 rally. According to court documents, he entered the Capitol at 2:45 that afternoon and left some nine minutes later, at 2:54. The next day, he went home. On May 28, he was apprehended by the FBI and indicted on a long list of charges, including conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, destruction of government property, and illegally entering a restricted building.

As far as I have been able to determine, no evidence of Hackett destroying property has come to light. According to his wife, it is not even clear that he entered the Capitol. But he certainly was in the environs. He was a member of the Oath Keepers. He was a supporter of Donald Trump. Therefore, he must be neutralized.

Joseph Hackett is only one of hundreds of citizens who have been branded as “domestic terrorists” trying to “overthrow the government” and who are now languishing, in appalling conditions, jailed as political prisoners of an angry state apparat.

Hayek’s overriding concern in The Road to Serfdom was to combat the forces that were pushing people further along that road to servitude. His chief concern was unchecked state power. In a new preface to the book’s 1956 edition, Hayek noted that one of its “main points” was to document how “extensive government control produces a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.”

This means,” Hayek wrote, “that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit.”

This dismal situation, Hayek continues, can be averted, but only if the spirit of liberty “reasserts itself in time and the people not only throw out the party which has been leading them further and further in the dangerous direction but also recognize the nature of the danger and resolutely change their course.”

Note the power of that little word “if.” It was not so long ago that an American could contemplate totalitarian regimes and say, “Thank God we’ve escaped that.” It’s not at all clear that we can entertain that happy conviction any longer.

That’s one melancholy lesson of the January 6 insurrection hoax: that America is fast mutating from a republic, in which individual liberty is paramount, into an oligarchy, in which conformity is increasingly demanded and enforced.

Another lesson was perfectly expressed by Donald Trump when he reflected on the unremitting tsunami of hostility that he faced as President. “They’re after you,” he more than once told his supporters. “I’m just in the way.”

Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and publisher of Encounter Books. He earned his B.A. from Bennington College and his M.A. and M.Phil. in philosophy from Yale University. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Book Review, and is a columnist for The Spectator WorldAmerican Greatness, and The Epoch Times. He is editor or author of several books, including The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed AmericaThe Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages ArtTenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, and Vox Populi: The Perils and Promises of Populism.

*****

This article was published in September 2021 in Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College and is reprinted with permission.

RAY EPPS: Mystery Man from Queen Creek and the January 6th Capitol Riot thumbnail

RAY EPPS: Mystery Man from Queen Creek and the January 6th Capitol Riot

By The Editors

The January 6th Capitol riot is a blot on the Republican Party and former President Donald J. Trump. What started as a legitimate protest turned ugly. How that happened and why incursions into the Capital began even before Trump had finished speaking, remain a mystery. But a former Marine from Queen Creek, Arizona has increasingly become an important figure. Was he a true ardent Trump supporter or was he an agent provocateur working for the Federal Government?

Just from the perspective of public relations, let alone the law, the riot, the insurrection as some call it,  has done major harm to the Trump legacy. It has divided the Republican Party and provided a club with which the Democrats and the mainstream media continue to beat on both Trump and his supporters.

The Congressional hearings are sadly being conducted more like Soviet show trial, with the guilt of those already determined. Adam Schiff of Russian collusion fame has already been caught doctoring emails. Lynn Cheney appears to have completely lost her marbles. The Chairman of the Committee himself was involved in Black militancy. What is really sought is to shame and humiliate Trump supporters. Thus, this proceeding is unlikely to find the truth about who was leading the crowd to break the law.  It is doubtful they are even looking for the truth.

That is where our mystery man from Queen Creek comes into play. Ray Epps is seen in multiple videos firing up the crowd and urging them to enter the Capitol.  These facts cannot be disputed. But so far, he has escaped prosecution.  He has not been mentioned by the mainstream media. Both those circumstances are very odd.

No news organization to date has done more work on the subject than Revolver News.  They ran a long article (Part I) on the role of Mr. Epps in October and elements of that first article were featured in the Tucker Carlson three-part series on Fox Nation.  Now they have come out with Part II.  The role of Ray Epps may prove critical.  As Revolver News puts it:

“In this report, we will blow open this network of still-unindicted key operators who appear to have been at work either with or around Ray Epps during the initial Capitol grounds breach. You, dear reader, will be scandalized — though perhaps unsurprised — to learn that none of the actors covered in this report have received attention in the mainstream press, despite their active and indispensable roles in the events of 1/6.”

“If Epps turns out to have been some kind of government operative, which at present is the only clean and simple explanation for his immunity, it is game over for the official “MAGA insurrection” narrative of 1/6. Epps was the day’s loudest riot recruiter and its apparent leader of the very first breach of Capitol grounds. If Ray Epps is a Fed, the “Insurrection” becomes the “Fedsurrection” in one fell swoop.”

We urge readers to click the links provided and read both Part I and Part II. Revolver News is to be commended for both their curiosity and their diligence.  Still, we would like to see a more complete investigation into the origins and coordination of the “insurrection”. If our own government was heavily involved in this, we not only need to know as citizens, history needs to know.

*****

The above Revolver News links are repeated here – we urge citizens to study these in-depth investigative reports of what likely happened on January 6, 2021 and the role of the federal government, especially the FBI and the Capital Police, in the “Insurrection” at the Capital. We urge our readers to study these articles – it is beginning to smell like the ‘Russia Hoax’.

October 25, 2021: Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears To Have Led The Very First 1/6 Attack On The U.S. Capitol

December 18 2021: Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive Web Of Unindicted Operators At The Heart Of January 6

Hillsdale College Imprimis: Is Ensuring Election Integrity Anti-Democratic? thumbnail

Hillsdale College Imprimis: Is Ensuring Election Integrity Anti-Democratic?

By John R. Lott, Jr.

Editors’ Note: The following Hillsdale Imprimis article is presented in the context of tomorrow’s anniversary of the Capital riot one year ago triggered by the perception of a 2020 election that was stolen and defied the will of the American people. Illegal and fraudulent voting has always occurred to some degree but never on the scale of the pandemic related November 2020 election. Events at the Capital on January 6, 2021 are increasingly pointing to a possible false flag operation by elements of the Executive branch. Every citizen should be alarmed and resolved to strengthen our voting system at each state legislative level and ensure that We the People truly decide by consent who governs our nation.

*****

The following is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “Critical American Elections.”

Sixteen years ago, in 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform issued a report that proposed a uniform system of requiring a photo ID in order to vote in U.S. elections. The report also pointed out that widespread absentee voting makes vote fraud more likely. Voter files contain ineligible, duplicate, fictional, and deceased voters, a fact easily exploited using absentee ballots to commit fraud. Citizens who vote absentee are more susceptible to pressure and intimidation. And vote-buying schemes are far easier when citizens vote by mail.

Who was behind the Carter-Baker Commission? Donald Trump? No. The Commission’s two ranking members were former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker III, a Republican. Other Democrats on the Commission were former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton. It was a truly bipartisan commission that made what seemed at the time to be common sense proposals.

How things have changed. Some of the Commission’s members, Jimmy Carter among them, came out last year to disavow the Commission’s work. And despite surveys showing that Americans overwhelmingly support measures to ensure election integrity—a recent Rasmussen survey found that 80 percent of Americans support a voter ID requirement—Democratic leaders across the board oppose such measures in the strongest terms.

Here, for instance, is President Biden speaking recently in Philadelphia, condemning the idea of voter IDs: “There is an unfolding assault taking place in America today—an attempt to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections, an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, an assault on who we are—who we are as Americans. For, make no mistake, bullies and merchants of fear and peddlers of lies are threatening the very foundation of our country.” Sadly but predicably, he went on to suggest that requiring voter IDs would mean returning people to slavery.

But the fact is that the U.S. is an outlier among the world’s democracies in not requiring voter ID. Of the 47 countries in Europe today, 46 of them currently require government-issued photo IDs to vote. The odd man out is the United Kingdom, in which Northern Ireland and many localities require voter IDs, but the requirement is not nationwide. The British Parliament, however, is considering a nationwide requirement, so very soon all 47 European countries will likely have adopted this common-sense policy.

When it comes to absentee voting, we Americans, accustomed as we are to very loose rules, are often shocked to learn that 35 of the 47 European countries—including France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden—don’t allow absentee voting for citizens living in country. Another ten European countries—including England, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, and Spain—allow absentee voting, but require voters to show up in person and present a photo ID to pick up their ballots. It isn’t like in the U.S., where a person can say he’s going to be out of town and have a ballot mailed to him.

England used to have absentee voting rules similar to ours in the U.S. But in 2004, in the city of Birmingham, officials uncovered a massive vote fraud scheme in the city council races. The six winning Labor candidates had fraudulently acquired about 40,000 absentee votes, mainly from Muslim areas of the city. As a result, England ended the practice of mailing out absentee ballots and required voters to pick up their ballots in person with a photo ID.

Up until 1975, France also had loose absentee voting rules. But when massive vote fraud was discovered on the island of Corsica—where hundreds of thousands of dead people were found to be voting and even larger-scale vote-buying operations were occurring—France banned absentee voting altogether.

On the topic of buying votes, I should point out that we in the U.S. did not always have secret ballots. It wasn’t until 1880 that the first state adopted the secret ballot, and the last state to adopt it was South Carolina in 1950. Perhaps surprisingly, when secret ballots were adopted, the percentage of people voting fell by about twelve percent. Why was that? Prior to the adoption of the secret ballot, lots of people would get paid for voting. In those days, people voted by placing pieces of colored paper in the ballot box, with different colors representing different parties. Party officials would be present to observe what color paper each voter put into the box, and depending on the color, the voter would often get paid. Secret ballots put an end to this practice.

France learned in 1975 that the use of absentee ballots led to the same practice—it allowed third parties to know how people voted and pay them for voting a certain way. This same problem is now proliferating in the U.S. in the form of “ballot harvesting,” the increasingly common practice where party functionaries distribute and collect ballots.

Defenders of our current voting rules point out that in lieu of absentee voting, some European countries allow “proxy voting,” whereby one person can designate another to vote for him. And while it is true that eight of the 47 European countries allow proxy voting—meaning that 39 do not—there are strict requirements. In five of the eight countries—Belgium, England, Monaco, Poland, and Sweden—proxy voting is limited to those with a disability or an illness or who are out of the country. In Poland, it also requires the approval of the local mayor, and in Monaco the approval of the general secretariat. In France and the Netherlands, proxy voting has to be arranged through a notary public. Switzerland is the only country in Europe with a relatively liberal proxy voting policy, requiring only a signature match.

How about our neighbors, Canada and Mexico? Canada requires a photo ID to vote. If a voter shows up at the polls without an ID, he is allowed to vote only if he declares who he is in writing and if there is someone working at the polling station who can personally verify his identity.

Mexico has had a long history of election fraud. Partly because its leaders were concerned about a drop in foreign investment if it wasn’t perceived to be a legitimate democracy, Mexico recently instituted strict reforms. Voters must present a biometric ID—an ID with not only a photo, but also a thumb print. Voters also have indelible ink applied to their thumbs, preventing them from voting more than once. And absentee voting is prohibited, even for people living outside the country.

Those who oppose election integrity reform here in the U.S. often condemn it as a means of “voter suppression.” But in Mexico, the percent of people voting rose from 59 percent before the reforms to 68 percent after. It turned out that Mexicans were more, not less, likely to vote when they had confidence that their votes mattered.

H.R. 1, the radical bill Democratic Party leaders have been pushing to adopt this year, would prohibit states from requiring voter ID and require states to allow permanent mail-in voting. And mail-in voting, I hardly need to point out, is even worse, in terms of vote fraud, than absentee voting. With absentee voting, a person at least has to request a ballot. With mail-in voting—as we saw in too many places in the 2020 election—ballots are simply mailed out to everyone. With loose absentee voting rules, a country is making itself vulnerable to vote fraud. With mail-in voting, a country is almost begging for vote fraud.

If the rhetoric we hear from the Left today is correct—if voter ID requirements and restrictions on absentee (or even mail-in) voting are un-democratic—then so are the countries of Europe and the rest of the developed world. But this is utter nonsense.

Those opposing common sense measures to ensure integrity in U.S. elections—measures such as those recommended by the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission in 2005—are not motivated by a concern for democracy, but by partisan interests.

****

John R. Lott, Jr., is founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. from UCLA and has held research or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, Yale University, and Rice University. He served in the Trump administration as Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he studied vote fraud. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, and is the author of ten books, including More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.

BREAKING: Feds Finally Admit to Running Secretive DOJ “Commandos” at Jan. 6 Trump Protests thumbnail

BREAKING: Feds Finally Admit to Running Secretive DOJ “Commandos” at Jan. 6 Trump Protests

By Jim Hoft

The Department of Justice admitted this week to running secretive DOJ “commandos” at the January 6 protests in Washington DC.

Four Trump supporters died that day including two women who were killed by Capitol Hill Police.

A third woman was nearly killed but was rescued by Green Beret Jeremy Brown.

The DOJ Commandos were given “shoot to kill” orders.

Now they’re admitting the government did in fact have commandos at the capitol on Jan. 6.

After nearly a year this information is finally coming out.

And they accused this website and others of being conspiracy nuts for reporting on the feds in the crowd that day.

We will likely never know how many feds were working that day to sabotage the peaceful protests.

Newsweek reported:

On Sunday, January 3, the heads of a half-dozen elite government special operations teams met in Quantico, Virginia, to go over potential threats, contingencies, and plans for the upcoming Joint Session of Congress. The meeting, and the subsequent deployment of these shadowy commandos on January 6, has never before been revealed.

Right after the New Year, Jeffrey A. Rosen, the acting Attorney General on January 6, approved implementation of long-standing contingency plans dealing with the most extreme possibilities: an attack on President Donald Trump or Vice President Mike Pence, a terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction, and a declaration of measures to implement continuity of government, requiring protection and movement of presidential successors.

Rosen made a unilateral decision to take the preparatory steps to deploy Justice Department and so-called “national” forces. There was no formal request from the U.S. Capitol Police, the Secret Service, or the Metropolitan Police Department—in fact, no external request from any agency. The leadership in Justice and the FBI anticipated the worst and decided to act independently, the special operations forces lurking behind the scenes….

*****

Continue reading this article, published January 3, 2022 at Gateway Pundit.

How Joe Biden Plans to Spend Your Money on the “Gun Violence Public Health Epidemic”

By Editors at Second Amendment Foundation

For gun owners, Joe Biden’s FY2022 discretionary budget plan is an assault on our individual freedoms and civil liberties – an assault that could cost us both billions of taxpayer dollars as well as our guns.

Whoever actually wrote the plan is a master of creative writing – fiction writing, to be sure.

For example, Biden’s budget plan first refers to gun violence as a “public health epidemic” in a paragraph that’s sandwiched between two legitimate epidemics: opioid addiction and AIDs.

To address this “gun violence public health crisis,” Biden wants to give $2.1 billion – an increase of $232 million – to the Department of Justice, to “improve background check systems, and invest in new programs to incentivize State adoption of gun licensing laws and establish voluntary gun buyback pilot programs.”

Don’t forget that the buyback program Biden has frequently called for is designed for our ARs, AKs, and other popular rifles, and there’s nothing voluntary about it. It’s confiscation, pure and simple.

His own campaign website shows that Biden wants to “institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.” Those who don’t comply could be charged with illegal possession of an NFA-regulated firearm – a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Biden wants to give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives $1.6 billion – an increase of $70 million – “to oversee the safe sale, storage, and ownership of firearms and to support the agency’s other work to fight violent crime.” In addition, he wants to double funding for “firearm violence prevention research” at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health. Who better to help maintain the fiction that guns are a public health epidemic than the CDC and NIH, right?

Most worrisome, however, is the funding Biden wants to spend on domestic terrorism, especially since the definition of domestic terrorism seemingly expands every single day, and now includes both critics of the Biden-Harris administration as well as parents who may object to the actions of their local school board.

Biden’s budget plan would give $45 million to the FBI to investigate domestic terrorism, $40 million to U.S. Attorneys to prosecute more domestic terrorism cases, $12 million to the U.S Marshals Service to arrest domestic terrorists, $131 million to the Department of Homeland Security for domestic terrorism prevention and, of course, $4 million to the National Institute of Justice for domestic terrorism research.

While I’m very concerned about real domestic terrorists – those who seek to kill Americans and/or violently overthrow our system of government – I’m more concerned about foreign terrorists. Foreign terrorists have killed Americans. Irate parents who may object to their school’s mask mandate or curriculum have yet to crash any planes.

If Joe Biden has his way, it will only be a matter of time before gun owners are labeled domestic terrorists, especially those of us who own what Biden calls “weapons of war.” We’ve known for a long time Joe Biden wants our guns. This is how he intends to pay for it.

*****

This article is reproduced with permission from The Second Amendment Foundation.

Arizona Republic Report Leaves Out Important Details and Context On Universal Licensing thumbnail

Arizona Republic Report Leaves Out Important Details and Context On Universal Licensing

By Jeffrey A. Singer

The Arizona Republic recently published a report entitled, “Universal Licensing: Arizona opened the doors to less qualified workers‐​the public bears the risk.” In its investigation of Arizona’s universal licensing recognition law enacted in 2019—a reform so successful and popular that it is being emulated by more than a third of other states—it mentioned irrelevant incidents and presented out‐​of‐​context data to malign this bold and enlightened reform.

The article begins and ends with a heart-wrenching story about a California‐​licensed veterinarian who received a temporary Arizona license, granted under a 1967 law, to work at a Mesa, Arizona clinic. She’s been accused of poor surgical technique while operating on a kitten brought to the clinic on death’s doorstep. The kitten died and the veterinarian was fired from the clinic. Her temporary license expired after 30 days, and she was never granted the permanent license for which she applied. Yet readers are expected to view this as an indictment of Arizona’s universal licensing law.

Universal licensing dilutes the authority of state occupational licensing boards, so it is no surprise that a spokesperson from an organization representing that constituency, the Federation of Associations of Regulatory Boards, would be quoted in the article criticizing universal licensing over the fact that Arizona grants licenses to workers from states with less onerous licensing requirements—providing their out‐​of‐​state licenses are in good standing for at least a year.

It is wrong to assume that more onerous requirements are better. In many cases, incumbent occupations lobby state licensing boards to make requirements tougher for new entrants, usually “grandfathering” those already licensed, to reduce competition. Thus, EMTs must complete, on average, 33 days of training and pass 2 exams to get a license while cosmetologists need 11 months of training and interior designers need 73.

When it comes to the medical profession, licensing requirements are virtually identical in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. They include graduating an accredited medical school, passing a standardized national licensing exam, and completing at least one year of postgraduate training. Yet few people realize that private third‐​party certification organizations do the heavy lifting when it comes to quality assurance.

For example, I am a general surgeon. As a licensed medical doctor, I can legally decide to switch my specialty to obstetrics and gynecology or dermatology, or even psychiatry and display it on my door. However, health care facilities will not grant me practicing privileges without proof I completed postgraduate training in the specialty and will likely require board certification. Specialty boards will not grant me certification unless I complete accredited specialty training and pass their exams. Health plans will not include me on their provider panels without proof I completed the specialty training, and I will be unable to get malpractice insurance coverage for the same reason. Note how many independent, private third parties provide information and protection to consumers of already‐​licensed physicians. These are the real guarantors of safety.

The Republic report implies to readers that malpractice is automatically a reason to deny or revoke a license. Oftentimes, when medical or other professional malpractice cases are settled, the defendants do not stipulate liability. Both settlements and convictions get reviewed by licensing boards. But unless convictions are repetitive or egregious, boards rarely restrict or revoke licenses. The same is true when boards investigate complaints directly lodged by customers or patients.

Yet the authors of the report infer that something must be amiss if an applicant receives a universal license from a licensing board when they have a history of a malpractice settlement in the state where they are already licensed. If every malpractice settlement justified denying or revoking a license, the entire country would have a desperate shortage of doctors, dentists, and other health care practitioners.

Historically, it has been the incumbent members of professions and occupations who lobbied state legislatures to license and regulate them—not the customers, clients, or patients. While incumbents promoted licensing under the guise of protecting the public, they were really protecting themselves by reducing competition from new entrants and, in the process, inflating prices for their services. The report’s authors cite another organization that represents the interests of incumbents, the Alliance For Responsible Professional Licensing, that defends occupational licensing by saying “licensing helps to solve problems of income disparity, boosting wages most at the bottom end of skill distribution.” But that doesn’t account for the innumerable people who are locked out of the opportunity to lift themselves from poverty by using their skills to make an honest living.

For example, at one time Arizona required African‐​style hair braiders to spend nearly one year and close to $10,000 to get a cosmetology license, which includes training to use chemicals to dye or treat hair, as well as hair cutting. They’re taught nothing about hair braiding. A lawsuit pushed lawmakers to end that requirement in Arizona, but such obstacles to hair braiders still exist in several other states. Louisiana florists “protected” the pubic from people who want to simply arrange flowers by successfully lobbying for a law that requires them to get a license. License requirements include passing a four‐​hour exam during which the applicant must arrange flowers while being judged by licensed florists. Louisiana is the only state that licenses flower arrangers. Does the Federation of Associations of Regulatory Boards criticize Arizona for having less onerous requirements on flower arrangers who relocate from Louisiana? The Republic’s reporters didn’t say.

The proliferation of occupational licensing laws, from interior decorators to fire alarm installers, may have boosted the income of those protected by a license, but they have prevented many people from lifting themselves out of poverty by entering such fields of endeavor. Indeed, in 2016 President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors issued a report detailing how licensing leads to higher prices and reduced opportunity. The Obama administration convinced Congress to appropriate grants to help states “enhance the portability of occupational licensing.”

In an earlier time, licensing laws were also used to exclude racial and ethnic minorities. The Cato Institute held a policy forum on this subject in November 2020 called “Race and Medical Licensing Laws.”

Furthermore, most state licensing boards deny licenses to people who have a history of a felony conviction. With nearly one‐​third of Americans these days having a record in the criminal justice system, licensing laws deny many people a second chance to better themselves. In May 2021 Governor Ducey signed into law HB 2067, which provides “Certificate[s] of Second Chance” to people convicted of certain felonies, which will help them obtain occupational and business licenses. The law does not apply universally to all crimes and convictions. For example, driving with a suspended license and criminal speeding are among the convictions excluded. Nevertheless, the new law at least helps some who’ve made mistakes in the past to clear the occupational licensing hurdle and forge a new and better life.

Arizona ignited a national trend in breaking down barriers to people of all backgrounds seeking to make an honest living while expanding options and choices for consumers. Universal licensing reform has bipartisan appeal. From blue states like New Jersey to red states like Missouri, lawmakers are uniting around the goal of removing the barriers to upward mobility that occupational licensing laws erect. Sadly, by citing irrelevant narratives, cherry-picking data, and failing to provide adequate context, the Arizona Republic article did this reform a great injustice.

*****

This article was published on January 2, 2022, and is reproduced with permission from The CATO Institute.

The Thirty Tyrants thumbnail

The Thirty Tyrants

By Lee Smith

The deal that the American elite chose to make with China has a precedent in the history of Athens and Sparta

In Chapter 5 of The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli describes three options for how a conquering power might best treat those it has defeated in war. The first is to ruin them; the second is to rule directly; the third is to create “therein a state of the few which might keep it friendly to you.”

The example Machiavelli gives of the last is the friendly government Sparta established in Athens upon defeating it after 27 years of war in 404 BCE. For the upper caste of an Athenian elite already contemptuous of democracy, the city’s defeat in the Peloponnesian War confirmed that Sparta’s system was preferable. It was a high-spirited military aristocracy ruling over a permanent servant class, the helots, who were periodically slaughtered to condition them to accept their subhuman status. Athenian democracy by contrast gave too much power to the low-born. The pro-Sparta oligarchy used their patrons’ victory to undo the rights of citizens, and settle scores with their domestic rivals, exiling and executing them and confiscating their wealth.

The Athenian government disloyal to Athens’ laws and contemptuous of its traditions was known as the Thirty Tyrants, and understanding its role and function helps explain what is happening in America today.

For my last column I spoke with The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman about an article he wrote more than a decade ago, during the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. His important piece documents the exact moment when the American elite decided that democracy wasn’t working for them. Blaming the Republican Party for preventing them from running roughshod over the American public, they migrated to the Democratic Party in the hopes of strengthening the relationships that were making them rich.

A trade consultant told Friedman: “The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the Eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer. In principle, they have left the party, leaving behind not a pragmatic coalition but a group of ideological naysayers.”

In the more than 10 years since Friedman’s column was published, the disenchanted elite that the Times columnist identified has further impoverished American workers while enriching themselves. The one-word motto they came to live by was globalism—that is, the freedom to structure commercial relationships and social enterprises without reference to the well-being of the particular society in which they happened to make their livings and raise their children.

Undergirding the globalist enterprise was China’s accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. For decades, American policymakers and the corporate class said they saw China as a rival, but the elite that Friedman described saw enlightened Chinese autocracy as a friend and even as a model—which was not surprising, given that the Chinese Communist Party became their source of power, wealth, and prestige. Why did they trade with an authoritarian regime and send millions of American manufacturing jobs off to China thereby impoverish working Americans? Because it made them rich. They salved their consciences by telling themselves they had no choice but to deal with China: It was big, productive, and efficient and its rise was inevitable. And besides, the American workers hurt by the deal deserved to be punished—who could defend a class of reactionary and racist ideological naysayers standing in the way of what was best for progress?

Returning those jobs to America, along with ending foreign wars and illegal immigration, was the core policy promise of Donald Trump’s presidency, and the source of his surprise victory in 2016. Trump was hardly the first to make the case that the corporate and political establishment’s trade relationship with China had sold out ordinary Americans. Former Democratic congressman and 1988 presidential candidate Richard Gephardt was the leading voice in an important but finally not very influential group of elected Democratic Party officials and policy experts who warned that trading with a state that employed slave labor would cost American jobs and sacrifice American honor. The only people who took Trump seriously were the more than 60 million American voters who believed him when he said he’d fight the elites to get those jobs back.

What he called “The Swamp” appeared at first just to be a random assortment of industries, institutions, and personalities that seemed to have nothing in common, outside of the fact they were excoriated by the newly elected president. But Trump’s incessant attacks on that elite gave them collective self-awareness as well as a powerful motive for solidarity. Together, they saw that they represented a nexus of public and private sector interests that shared not only the same prejudices and hatreds, cultural tastes and consumer habits but also the same center of gravity—the U.S.-China relationship. And so, the China Class was born.

Connections that might have once seemed tenuous or nonexistent now became lucid under the light of Trump’s scorn, and the reciprocal scorn of the elite that loathed him.

A decade ago, no one would’ve put NBA superstar LeBron James and Apple CEO Tim Cook in the same family album, but here they are now, linked by their fantastic wealth owing to cheap Chinese manufacturing (Nike sneakers, iPhones, etc.) and a growing Chinese consumer market. The NBA’s $1.5 billion contract with digital service provider Tencent made the Chinese firm the league’s biggest partner outside America. In gratitude, these two-way ambassadors shared the wisdom of the Chinese Communist Party with their ignorant countrymen. After an an NBA executive tweeted in defense of Hong Kong dissidents, social justice activist King LeBron told Americans to watch their tongues. “Even though yes, we do have freedom of speech,” said James, “it can be a lot of negative that comes with it.”

Because of Trump’s pressure on the Americans who benefited extravagantly from the U.S.-China relationship, these strange bedfellows acquired what Marxists call class consciousness—and joined together to fight back, further cementing their relationships with their Chinese patrons. United now, these disparate American institutions lost any sense of circumspection or shame about cashing checks from the Chinese Communist Party, no matter what horrors the CCP visited on the prisoners of its slave labor camps and no matter what threat China’s spy services and the People’s Liberation Army might pose to national security. Think tanks and research institutions like the Atlantic Council, the Center for American Progress, the EastWest Institute, the Carter Center, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and others gorged themselves on Chinese money. The world-famous Brookings Institution had no scruples about publishing a report funded by Chinese telecom company Huawei that praised Huawei technology.

The billions that China gave to major American research universities, like $58 million to Stanford, alarmed U.S. law enforcement, which warned of Chinese counterintelligence efforts to steal sensitive research. But the schools and their name faculty were in fact in the business of selling that research, much of it paid for directly by the U.S. government—which is why Harvard and Yale among other big-name schools appear to have systematically underreported the large amounts that China had gifted them.

Indeed, many of academia’s pay-for-play deals with the CCP were not particularly subtle. In June 2020, a Harvard professor who received a research grant of $15 million in taxpayer money was indicted for lying about his $50,000 per month work on behalf of a CCP institution to “recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China’s scientific development, economic prosperity, and national security.”

*****

To read the rest of this article, click here, and go to Tablet Magazine.

Growing Research Chronicles Toll COVID Lockdowns Imposed On Children thumbnail

Growing Research Chronicles Toll COVID Lockdowns Imposed On Children

By Bethany Blankley

A growing body of academic research is chronicling the toll that pandemic lockdowns imposed on children, indicating that the mental and social anguish the policies caused outweighs the health protections.

The “overall impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents is likely to be severe,” an Oxford University professor warned in a recent analysis.

A study published by Brown University said lockdowns, mandates, and other restrictions are likely to create a generation of children with lower IQs and signs of social brain damage.

Other studies have reported increased mental illnesses presenting among minors impacted by ongoing lockdown policies, stress and isolation from their peers, as well as unfounded fears associated with the coronavirus, which killed fewer than 800 of the 73.3 million Americans under the age of 18.

Some of the most compelling findings are based on research of children continuously enrolled in a program in Rhode Island run by Brown University and its Warren Alpert Medical School since 2009.

Known as the RESONANCE study, researchers and medical professionals have been conducting a longitudinal analysis of child health and neurodevelopment, which is now part of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) program.

The RESONANCE cohort includes roughly 1,600 caregiver-child dyads “who have been continuously enrolled between 0 and 5 years of age since 2009 and have been followed through infancy, childhood, and early adolescence,” the report states. The subjects offer a “unique opportunity to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child health trends in RI, which may reflect broader trends in the US.”

In early 2020, public health officials began imposing restrictive policies to limit the spread of the coronavirus. They issued stay-at-home orders, requiring the closing of nonessential businesses, daycare centers, schools, and playgrounds, as well as imposed restrictions on other activities.

Lockdown policies helped create fear among parents, who worried about getting sick or losing their jobs, the researchers said. But parents who could work from home did and faced challenges balancing their work and providing full-time care for their children who were also home.

“Not surprising, there has been concern over how these factors, as well as missed educational opportunities and reduced interaction, stimulation, and creative play with other children, might impact child neurodevelopment,” the researchers explained.

Using their ongoing longitudinal study of child neurodevelopment, the Brown scientists examined general childhood cognitive scores in 2020 and 2021 compared to the preceding decade, 2011-2019.

They concluded that children “born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic,” with men and children in lower socioeconomic families being the most affected.

Results also found that “even in the absence of direct SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness, the environmental changes associated with the pandemic are significantly and negatively affecting infant and child development.”

Meaning, healthy children were significantly negatively impacted by public policies that disrupted their cognitive and emotional development.

Professor Carl Heneghan, the Director of Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, also published a study that found that “eight out of ten children and adolescents report worsening of behavior or any psychological symptoms or an increase in negative feelings due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“School closures contributed to increased anxiety, loneliness, and stress; negative feelings due to COVID-19 increased with the duration of school closures,” the study found, with deteriorating mental health reported to be worse among females and older adolescents.

Adolescents above age 12 also fared worse than children under age 12, due to increasing peer pressure, social pressure, and other issues, the study found.

The report was based on 17 systematic reviews reporting child and adolescent mental health; three of which were preprints.

Researchers reported “anxiety, depression, irritability, boredom, inattention, and fear of COVID-19 as predominant new-onset psychological problems in children during the pandemic.”

Lockdown policies and fear over the coronavirus caused “stress, worry, helplessness, as well as social and risky behavioral problems among children and adolescents,” with 13 studies reporting “a negative association between the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on mental health.”

“Stressors for adolescents included the inability to see friends, arguments with parents, unresolvable disputes via social media, academic stress and feelings of isolation,” Heneghan’s analysis found.

When lockdown restrictions were first imposed last year, mental health-related visits to Emergency Rooms increased by 24 percent in ages 5–11 and by 31 percent in ages 12–17 compared to 2019 data, the CDC reported last year. The data is among several listed in a newly published Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics journal article that highlights the worsening mental health conditions of children in the U.S.

The journal also points to another report, which found that while pediatric emergency department visits for patients of all ages decreased during lockdown policies, pediatric visits for mental health conditions increased from 4% to 5.7%.

Another survey assessed 2,111 participants under age 25 who were diagnosed with psychiatric conditions during lockdown policies.

Among them, 83% said that they experienced a worsening of their condition during the pandemic and 26% said they weren’t able to access the support services they needed.

Parents seem acutely aware of the consequences to the children. One survey found that 14% of parents reported worsening of underlying mental disorders among their children under lockdown.

*****

This article was published on January 1, 2022, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

Gun Rights: Gunless People Are Dangerous thumbnail

Gun Rights: Gunless People Are Dangerous

By Alan Korwin

Fear and hatred of guns have unintended consequences; political fallout and dangers which are largely missed in the running monologues that pass for “news” in America today.

Age-old wisdom suggesting knowledge of guns leading to harm is incorrect, according to leading experts on both sides of the aisle. People who avoid guns, and refuse to discuss the subject, exhibit fear bordering on paranoia, leading to accidents, defenselessness, and potentially dire consequences. Criminals now running rampant on a small number of American streets have virtually no training, and certainly don’t represent the values of marksmanship and firearms education, which generally lead to self-control and responsibility.

“A person who knows nothing about guns, and preserves that ignorance with great vigor, which many anti-gun people do, harms society’s fabric by promoting counter-productive law, hampering police efforts, and putting children at risk,” I noted in a recent public speech. Starbucks, as a case in point, had ignorantly refused to serve armed police officers, people tasked with protecting society. How did that help anyone? It simply showed their disdain for something good.

Projection?

“Many people who fear guns secretly harbor internal rage, just waiting to break into violence upon some slight provocation. They project this instability onto others, falsely assuming anyone with a firearm will eventually erupt into violence and injure others — as they believe they might do, according to Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. “They cannot imagine most people are not also plagued by the demons under which they suffer. So, they fear guns and believe everyone should be disarmed, just as they don’t trust themselves from erupting into violence,” he said. Mr. Marbut is a firearms instructor accepted as an expert witness in state and federal courts concerning self-defense, use of force, and firearms safety. His cogent testimony has helped defendants wrongly charged by misguided anti-gun prosecutors.

Heavily credentialed firearms training expert and author Stephen P. Wenger notes that gun-fearing folks have what’s called “poor impulse control” and project that onto others. The lack of understanding gunless people exhibits leads to laws that affect the innocent and ignore the criminal element, which I have personally witnessed repeatedly in legislatures nationwide. People with terror in their eyes and myths on their lips over imagined dangers band together, hire lobbyists and rally for laws to disarm people who haven’t done anything.

Real Responsibility

The gun-fearful flatly ignore actual perpetrators entirely. Frequently, the criminal perps are people of color or other “disadvantaged” types (ethnic, immigrant, poor, released prisoners, gang members) who they are afraid to single out or implicate out of fear of being called names like “racist.”

Red-flag laws are an example. Notice these laws let police confiscate your property on hearsay and without a trial, merely on suspicion of you being a potential mass murderer. Afterward, they just set you loose back on the streets. How much more dangerous could a plan be? “You haven’t done anything, so we’re letting you out. Go buy a chainsaw, matches, and some gasoline. You’re not angry at the person who had you detained, are you?” Red-flag laws were drafted by the gun-control lobby, without evidence that they work, based on their desire “to make guns go away.”

Authorities might take “your gun” for a while, but that doesn’t put you in the database preventing you from buying another gun, because you lack guilt or a conviction necessary to be included. And they may not check to see if you already have several guns. It’s an irrational response to psychotic mass murderers and sociopathic children seeking to slaughter their classmates.

Also at issue are prosecutors — or perhaps lack of prosecutors — willing to prosecute, using laws we have to incarcerate truly dangerous people using guns for illegal purposes. That’s how we get felons on our streets with mile-long rap sheets, committing one serious crime after another. In an insidious way, this serves a valuable purpose. It keeps gunless people terrified, clamoring for more so-called “gun control,” which increases government power. Just take the guns away and we’ll all be safe while leaving officials armed to the teeth. Right. The fact it hasn’t worked for decades doesn’t seem to enter the equation, and efforts continue to hamper the innocent.

There is no known way to reliably make or staff a “pre-crime” bureau, according to forensic experts, and catch psychopaths before they act out. That’s a fanciful feature of sci-fi films, with no place in the real world. “It’s hoplophobic,” said Dr. Bruce Eimer, Ph.D., a police forensic psychologist, “just a manifestation of irrational fears. Those people promoting such things need help, but typically refuse any.” Red-flag laws are delusions, typically promoted by gunless people, to quell their fears, without any hope of success.

Take a gunless person to a shooting range, an often-reliable cure for their phobia, and help improve the safety of the nation, Dr. Eimer would advise.

Award-winning author Alan Korwin has written 14 books, 10 of them on gun law, and has advocated for gun rights for nearly three decades. See his work or reach him at GunLaws.com.

*****

This article was published in the January-February 2022 edition of American Handgunner and is reproduced with permission from the author.

The Wisconsin Purchase

By William Doyle

How Mark Zuckerberg’s millions and the Center for Technology and Civic Life turned Wisconsin blue in 2020.

Democrats seem to know that they cannot win a national election without employing the same tactics that they used to win in 2020. As Nsé Ufot, CEO of the Stacey Abrams-founded New Georgia Project, said “If there isn’t a way for us to repeat what happened in November 2020, we’re f—ed.”

What happened in 2020 involved a highly coordinated and privately funded “shadow campaign” for Joe Biden that took place within the formal structure of the election system itself. Through the injection of over $419 million of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s money, laundered through the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), the professional left presided over a targeted, historically unprecedented takeover of government election offices by nominally nonpartisan, but demonstrably ideological, nonprofit organizations and activists in key areas of swing states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Our research shows that CTCL spending in Wisconsin generated enough votes for Joe Biden to secure him an Electoral College win there in 2020. We estimate that CTCL spending in Wisconsin purchased Joe Biden an additional 65,222votes,without which Donald Trump would have won the state by 44,540 votes.

Although CTCL and CEIR are chartered as non-partisan 501(c)(3) corporations, our research shows that the $419.5 million of CTCL and CEIR spending that took place in 2020 was highly partisan in its distribution, and highly partisan in its effects. Targeted CTCL and CEIR spending played a decisive role in building a “shadow” election system with a built-in structural bias that systematically favored Democratic votes over Republican votes.

Big CTCL and CEIR money had nothing to do with traditional campaign finance, media buys, lobbying, or other costs that are related to increasingly expensive modern elections. Rather, it had to do with financing the infiltration of election offices at the city and county level by Democrat activists and using those offices as a platform to implement preferred administrative practices, voting methods, ballot harvesting efforts, and data sharing agreements, as well as to launch intensive multi-media outreach campaigns and surgically targeted, concierge-level get-out-the-vote efforts in areas heavy with Democratic voters.

The injection of bias into select local election offices through CTCL infiltration introduced structural bias into Wisconsin’s entire 2020 election. This involved favoring certain voters and voting practices over others, and disfavoring other classes of voters and voting practices, giving CTCL’s preferred voters and voting methods an outsized impact on the final election results. The outcome of the 2020 election in Wisconsin is not the outcome that would have occurred if the election had been conducted on the basis of established election laws, equal treatment of voters, and administrative neutrality.

CTCL In Wisconsin: Ground Zero For CTCL’s Nationwide Effort

CTCL’s Safe Elections Project in Wisconsin was not the result of a grass roots clamor for greater election funding among money-starved municipalities desperately seeking additional election funding. It was entirely a top-down endeavor, initiated by CTCL operatives, and funded by a massive inflow of money from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who cultivated connections among “Wisconsin Five” mayors and other city officials, incentivized the first grant applications, and provided funds and advice to aid in their completion.

CTCL involvement in Wisconsin’s election began in Racine. In late May, CTCL issued a $100,000 grant to the southeast Wisconsin city to “recruit other Wisconsin cities to join the ‘Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan.’” Racine Mayor Cory Mason spoke to his fellow liberal mayors in Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Kenosha about accepting CTCL’s grants—with the proviso that there would be strings attached.

CTCL authorized the City of Racine to distribute from its initial $100,000 grant, $10,000 to each of the four recruited cities (keeping $10,000 for itself), as an incentive for them to participate with Racine in applying for the larger CTCL conditional grants.

Emails obtained through public records requests show Mason’s office in May 2020 setting up numerous virtual meetings with the four other mayors three months before CTCL publicly announced the first round of grants to the “Wisconsin 5” on July 7, 2020. The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan, and CTCL involvement in Wisconsin’s election was the culmination of a collaborative effort between CTCL’s activist directors and election officials in Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine. These cities would soon come to be referred to in CTCL inner circles as “The Wisconsin 5.”

At least 10 other cities in areas that were important to Democratic efforts to retake Wisconsin would eventually seek to become part of the plan by applying for and accepting significant CTCL grants considerably in excess of the minimum $5,000 offered to non-urban election offices throughout the state.

CTCL And “The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan” to Infiltrate Wisconsin’s Election System

The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan—which would emerge out of a collaboration between high level CTCL Advisors, several representatives of the Pierre Omidyar funded National Vote at Home Institute, and Milwaukee’s City Clerk office during Summer, 2020—was the lynchpin of CTCL’s involvement in Wisconsin’s 2020 election. Fulfilling its major objectives was a condition for CTCL funding. City officials among The Wisconsin 5 signed off on “clawback provisions” that allowed CTCL to reclaim their grant money if it was not used to further the objectives contained in the plan.

For example, the CTCL contract that Green Bay approved warns that the grant was to be used “only for” safe and secure election administration, “and for no other purposes,” which means under the ambitious terms they set forth in their portion of the WSVP. The grant’s clawback provision stated that “CTCL may discontinue, modify, withhold part of, or ask for the return of all or part of the grant funds if it determines, in its sole judgment, that (a) any of the above conditions have not been met or (b) it must do so to comply with applicable laws or regulations.”

How The Wisconsin 5 Sought to Implement CTCL’s Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan: Bonfire of the Inanities

The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan lists CTCL’s four major strategic objectives.

  • First, to “encourage and Increase Absentee Voting (By Mail and Early, In-Person),” mainly through providing “assistance” in absentee ballot completion and submission, and the installation of ballot drop boxes
  • Second, to “dramatically expand strategic voter education & outreach efforts, particularly to historically disenfranchised residents.”
  • Third, to recruit new election workers, mainly from among paid young activists who would replace the usual, older election day volunteers.
  • A distant fourth, both in emphasis and level of funding, was the funding of Covid-19 related safety measures.

CTCL funded election offices in Wisconsin seemed particularly intent on courting a demographic favored by the activists at CTCL—a loosely defined “New American Majority” coalition—to replace the working-class voters who had abandoned the party in droves in 2016, and who formerly made up a significant part of the old Democratic “Blue Wall” in the industrial upper Midwest.

This coalition encompasses people of color, single women, young people, and is often extended to include members of the LGBTQ community. Two of the non-profits most closely affiliated with CTCL, the Voter Participation Center and the Center for Voter Information, are at the forefront of proponents of this electoral strategy. According to Democracy Docket, “In the 2020 election, VPC and CVI overcame unprecedented challenges to help engage voters from the New American Majority.”

Addressing these challenges would involve a large commitment of financial and human resources in Wisconsin. There was therefore considerable anguish expressed in the Wisconsin Safe Voting plan about the “hand holding” level of assistance that such voters required in order to cast valid votes, even under greatly relaxed absentee ballot standards during Covid-19 afflicted 2020. To meet this need, Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine together budgeted over $540 thousand of their CTCL grant money toward various forms of “non-partisan voter education” alone.

The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan outlined the prodigious efforts that the Wisconsin Five were willing to make in order to bend the election system from within toward these untapped tranches of low-propensity potential Democratic voters, and thereby increase Democratic votes in their cities, and in the statewide totals. Established by officials of the Wisconsin Five in collaboration with CTCL advisors, it would serve as the general template for CTCL’s efforts in other key swing states nationwide. It is an extravagant wish list of far-left Democratic election concerns and priorities……

William Doyle, Ph.D., is principal researcher at Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute in Irving, Texas. He specializes in economic history and the private funding of American elections. Previously, he was associate professor and chair in the Department of Economics at the University of Dallas.

*****

Continue reading this article, published on December 24, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

The Limits Of Joe Manchin’s Conservatism

By John Hirschauer

Of the three-headed hydra of universal prekindergarten, subsidized child care, and the child tax credit, the latter was far and away the most defensible policy and the one least injurious to the aims of social conservatives.

Senator Joe Manchin, the recent subject of a Two Minutes Hate for torpedoing the “Build Back Better” legislation, approached the White House yesterday to lay out a framework for future domestic-policy negotiations. From the New York Times this morning:

On Tuesday, Mr. Manchin went to the White House and put forward his own outline for the domestic policy plan, which included money for universal prekindergarten, child care and some environmental provisions, but did not include the one-year extension of the child tax credit, according to people familiar with the offer.

That Manchin is willing to sign on to limited climate-initiative funding, child care, and universal pre-K is in keeping with a Monday Washington Post report on his private offer to the White House. It also reveals the limits of Manchin’s Blue Dog posture.

In several reports, Manchin’s aides indicated that the senator supports the child tax credit but wants it to include a work requirement for recipients. The Times reports that Manchin is nevertheless concerned about the cost of the program and, according to the Wall Street Journal, has worries about the moral hazards involved.

There’s no getting around it: The child tax credit is expensive. It would cost $1.5 trillion dollars over ten years if made permanent and fully refundable. While that figure is large—and I realize in making this point I’m going to sound a lot like the most insufferable people you know—it is a fraction of what America is projected to spend on defense in the coming decade, which totals over $7 trillion. The child tax credit appears to have contributed significantly to recent declines in childhood hunger and poverty. If conservatives are serious about making it easier for Americans to raise large families, the child tax credit is one of the best policy tools at their disposal.

Manchin’s support for universal pre-K and child-care are concerning for social conservatives. Of the three-headed hydra of universal prekindergarten, subsidized child care, and the child tax credit, the latter was far and away from the most defensible policy and the one least injurious to the aims of social conservatives.

You sound like a nut when you say it out loud, but universal pre-K is almost guaranteed to move an entire generation of children to the left. It is hard to think of a surer path to social upheaval than turning hordes of small children over to agents of the state whose federal funding is contingent on teaching children the racial and sexual dogmata of high-church progressivism. If you think colleges are effective in brainwashing kids, wait until the education majors from Berkeley are teaching your three-year-old about gender identity.

On child care, note the way prominent progressives speak about the issue. Elizabeth Warren said creating a universal, federally funded child care regime was urgent, because “too many mamas and daddies today are getting knocked off the track and never get back on,” with the “track,” of course, being slavery to Mammon. At Slate, Jordan Weismann said “One of the better arguments for providing child-care services—as opposed to straight cash payments to parents, as some policy wonks have proposed—is that encouraging women to stay in the workforce will create future economic gains.” The universal child-care program is a way to remake the structure of the American family, normalize and subsidize two-income households, and ensure that young children are spending as much time as possible around right-thinking progressive functionaries instead of their (potentially reactionary) parents.

It’s fine to worry about the costs of these programs amid rising inflation, but Manchin’s reported counter-offer suggests he either hasn’t thought through their social implications or he doesn’t care.

*****

This article was published on December 22, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

A Worthy New Year’s Resolution:  Do Something! thumbnail

A Worthy New Year’s Resolution: Do Something!

By James Rousseau

I was born on a farm west of Phoenix in 1939. The only houses were farmhouses occupied by farm families, generally wonderful people.

I have seen tremendous change over the span of my life, both in the Phoenix area and nationally. One of the few advantages of advanced age is perspective. There have been many technological improvements in our lives and some social improvements. We have gained some things and lost others.

Observing America over many decades, not all change has been for the better. For younger people, be aware that you can’t measure the loss of freedom as well as a senior citizen because you have never known differently.

Despite what the race hucksters are selling, black Americans thankfully are treated much better than they previously were. That has been a real improvement. However, at the same time, a social and cultural decline has followed in the wake of Biblical-based morality being replaced by secularism materialism. There are a lot of -isms today. It reminds one of the famous observations of G.K. Chesterton, that when people no longer believe in God, it is not that they will believe in nothing, it is they will believe in anything.

This spiritual decline is of considerable importance because a country can be no better than its people.  Creeping socialism has taken its toll on the work ethic and the family. But what has me most concerned is the erosion of personal freedom. While it has expanded in some areas, other areas have yielded to the growth of government. We have less personal freedom, less privacy, and keep much less of our income.  More and more of our people have grown dependent on the state.

America is in peril and I want you to join me in doing something about it. We can live in fear, we can feel intimidated, and we can be angry. These are perhaps understandable emotions but not of much value unless we take action to deal with them.

In the New Testament, we are told “God has not given us a spirit of fear but of power, love and a sound mind “ (2 Timothy 1:7). It strikes me that you can’t have a sound mind if your mind is controlled by fear.

But let me ask you how you feel if you turn on the TV, and you see burning, looting, and rioting? What do you think when it becomes obvious that our military and our schools are teaching Critical Race Theory?

How do you feel when General Milley calls the Communist dictator in China and says in essence, “Don’t worry, before we attack you, I will give you a call and let you know we are coming?” Can you imagine General George Marshall doing that to Franklin Roosevelt?

What do you think of the Commander in Chief wearing a cloth mask, virtually alone on the beach, near the water’s edge?

And then there is the problem of open borders, officials ignoring the law, inflation, huge accumulated debt, and the general breakdown of law and order in major cities.

So how are you and I to respond to this sad situation that we find ourselves in?

Most of the available options aren’t particularly attractive.

We can ignore the problems.

We can acknowledge the problems but give up feeling that we can’t do much about solving them.

We can live in fear and anxiety, expressing our fear and frustrations with friends and neighbors. That’s hard on them and rarely productive.

We can move to another country. But the way even so-called free countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Britain have acted of late, certainly looks like a poor option. Many of these nations have gone even more Covid crazy than we have.

Or we can recognize that if freedom is to survive, it must flourish here. If that is true, then we must act positively to defend our country and its founding principles just as vigorously against domestic enemies as we would those that are foreign.

In short, the best option is to fight.

American history teaches many lessons. During the Revolutionary War, the colonists fought against the greatest military power of the day. In addition, the Revolution was supported by only about a third of the population, or at least that is John Adam’s estimate. In some sense, it was our first civil war, and it was about freedom.

Our second civil war was also about freedom.

In both cases, people who were for the most part comfortable economically, engaged in great sacrifice for the principles of freedom. Why did they do that?

That should be an inspiration to all of us. Not that much is being asked of us. No one is suggesting you sacrifice like the troops at Valley Forge or the Marines at Tarawa.

What do I offer you? I say don’t give up. Fight politically now so we don’t have to fight militarily later.

Become informed by reading beyond the mainstream corporate media. Read The Epoch Times and The Prickly Pear, and many other fine new publications.

Get active politically. If you are old and bent over like me don’t let that stop you. Write and call your representatives, even those in other states. It’s easy. You can do it.

Attend school board meetings, speak out against what is wrong. Find out what is being taught in the public schools, and support school choice.

If you temperamentally are not a fighter, support those that are fighters. There are many good organizations such as Faith and Freedom Coalition, Freedom Works, Project Veritas, Judicial Watch, Turning Point USA, and Prager U, just to name a few. Find their phone numbers. Visit their websites. Give them a call asking for information to be sent to you and give them money. Your money won’t mean much if you are not free.

Many people seek a sense of meaning. For me, my Christian faith provides that. But beyond that, I want to leave the world better than I found it, not worse. The best gift we can leave behind in this world is liberty for our children and grandchildren.

So let’s make standing up for liberty our New Year’s resolution.

Come on folks, let’s do it together.

Arizona Joins 24-state Coalition Against Biden Head Start Mandates thumbnail

Arizona Joins 24-state Coalition Against Biden Head Start Mandates

By Elizabeth Troutman

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has joined 24 other states in filing a lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates for staff and volunteers in Head Start programs.

Head Start programs provide children ages 3 to 5 and their families at or below the federal poverty level with early childhood education and resources. The Biden Administration’s mandates, which require vaccinations for teachers, contractors, and volunteers in Head Start programs by Jan. 31, will cost jobs and programs and “ultimately hurt children,” the Attorney General’s Office Dec. 21 news release said.

“The Biden Administration continues to expand efforts to impose illegal mandates on Americans, this time targeting young children and the people who serve them,” said Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. “I have and will continue to challenge this misguided federal overreach and stand alongside our most vulnerable.”

Filed in Louisiana on Dec. 21, the suit says the Head Start Mandate is “beyond the Executive Branch’s authority, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious.”

The coalition of states is also seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the mandate from going into effect. This is the fourth lawsuit the Arizona AGO has filed against “unconstitutional” COVID-19 vaccine mandates, the news release said.

*****

This article was published on December 28, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

Where Did Our Law Enforcement Lose Its Way? thumbnail

Where Did Our Law Enforcement Lose Its Way?

By Bruce Bialosky

“In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.” That cold open to Law and Order became ubiquitous in our society. But, somehow, we have lost our way. This simple concept no longer exists in many parts of our country.

Most people do not pay attention to who their District Attorney is or the position at all. I learned that vividly in 2000. Steve Cooley had just gotten elected to the position for Los Angeles County. I was a principal party in hosting a fundraiser for him to clean up his campaign debt. I was stunned to find that I was the only (yes, only) non-attorney who worked on the event or wrote a check. At the time no one cared about this position except for the attorneys who wanted to work in the office or might have cases against the ADA’s (Assistant District Attorneys).

How times have changed. As you probably know, the Left (funded by George Soros and his gang) have found these positions a hot place to focus. They figured there was little focus on this position so if they threw an outsized sum at the position, they could get one of their people elected. The test case was spending $300,000 to elect Kim Foxx, the DA of Cook County (Chicago). We all know how that situation turned out, though she alone is not the only one deserving blame for Chicago’s various calamities and neighborhood murders. As a perfect example of her massive abuse of her position, she initially dropped the 16-count indictment against Jussie Smollett.

Realizing success with pouring outsized monies into that race, they decided to proceed across the nation wreaking havoc coast to coast. They elected Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, and Jose Garza in Austin. Their two crowning achievements were moving George Gascon from San Francisco to Los Angeles (spending $2.5 million and defeating a black, female Democrat) and electing Alvin Bragg in Manhattan. In five short years, they have used their targeted monies on formerly sleepy elected positions to transform the criminal justice system in the United States and unleash criminal activity across the country.

These newly elected DAs start by telling everyone how they are not going to enforce the laws. Right off the bat Manhattan DA Bragg stated he will not prosecute trespassing, resisting arrests (always builds confidence in your police force), and/or illegal gun possession unless someone is shot. The last point validates the position of gun owners that the proposed new laws will only limit legal gun owners. DA Gascon’s laundry list of “reforms” announced his first day in office got him nominated as Man of the Year by the United Criminals of America. No cash bail and trashing the death penalty were among his biggies.

One must ask: who appointed these people King? Californians voted in favor of retaining the death penalty in 2016. All these jurisdictions have duly elected legislative entities and these DA’s just disregard the laws in place. Makes you wonder what the criminals are contemplating when the law enforcement entities are wholesale not following the laws.

If you go back to the opening quote of this column, the police are responsible for investigating the laws and the DA’s prosecuting them. In Los Angeles County, Sheriff Alex Villanueva recently stated he sent 12,000 cases to Gascon’s office, of which none or very few have had any follow-up. One must assume these cases are based on laws enacted by a legislative body and signed by the executive officer of that entity. Yet the DA just ignores the laws. In Chicago, Ms. Foxx has ignored 25,000 felony cases sent to her by the police.

These prosecutors want to expand their responsibilities even further. A recent Washington Post column by Hillary Blout (former prosecutor in SF DA’s office) called attention to her desire to expand a prosecutor’s authority. Since she had nothing to do as a DA in SF due to Gascon and his successor Boudin, she researched and “was shocked to learn that there was no law in the country allowing prosecutors to review old cases for possible release.” For the entire column she omitted any mention of parole boards which are in place everywhere to deal with this, not to mention the multiple nonprofit legal operations pursuing potentially wrongly convicted cases.

She did crow about Prosecutor Initiated Resentencing (PIR) which she points out is an innovation born in California (what could go wrong there). “PIR allows prosecutors – whose role has traditionally been to put people in prison – to get people out when the sentence is no longer in the interest of justice.” Not only do the DA’s not want to prosecute the cases handed to them, but they now want to free more criminals who they do not like being in prison under the laws dutifully passed in their jurisdiction.

We have ourselves to blame for this mess. We voted these miscreants into office. We voted for CA Prop 47 which allows theft of up to $950 from a store to be treated as a petty crime. In NY, the legislature voted in bail reform that has criminals instantly out on the streets.

Our women are afraid to walk in areas that until recently were considered safe because of smash and grab random crimes. We created this mess. We must now fix it.

*****

This article was published on December 26, 2021, in Flash Report, and is reprinted with permission from the author.

Inflation Soars as Team Biden Locks Up America’s Energy thumbnail

Inflation Soars as Team Biden Locks Up America’s Energy

By Craig Rucker

Within hours of taking office, President Biden made the supposed “climate crisis” his central focus and elimination of fossil fuels his primary “solution.”

To show he meant it, Biden undertook several radical measures right off the bat. First, he canceled the Keystone XL pipeline; then revoked leases and permits in Alaska and offshore areas; then he slowed or blocked leasing, drilling and fracking projects and pressured banks not to lend money to fossil fuel projects. His pick for Comptroller of the Currency (since withdrawn) wanted to nationalize our banking system, control energy and food prices, and bankrupt the petroleum industry.

The President also declared his ultimate goal: 80% hydrocarbon-free electricity generation by 2030, 100% by 2035, and all fossil fuel use eliminated nationwide by 2050. That means no coal or natural gas for generating electricity; no gasoline or diesel for vehicles; and no natural gas for factories, or for heating, cooking, water heating or emergency power in homes, hospitals, schools and businesses.

From all appearances, it seems the Administration is seeking to drag the US down – in the name of fairness, equity and climate stability – by eradicating the carbon-based fuels that provide 80% of all energy that powers America. They seem to think we Americans live too well, consume too much and are responsible for every severe weather event around the globe.

Have all their anti-energy policies had an impact?  You betcha.

Regular gasoline averaged $2.17 per gallon in 2020 – and $3.49 in November 2021. It now costs $17 more to fill your tank than a year ago.

Natural gas prices shot from $2.61 in November 2020 on the Henry Hub to $5.51 in October 2021. Depending on how cold it gets, families will pay 30-50% more this winter to stay warm. Meanwhile, congressional Democrats are advancing a regressive home heating stealth tax, in the form of new fees on methane production that will rise to $1,500 per ton of methane by 2025.

Natural gas is a primary ingredient in fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals, as well as in plastic packaging, pharmaceuticals, and hundreds of other products. No wonder liquid fertilizer prices have skyrocketed from $165 per ton delivered to Indiana farmers in October 2020 – to $550 a ton last month.

Animal feed costs are thus also in the stratosphere. So it’s no surprise that beef, pork, chicken, turkey, and farmed fish prices are also soaring.

How has the administration responded? President Biden wants the Federal Trade Commission to investigate oil companies for possible “criminal conduct” and “profiteering.” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki blamed “corporate greed” for soaring meat and poultry prices.

Mr. Biden’s Energy and Transportation Secretaries literally laughed off concerns about gasoline prices –saying families should just buy electric vehicles, which cost $50,000 to $100,000.

The President begged OPEC and Russia to boost their oil and gas production to help roll back prices – while he keeps America’s bounteous fossil fuels locked in the ground. They refused, and prices keep rising. So Mr. Biden recently took a different tack.

He now wants US oil companies to put more drilling rigs to work and increase drilling and production on leases they already have – despite the new regulations, fees and government foot-dragging, and despite Climate Envoy John Kerry and others pressuring banks and financial institutions to deny loans and refuse to invest in oil and gas companies.

American must switch to wind, solar and battery power, Team Biden insists. Prices are coming down, and they don’t pollute or need pipelines.

Wind, solar, and battery systems are heavily subsidized, via taxes and hidden fees. They aren’t subjected to the environmental studies, standards, lawsuits and penalties that apply to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear projects. Approvals are granted with minimal consideration of impacts on wildlife habitats and scenic vistas, raptor and bat deaths, or damage to human and animal health from subsonic turbine noise.

Those technologies are “clean, renewable, sustainable” we’re told.  Right, only if we ignore the rampant pollution, habitat destruction, and child labor associated with mining and processing their non-renewable raw materials – all using fossil fuels and taking place overseas, mostly in China and Africa.

Moreover, notes Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., replacing all US fossil fuel use with electricity would require over five million 2.5-megawatt wind turbines, 650 feet tall, covering two-thirds of the continental USA – or solar panels sprawling across 40% of America – and thousands of miles of new transmission lines.

The Biden Administration’s claims and plans are beyond parody. Families and small businesses are already paying dearly. Prices are skyrocketing – not just for energy, but for all products and services. Inflation is at its highest level in 39 years, and the Producer Price Index rose nearly 10% since November 2020.

It’s time for the rest of America’s political class to quit being so callously indifferent.

*****

This article was published on December 23, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from CFACT, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

Ending The Marathon Campaign thumbnail

Ending The Marathon Campaign

By Thomas C. Patterson

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower announced he was a Republican 10 months before the general election. In June, he resigned from his military office to devote full time to his presidential campaign.

Adlai Stevenson was already a Democrat by 1952 but resisted multiple efforts by Democrat partisans to nominate him as their candidate. After his stirring speech at the convention that summer, they did so anyway. Three months later, a president (Eisenhower) was duly elected.

Modest candidates and brief campaigns are now in our receding past. The 2020 presidential race lasted 1,194 days after the first candidate was declared. The 2024 election, for practical purposes, started immediately after the previous election. Fully three years out, news and opinion outlets are brimming with the latest poll numbers, candidate statements, and expert speculation.

No other nation subjects itself to such an exhausting ordeal. Elections in Canada, the UK, and Australia all last about six weeks. In Japan, they get it done in 12 days.

Admittedly, these are parliamentary systems where elections are triggered by political events, but France gives candidates just six months to qualify for the second-tier ballot, then two weeks to campaign in the finals.

American campaigns weren’t always ultramarathons. Warren Harding, for example, announced his candidacy 321 days before the 1920 election. Most American presidential candidates operated under a similar timeline.

The “modern“ era begin with the contentious 1968 Democrat convention when the party rank-and-file wrested control from the smoke-filled rooms and the popular primary system was established. In 1976, the obscure Jimmy Carter was able to build momentum in the primaries by campaigning early. Ambitious politicians ever since have taken note.

But super-long campaigns have consequences, most of them undesirable. The most obvious is that length favors deep pockets, the ability to finance a years-long, money-draining effort.

Few candidates can self-fund. Instead, they have to spend immense amounts of time and do a lot of promising to raise the many millions required for the campaign. Many political leaders are distracted from their duties by the minutiae of campaigning.

Never-ending campaigns simultaneously exhaust and entrance voters. Competitions are naturally interesting and easy to understand. It’s simple and inexpensive for the media to churn out horse-race stories, so NATO, supply chains, and housing policy get short shrift while mountains of articles are written about the prospects of the candidates far in the future.

It has long been a truism that more challenging, risky issues are harder to tackle in an election year. But if every year is effectively an election year, then it’s never the right time for heavy lifting.

Instead, governing in the midst of a campaign creates constant pressure to “do something“, so that politicians appear active and effective. Populist policies and handouts which favor the growth of government are thought to attract voters. Moderation and fiscal restraint don’t sell well, so they are kicked to the curb.

The Build Back Better bill was the perfect campaign legislation, something for everyone. No wonder Democrats are panicked over the electoral consequences of its possible failure.

But long campaign seasons also have their clear winners. Potential candidates are already dropping by Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, which happen to be crucial early primary states just to, you know, see how the folks are doing.

These states fiercely protect their primary position and with good reason. Iowa particularly has successfully exploited the candidates’ need to ingratiate themselves into the long-term protection of ethanol mandates, regulations, and subsidies. It’s a foolish policy with no environmental or other benefits except to corn farmers and producers, another result of our long and complicated presidential elections.

Compared with other countries, the US has a short presidential term and an unusually long election process. This near-constant turnover lengthens the period in which we are vulnerable to foreign actors exploiting us for their benefit.

Other democracies have laws that limit elections. Exactly nobody is clamoring for longer elections in those countries. Still, politicians are unlikely to reform their own system.

In the absence of other options to rid ourselves of these expensive, dysfunctional election campaigns, maybe we should take a look.

****

Thomas C. Patterson, MD is a retired Emergency Medicine physician, Arizona state Senator and Arizona Senate Majority Leader in the ’90s. He is a former Chairman, Goldwater Institute.

CCP Paid DC Radio Station $4.4 Million To Broadcast Propaganda thumbnail

CCP Paid DC Radio Station $4.4 Million To Broadcast Propaganda

By Chuck Ross

Potomac Media Group airs content from China Global Television Network

The Chinese Communist Party paid a Washington, D.C., radio station $4.4 million over the past two years to broadcast propaganda, according to new federal foreign agent disclosures.

The Virginia-based Potomac Media Group detailed its lucrative contract with the Communist Party’s International Communication Planning Bureau in filings last Thursday with the Justice Department. As part of the deal, Potomac Media’s WCRW, an AM station, airs content from China Global Television Network and a series of talk shows that portray China in a positive light.

Potomac Media’s filing with the Justice Department provides extensive details about its arrangement with the International Communication Planning Bureau, an arm of the Communist Party’s Propaganda Department. The Planning Bureau can review broadcasts and verify programming, according to the contract. Potomac Media is required to provide the Planning Bureau with reports on audience reach, feedback, and “evaluation from international organizations.”

Beijing’s partnership with an AM radio station highlights the scope of its propaganda activities in the United States, which have gone into overdrive in recent years as China seeks to distract from its human rights abuses. China’s state-run media organizations aggressively promote their content to American audiences on social media and through publication deals with American newspapers and magazines. China Daily, a state-run newspaper, has paid millions of dollars to TimeForeign Policy, and The Wall Street Journal to publish its articles online. The Chinese consulate in New York recently hired a public relations firm to recruit social media influencers to promote the Beijing Olympics.

*****

Continue reading this article at The Washington Free Beacon.

We’re Really Doing This Again thumbnail

We’re Really Doing This Again

By Emile Doak

Editors’ Note: This article was published just before Christmas. We are approaching New Year’s Eve and the content below is as or more relevant to the authoritarianism infecting America today from our governing elites.

COVID hysteria marches on.

We’re really doing this again, it seems. Just in time for Christmas, we’ve got a renewed round of COVID hysteria. This time, though, we’ve ramped up the vilification of “The Unvaxxed.” Take a look at this White House press briefing on its latest efforts to eradicate disease:

It’s hard to imagine a more divisive statement coming from a presidential administration—let alone one that famously pledged unity. It’s also just incredibly counter-productive if your goal is to convince fellow citizens to get vaccinated. This sort of rhetoric certainly doesn’t portend to convince any unvaccinated Americans to finally take the jab—which makes one think that that may not be the ultimate goal of all this, after all.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the imperial capital, mask mandates are back, just one month after the mandate was lifted. And the DC government’s vaccine mandate gets stricter, with no test-out option:

At this point, the irrational nature of these efforts to “Do Something” whenever we get a spike in COVID cases really needs no pointing out. We have an Omicron spike despite widespread masking and high vaccination rates. And why just the one booster for government employees? Pfizer’s PR team is already working overtime to make the case for a fourth jab.

DC’s Football Team, more commonly known as the Washington Redskins, is also feeling the effects of Omicron hysteria, as the team is preparing for a rare Tuesday night game:

The NFL, beset by a sharp rise in coronavirus cases this week among players leaguewide, made its first scheduling changes of this season Friday, postponing three games that had been set for this weekend.

90% of Redskins players are vaccinated. More importantly, as professional athletes in peak fitness, they are also at nearly zero risk of serious illness or death from COVID. But nevertheless, the NFL has bought into the COVID narrative, and as a result, six teams whose Week 15 games were postponed due to positive tests will next play on a short week:

Due to the postponements, all six teams will be playing their Week 16 contests in a short week. The Browns travel to Green Bay to take on the Packers on Christmas, while the Raiders, Washington, Eagles, Seahawks, and Rams would all have two fewer days than expected between games.

Football is a brutal game. The NFL has been dogged with player safety concerns in recent years; just last week, it was announced that the late Vincent Jackson, the former Chargers and Buccaneers wide receiver who was found dead in February, had stage 2 chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). There’s a reason the NFL season is the shortest of any professional sports league, at just 17 regular-season games. One wonders what is more of a threat to player safety: playing a professional football game on short rest, or playing with players who may have an asymptomatic illness that is largely innocuous to professional athletes?

I said it in August, and apparently, it bears repeating: COVID-19 (and its ever-increasing variants) is here to stay, joining the countless other maladies that affect our fallen human condition. The loss of life at the hands of this deadly disease is tragic. Far more tragic would be a society in which living is lost, in which we are unable to pursue that which makes life worthwhile.

Enough. It’s FAR past time for this insanity to end. 

*****

This article was published on December 20, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

Zombie Marxism thumbnail

Zombie Marxism

By Mike Gonzalez

This December we celebrate the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the communist superpower Ronald Reagan rightly named the “Evil Empire.” Yet everywhere today, Marxism still stalks humanity. Indeed, today we can paraphrase Karl Marx and write that its specter haunts not just Europe, but the entire world.

We must understand this as a global threat. Since its birth in the 1848 Communist Manifesto by Marx and Friedrich Engels, communism has been a call to arms that knows no borders. But we must also understand—as the Kremlin in its time certainly did—that the big fight is over the United States. Once Marxists seize that most elusive jewel in the crown, they have the world. That’s why this essay will focus mostly on the U.S.

Before we catalog the dangerous state of play with communism, we should remember the good news. Marxism may be resurgent, but it is being vigorously confronted by the same force that defeated the Soviet Union: the American people. They have joined what some may dismiss as “culture wars,” but is really a consequential battle of ideas. Surveys show Americans, writ large, reject these ideas, and are starting to discern the stakes.

We need discernment because Marxism’s breakthroughs today are the result of different strategies and tactics. Gone are frontal military threats, such as along the Fulda Gap in Germany, or in the actual wars in the fields of Central America in the 1980s. Just as we face constant mutations of the Coronavirus, today we face a different, mutant form of Marxism.

Yes, today’s ascendant American Marxists have their supporters in the halls of power in Beijing and Caracas. But it would be a mistake to see them as Chinese or Venezuelan agents, as some of their predecessors were Soviet stooges in the 20th century. The leaders of Black Lives Matter groups, the creators of the 1619 Project, and the architects of Critical Race Theory may be internationalists who believe in the Manifesto’s call for world revolution. But they are a very American phenomenon. We must understand and confront them in those terms.

Much is different today from the last time America faced a concerted communist threat. Communists now realize that domestic revolutions to overthrow the bourgeoisie are not viable in every place, if they are possible in any place. Today, revolution comes at the end, not the beginning. It must be preceded, or replaced, by the arduous work of 1) organizing people, 2) indoctrinating them, and 3) convincing them to become domestic agents of cultural replacement. That’s the mutation we confront.

The current efforts to besmirch the American story—indeed to change its origin story itself, as we see with the New York Times’ 1619 Project—amount to a campaign to transform America’s societal structure that has been underway for at least three decades. It rapidly accelerated after BLM was founded in 2013, and then it exploded into society after the George Floyd riots of 2020. The result? The Critical Race Theory indoctrination that has so angered parents.

The architects of the 1619 Project and the academics who created CRT are equally part of the effort to replace America’s narrative. (The term “white supremacy,” which is meant to replace such ideas as “Land of the Free,” appears no fewer than 38 times in the foundational text of CRT). It was BLM, however, that created the propitious environment to replace America’s narrative, and it is on these organizations that we must focus.

Once we do, we discover that the founders of the Black Lives Matter organizations are at the center of the destructive unrest that led to the hacking of our cultural software. They are not just “trained Marxists,” as BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors labeled herself and another co-founder, Alicia Garza (in a video that has now disappeared from public view). But they were recruited and trained by Marxists steeped in this new view of how to build revolutionary consciousness through recruitment, organizing, and indoctrination.

The Gramscian Moment

Today’s Marxism can be tailor-made to each circumstance. This adaptability has replaced the rigid ideas expressed in the Communist Manifesto. Today’s successful Marxists understand that, no, the economy does not determine all of man’s actions, as Marx once wrote, and, no, the internal contradictions of capitalism will not constantly produce revolutions.

These are Marxists who have boned up on the lessons of the 1920s Italian communist leader Antonio Gramsci, or the theoretical works of his German contemporaries at the so-called Frankfurt School, which produced Critical Theory (of which Critical Race Theory is an American offshoot). It was these Europeans who incubated the mutant strains.

Gramsci’s basic theory was simple, even if the ramifications were complex. Writing in the 1920s and ‘30s, after the failure by Italy’s workers to set up a communist state in 1918, Gramsci said the proletariat was consenting to his own enslavement. How so? He buys into the cultural trappings of his bourgeois oppressor—the church, the family, the nation-state, etc. As a result, in countries with rich civil societies, such as those in Western Europe and the United States, communists needed to undertake a “war of position.” This involved a long-term effort to organize the masses and indoctrinate them into Marxist ideas.

The German Critical Theorists, for similar reasons, came up with a similar explanation: the worker had bought into a consumerist conceptual superstructure and was unaware of his own crushing oppression. Both concluded that intellectuals had to give the workers revolutionary consciousness.

Gramsci and the Critical Theorists did not repudiate Marx and Lenin so much as expanded on their beliefs. Marx may have written that revolutions would inevitably come when “the material forces of production in society come into conflict with the existing relations of production.” But to Gramsci, “‘popular beliefs and similar ideas are themselves material forces.”

Applied Gramsci

According to Harmony Goldberg, a Gramscian cultural anthropologist, Gramsci merely made “several important innovations” on the ideas of Marx and Lenin. As Goldberg put it in her 2015 “brief introduction” to Gramsci’s ideas:

Gramsci upheld the assertion that a successful revolution would ultimately require the overthrow of the bourgeois state…However, because the capitalist hegemony does not function through state violence alone but that it also mobilizes civil society in order to promote oppressed peoples consent to and participation in the system, a successful revolutionary movement would first have to engage in a long-term effort to undermine that consent.

Goldberg is not just any Gramscian anthropologist. In 1996 she founded the School of Unity and Liberation (SOUL). This is the same place where, seven years later, Black Lives Matter founder Alicia Garza, then 22, began her Marxist training.

To Goldberg, the efforts to undermine the American worker’s endorsement of the American way of life today “must go beyond participation in trade union struggles reform; revolutionaries must root their struggles in all arenas of social life and—centrally—must engage in the battle for ideas.” The ruling bourgeois will always be trying to convince workers that they have a stake in preserving capitalism. This is why “Revolutionaries would themselves have to engage in the long-term battle of ideas in order to clarify the need for revolutionary transformation.” All-out ideological war is needed. A crisis can be used to overthrow a society, but the long-term subversion of a culture must come first.

A multi-class alliance, which Gramsci called a “historic bloc,” would be needed, in Goldberg’s words, “to move history forward” by indoctrinating society into the new “national-popular collective will”—the cultural counter-hegemony. But it is important to bear in mind that “in every historic bloc there is a single class that plays a leading role and serves as a cohering force,” according to Goldberg’s interpretation of Gramsci. The job of the cohering force was to organize other classes and instruct them on the need to replace the existing order with a socialist one.

Garza learned these lessons a full decade before a jury acquitted George Zimmerman of the murder of Trayvon Martin in July 2013—the event that supposedly launched Black Lives Matter. It was at SOUL, Garza has said, that she first learned that “social movements all over the world have used Marx and Lenin as a foundation to interrupt these systems that are really negatively impacting the majority of people.”

As SFWeekly wrote in a long profile, “Garza’s summer with SOUL wasn’t just about getting a political education in a leftist ‘analysis around capitalism and imperialism and white supremacy and patriarchy and heteronormativity,’ as she describes it, but a crash course in grassroots community organizing.” Garza found an early opportunity to turn minds when she began “organizing low-income tenants in East and West Oakland” against gentrification. “I spent my summer getting my ass kicked, knocking on doors 10 hours a day. It was really good training. Really, really, really good training.”

Garza thus learned from master theoreticians how to apply the Gramscian rules. We can also now fully grasp what Garza meant when she told Maine liberals in 2019, “We’re talking about changing how we’ve organized this country….I believe we all have work to do to keep dismantling the organizing principle of this society, which creates inequities for everyone, even white people.” What she was trained to seek was a total transformation. The ultimate object, of course, is getting rid of capitalism, since Garza says that “it’s not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if it’s under capitalism.”

Garza’s connections to Goldberg’s creations have endured. Today Garza is on SOUL’s board. In 2012, a year before Garza co-founded BLM, Goldberg was publishing Garza on the web platform she founded, Organizing Upgrade, as we can see with Garza’s reporting on Brazil’s Marxist landless movement. The two have also crossed paths over the past two decades in such Marxist groups as the National Domestic Workers’ Alliance. That group sent Garza to Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, after the killing by police of Michael Brown. There, she helped create the nationwide coalition of the hard left that has been key to BLM’s success. The two also work with LeftRoots, whose activists “challenge capitalism, imperialism, white supremacy, and hetero-patriarchy.” All these groups provide access to different constituencies whom they can first organize and then indoctrinate.

A grand strategy to confront the new Marxist threat would need to understand the mutation.

Patrisse Cullors is at least as important as Garza in building the main organization, Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. She underwent similar training at the hands of a similarly committed communist visionary. In her case, the ideological mentor was Eric Mann. He is a former member of the Weather Underground who founded the Labor-Community Strategy Center in LA (which Mann jokingly calls “the University of Caracas Revolutionary Graduate School”).

Mann devotes detailed attention to the hard work of creating a multi-class alliance. This will instill Marxist revolutionary consciousness into the population, to overthrow what he calls the “imperialist, settler” state that is America. He narrows Gramsci’s cultural focus to racial issues. Within the cultural sphere, it’s race-related matters that Mann sees as “the material forces” that create the fault line to be exploited.

In a 1996 essay that was later revised, he wrote:

Given the social formation of the U.S. as a settler state based on virulent white supremacy, the racialization of all aspects of political life operates as a material force in itself—shaping and infecting every aspect of the political process. Thus, any effective Left movement must confront the major fault lines of the society…In a racist, imperialist society, the only viable strategy for the left is to build a movement against racism and imperialism.

His version of the historic bloc is black and Latin American. But he calls for  “an agreed-upon Black priority” with African Americans as the “cohering force” in the struggle against capitalism. In the key area of fighting law and order measures—so central to his, and BLM GNF’s, revolutionary strategy—“the leadership clearly came out of the black community,” he notes. Blacks, to people like Mann and Goldberg, will be the revolutionary agents, and the struggle to make the U.S. a socialist state will be fought in the name of black justice.

Early on, Mann settled on Los Angeles bus riders as more easily organizable and indoctrinated than factory workers. They were more destitute, more black, Latino, and Asian, and more female, than the average worker. “At a time when many workplaces have 25 to 50 employees, an overcrowded bus has 43 people sitting and from 25 to 43 people standing,” he wrote. “Ten organizers on ten different buses can reach 1,000 or more people in a single afternoon,” That’s why his Center pioneered the creation of a Bus Riders Union.

It was precisely at the BRU that Cullors was trained after Mann’s Strategy Center recruited her, and where she combined organizing training with ideological instruction. “I read, I study, adding Mao, Marx, and Lenin to my knowledge of [bell] hooks, [Audre] Lorde and [Rebecca] Walker,” she wrote in her 2017 memoir When They Call You a Terrorist. The organizers were trained, according to Mann, to “go beyond narrow ‘trade union’ or ‘bus’ consciousness to build a movement based on a more transformative, internationalist consciousness” and create a “united front against U.S. imperialism—rooted in the strategic alliance of the multi-racial, multi-national working class.” This is what he called “the explosive combination of deep ideological framing and grassroots organizing.”

In his 2011 “organizing manifesto,” Playbook for Progressiveswritten two years before Cullors reached fame by helping to found BLM—Mann already identifies her as “gifted.” In 2006, Cullors helped found the Center’s Summer Youth Organizing Academy “to recruit and train a new generation of high school youth.” At the time of the book’s writing, adds Mann, Cullors “teaches classes on political theory and organizing.” She was at the Center for over a decade, as other sources have confirmed.

To be sure, a much bigger revolutionary payoff for all training by Mann would come when Cullors founded first BLM, and then BLM GNF, and began in earnest the work of dismantling the American cultural narrative (or hegemony in their language) by getting many Americans, especially the young, to believe that they should destroy their country and culture because it is white supremacist at its core. Not for nothing does Cullors tell us herself that she is a “trained Marxist” and that the only reason she does not use the term communist is that it’s gotten a bad rap.

Other important battles in the war to dismantle America have been won because of Mann’s training of BLM leaders. For instance, Black Lives Matter succeeded in pressuring the Los Angeles School Board to cut the LA Schools Police Department’s $70 million budget by 35 percent on June 30, 2020, after a full month of riots and destruction following Floyd’s death. Afterwards, Mann took a victory lap. Writing on August 21, 2020, Mann cast the victory in Gramscian terms:

We know of no other Defund the Police campaign in a major U.S. City that has made such a major political and material breakthrough…Our campaign was also a major ideological victory. It delegitimized the very existence of police in the public schools and affirmed the experience and demands of the most militant and conscious Black students.…Dozens of angry, articulate, and organized Black students—many from Students Deserve—testified that the very presence of police in the schools was a racist and anti-Black attack on their racial identity, self-worth, self-confidence, and academic performance. Dr. Melina Abdullah, co-chair of Black Lives Matter L.A., testified that all three of her children suffered police abuse in the schools while her son’s first experience of anti-Black police brutality was at the age of six. She described in painful detail how every aspect of a Black child’s life is criminalized and why the demand for No Police in the Schools was a life and death issue for the Black community. (Italics in the original)

That this Marxist-inspired effort to reduce police forces, which followed the determined indoctrination of people, has succeeded to such an extent is bad enough. Without law enforcement, a future crisis like the one precipitated by the killing of Floyd could lead to even greater violence and destruction than we experienced in 2020. Even with police, it was the costliest civil unrest in U.S. history, according to the Insurance Information Institute, and we experienced a 30 percent spike in homicides in 2020, according to the FBI.

“A successful revolutionary movement,” Goldberg explained, “would first have to engage in a long-term effort to undermine that consent” Americans have given to their system. And this campaign to present the counter-narrative to America’s story began very quickly after BLM was launched by Garza, Cullors, Abdullah, and others. This is what BLM and the 1619 Project do today through the curricula they send to the nation’s 14,000 school districts. It’s also what CRT “anti-racism” trainers do in all aspects of our lives.

Zach Goldberg, a doctoral candidate at Georgia State, detailed in the Tablet in August 2020 how much the media began to sell after the BLM GNF narrative following Zimmerman’s acquittal in July 2013. Prior to 2013, the terms “white,” ”racial privilege(s),” ”of color,” and ”racial equity,” were hardly ever used, wrote Goldberg. Things began to radically change that year, however.

By 2019, on the eve of the George Floyd riots, the frequency with which The New York Times and The Washington Post used these terms had exploded. More importantly, the terms that deprecate America and its founding principles became generalized. “From 1970 until 2014, the combined usage frequency of the three ‘macro-level’ racism terms—systemic racism, structural racism, institutional racism—never exceeded 0.00006% of all words in any of the four newspapers,” Goldberg writes. “By 2014, however, this ceiling was shattered, particularly in the Times and Post. In the final year of the series (2019), the Times (0.0004% of all words) and Post (0.00056%) were using these terms roughly 10 times more frequently than they were in 2013 (0.00004%, 0.00005%).” The media, in other words, had taken an active hand in inculcating the counter-hegemony, whose acceptance is needed before communists can topple a country.

The Need for a New Grand Strategy

Why expose all this? My hope is to make it plain why schools are teaching children these new ideologies, and why workers are being subjected to what can only be described as Gramscian, consciousness-raising struggle sessions at their places of work, and why even the military and the churches are following suit. Revolutionary theoreticians recruited and trained the founders of the BLM organizations. After eight years of existence, they have brought America to the brink of societal change. Once we understand this, we can start to envision a grand strategy that will defeat their efforts.

What that strategy will look like is the subject of an entirely different essay—or hopefully many essays. The purpose of this one is to say, on this 30th anniversary of the collapse of the Evil Empire, that we have a new problem.

A grand strategy to confront the new Marxist threat would need to understand the mutation. It would need to grasp the fact that the new threat relies on organizing people in different environments and then indoctrinating them. It takes place on buses, domestic work, schools, or neighborhoods about to be gentrified. A grand strategy must grasp what is at stake. It’s nothing less than the replacement of the key American idea that “All Men Are Created Equal” with the lie of white supremacy. Such a strategy would have to reckon with what is happening in our schools. It would need to understand that violence will remain central to Marxist success. Dismantling police forces, the prisons, and the court system itself (which Patrisse Cullors calls for in this video) is part of an effort to leave society defenseless. Once enough people are converted, then the revolutionaries need only wait for a moment of crisis.

We will need to understand what people like Goldberg have in store:

In societies that have a vibrant civil society, revolutionary strategy cannot be based on a pre-given Marxist formula in which a moment of crisis makes the oppressive nature of the capitalist system clear and sparks an insurrectionary struggle that smashes the capitalist state and establishes socialism. Gramsci argued that crises are important, but that they do not ensure that oppressed people will believe in the need for a new economy or that they will have the power to wage a successful revolutionary struggle. To Gramsci, an insurrectionary moment will only succeed if it follows a long-term effort to win oppressed people over to a transformative vision and if it builds working class power over time.

Many Americans have begun to grasp all of this intuitively and have begun to rise up and oppose CRT. To succeed, however, they will need our support.

*****

This article was published on December 16, 2021, and is reproduced with the permission of Law & Liberty.

Mike Gonzalez, the Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is the author of BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution.