Iran, Russia and China Begin Joint Naval Drills to Boost Marine Security thumbnail

Iran, Russia and China Begin Joint Naval Drills to Boost Marine Security

By The Geller Report

While the Biden clown car wages war on pronouns.

Iran, Russia and China begin naval drill to boost marine security

Iranian state TV says 11 of its vessels were joined by three Russian ships including a destroyer, and two Chinese vessels. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard will also participate.

By AP and ILH Staff, January 20, 2022;

In this photo provided Jan. 21, 2022, by the Iranian Army, an Iranian army member fires a weapon during a joint naval drill of Iran, Russia and China in the Indian Ocean | Photo: Iranian Army via AP

Iran, Russia and China on Friday began a joint naval drill in the Indian Ocean aimed at boosting marine security, state media reported.

Iran’s state TV said 11 of its vessels were joined by three Russian ships including a destroyer, and two Chinese vessels. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard will also participate with smaller ships and helicopters.

The report said the maneuvers would cover some 17,000 square kilometers, or 10,600 miles, in the Indian Ocean’s north, and include night fighting, rescue operations and firefighting drills.

This is the third joint naval drill between the countries since 2019. It coincided with a recent visit by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi to Russia that ended on Thursday.

“Improving bilateral relations between Tehran and Moscow will enhance security for the region and the international arena,” Raisi said upon returning from Russia on Friday, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Tehran has sought to step up military cooperation with Beijing and Moscow amid regional tensions with the United States. Visits to Iran by Russian and Chinese naval representatives have also increased in recent years.

Iran has been holding regular military drills in recent months, as attempts to revive its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers flounder.

Russia is also at loggerheads with the US and the West over its neighbor Ukraine, where it has sent some 100,000 troops that Washington, Kiev and their allies fear will be used to invade the country.

Russia on Thursday announced sweeping naval maneuvers in multiple areas involving the bulk of its naval potential − over 140 warships and more than 60 aircraft − to last through February. The exercises will be in the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, the northeastern Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean, in addition to the joint exercise with Iran in the Indian Ocean.

RELATED ARTICLE: German chancellor turned down Biden invite to discuss Ukraine crisis

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

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

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

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

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

Fraudsters Cashing In as Dems Shovel out Billions and Billions in ‘COVID Relief’ thumbnail

Fraudsters Cashing In as Dems Shovel out Billions and Billions in ‘COVID Relief’

By The Geller Report

It was always about Democrats funneling cash to their criminals. Meanwhile no one can get ivermectin, HCQ, monoclonal antibodies – proven treatment for Covid.

Fraudsters cash in as Dems shovel out billions and billions in COVID relief

By: New York Post, January 21, 2022:

If a few billion dollars get carted off by bandits, or chewed into confetti by squirrels, or blown into the nearest river, after a brief chastened look, the Democrats always come back with: “Hey, we think we have a new solution: Spend more money again!” Their latest idea is to upchuck $1.9 trillion (not $2 trillion — they’re not crazy or anything) on yet another COVID relief package.

They’ve already appropriated some $6 trillion in fighting COVID, though. That’s more than we spent fighting WWII, which cost about $4.1 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars. Unlike in the ’40s, though, we’ve pretty clearly lost World War C. COVID has killed way more people than Hitler and Hirohito did, and unlike the Third Reich, it’s never going to go away. So while we’re getting used to the Forever Virus, we might as well pause for a sec and wonder: What the heck did all that spending buy us?

So far, $100 billion of it has been straight-up stolen, “resulting in the arrest of more than 100 suspects who span the spectrum from individuals to organized groups,” according to a CNBC report. Don’t worry, though, the feds are on the case, and so far they’ve recovered … $2.3 billion.

So that’s settled, then, except for the 97.7% unaccounted for, and of course all the stolen billions that we don’t yet know about. ….read the rest

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

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

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

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

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

Trump nukes media narrative about ‘tension’ with DeSantis, Says very good relationship’ with DeSantis thumbnail

Trump nukes media narrative about ‘tension’ with DeSantis, Says very good relationship’ with DeSantis

By The Geller Report

The deceitful mainstream media is reporting that there is friction between President Trump and Governor DeSantis. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. The MSM is doing this because they know that a Trump-DeSantis ticket in 2024 is an unbeatable combination against whoever the Left runs in 2024.

Trump discusses his relationship with Gov. DeSantis pic.twitter.com/bNlahHavjq

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) January 21, 2022

Trump claims ‘very good relationship’ with DeSantis despite reports of feud

By Washington Examiner, January 21, 2022

Former President Donald Trump dismissed reports of rising tensions between himself and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ahead of a possible 2024 election clash.

The former president insisted during an appearance Thursday night on Fox News that there was “absolutely” no bickering between the two and even praised DeSantis for doing “a terrific job” as governor.

Former President Donald Trump dismissed reports of rising tensions between himself and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ahead of a possible 2024 election clash.

The former president insisted during an appearance Thursday night on Fox News that there was “absolutely” no bickering between the two and even praised DeSantis for doing “a terrific job” as governor.

“I think Ron said last week publicly, ‘The press is never going to get in the middle of my friendship with Donald Trump. We are not going to do that stuff,’” Trump said on Hannity. “He said it very strongly. I thought that was very interesting and very nice. He said that, and I agree 100%. I have a very good relationship with Ron and intend to for a long time.”

Trump and DeSantis are both seen as frontrunners for the GOP nomination if they join the 2024 presidential race.

Mark Meadows, Trump’s final White House chief of staff, similarly waved off reports that Trump is fed up with DeSantis and, according to the New York Times, that DeSantis has told friends it’s too much to ask that he bow to Trump. Meadows told Newsmax that DeSantis is “smart enough to know that [the GOP] is the party of Trump.”

When asked about the 2022 midterm elections, Trump said he is “very active” and “doing a lot of endorsements.” He said the 2022 midterm elections would be “all about ‘Make America Great Again’” and that “you are going to have a stronger Republican Party.”

Before leaving, Trump was asked if he had decided if he would run for president again in 2024. He dodged the question and said he would give an answer at a later date. “You’ll be very happy” with the decision, he concluded.

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

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

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

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

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

Did the Texas Synagogue Jihadi Act Alone? thumbnail

Did the Texas Synagogue Jihadi Act Alone?

By Jihad Watch

In the wake of the turbulence surrounding the 15 January 2022 Texas synagogue attack, it may be useful to take a step backward to review those events from a broader strategic perspective. John Guandolo at Understanding the Threat has done an excellent job explaining how this attack fits into the overall Islamic Movement jihad campaign against Western Civilization and the United States Constitutional Republic and the Jewish people in particular. Here, though, let us focus on the particular involvement of two international aspects: the Tablighi Jama’at Islamic revivalist/missionary organization and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.

First, the event itself: from what we know as of this writing, a Pakistani jihadi with British citizenship named Malik Faisal Akram entered the Reform Jewish Congregation Beth Israel synagogue in Colleyville, TX (a Dallas-Ft. Worth suburb) around 10:40 the morning of 15 January 2022 during Shabbat services. The shul’s prayer and services schedule is helpfully posted online at its monthly calendar page. Services were being livestreamed for the benefit of congregation members praying from home, so much of the event and subsequent 10-hour stand-off with law enforcement was captured on audio, although apparently not on video.

Akram initially approached the closed front doors of the synagogue and was let in by Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker, affectionately known by his congregation as ‘Rabbi Charlie”. At first Rabbi Charlie didn’t suspect anything untoward, but interrupting Shabbat services, decided to make tea for Akram. In a 17 Jan 2022 interview with CBS News, Rabbi Charlie recounted the moment when things turned terrifying. Reportedly, Akram pulled a gun and made claims about bombs. According to a portion of the synagogue livestream broadcast obtained by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Akram is heard saying, “I’ve got these prisoners” and “I am going to die.” While his key spoken demand was the release from U.S. federal prison of the Pakistani jihadi known as “Lady Al-Qa’eda” – true name, Aafia Siddiqui – that was but a pretext for a broader objective. Akram claimed that he and Siddiqui would be “going to Jannah (Muslim belief of heaven) after he sees her,” according to a statement from the FBI on Saturday night.

What neither Rabbi Charlie, his congregation members, nor apparently Local Law Enforcement Officers (LLEOs) and the FBI have understood was that, with these statements, Akram was reciting his belief in core Islamic doctrine. As Robert Spencer wrote in PJ Media, antisemitism is deeply rooted in the Qur’an itself, where it is written that “Jews are called the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29), among many other slanders.” Further, as Spencer writes, the abduction of infidels as hostages is also sanctioned in the Qur’an (Sura 47, Verse 4), where it is stipulated that Muslims may choose to kill hostages, enslave them, ransom them, or “show favor” and release them. Similarly applicable is Sura 9, Verse 111, which offers the promise of paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah, in the act of jihad, thus becoming a shahid.

While it is a tremendous relief to know that Rabbi Charlie and all the other hostages got out of the situation alive and unharmed, their unfamiliarity with these Qur’anic passages may well have contributed to their unquestioning acceptance of interfaith dialogue associations that in retrospect may be seen as unwise. Indeed, as the synagogue’s Mission Statement declares, “we believe in interfaith inclusion” and “Tikkun Olam (Repair the World).” Further, as the Congregation Beth Israel synagogue’s Facebook pages show, the Rabbi and his congregation had promoted interfaith events, including a 2 November 2019 and 6 November 2021 “Peace Together Walk,” with a photo of the walk beginning in front of the Colleyville Masjid, also known as the “Colleyville Association of Mid-Cities”. The Islamic Center of Southlake also was a participant. Unfortunately, each of these mosques has Muslim Brotherhood/jihadist connections, as documented by Understanding the Threat. Just one of those connections, for example, is the Imam Siraj Wahhaj, of the Brooklyn, NY Al-Taqwa Mosque, who was specifically named in a list of the unindicted co-conspirators at the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial.

Now, to the Tablighi-Jama’at and Pakistani connections. As we now know, Akram entered the U.S. through JFK Airport in late December 2021 with his British passport on the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP)’s visa waiver program. He would have obtained that entry permit through the CBP’s online portal. Once waived through Customs at JFK, Akram was free to travel onward anywhere in the U.S. that he wished. It is unlikely that CBP is aware of what Tablighi Jama’at is or that Akram was affiliated with it. CBP should have, but possibly didn’t know either about Akram’s criminal record, as revealed by his brother. As Ilana Freedman documented in her excellent October 2016 monograph, “Gateway to Jihad: Tablighi Jama’at,” Tablighi Jama’at (TJ) is a global Islamic proselytizing organization with millions of followers in at least 80 countries. Although TJ is jihadist, it is not known to commit terrorism per se, but rather sends its missionaries to preach in mosques and Islamic Centers to strengthen the commitment of Muslim faithful to the essential doctrine and law (shariah) of Islam. Such dawah efforts, however, in many cases, serve as a conveyer belt or gateway to kinetic jihad, as was the case with Akram.

Akram himself, born in the United Kingdom (UK) of a family that hailed from the Jhelum district in the Pakistani Punjab, reportedly had traveled abroad on just such missions. According to reporting from the Hindustan Times, in the Blackburn, Lancashire area of England where Akram grew up, he “served as the head of the Rondell Street Islamic Centre in the London area, also known as Reza Masjid, where largely Muslims of Pakistani origin prayed. He also prayed at the Eldorado Masjid that was frequented by Gujarati Muslims in the region.” Two teenagers, possibly Akram’s sons, were arrested by UK Counterterrorism police in South Manchester on Sunday 16 Jan 22 and held for questioning.

As we can see, the connections to Pakistan are many. Nevertheless, it must be said that any possible connections to the Pakistani government or to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency are premature at this point. It is instructive, though, to recall the many Islamic terror attacks in which ISI has been involved. We may begin with the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, India, in which, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) drawing on classified Indian government documents, the ISI was “heavily involved”. The following year, on 30 December 2009, according to declassified U.S. government documents, a Jordanian doctor reportedly recruited and dispatched by the ISI, detonated a suicide vest at the CIA’s Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan, killing seven and injuring an additional six. Then, on 2 December 2015, U.S.-born Syed Rizwan Farook and his Pakistani wife, Tashfeen Malik carried out a deadly shooting attack at Farook’s office Christmas party in San Bernardino, CA.  The couple had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State online and expressed support openly for Islamic jihad. Malik had attended college and the Al-Huda International Welfare Foundation women’s Islamic seminary in the Punjab before marrying Farook through an online arranged wedding that took place in Saudi Arabia in 2014.

Once again, while direct ISI involvement in this attack has not been publicly documented, the area of the Punjab where Malik studied is known as a stronghold of Deobandi jihadist groups, such as Lashkar-e Jangvi and Lashkar-e Taiba, both closely affiliated with the ISI. Then, in June 2016, Omar Mateen, who identified himself as “an Islamic soldier” in talks with a crisis negotiator, opened fire inside the Orlando, FL Pulse nightclub, killing 49 people and leaving 53 wounded. Mateen, age 29, was a U.S. citizen, born in Queens, NYC to Afghan immigrant parents. At some point, Mateen had attended the Islamic Center of Ft. Pierce, whose imam, Syed Shafeeq Rahman, quickly after the shooting, named Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, a local leader of the Hamas-related Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), as the mosque’s new spokesman. Rahman, also a General Practitioner medical doctor, obtained his medical degree from the Ayub Medical College in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Finally, a brief mention must be made about the 2018 cybersecurity breach involving multiple Members of Congress. The Pakistani Awan brothers, who were given access to highly sensitive government information without a background check, were permitted to work remotely – from Pakistan – up to several months at a time, according to investigative reporter Luke Rosiak.

In summary, then, there are far too many Pakistani connections to jihadist attacks and operations, spanning many years, to ignore. Nevertheless, those connections would appear to be rarely noted and only perfunctorily investigated.  Certainly, in this most recent attack on the Texas synagogue, there must have been an extensive support network that conducted the pre-attack casing and surveillance, recruited and prepared Akram, and arranged for his travel to and within the U.S., his lodging, and provision of the funding and knowledge for how to purchase a gun on the street. Clearly, the Muslim Brotherhood/CAIR network in and around the Dallas-Ft. Worth area has been vocal in campaigns to get the Pakistan-born convicted terrorist Aafia Siddiqui released from prison. Siddiqui not only tried to kill U.S. personnel in Afghanistan in 2008, leading to her conviction on terrorism charges in a 2010 Manhattan trial, but had been married to a nephew of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who remarked on her “obsession” with jihad. Educated at MIT, Siddiqui earned a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Brandeis University in 2001, before returning to southwest Asia in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. She is serving her sentence at the Federal Medical Center, Carswell, Ft. Worth, located some 24 miles from the Congregation Beth Israel. Note: This does not automatically mean that CAIR was involved in the synagogue attack, but rather that it shares Akram’s antisemitic animus and purpose in obtaining Siddiqui’s release from prison.

This analysis is offered in the interests of encouraging the situational awareness of faith communities, law enforcement, and national-level security agencies alike. Comments such as that made by FBI Special Agent in Charge Matt DeSarno at a press conference following the end of the hostage crisis attest to the critical need for such education. Although roundly criticized later, that evening, DeSarno said that the “hostage taker was specifically focused on an issue not directly connected to the Jewish community” and added that there was “no immediate indication that the man had was part of any broader plan”.

The fact that UK police and counterterrorism officials are assisting their U.S. counterparts in the investigation does indicate that the overall investigation extends internationally. At the same time, comments such as made by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Sunday 16 Jan 22, who said that it was “too soon to tell” if the Texas synagogue hostage situation was part of a “broader extremist threat” and that they were looking into “what this person’s motives were and whether or not there are any further connections” demonstrate just how far we yet have to go.

COLUMN BY

CLARE LOPEZ

Clare M. Lopez is the Founder/President of Lopez Liberty LLC and serves as a senior advisory board member for the Near East Center for Strategic Engagement (NEC-SE).

RELATED VIDEO: The Meaning of Coleyville

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas Temple Terrorist Tablighi Jamaat Connection Confirmed

Texas synagogue jihadi was a longtime security concern, was referred to UK government counterterror program

‘Special Qur’an’ holds signatures of almost every Minnesota Muslim elected to office

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

Big Tech Strikes Again – Against Research, Science, and Free Speech thumbnail

Big Tech Strikes Again – Against Research, Science, and Free Speech

By 2ndvote .com

On Saturday, YouTube (1.00) banned a licensed therapist for alleged abuse of gay men, following marching orders from graduates of the extreme leftist Southern Poverty Law Center. The group of radicals issued a report which claimed that helping gay men overcome trauma, anxiety, and other mental health challenges is conversion therapy if it results in them being more sexually attracted to women. In other words, the supposed fluidity of a person’s sexuality is only ok if improved mental health results in them remaining on the LGBT spectrum of umpteen genders.

So YouTube has no problem with people becoming more attracted to people of the same sex, or trying to change their gender. It’s only when gay men say they are more attracted to women that the Thought Police come charging in.

At 2ndVote we take a firm position on YouTube banning a licensed practitioner whose work was favorably featured in a peer-reviewed study in 2021, and whose clients find him – often through Google (1.00) searches and YouTube. We find it offensive when the world’s largest advertising company (which is what Google is all about) takes orders from the White House on censoring American citizens, regardless of the accuracy of their speech. The people seeking unbiased expert insights are informed adults making adult decisions, yet that’s not acceptable to the Big Brother alliance.

The key issues here are:

  • YouTube’s ban came on Saturday, with no warning. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the therapist, was not given a chance to appeal the decision. YouTube didn’t ask him about the study, or Nicolosi’s opposition to conversion therapy, or powerful anecdotes from clients.
  • Planned Parenthood (1.17) is at least as controversial as treating gay men for many of the same mental health challenges which affect the rest of society…but YouTube doesn’t ban them. This is selective bias at its worst.
  • American society overcame bigotry and bans decades ago – or so we thought. Now, Big Tech is taking the position that gay men who become more sexually attracted to women are persona non grata, and that bans are appropriate because extremist ‘fact checkers’ who used to work at SPLC say so.

Science, patients, and society are best served by open debate about the merits of matters like therapy. Instead, mainstream media, Big Tech, and a leftist administration are silencing debate and discussion because it goes against the Left’s propaganda. That violation of our basic freedoms is unacceptable to us, and we hope it’s unacceptable to you. Contact YouTube and let them know that open discussions matter!

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

America’s Sissy Problem thumbnail

America’s Sissy Problem

By Dr. Rich Swier

Sissy: “A person regarded as effeminate or cowardly.”

Soy boy: “A pejorative term often used in online communities to describe men lacking masculine characteristics.”


A reader of ours sent a link to a very interesting The American Mind article titled “China’s Sissy Problem—and Ours” by John Mac Ghlionn.

We have been concerned about the “sissyfication” of America’s boys, and girls, for some time.

Claremont Institute researcher and essayist John Mac Ghlionn wrote:

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a concerted effort to banish so-called “sissy men” from society. “Morally flawed” men are no longer welcome. Men, we’re told, should look a certain way—no makeup, no high heels. Moreover, they should have resilience and a desire to seek meaningful employment. Some prominent authors argue that Beijing’s effort will backfire. Will it? Possibly, but when it comes to crackdowns, the CCP is frighteningly effective. If in doubt, just look at what is occurring in Hong Kong, a sprawling, once free-wheeling city with a population of 7.5 million, where free speech has died a swift and brutal death.

But perhaps worse we are now seeing free speech dying a swift and brutal death here in America, with a population of 330 million. Social media has now censored the truth about gender being binary and have banned it, because it doesn’t fit their narrative, as being against their collectivist social justice “community standards.”

This has led to our youth growing up not understanding what is happening to them culturally. In America today young boys are being neutered via verbal fiat.

Generation Z boys, and girls, are growing up without strong male, and female, role models.

The Sissyfication of America

Ghlionn in his column China’s Sissy Problem—and Ours notes:

It’s important to make clear that this piece is not an attack on homosexual men; it’s an attack on sissies. There is a difference between the two. In his latest special, Sorry, Louis CK finished the show with a joke about American men. Today, according to Louis, gay men carry themselves with an air of authority, purpose, and meaning. They keep themselves in good shape and dress appropriately. Straight men, on the other hand, have become notably weaker, both physically and mentally; many of them lack the characteristics that we would have associated with previous generations of men. They are sloppy, weak-willed, and overly apologetic. They dress terribly. At the end of the joke, which is much funnier than I just made it sound, the audience applauded and let out a collective roar. Why? Because Louis’s joke resonated. He articulately expressed what so many of his fans were already thinking. The United States, too, has a crisis of masculinity—one even worse, perhaps, than China’s.

QUESTION: Aren’t gays by definition sissies?

Actually if you go to a gay pride parade you see men dressed as sissies, wearing chains, in dresses with heavy make-up and acting effeminate. Not sure who Louis CK is referring to.

QUESTION: Are Ghlionn and Louis CK afraid of being labeled homophobic? So, does this make Ghlionn and Louis CK sissies?

We are seeing more and more films featuring gays and lesbians. We are seeing non-binary (a.k.a. gender queer) athletes competing in women’s sports. We are seeing men dressed up like a woman reading books to elementary school students. We are seeing graphic under age sex oriented books in public school libraries. And we have reported on the growth of Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) clubs in our public schools.

This is all part and parcel of the culture war against boys in general and manhood in particular.

Mainstreaming Pedophilia

In our column “CULTURE WAR: The Mainstreaming of Pedophilia by Targeting Your Children” we warned:

Sadly we have seen the mainstreaming of pedophilia. Most recently we have seen pedophilia:

We have reported on efforts by groups such as B4U-ACT and the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to indoctrinate children into believing that sex with men by children is not only normal but encouraged.

Dr. Judith Reisman in her 2016 column “They’re mainstreaming pedophilia!” wrote:

Alfred Kinsey’s ongoing sexual anarchy campaign has no end in sight.

Matt Barber, associate dean of the Liberty University School of Law, and I attended the “B4U-ACT” pedophile conference Aug. 17 [2015]. To eliminate the “stigma” against pedophiles, this growing sexual anarchist lobby wants the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to redefine pedophilia as a normal sexual orientation of “Minor-Attracted Persons.”

Adhering to the Kinsey principle of lulling “straights” into a false sense of security, pedophile dress was largely conservative – short hair, jackets, some ties and few noticeable male ear piercings.

Matt Barber and I sat in the back of the meeting room among roughly 50 activists and their “mental health” attending female enablers. “Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM: Issues and Controversies,” keynoted “Fred Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., as founder, National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma; Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic.”

However, the sex clinic was initially founded by John Money, Ph.D., to give judges “leeway” to keep child molesters out of jail. Money (deceased), a pedophile advocate, also called for an end to all age-of-consent laws. Dr. Berlin was his disciple.

Sissies and Soy Boys

We do have men, real men, who carry themselves with an air of authority, purpose and meaning. Most of these men are active duty military, in law enforcement, are first responders and veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan, the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

Today instead of real “alpha” males we have “soy” boys.

As Ghlionn reported:

For generations, the sissy has been a frowned-upon character in American life. Only recently it has become a respected, even institutionalized lifestyle. California’s Silicon-Valley stereotype of the “soy boy”, a demasculinized consumer of a meatless, synthetic diet, is now national. [Emphasis added]

Sadly, since the end of the draft, those who serve are all volunteers and make up about 1% of our male population. The other 99% have never sacrificed themselves in service to the nation. The problem lies in the group of Gen Z boys that have never become real men by serving, rather they are demanding bigger government to serve them regardless of their needs to work for a living. Because Gen Z boys vote for a living.

Sissyfication and Single Parenthood

Today we have seen manhood, and womanhood, denigrated to the point where if you mention that gender is binary you are ostracized from society. We are seeing men competing in women’s sports. We are seeing the normalization of sodomy to the point that sissy men dressed as a woman are reading books to grade school students.

But there’s something deeper going on in America.

As Ghlionn points out:

[A]ccording to a Pew Research Center study, rates of children living in single-parent households have never been higher. In fact, the U.S. now boasts the highest rate of children living in single-parent households in the world. As the study notes, “3% of children in China, 4% of children in Nigeria, and 5% of children in India live in single-parent households.” In the U.S., meanwhile, the rate is a staggering 23 percent. At least 80 percent of the country’s single-parent homes are headed by single mothers.

Absolutely nothing good comes from father absence—which, according to a report published by the U.S. Department of Justice, “has a strong and significant effect on both female and male levels of violence,” including “homicide and robbery.” Children look to their fathers to lay down the rules and enforce them, and learn to do so through imitation.

The Bottom Line

On August 10th, 2019  reported:

Beyond the main point of the signatures of the founders and main thinkers of the French, postmodern philosophers all demanding that pedophilia be made legal, these guys make a lot of good points.

Also, it is food for thought about how similar the push to make little boys into drag queen strippers for adult men mirrors Afghan Muslim culture.

H/T Xanthippa

So there you have it.

Pedophiles are looking at recruiting the next generation of your children as their perverted sex slaves.

They will brainwash your child into thinking first that he/she are neither just male or female (binary) but they can choose their (non-binary) gender pronoun at will. If this doesn’t emasculate our boys, and girls, I don’t know what will!

Then they push your little boy, and girl, into the LGBTQ+ community where by then they’re to far along to resist.

If parents and grandparents fail to stop this then our children are lost for ever!

It’s time to man up.

Ditch the soy, stop being a sissy. Take charge of your lives or we will see Generation Z sissies take over our nation.

We need real men, and women, to take charge in our families, communities, culture, society and nation.

Cowards don’t lead and leaders aren’t cowards.

Edmund Burke wrote:

 The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Sissies are evil. We need good men!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘What Is a Woman?’: Matt Walsh Appears on ‘Dr. Phil,’ Presses ‘Non-Binary’ Individuals on Gender

RELATED TWEET:

Feds pic.twitter.com/KWHExJmuwh

— Wendy Rogers (@WendyRogersAZ) January 21, 2022

What Gen­er­a­tion Z Doesn’t Get About America’s Economic Pie thumbnail

What Gen­er­a­tion Z Doesn’t Get About America’s Economic Pie

By John Eidson

Gen­er­a­tion Z. Born between 1995 and 2010, they are ​racial­ly and eth­ni­cal­ly diverse, pro­gres­sive and pro-gov­ern­ment” accord­ing to Gen Z data from the Pew Research Cen­ter.


Growing up is a bitch as Generation Z chick YV discovers confiscatory taxation. Watch:

pic.twitter.com/FSNy2weY7g

— yv (@yvtweets) January 15, 2022

Fed a steady diet of economic lies by anti-capitalists in our society, the Millennial [and Gen­er­a­tion Z] generation has been tricked into believing that the wealthy get rich only by stealing an oversized slice of America’s economic pie. By taking more than their fair share, the narrative goes, greedy corporate CEOs leave little but crumbs for everyone else. Such fallacious thinking is referred to as the zero sum theory of economics, the idea that there’s only one finite-sized pie to go around, and that one person taking a large slice means someone else will go hungry.

In truth, America does not have a finite economic pie.  Rather, it has a virtually unlimited supply of ever-evolving economic pies of varying sizes waiting to be made by enterprising people of every race and every income group.

The biggest such pies are made by high-profile capitalists like Warren Buffet, a Democrat, and Charles Koch, a Republican, both of whom generously share their self-created economic pies not only with a myriad of charitable organizations, but also with hundreds of thousands of well-paid employees who eagerly work for their thriving corporate empires.

Millions of other economic pies are made by less famous job creators, those whose small businesses provide more than 80% of America’s private sector employment. Still more economic pies are made by the 160 million people who comprise the backbone of our economy, men and women who earn a slice of their country’s widespread prosperity simply by getting up and going to work so they can provide for themselves and their family by working hard and learning to live within their means.

Unfortunately, there will always be some who habitually make bad decisions, financial or otherwise. Frustrated that self-created problems have kept them from participating in the American dream, they bitterly complain that someone else made off with their share of the pie.  With nothing but crumbs on their plates, these economically ignorant people are prime targets of the party whose election success depends upon inciting class hatred, the means of gaining political power outlined in an 1848 manuscript titled The Communist Manifesto.

A new poll commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that 70% of Millennials are likely to vote for a socialist in 2020. Since socialism-loving Millennials are so obsessed with wealth disparity, here are a few questions for them:

  • If wealth disparity is a bad thing, can aggrieved Millennials explain why so many filthy rich Democrats —Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Oprah, Al Gore, the Clintons, the Obamas, etc. — selfishly cling to the lion’s share of their enviable fortunes, rather than giving away, say, 80% of what they have to the poor?
  • Can Millennials explain how corporate CEOs are any more to blame for wealth disparity than the filthy rich Democrats named above?
  • Can they explain how society is hurt when wealthy job creators like Warren Buffet and Charles Koch use their accumulated capital to create even more good-paying jobs?

If Millennials troubled by wealth inequality reflect on those questions, they will (1) stop blaming others and get to work on a plan for earning a share of their country’s bountiful prosperity, and (2) realize that the party telling them that socialism will make their lives better is playing them for fools.

Millennials might want to read this Jewish World Review article about the unmitigated havoc socialism has inflicted on country after country after country.

John Edison. All rights reserved.

Reich Tells Democrat Senators to Give Kyrsten Sinema ‘the Backs of Their Hands’ thumbnail

Reich Tells Democrat Senators to Give Kyrsten Sinema ‘the Backs of Their Hands’

By Discover The Networks

After the Democrat voting legislation was shot down in the U.S. Senate Wednesday night, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich took to Twitter to encourage Democrat senators to give obstructionist Democrat Sen. Kyrsten Sinema “the backs of their hands.”

What are Democrats supposed to do to Sen. Sinema with “the backs of their hands,” @RBReich? pic.twitter.com/XFJyU0d1Sc

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 20, 2022

“Tonight, Republican senators lined up to shake Kyrsten Sinema’s hand,” Reich tweeted. “Democratic senators should have given her the backs of their hands.”

Had a Republican politico tweeted this call for violence, the shrieking outrage from the left would have been deafening. But they never scold their own, especially since his violent misogyny was directed at a Democrat woman who did not fall in line with the radical left’s agenda. So instead, it was the leftist media silence that was deafening.

More independent-minded figures called Reich out for his message, however. Journalist Glenn Greenwald — no right-winger but a journalist courageous enough to criticize far-left lunacy — responded on Twitter, “What are Democrats supposed to do to Sen. Sinema with ‘the backs of their hands’, @RBReich?”

“Feminists sure got quiet on this one,” tweeted conservative Stephen L. Miller.

Reich is a prime example of the fact that just under their facade of tolerance, compassion, and inclusiveness, the left is full of violent hatred for their political opponents, and that includes fellow Democrats who vote from their conscience instead of a lust for power.


Robert Reich

51 Known Connections

A former Secretary of Labor during the first term of President Bill Clinton, Robert Reich is currently the University Professor and Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University. In 2001, Brandeis named Reich to co-direct an undergraduate program for “Social Justice and Policy” at the university’s Heller Graduate School. In announcing the new program, the university touted its devotion to the “problems of social equity” and its commitment to exploring the connection between “social values and practical policies.”

To this founding vision Reich has stayed true. With its focus on “the gap between richer and poorer citizens,” and its declared intention to determine what can be “done to reverse this trend,” the undergraduate course Reich teaches seems modeled more on a policy think tank that is bent on fashioning a political agenda, than on a university curriculum concerned with the pursuit of knowledge. Even the course’s title, “Wealth and Poverty,” hints at its political tilt, echoing as it does the zero-sum certitudes of leftist strategists like Reich, who perceive economic issues as a pitched Darwinian battle between rich and poor.

To learn more about Robert Reich, click here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Reid: Infrastructure Package a ‘White Guy Employment Act’

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

If Trump Had Greenlighted Russia To Invade Ukraine Like Biden Just Did, He’d Be Accused Of Corruption thumbnail

If Trump Had Greenlighted Russia To Invade Ukraine Like Biden Just Did, He’d Be Accused Of Corruption

By Margot Cleveland

After Wednesday’s press conference, the Kremlin likely sees little risk to invading its western neighbor. That’s not all.

President Biden was actually operating from a coherent perspective in discussing Russia and Ukraine in Wednesday’s press conference: In every instance, as you go line-for-line in the transcript, his foreign policy—and the fact that he announced it to the world—is one where Russia has leverage over Biden and the president has a personal vendetta against the current Ukrainian government.

When asked whether sanctions would deter Vladimir Putin from attacking Ukraine, our commander in chief replied that Russia “will be held accountable if it invades,” but then clarified: “It depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.” Biden then juxtaposed a “minor incursion,” which would lead to a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) fight over how to respond, with Russia doing “what they’re capable of doing with the forces amassed on the border.”

In that case, Biden assured the audience—which surely included Putin and his top military leaders—“our allies and partners are ready to impose severe costs and significant harm on Russia and the Russian economy.” Biden then proceeded to ramble aloud his internal thoughts on Putin’s thinking before adding, in reference to Ukraine, “My guess is he will move in. He has to do something.”

After the press conference, Biden’s team attempted to walk back his “minor incursion” comment, but it was much too late for that. Putin already noted the greenlight that Biden flashed, not just once, but twice.

The second surrender came when a reporter offered the president a chance to correct himself live, asking, “Are you effectively giving Putin permission to make a small incursion into the country?” Biden laughed, saying, “That’s how it did sound like, didn’t it?”

Significantly, though, Biden did not disavow that understanding, but instead said “the most important thing . . .big nations can’t bluff, number one.” So, to Biden telling Putin we would respond to any invasion, even a minor incursion, would be nothing but a bluff.

Here’s Some Free Intel, Russia

Biden then did the unthinkable—unless you’re in Putin’s pocket, that is: He told our Russian adversary that NATO is split on how to respond to anything “short of a significant invasion.” “There are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do depending on what happens — the degree to which they’re able to go,” Biden explained.

Don’t worry, though, Biden seemed to say, because Putin wants some things that we are more than willing to give him. The president then told the world and Russia precisely what we were willing to commit to no strategic weapons in Ukraine and no NATO membership for Ukraine in the near term.

Biden also made sure to let Putin know what we knew, or suspected, such as that a move from the north, from Belarus, would require Russia “to wait a little bit until the ground is frozen so he can cross.” The president also told his Russian counterpart that we knew they had “people in Ukraine now trying to undermine the solidarity within Ukraine about Russia and to try to promote Russian interest,” making it very important to keep “everyone in NATO on the same page.”

More Presents for Putin

Wednesday’s bowing to Russia, unfortunately was not Biden’s first capitulation.

The Business Insider detailed Biden’s first present to Putin in an article, the title of which presents perfectly the irony laid out below: “Trump was slammed for cozying up to Putin, but Biden handed him a greater gift by waiving sanctions on a gas pipeline that could destabilize Europe.”

That article detailed Biden’s backtracking on the sanctions Trump had imposed against Russia concerning the Nord Stream pipeline that connected Russia to Germany. Congress would later also impose sanctions on the CEO of the company constructing the pipeline, an ally of Putin according to the Business Insider.

While “Secretary of State Antony Blinken promised in March to keep looking for ways to stop” the pipeline, by July the Biden administration agreed to allow the project to go forward, even though Democratic colleagues of the president had also “long opposed the project,” according to the article. Here, the opposition stemmed not merely because “it hands Russia an economic advantage over its European neighbors but because it could cause the US significant foreign-policy problems in the future. Chief among those problems are fears that Nord Stream 2 could liberate Russia to invade Ukraine – a US and EU ally – where Putin annexed Crimea in 2014.”

Because “Russia imports gas through Ukraine,” the article explained, Putin would be hesitant to interfere with its supply route. But with the Nord Stream 2 bypassing Ukraine, “Russia may no longer feel bound by the same caution.”

What On Earth Was Biden Thinking?

After Wednesday’s press conference, the Kremlin likely sees little risk to invading its western neighbor, at least the portions populated by ethnic Russians.

What could possibly possess our commander in chief, the leader of the most powerful country in the free world, to treat Russia and Ukraine as two vying contests on a reality-TV show, with Biden publicly declaring his love for Russia and sending Ukraine packing? And what could possibly cause Biden to change course and reverse the one sanction that seems to stalemate the standoff between Putin and Ukraine?

For four years, Democrats and the leftist press saw an easy answer to President Trump’s every comment related to Russia and Ukraine: kompromat and corruption.

The claim that Russia had leverage over Trump gained traction before his inauguration when a leak to CNN led the network to publish news of what is now known as the Steele dossier. Later published by BuzzFeed, the discredited work of fiction that relied on false “intel” fed to Steele by Russian national Igor Danchenko and that was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign claimed the Russian government had “kompromat,” or “compromising information,” on Trump.

Russian Collusion Used to Be a Huge Narrative

For years, the anti-Trump contingent used the Steele dossier and its claim that Russia held leverage over the president to fan the flames of a Trump-Russia conspiracy. But the Russia-leverage narrative extended beyond the discredited dossier and continued throughout Trump’s term.

For instance, in a May 2019 article titled, “Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy ‘Is One Where Russia Has Leverage Over Him,’ Former CIA Official Says,” Newsweek discussed a former CIA and defense official’s appearance on MSNBC. Appearing on the cable network’s “Morning Joe,” Jeremy Bash “argued that Trump’s international policies appear to be impacted by Russian ‘leverage over him’” the Newsweek article explained.

“I would say that the president actually is operating from a coherent perspective, in that he totally pushes away intelligence, he doesn’t listen to it, every instance as you go down the line, his foreign policy is one where Russia has leverage over him,” Bash told the MSNBC audience.

Bash, a former CIA official, then identified what he claimed was a series of foreign policy decisions favorable to Russia, including what Bash called Trump’s “decision to denigrate NATO.” Bash also highlighted Trump’s comments about Russia rejoining the G-7 and his supposed “decision to endorse election interference by [Russian President] Vladimir Putin,” to support the case that Putin had Trump in his back pocket.

The Atlantic pushed this same narrative, in its article entitled, “Donald Trump Gave Russia Leverage Over His Presidency.” There, the liberal outlet argued Trump lied when shortly after his inauguration he said, “Russia is a ruse,” and that he had “nothing to do with Russia.”

With these denials, Trump handed Russian intelligence “the ability to unmask Trump as a liar to the American public,” the Atlantic argued, relying on BuzzFeed’s account of the negotiations involving a potential Trump Tower in Moscow. Likewise, “the prospect that the Russians have been in possession of evidence suggesting that the president’s son may have committed a felony,” gave Russia leverage over Trump, according to the article.

Blackmail Is a Powerful International Tool

Susan Hennessey, now a member of the Biden administration’s Department of Justice National Security Division, likewise peddled this theory on a Lawfare podcast, suggesting “the United States is in an incredibly dangerous position where the American president is aware that a hostile foreign adversary potentially has devastating—politically devastating and potentially legally and criminally devastating, if not for him, then for members of his family or organization.”

“Those really are the kinds of conditions where your worst nightmare is about blackmail and influence,” Hennessey added in her discussion of the Kremlin and what it might know about Trump.

While kompromat explained Trump’s handling of Russia, according to his critics, Democrats and their partners in the press claimed corruption governed his interactions with Ukraine. Here, according to the left, Trump used his position as president of the United States to demand the newly elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, launch a supposedly sham investigation into 2016 election interference and the Biden family.

The closely coordinated effort between the anti-Trump deep state, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, and the press led to the House impeaching Trump for supposedly “subvert[ing] U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermin[ing] our national security,” to damage his political foe, Joe Biden.

Apply the Trump Narrative to Biden

Using the same lens as the left’s, then, what can possibly explain Joe Biden’s performance Wednesday afternoon? Why would he subvert U.S. foreign policy toward both Ukraine and Russia and America’s relationship with its NATO allies?

It is inexplicable? Or is it? Might Russia have leverage against Joe Biden?

Hunter Biden thought they did, according to a video of the president’s son published by The Daily Mail in August of 2021. The “unearthed footage,” The Daily Mail reported, captured a naked Hunter Biden telling a prostitute that ‘the Russians have videos of me doing crazy f-cking sex!’”

As I reported at the time: “The video then captured Hunter telling the prostitute that during the summer of 2018 he had nearly overdosed from drugs while partying in Las Vegas with his drug dealer and two other guys. When he came to later, ‘there was this Russian 35-year-old, really nice, pure brunette,’ Hunter explained. He then discovered his laptop was missing.

‘I think he’s the one that stole my computer,’ Hunter said on the tape, apparently referring to his drug dealer. ‘I think the three of them, the three guys that were like a little group. The dealer and his two guys, I took them everywhere,’ Hunter explained. ‘They have videos of me doing this. They have videos of me doing crazy f-cking sex f-cking, you know,’ Hunter added. ‘My computer, I had taken tons of like, just left like that cam on,’ Hunter continued, ‘and somebody stole it during that period of time.’”

At this point, the prostitute asked Hunter if he feared the Russian thieves would try to “blackmail” him.

“Yeah, in some way yeah,” Hunter responded, adding that his father is “running for president,” and that “I talk about it all the time.”

The risk of blackmail to the president, however, extends much beyond a sex scandal involving Hunter and includes potential text and email messages stored on the stolen laptop that implicate “the Big Guy” in a pay-to-play scandal.

The Dossier Doesn’t Stop There

Not only could this kompromat make Biden beholden to Russia to the disadvantage of Ukraine, the recent charges prosecutors for Ukraine’s Zelenskyy filed against Biden’s pal, former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, for treason and supporting terrorism offer a personal motive to explain the president’s actions—at least one as plausible as the one pushed by Democrats against Trump.

Poroshenko served as president of Ukraine from 2014 to 2019, during the time Biden held the office of vice president and then following Trump’s election. In 2014, when then-Vice President Biden was charged with working with Ukraine, his son Hunter became a board member of a Kyiv-based gas company named Burisma. Even though Hunter lacked any experience in the gas sector, he received compensation reportedly upward of $50,000 a month for his services.

The Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee would later release a damning report “detailing a wide array of Hunter Biden’s conflicts of interest, including potentially criminal overseas business activity while his father Joe Biden served as vice president.”

The Senate report also alleged that the owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, “paid a $7 million bribe to the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office to close an investigation seven months following Hunter Biden’s addition to its leadership.” Prior to the 2020 election, Trump had claimed that Joe Biden had pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who had targeted Burisma, but Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko denied the accusation.

A leaked telephone call that occurred between then-Vice President Biden and Poroshenko shortly after Trump’s election also tells the story of a bond between the two men. Biden began his conversation informally, “Hey, Petro. It’s Joe. How are you?”

“Very well indeed, as usual, when I hear your voice, my dear friend,” the then-Ukraine president responded.

Biden then proceeded to tell Poroshenko that Trump’s election had surprised everyone and “the incoming administration doesn’t know a great deal about the situation.” He added, as The New York Post put it, that “he had withheld some information regarding Ukraine from his counterparts in the Trump transition team.”

As the call neared an end, Biden noted that after he left the White House, “as a private citizen, I plan on staying deeply engaged in the endeavor that you have begun and we have begun.”

However, Poroshenko would soon also find himself out of office, when in April 2019 Zelenskyy defeated him in the nation’s election.

Thereafter, Trump pushed Zelenskyy to investigate the alleged bribery related to Burisma and any connection to the Biden family. For that Trump was impeached, without the House ever investigating the alleged Burisma corruption underlying the request. Democrats and the press instead sold Trump’s request as purely politically motivated.

Surely, then, they see Biden’s very public sacrifice of Ukraine in the same light: as personal payback for President Zelenskyy’s willingness to do Trump’s bidding, for delving into the Biden dynasty’s affairs, and for targeting his former counterpart, former President Poroshenko. And, surely, they see kompromat behind Biden’s figurative directing of Putin’s troops across the Ukrainian border.

Of course not. Republicans should not see it that way either, because when Joe Biden is involved, nothing should be ascribed to corruption that can be plainly explained by his incompetence.

*****

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Imagine Electric Vehicles in Bad Weather thumbnail

Imagine Electric Vehicles in Bad Weather

By Ronald Stein

With more than forty percent of the EV’s in America being in California at the end of 2020, the EV popularity in California has gotten President Biden so excited to want the rest of the country to follow California’s lead that Biden issued a new executive order that pushes for half of all new cars sold in America by 2030 to be electric vehicles.

Imagine being stuck on a frigid night inside your car, like those stopped on Interstate 95 in Virginia in a 48-mile backup for nearly a 24-hour standstill because of snow. Imagine being trapped in a frozen electric car with a long dead battery!

Even with the great California year-round weather, the states’ EV user’s experiences do not bode well for projected EV sales in America as the states’ EV users may be sending a caution-to-the-wind (no pun intended) message to America that the EV usage in the state reflects very conservative notices to future EV owners. A few reasons why Californians may be sending the wrong message to America are:

  1. The limited usage of the EV’s of about 5,000 miles per year is a reflection that the EV is a second vehicle, for those that can afford them, and not the family workhorse vehicle.
  2. The primary owners of EV’s are the highly educated and financially well off, and not representative of the majority.
  3. EV owner incomes rank among the highest in the country which may be a reflection of home owners that have easier access to charging their EV from their multi-car garages, or for those folks living in new apartments that may have access to more convenient EV charging capabilities. Most car owners park in the street.
  4. According to ValuePenguin insurance, because electric vehicles cost more outright and are more expensive to repair, the average car insurance for an electric vehicle is about 23 percent more expensive than the cost for the equivalent combustion model.
  5. The ethnicity of Tesla owner’s skews toward Caucasians, at 87 percent. Owners who identify with Hispanic ethnicity make up 8 percent of Tesla owners, leaving 5 percent to other ethnicities.
  6. From that limited elite ownership group, there is a growing percentage of those California EV users that are switching back to gasoline cars, which is sending a message that may further deflate EV growth projections.

EVs are still a luxury product that attract the Benz and Beemer crowd, not low- and middle-income consumers. The average household income for EV buyers is about $140,000. That’s roughly nearly twice the US median, which is about $63,000.

Here are a few examples of inclement weather conditions, that will most likely never occur in the idyllic year-round weather of sunny California’s EV “capital” of America:

  • Imagine Florida with a hurricane coming toward Miami. The Governor orders an evacuation. All cars head north. They all need to be charged in Jacksonville. How does that work? If all cars were electric, and were caught up in a three-hour traffic jam with dead batteries, then what? Not to mention that there is virtually no heating or air conditioning in an electric vehicle because of high battery consumption.
  • If you get stuck on the road all night, no battery, no heating, no windshield wipers, no radio, no GPS (all these drain the batteries), all you can do is try calling 911 to take women and children to safety. But they cannot come to help you because all roads are blocked, and they will probably require all police cars will be electric also. When the roads become unblocked no one can move! Their batteries are dead.
  • How do you charge thousands of cars in the traffic jam? Same problem during summer vacation departures with miles of traffic jams. There would be virtually no air conditioning in an electric vehicle. It would drain the batteries quickly. Where is this electricity going to come from? Today’s grid barely handles users’ needs.
  • Frigid driving conditions: Did you know that 17 percent of car crashes in the United States happen in winter conditions? EV batteries must work harder in the cold, which is why they drain quickly in extreme temperatures. Low temperatures, such as 40 degrees or below, can decrease the driving range for EVs by 40 percent.

As Pew Research reported in June, “In each of the past three years, EVs accounted for about 2% of the U.S. new-car market.The reasons why EVs aren’t grabbing consumers by the tailpipe are many, but the main ones are affordability, charging and range functionality and the possible exposure to inclement weather.

Another challenge for EV growth is the EV charging dependence on intermittent electricity generated from breezes and sunshine. Adding EV charging loads onto the grid that is becoming more unstable is like putting salt in the wound. Power outages are now commonplace in California and Texas with more to follow throughout the nation as we adjust to a life dependent upon the time of day and the weather.

Amid tougher emissions regulations worldwide, established automakers are racing to add more EVs to their lineup, but until the current elite owners can demonstrate to the middle-income and those on fixed incomes that their EV’s are their primary family workhorse vehicles, the less fortunate will most likely remain reluctant to buy into the EV evolution.

Growing the supply chain for EV’s without a corresponding growth in demand, could be an economic disaster in the works.

*****

This article was first published by CFACT, The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and is reproduced with permission.

Dr. McCullough’s prescription for America – “Return to normal now” thumbnail

Dr. McCullough’s prescription for America – “Return to normal now”

By Center For Security Policy

Dr. Peter McCullough is one of the world’s most influential physicians. Sunday, he’ll address a march in Washington. Tonight, he gives Secure Freedom Radio his prescription for our country:

“I think at this point in time, we go ahead and drop all the vaccine mandates. We can make things very easy for the Supreme Court and the Biden administration. And then we pull the vaccines off the market – Pfizer, J&J and Moderna. Pull them….Do a review on safety. Figure out what went wrong: Why did they fail against the variants?

“And then, if an occasional sick Omicron patient comes up, [they’ll be early-treated with available therapies]. They’re very treatment responsive. And then we go back to normal. Now we can stop all the emergency measures, stop all the masks, lockdowns, social distancing. Stop all that. Just return to normal now.”

Amen.

Biden’s Infrastructure Bill Fleeces Floridians in Favor of Blue States thumbnail

Biden’s Infrastructure Bill Fleeces Floridians in Favor of Blue States

By Dr. Rich Swier

The Biden administration announced Florida would get significantly less money than other states for bridge repairs!

Governor Ron DeSantis highlighted this week how Florida is receiving less than $245 million for bridge repairs out of the almost $27 billion for bridges nationally through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The formula used to calculate the amount given to states penalizes Florida for doing its job and successfully maintaining the infrastructure that Floridians require to live and work every day. But even then, Florida’s small amount still does not add up.

“The Biden Administration continues to punish states that are succeeding,” Governor DeSantis said. “Despite obstacles created by the Biden Administration, the State of Florida continues to thrive and foster an environment that draws new residents and tourists every single day. By doing so, Florida has continued to grow, and our infrastructure must be able to keep up the pace. The Biden Administration though is short-changing Florida yet again.”

The federal government claims the funding is based on the number of bridges in disrepair. But states with a similar or fewer number of bridges in disrepair are frequently receiving more than twice as much funding as Florida. Florida has more than 12,500 bridges statewide, and the Bridge Formula Program has identified 408 bridges that are in poor condition and provided $245 million for those.

Under the same formula, Washington State has 416 bridges identified as in poor condition, similar to Florida’s 408, but Washington State is set to receive $605.1 million from the federal government. Connecticut has 248 bridges identified as in poor condition and is set to receive $561.4 million in funding, over twice as much as Florida is receiving with 160 fewer bridges to repair. Biden’s home state of Delaware will receive $225 million, just $20 million less than Florida, but has only 19 bridges to repair according to the formula.

This is just another attempt to harm Floridians because our leaders have rightly criticized the Biden Administration’s reckless policies, and Florida stands out as a leader in job creation and economic growth while the nation, as a whole, suffers under Democrat mismanagement.

Americans see it all. Destructive Democrat policies have created a wave of new Florida arrivals. Between July 2020 and July 2021, Florida added 220,890 new residents from other states, the largest net gain in the country. People are fleeing other states for the free and growing state of Florida, and all of them will need access to quality infrastructure that was not available in the states they left.

Governor Ron DeSantis Awards More Than $20 Million to Repair Water, Sewer and Stormwater Infrastructure Damaged by Hurricane Michael in Panama City

PANAMA CITY, Fla. — Today, Governor Ron DeSantis announced more than $20 million has been awarded to Panama City through the Department of Economic Opportunity’s (DEO) Rebuild Florida Mitigation General Infrastructure Repair Program. The funding will be used to make repairs and replace 2.4 miles of water lines, 2.4 miles of stormwater lines and 3 miles of sewer lines that were damaged by Hurricane Michael. These improvements will fully restore water quality, functioning stormwater drainage and dependable sewer for the area.

“Since the beginning of my administration, we have remained committed to helping Northwest Florida recover from Hurricane Michael, and today I am proud to award another $20 million to help Panama City’s recovery,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “This project will make a real difference by restoring water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure in the city.”

“In a state that often experiences unpredictable natural disasters, we are fortunate to have the leadership of Governor DeSantis to support these recovery efforts,” said Secretary Dane Eagle of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. “We are very pleased to be able to assist the people of Panama City with this award and will continue to strengthen Florida by fulfilling the needs of all communities.”

The program, administered by DEO allows local governments to develop large-scale infrastructure projects to make communities more resilient to future disasters. DEO is the governor-designated state authority responsible for administering all U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) long-term recovery funds awarded to the state. Rebuild Florida uses federal funding for Florida’s long-term recovery efforts from the devastating impacts of natural disasters. For more information, visit RebuildFlorida.gov.

Yesterday, Governor DeSantis also announced $17 million for the City of Bonita Springs in Lee County through the DEO Rebuild Florida Program to make infrastructure repairs related to Hurricane Irma.

For more information, visit RebuildFlorida.gov.

©Republican Party of Florida. All rights reserved.

The Global Warming Question That Can Change People’s Minds thumbnail

The Global Warming Question That Can Change People’s Minds

By Selwyn Duke

Late last year, I got into a discussion with a fellow who was quite sold on the idea that man’s activities were warming the Earth. While not a hardcore ideologue, it was apparent the gentleman had accepted the climate change narrative presented by mainstream media and believed we truly were imperiling the planet. I didn’t say much to him initially, as we were engaged in some recreation, but later on I resurrected the topic and told him I just wanted to pose one question.

“What is the ideal average temperature of the Earth”? I asked.

It was clear he was without an answer, so I explained my rationale. “If we don’t know what the Earth’s ideal average temperature is,” I stated, “how can we know if a given type of climate change — whether naturally occurring or induced by man — is good or bad? After all, we can’t then know whether it’s bringing us closer to or moving us further away from that ideal temperature.”

It was as if a little light bulb had lit up in his head, and he said, “You know, that’s a good question!”

I haven’t seen the man since, as we were just two ships passing in the night, and I don’t know how his thinking has evolved (or regressed) between then and now. I do know, however, that someone who’d seemed so confident and perhaps even unbending in his position had his mind opened with one simple question and a 20-second explanation.

Of course, part of the question’s beauty is that no one can answer it. There is no “ideal” average Earth temperature, only a range within which it must remain for life as we know it to exist. At the spectrum’s lower end, polar creatures proliferate; at its higher end, tropical animals do (though warmer temperatures do breed more life, which is why the tropics boast 10 times as many species as does the Arctic. Moreover, crop yields increase when CO2 levels are higher).

This brings us to another important point: Apocalyptic warmist dogma is buttressed by the virtually unchallenged assumption that if man changes something “natural,” it is by definition bad. But this is prejudice. Most of us certainly don’t believe this, for instance, when humans cure disease and use science to preserve and extend human life (or that of our pets).

As for climate, there have been at least five major ice ages, and “the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!),” informs the Utah Geological Survey. Then there was the Cryogenian period, during which the Earth was completely, or almost completely, covered with snow and ice. If man had existed during that time, would it have been bad if his activities had raised the temperature a couple of degrees?

Within ice ages are shorter term cycles known as glacials (colder periods) and interglacials (warmer ones); glacials last approximately 100,000 years while interglacials last about 10,000 to 30,000 years. We’re currently in an interglacial called the Holocene Epoch, which began 11,500 to 12,000 years ago.  This means that we could, conceivably, be poised to soon enter another more frigid glacial period.

Now, again, were this mitigated by a couple of degrees via man’s activities, would this be a bad thing?

In point of fact, warmists suggest that such mitigation is a reality. For example, citing research, science news magazine Eos wrote in 2016 that our Holocene Epoch “may last much longer because of the increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.”

Once more, would this be bad? Why? What’s that ideal average Earth temperature that this climate change would supposedly be moving us further away from? If you’re a member of one of the vast majority of Earth’s species, those prospering in (relative) warmth, it sounds like good news.

The question in question won’t cut any ice (pun intended) with those emotionally invested in the doom-and-gloom global warming thesis. After all, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into,” to paraphrase Anglo-Irish satirist Jonathan Swift. But with the more open-minded majority, the question can turn down the heat on the fear.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

Biden’s press conference panned by critics: ‘TOTAL DISASTER’ thumbnail

Biden’s press conference panned by critics: ‘TOTAL DISASTER’

By The Geller Report

One doesn’t know were to start. A total train wreck of a press conference. We saw exactly why President Biden is not allowed to do many press conferences. Watch below. Pray for America, and for the stability of the free world.

No wonder they never let him do these.

— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) January 19, 2022

Biden’s press conference gets panned by critics: ‘Total disaster’

One commentator quipped, ‘Joe Biden didn’t do a press conference for months. We all understand the reason why.’

By Fox News, January 20, 2022

President Biden spent most of 2021 avoiding press conferences, but he held one on Wednesday, which was panned as being a “total disaster.”

The White House had high hopes for Biden’s press conference on Wednesday — hoping to paint the administration as a less-cloistered outfit that embraces the public and transparency. With Biden’s strikingly low popularity numbers, the president was expected to cast himself as a competent leader, who is in touch with the problems of everyday American voters.

But the debacle that took place behind the podium from the East Room of the White House on Wednesday did little to support that persona according to reaction to the press conference.

The president was criticized throughout his long remarks on issues related to Russian aggression towards Ukraine, his claim that he outperformed expectations, his outburst toward a reporter and more.

1. Russia-Ukraine ‘minor incursion’

Perhaps the most startling comment of the evening was Biden’s response to a question about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Biden said that while he believes an invasion is imminent, the United States is prepared to impose significant economic consequences should Russia move forward. But, he clarified, a “minor incursion” by the Russians would elicit a softer response from the U.S. than that of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

“Biden is attacking the legitimacy of American elections while signaling Putin to try a ‘minor incursion’ in Ukraine. None of this is normal. None of this is OK,” National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin responded.

“Biden just appeared to okay a ‘minor’ Russian incursion of Ukraine. So, invasion of an independent neighbor nation is bad. An incursion is OK with this president,” conservative commentator Andrew Malcolm agreed.

“Biden’s comments suggesting that a ‘minor incursion’ of Ukraine might not draw as vigorous a response as a full-scale invasion will trigger a lot of angst in the region, particularly in Kyiv,” New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker wrote.

“Why was there no pushback to Biden saying ‘it’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion’ re Russia going into Ukraine?” former White House press secretary and Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany weighed in.

“What kind of answer was that? No incursion is ok,” Fox News contributor Ari Fleischer echoed.

Biden is attacking the legitimacy of American elections while signaling Putin to try a “minor incursion” in Ukraine. None of this is normal. None of this is OK.

— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) January 19, 2022

Biden just appeared to okay a “minor” Russian incursion of Ukraine. So, invasion of an independent neighbor nation is bad. An incursion is OK with this president. https://t.co/FWKhtgWSw9

— Andrew Malcolm (@AHMalcolm) January 19, 2022

Biden’s comments suggesting that a “minor incursion” of Ukraine might not draw as vigorous a response as a full-scale invasion will trigger a lot of angst in the region, particularly in Kyiv.

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) January 19, 2022

Where are the follow-ups from reporters?

Why was there no pushback to Biden saying “it’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion” re Russia going into Ukraine?

Where is the pushback on Biden claiming he “outperformed” expectations?

The list goes on

All pleasantries, no pushback!

— Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) January 19, 2022

Biden just told Putin a “minor incursion” into Ukraine is basically ok.

What kind of answer was that? No incursion is ok.

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) January 19, 2022

2.  Overpromise or Outperform?

Social media quickly circulated a clip of Biden where he appeared to tell reporters that he did not overpromise what he could get done in his first year in office, but that he has, on the contrary, “outperformed” what people thought he was capable of.

“I’m not sure what planet he’s inhabiting but on planet earth his record is a record of failure,” Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson responded.

“Biden just claimed he has ‘outperformed what anybody thought would happen’ Sheer lunacy,” Buck Sexton said.

“Joe Biden says he’s outperformed what anyone thought was possible in his first year in office. Really. He just said this,” Outkick’s Clay Travis reacted.

RELATED ARTICLES:

PATEL: Joe Biden Completes His Historic Failure

White House tries to clarify Biden’s ‘minor incursion’ comment on Russia and Ukraine

Biden’s press conference was an utter disaster

TRUMP TORCHES BIDEN: ‘Our Dignity, Our Strength, It’s Being Destroyed’

Biden Slammed Over ‘Embarrassing’ Press Conference: ‘Let The 25th Amendment Discussions Begin’

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

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

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

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

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

Coalition of Orthodox Rabbis says charges of ‘Islamophobia’ against Jewish groups are ‘Antisemitic’ thumbnail

Coalition of Orthodox Rabbis says charges of ‘Islamophobia’ against Jewish groups are ‘Antisemitic’

By Jihad Watch

Let’s hope that this important declaration that charges of “Islamophobia” against Jewish groups are “antisemitic” by the coalition of Orthodox Rabbis has far-reaching effects. Islamic blasphemy principles, which slap the label of “Islamophobia” on anyone who criticizes Islam in any way, not only go against the principles of free societies, but also promote anti-Semitism and provide a cover for the atrocities against Christians and other minorities globally to continue. Kudos to the rabbis.

“In every case, CAIR is deliberately claiming that to reject terrorism is anti-Muslim,” Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV), told Fox News Digital.

Would CAIR state that the Quran’s verses of terror are “anti-Muslim?”

“I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.” (Quran 8:12)

We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers. (Quran 3:151)

Deception and outright lies (aka taqiyya) are a signature of every Islamic supremacist and jihadist. Read more about the violent texts of Islam HERE.

“Orthodox rabbis condemn CAIR, say charges of ‘Islamophobia’ against Jewish groups ‘antisemitic,’” by Tyler O’Neil, Fox News, November 18, 2022:

A coalition that represents more than 2,000 Orthodox Jewish rabbis on American public policy issues condemned a recent report from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) regarding “Islamophobia in the Mainstream,” calling the report “both pro-terror and antisemitic.”

“In every case, CAIR is deliberately claiming that to reject terrorism is anti-Muslim,” Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV), told Fox News Digital. “It is hard to imagine something that incites animus towards Islam and all who practice it more than the idea that tolerance for Islam requires acceptance of atrocities committed by purported believers.”

The CAIR report faulted charitable foundations for passing money along to “26 Islamophobia Network groups between 2017-2019 to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about Muslims and Islam.”

“As it is employed today, ‘Islamophobia’ is fake news,” CJV Midwestern Regional VP Rabbi Ze’ev Smason said in a statement provided first to Fox News. Smason said CAIR deserved “robust condemnation for spreading hate under the guise of religion.”

“CAIR was founded by individuals associated with Hamas, a genocidal terror organization, to provide a PR front and support the Hamas agenda in the U.S.,” CJV President Rabbi Pesach Lerner said. “It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal Holy Land Foundation anti-terror case, and now employs the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ as a cudgel to attack foundations, organizations and outspoken individuals who call it out correctly and truthfully as an apologist for terrorism.”

The U.S. government had shut down The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the largest Muslim organization in the U.S. at the time, in 2001. In 2008, its leaders received life sentences for “funneling $12 million to Hamas,” which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization. CAIR opened its first office with a $5,000 grant from the Holy Land Foundation, and its founders participated in an October 1993 meeting in Philadelphia with Hamas sympathizers and HLF officials, according to prosecutors in the HLF case.

CAIR has long contested claims regarding ties to Hamas. In a 2017 blog post aiming to “dispel rumors,” the organization noted that “there is no legal implication to being labeled an unindicted co-conspirator, since it does not require the Justice Department to prove anything in a court of law.” CAIR also noted an October 2010 ruling in which Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judges ruled that the Department of Justice violated the Fifth Amendment rights of groups like CAIR when it included them on the unindicted coconspirator list in 2007. ….

COLUMN BY

CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas Temple Terrorist Wanted to Serve as Model for UK Muslims Attacking U.S.

UK: Jailed jihad preacher’s seven sons are all criminals or jihadis, cost taxpayers $13,582,800

Pakistan: 14-year-old Christian girl abducted, forcibly converted to Islam, married to 45-year-old Muslim

UK: Amid waning popularity, Boris Johnson calls in military to stem flow of illegals across English Channel

Palestinian Muslim guards remove Muslim from Temple Mount, confusing him for a Jew

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

How to Save America — The Way Out thumbnail

How to Save America — The Way Out

By Imprimis Digest

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College reception in Overland Park, Kansas, on November 18, 2021.


Here are two questions pertinent to our times: (1) How would you reduce the greatest free republic in history to despotism in a short time? and (2) How would you stop that from happening? The answer to the first question has been provided in these last two disastrous years. The answer to the second has begun to emerge in recent months. Both are worthy of study.

Reducing a Great Republic to Despotism

To establish despotism in a nation like ours, you might begin, if you were smart, by building a bureaucracy of great complexity that commands a large percentage of the resources of the nation. You might give it rule-making powers, distributed across many agencies and centers inside the cabinet departments of government, as well as in 20 or more “independent” agencies—meaning independent of elected officials, and thus independent of the people.

This much has been done. It would require a doctoral thesis to list all the ways that rules are made in our federal government today, which would make for boring reading. The truth is that very few people not directly involved know how all this works. Although civics education is practically banned in America, most people still know what the Congress is and how its members are elected. But how many know how the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) came to be, under what authority it operates, and who is its head? Here is a clue: it is not Anthony Fauci.

Admittedly, this new kind of bureaucratic government would take—has taken—decades to erect, especially in the face of the resistance of the Constitution of the United States, which its very existence violates. But once it has been erected, things can happen very fast.

What, for example, if a new virus proliferates around the world? There have been procedures for dealing with such viruses for a long time. They begin with isolating the sick and protecting the vulnerable. But suddenly we have new procedures that attempt to isolate everybody. This is commanded by the CDC, an element of this bureaucratic structure, and by a maze of federal and state authorities, all of which see the benefit to themselves in getting involved. The result is that large sections of our economy were closed for months at a time, and citizens placed under the equivalent of house arrest. This has not happened before. The cost of it, and not just in monetary terms, is beyond calculation.

To set up a despotism capable of pulling this off you would need the media’s help. Those controlling the media today are trained in the same universities that invented the bureaucratic state, the same universities the senior bureaucrats attended. The media would need to be willing to suppress, for example, the fact that 50,000 doctors, scientists, and medical researchers signed the Great Barrington Declaration. That document reminds people that you cannot suppress a widely disseminated contagious virus through shutdowns and mass isolation, and that if you try, you will work immeasurable destruction of new kinds—unemployment, bankruptcy, depression, suicide, multiplying public debt, broken supply chains, and increases of other serious health problems. Some of the signatories to this Declaration come from the most distinguished universities in the world, but never mind: their views do not fit the narrative propagated by the powerful. They have been effectively cancelled, ignored by the media and suppressed by Big Tech.

You would need some help from business, too. As far as influence is concerned, “business” is dominated by large institutions—those comprising big business—whose leaders are also educated in the same universities that conceived bureaucratic government and trained the bureaucrats and media heads. This provides a ground of agreement between big business and the bureaucratic state. Anyway, agree or not, businesses are vulnerable to regulation, and to mitigate the risk of regulatory harm they play the game: they send lobbyists to Washington, make political contributions, hire armies of lawyers. If you are big enough to play the game, there are plenty of advantages to be won. If you are not big enough to play the game—well, in that case you are on your own.

Amidst the unprecedented lockdowns, imagine there comes an election, a time for the people to say if they approve of the new way of governing and of this vast, unprecedented intrusion into their lives. Then let us say that in several states the election rules and practices are altered by their executive branches—the people in charge of enforcing the law—on their own, without approval by their legislatures. Say this brazen violation of the separation of powers takes place in the name of the pandemic. One does not need to know what percentage of votes in the final tally were affected to see that this is fishy. No sensible person would place control of the election process in one party—any party—or in one branch—any branch—of the government, alone. In some crucial states, that was done.

Finally, to sustain this new kind of government, you would need to work on education. You might build a system of centralized influence, if not control, over every classroom in the land. You might require certification of the teachers with a bias toward the schools of education that train them in the approved way. These schools, poor but obedient cousins of the elite universities, are always up on the latest methods of “delivery” of instruction (we do not call it teaching anymore). These new methods do not require much actual knowledge, which can be supplied from above.

As far as content, you might set up a system of textbook adoption that guarantees to publishers a massive and captive market but requires them to submit proposed books to committees of “experts,” subject of course to political pressures. You might build a standard approved curriculum on the assumption that everything changes—even history, even principles. You might use this curriculum to lay the ground for holding everything old, everything previously thought high and noble, in contempt.

Doing this, incidentally, deprives the student of the motive to learn anything out of fashion today. It is a preparation not for a life of knowing and thinking, but for a life of compliance and conformity.

This is by no means an exhaustive account of what it would take to build a thoroughgoing tyranny—for further instruction, read Book Five of Aristotle’s Politics or George Orwell’s 1984. But it gives an idea of a mighty system, a system that seems unassailable, a system combining the powers of government and commerce, of education and communication. Money and power in such a system would accrue to the same hands. The people who benefit from the system would be the ruling class. Others would be frustrated. And such a system would tend to get worse, because the exercise of unchecked power does not bring out the best in people.

Any elaborate system of government must have a justification, and the justification of this one cannot simply be that those in the ruling class are entitled on the basis of their superiority. That argument went away with the divine right of kings. No, for the current ruling class, the justification is science. The claim of bureaucratic rule is a claim of expertise—of technical or scientific knowledge about everything. Listen to Fauci on Face the Nation, dismissing his critics in Congress as backward reactionaries. When those critics disagree with him, Fauci said recently, “They’re really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous.”

The problem with this kind of thinking was pointed out by a young Winston Churchill in a letter to the writer H.G. Wells in 1901. Churchill wrote:

Nothing would be more fatal than for the government of states to get into the hands of the experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge: and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who knows only what hurts is a safer guide, than any vigorous direction of a specialised character. Why should you assume that all except doctors, engineers, etc. are drones or worse? . . . If the Ruler is to be an expert in anything he should be an expert in everything; and that is plainly impossible.

Churchill goes on to argue that practical judgment is the capacity necessary to making decisions. And practical judgment, he writes in many places, is something that everyone is capable of to varying degrees. Everyone, then, is equipped to guide his own life in the things that concern mainly himself.

Another thing about the experts is that they are not really engaged in the search for truth. Instead, the powerful among them suppress the obvious fact that there is wide disagreement among the experts. There always is.

God save us from falling completely into the hands of experts. But God has given us the wherewithal to save ourselves from that. So let us move to the second question posed above.

How to Defeat a Rising Despotism

In answering the second question, I will tell two stories that are suggestive.

The first took place in the small town of Jonesville, Michigan, five miles north of Hillsdale College. In our state, as in most places where the lockdowns were enforced, businesses were crippled or destroyed en masse. Restaurants were chief among them. One of our local restaurants is a 30-year-old diner called Spanglers Family Restaurant. Mitch Spangler is the proprietor. The business was founded by his late father, and Mitch was purchasing the business from his mother. The payments to his mother depended upon the revenues of the business, and his mother’s retirement depended upon the payments. The life’s work of two generations was at stake. Mitch was also helping to support a daughter in college.

This is not to mention the more than 20 employees whose livelihoods are dependent on Spanglers. “Our employees are moms who have kids,” Spangler told the local paper. “One of our employees is pregnant; another is a 19-year-old kid. This is his first job, and he just bought a car.” Our leaders in Washington treat it as a small thing when trillions are being thrown about. To the Spanglers and people like them, their relatively small revenue streams are everything.

Mr. Spangler was not prepared to surrender all this. When a second lockdown was ordered by Michigan’s governor a year ago last month, he kept his restaurant open. He put a sign on the door and posted on Facebook to make clear, among other things, that he was acting out of necessity for the sake of his business and the livelihoods of all those dependent on it; that precautions would be taken, including the installation of an electrostatic fogger that would disinfect the air; that he understood the thinking of those who would choose to stay away from his restaurant, but that he hoped they would understand his own thinking. “If you cannot support us, we understand,” he wrote, “but please allow us to have the freedom to do what we have to do.”

The wheels of bureaucracy began to grind. Spanglers was visited repeatedly by the health department, by the licensing authorities, and even by the agriculture department (one wonders what they had to do with it). Spangler was fined and threatened with forcible closure. But he persevered, never backing down, and his busines did well. On a typical weekend, not only locals but supporters from the neighboring states of Indiana and Ohio lined up outside to show their support.

Mitch Spangler is our kind of fellow, and the College gave him some help organizing his legal representation. We did not wish to be in the newspaper about this because we were facing our own pressures, and we too were determined to resist them. But Spangler was no good at keeping a secret: he wore a Hillsdale College t-shirt on FOX News and thanked us for our help. And when he had a little ceremony in his parking lot in the spring to thank his staff and his customers, I was honored to say a few words.

This may not seem on its face a big story, but it is a most important story. It is important because it is a story about the nature of human beings and of citizens and of our rights. The nature of a thing is the essence of a thing. One aspect of the nature of a human being is that he must eat to live. In condemnation of slavery, Abraham Lincoln loved to say that every man was created with a head, hands, and mouth, the implication being that the head should guide the hands in the feeding of the mouth. Because we are made to live this way, we are also determined to live this way. The alternative is dependence, which does not make us happy.

It should not therefore be surprising that, if you try to destroy the business of a man whose family has spent over 30 years building it, he will resist. Trying to strongarm people like Mitch Spangler is not a good idea. There are millions of them, and they have always made up the core of this greatest of free republics.

The second story is more famous, but it too is about nature—indeed, about that word’s most basic meaning. The word nature, as I said, refers to a thing’s essence, but it comes from the Latin word for birth. Our nature begins with how we are born and how we grow. Just as we are attached by nature to the way we get our livings, so we are attached by nature to our parents, and still more to our children. And this second story, set in Loudoun County, Virginia, is about parents and children.

In schools throughout Virginia, including in Loudoun County, children are being subjected to critical race theory (CRT). This involves lecturing children, especially those belonging to the non-preferred races, about the “structural evils” of which they are told they are part. Being taught alongside CRT is a distorted view of the history of our country, which true enough has its warts, but which surely has its glories as well—including glories about equal rights regardless of race. Between fighting the armies of the English monarch, the Confederacy, the Nazis, the communists, and Islamic terrorists, something nearing a million Americans have died for the cause of equal rights. These Americans have come in all colors.

Amidst statewide controversy over the teaching of CRT, the Loudoun County School Board also adopted a broad policy of recognizing “transgender” students in preference to their “biological sex” (excuse the redundancy). Even before this, boys were permitted to use girls’ bathrooms, in one of which there was an assault and rape of a female student by a “gender-fluid boy.” The boy in question was then allowed to attend another school in Loudoun County, where he assaulted another girl. This first girl’s parents were understandably outraged and, at the risk of being called narrow-minded, went so far as to complain to the school board.

Groups of parents who had already been protesting CRT and policies promoting transgenderism joined in the complaint. There was no violence at the school board meetings with one exception: law enforcement was summoned, and the outraged father of the assaulted and raped girl was bloodied and dragged out of one meeting. It is true, however, that voices were raised.

The National School Board Administration called upon the Biden administration to investigate these protesting parents as potential perpetrators of “domestic terrorism or hate crimes.” Remember, these parents were citizens attending a meeting of an elected body to tell their representatives what they think. The rights of petition and assembly are protected in the First Amendment. Except for certain preferred groups, these rights today appear to have been repealed.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland intervened, instructing the FBI to investigate these parents and others around the country. The FBI’s Counterterrorism Division has reportedly deployed tools and resources normally reserved for terrorist threats against parents who are angry at school boards for what is occurring in their children’s schools. All this provoked massive support, across Virginia and around the nation, for the parents of Loudoun County.

This support is not surprising. By nature, parents love their children and feel responsibility for them. Citizens, especially one hopes American citizens, feel entitled to state their grievances. The Declaration of Independence itself contains a list of grievances against the King. The Biden administration reacted to these protests just as King George III reacted against the American colonists in the years leading up to the American Revolution: he called in law enforcement. And the people of Virginia reacted in a way reminiscent of the American colonists: they defeated the candidate for governor who took the position that parents should have nothing to do with their children’s education.

What do these two stories—one of them taking place in Hillsdale County, Michigan, a deep red county, and the other in Loudoun County, Virginia, which is deeply blue—have in common? In both stories we see reactions against violations of our rights, rights that we have by nature as human beings.

The story about Mitch Spangler is about our right to work and to store up the product of our labor so that we and our families can eat and thrive. The American Founders put this in terms of our natural right to property. The story about the parents of Loudoun County is about the natural right of mothers and fathers to raise their children. To interfere with these rights is to interfere with the nature of the human being.

These facts about nature were well known during the American Revolution, the very Revolution that is besmirched by the members of our ruling class today, just as it was besmirched by the ruling class at the time of the Revolution. It was the interference with the colonists’ natural rights by that former ruling class that led to the American Revolution. These recent stories from Michigan and Virginia show that we Americans do not seem to like that interference any better today.

In addition to the right to make a living and the right to raise our children, we have the right to participate in our government, even if we are not experts, and the right to look to the heavens and not to our ruling class for guidance. We have these rights because we—every single one of us—were born with them sewn by God into our nature, and we cannot find our earthly fulfillment without them.

If we put these facts together as a people, we will have recovered the understanding that produced the American Revolution. We will stop these current predations upon our rights. We will bring this overwhelming government back where it belongs, under the control of the people.

The signs of such a movement are emerging. Pray they are enough.

COLUMN BY

Larry P. Arnn

Larry P. Arnn is the twelfth president of Hillsdale College. He received his B.A. from Arkansas State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from the Claremont Graduate School. From 1977 to 1980, he also studied at the London School of Economics and at Worcester College, Oxford University, where he served as director of research for Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill. From 1985 until his appointment as president of Hillsdale College in 2000, he was president of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. From October 2020 to January 2021, he served as co-chair of the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission. He is the author of several books, including The Founders’ Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration and the Constitution and Churchill’s Trial: Winston Churchill and the Salvation of Free Government.

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

VIDEO: Children being poisoned with hate against Jews in refugee camp classroom thumbnail

VIDEO: Children being poisoned with hate against Jews in refugee camp classroom

By Beverly Newman

How tragic it is to see this video on the anniversary of the Wannsee (Final Solution) Conference held 80 years ago – decreeing the genocide of the Jewish People!

Palestinian kids taught to hate Israel in UN-funded camps, clip shows

New video footage appears to show Palestinian children in summer camps run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) being taught that “Jews are the wolf,” and that they will one day conquer Israeli cities by force.

The video, uploaded to Youtube in late July and screened in part on Channel 2 news on Tuesday night, was directed by journalist David Bedein, who has written extensively about United Nations activities for the Israel Resource News Agency in Jerusalem. Channel 2 said the UN had promised to look into the indications in the report that UNRWA-funded camps were inciting hostility to Israel among young Palestinians.

Entitled “Camp Jihad,” the report says it shows footage from UNRWA summer programs in the Balata refugee camp north of Nablus and in the Gaza Strip. The focus of the camps, according to campers and staff in the clip, is educating the young Palestinians about the “Nakba”, the Palestinian term for the consequences of the 1948 war in which Israel won its independence.

In one scene, Amina Hinawi, director of the Gaza camp, explains her educational approach: “We teach the children about the villages they came from…,” she says, “this way, every child will be motivated to return to their original village.”

“UNRWA finances this summer camp,” she continues. “I’m very, very, very appreciative of UNRWA.”

Read more.

©Beverly Newman. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden administration to restore $235m in US aid to UNRWA and Palestinians

US pledges $99 million to Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA

Gaslighting Anti-Semitism in America

RELATED VIDEO: Why Do Some Muslims Believe They are at War (Jihad)?

VIDEO: A Year in the Strife of Joe Biden thumbnail

VIDEO: A Year in the Strife of Joe Biden

By Family Research Council

To Joe Biden, it’s been a year. To the rest of the country, it’s felt like an eternity. The one-year anniversary of this president’s inauguration hasn’t exactly been cause for nationwide celebration, as a good number of his voters will tell you. Twelve months into his catastrophic term, only 28 percent of the country would reelect him (and that was before his disaster of a press conference). So when a reporter asked if the country is more unified than when he took office, Joe Biden is right. They are more unified — against him.

Of course, to hear this president tell it, the last several months have been “enormous progress,” the stuff of political legend. One correspondent begged to differ, asking, “Did you overpromise to the American public what you could achieve?” Biden’s response was typical. “I didn’t overpromise, but I have outperformed what anybody thought would happen… Everything is changing,” the president said. “It’s getting better.” People like Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) wondered what planet Biden was living on. “His record is a record of failure,” Johnson insisted. To the average American, this is true. But to the radical Left, he’s outperformed beyond their wildest dreams.

While the rest of the country scrounges for groceries — and the cash to pay for them — look at what Biden has accomplished for his fringe: record-setting abortion dollars, transgender mandates for public schools, attacks on Christian education, chaos at the border, chaos in Afghanistan, chaos in our election system, taxpayer-funded gender reassignments, CRT and LGBT indoctrination in our classrooms, American parents labeled “domestic terrorists,” transgenderism and wokeness in the military, conservatives and the unvaccinated out of the military, higher crime, fewer police, more division. The list goes on and on. Biden is failing on every single political measure except the one he cares about: the socialist Left’s.

“When you look at the pattern of what he’s done,” FRC Vice President Travis Weber pointed out, “it’s bizarre. It’s not in proportion to reality and what most people are concerned about.” He pointed to the 92 actions Biden has taken to undermine life, family, and religious freedom in just his first year — major policies or pronouncements that have altered the course for American values. It’s a record, surprisingly enough, that’s more extreme than Barack Obama’s. And it all points back to an abnormal fixation on things like transgenderism that are distracting from the very real issues our country is facing.

But there is one problem with catering to extremists, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) insisted on “Washington Watch.” Americans don’t like it. “They’re trying to force-feed their radical socialist agenda to the America people, and the American people are standing up and saying, ‘No, we don’t want anything to do with this.’” Unfortunately for Joe Biden, the bill for this gamble is about to come due. And the Democratic Party, limping into November because of this president’s failures, will appropriately be the ones paying it.

Earlier this week, Gallup painted a jarring picture of what’s coming: a 14-point party affiliation swing. It’s among the largest, the company says, it has ever measured for the parties “in any quarter since it started [tracking] party identification and leaning…” Making matters worse, Biden’s approval rating with African Americans is down more than 20 percent (78 to 57 percent), and among Hispanics, he can barely muster 28 percent support. If that’s his idea of a “pretty good” report card, the president is less in touch with reality than people thought.

But then, as his party has made quite clear, they aren’t going to let a little something like voters get in the way of their majority. As the background to Biden’s nightmare of a press conference, Senate Democrats were futilely trying to ram through their election takeover bill to guarantee one-party control. When it failed, the president moved on to plan B: undermining the midterm results.

In a statement that’s more than a little hypocritical, given the party’s outrage over the GOP’s skepticism in 2020, Biden lowered himself to casting doubt on any election the Democrats don’t win. “Oh, 2022… I mean, sure… I’m not going to say it’s going to be legit,” he told reporters at Wednesday’s press conference. “…[T]he increase and the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these — these reforms passed.”

“This isn’t normal,” Dan McLaughlin warns. When the president of the United States attacks our election system as “rigged,” he’s “playing with fire.” Sure, “Democrats have a long history of refusing to accept the legitimacy of defeats… But this is still an alarming escalation.” An escalation that was already well on its way when the president equated honest Americans with history’s racists.

It’s certainly a long way from where we were at this point last year when Joe Biden stood at the podium and promised unity. “We can join forces, stop the shouting, and lower the temperature.” Twelve months later, he’s the one who’s shouting. And disunity rages on like another virus he can’t stop.

COLUMN BY

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is Family Research Council’s fourth and longest-serving president, joining the organization in August of 2003. Described as a legislative pioneer by the national media, Tony has established himself as an innovative pro-life and pro-family policy and political leader since first being elected to office in 1996.

RELATED ARTICLES:

King of the Bungle

PATEL: Joe Biden Completes His Historic Failure

POLL: Less Than Half Of Democrats Want Biden To Run For Reelection

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

Democrat Regime: Arrest Warrants Can Be Used as ID for Illegals in Airports thumbnail

Democrat Regime: Arrest Warrants Can Be Used as ID for Illegals in Airports

By The Geller Report

The coup continues. Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, had sent a letter to TSA after a whistleblower claimed the agency was allowing ‘unknown migrants’ to board commercial airlines in the U.S.

TSA Administrator David Pekoske responded explaining that certain Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents may be considered acceptable alternate forms of identification, including a ‘Warrant for Arrest of Alien’ and a ‘Warrant of Removal/Deportation’ (The Daily Mail).

From The Daily Caller: TSA said it relies on agencies such as CBP or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which issue the documents to migrants, to verify that the name on the document used as alternate identification “is the person whom the person claims to be.”

If an identity cannot be verified through a database search, an airport’s Federal Security Director (FSD) is left to determine any extra screening process or decide to deny the individual entry, according to the letter (The Daily Caller).

RELATED TWEET:

Guatemalan says they’ll all bust through to the US “by force” tomorrow morning pic.twitter.com/fkVDhA9dbs

— Todd Bensman (@BensmanTodd) January 20, 2022

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

Stop The Coming Democrat/RINO War With Russia thumbnail

Stop The Coming Democrat/RINO War With Russia

By The Geller Report

I ran this a couple of days ago but as the Democrats and RINOs increasingly sound the drums of war, I thought it best to run this again. Americans are sick and tired of these foreign wars. Like the average American gives a flying fig about Ukraine.

In this war to end all wars there will be no one to root for.

By Julia Gorin, American Greatness, January 16, 2022:

On Christmas Eve eve, the stylist cutting my hair asked what I was doing for Christmas.

“Oh,” I said, “I’m trying to write something that’ll talk us out of war with Russia. I feel like as soon as these holidays are over, we’re going to war.”

“Hmm,” she replied, not caught as off-guard as I’d have thought. “You’re not the first person today to talk about that.”

“Really?” Now I was caught off-guard. After all, most folks (especially at Christmas) tend to have other things on their minds besides foreign policy. “Was it someone from another country?” I asked. She shook her head.

“An American?” I was puzzled. She nodded.

“Oh,” I epiphanized. “Military?” Another nod. “What did they say?” I asked.

“That there’s gonna be a war. Early in the year. He’s high up in the Air Force and told me he’s been traveling, selling/transferring weapons to the Marines; said they need it the most.”

“And this is for a war with Russia?” I double-checked.

“Yep. Don’t quote me or anything. I mean, I just met the guy, but my boyfriend has known him for 35 years and he basically said the military is preparing for war, and it’s going to be a world war.”

My blood ran cold. Everything I’ve been working to avoid, particularly these last two years through a monthly Washington Times column, was about to be actualized.

I looked at my perpetually disheveled self in the mirror, at my dog-rescuer t-shirt, and muttered, “What’s the point of saving this or that dog when we’re about to get them all nuked anyway?” I thought of Russia’s poor creatures too and of my mother’s friend Sveta, the 1969 women’s table tennis world champion, who now tends to Moscow’s strays.

The stylist brightened. “Hey, my daughter is studying to be a vet tech in college!” I could barely muster a “That’s great.”

“Your hair looks so cute now! Look how it bounced right up. Wanna see the back?”

I wasn’t even aware of the large hand-held mirror she’d thrust toward me, waiting for me to grab it. I took it limply and stared but could see only black in front of my eyes.

So a nation collapsing unto itself before all the world is about to do what all the clichés tell it to do: distract and unite the herd with war.

It’s the Clinton Yugoslavia distraction from Lewinsky-Broaddrick—on steroids. Atomic ones. Yugoslavia is a country that no longer exists. The Washingtonians and their pent-up henchmen/masters running our military seek the same status for Russia. It’s all there in Washington’s eternal godfather Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard.

I somehow managed to drive to my mother’s house. I told her that, come the new year, we were going to war over Ukraine, the last straw for Russia of NATO’s voracious expansion.

“Over Ukraine?!” she sneered in Russian. “Listen, Russia is a crappy country, but a crappier country is Ukraine. For Ukraine to be a ‘vital ally,’ you’d have to have no friends at all.”

This comes from a woman of Ukrainian-Jewish blood who, like a lot of Soviet emigrés, has always relished Russia getting even what it doesn’t have coming. Her revulsion for the place extends to these shores—she calls immigrants with still too much Russia in them (and she can spot them a mile away) “nedoyehovshiye,” or not-fully-arrived. As if they’re still on the plane somewhere between Russia and America.

Report Ad

My Odessa-raised father shared her undying hatred for the Soviet Union, where at six years old he gazed out at the Black Sea and asked my grandfather, “How might one get away from this place?” The look in my parents’ eyes when American liberals would defend the USSR, often with “But you had the Hermitage!” convinced me of every human being’s potential to kill.

In other words, I was raised a bona fide Russophobe. But the anti-Russia hysteria that has engulfed our confederacy of dunces is ridiculous—and very dangerous.

An emergency NATO meeting on Russia was held January 7, ahead of last week’s European security negotiations. Could it be all for show, pageantry for a fix that’s already in? We’ve done it before, in 1999 going through the motions with Belgrade at the Rambouillet Accords before bombing it. That was the last time our government, media, military, and public were this aligned on an issue. For months, Ukrainian soldiers have been on the move with great confidence against a much stronger neighbor, as if war were a foregone conclusion. What do they know that we don’t?

Headlines from the talks have been uniformly downbeat, lowering expectations and narrowing options outside of war. Secretary of State Antony Blinken briefed the press that “We’re prepared to respond forcefully to further Russian aggression.” He promised “massive . . . economic, financial and other consequences.” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg came closest to spilling the beans, saying we needed to “be prepared for the possibility that diplomacy will fail.” According to Politico, he “was cryptic when pressed for details.”

Naturally, we’re projecting such tactics onto our target, with an ABC report characterizing Russia’s insistence on being taken seriously—after decades of eye-poking by us—as Vladimir Putin “seeking a pretext for war.” American officials’ “concern is that the Russians will emerge . . . declaring that diplomacy has failed,” a New York Times article read, “and that Mr. Putin will . . . carry out cyber [attacks on] Kyiv.” Lo and behold, the talks ended and Reuters informed us of “Ukraine suffering a massive cyberattack.”

Report Ad

Yet they call it “Russian paranoia” when Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu asks what the United States was smuggling into Donetsk the week before—apparently “containers with unknown chemical components.” As if convenient and sudden chemical attacks by our designated enemies haven’t been the M.O. when United States protégés are involved. Should we brace ourselves for some sort of “incident” that could scuttle all diplomatic and economic approaches, and “necessitate” war? No, thanks to our media dutifully citing Ukrainian military intelligence, we’re to expect only provocations being prepared by Russian special services. “Russia may try to fabricate a pretext for an invasion of Ukraine,” reports Reuters citing our own trusty intelligence agencies.

So even if Joe Biden was “hopeful” last month and ruled out U.S. military action over Ukraine, some things are as out of his hands as they were out of President Trump’s. Meanwhile, any attempt to avert World War III is pounced on by Republicans as Biden caving to Putin. Witness Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) reaction last week to an NBC headline (called inaccurate anyway by NSC spokeswoman Emily Horne) that read, “Biden admin weighs proposing cuts to U.S. troops in Eastern Europe.” Cruz tweeted, “If Biden was trying to signal weakness & surrender to Putin, what would he be doing differently?”

We’re supposed to believe that the current crisis started with Russia’s troop buildup and draft treaty demanding security guarantees, such as no staging of weaponry in the newer NATO states (states we had promised Mikhail Gorbachev would never become NATO states). In fact, these are a response not only to NATO advancing on Russia over the last two decades, but as the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs outlined last month in a protest letter, “The US military and its NATO allies have gone from attempts to test the strength of our border protection system to provocations against civilian aircraft . . . US and NATO military aircraft [have been] flying without radio communication or flight plans and failing to obtain air traffic control clearances . . . which violates basic principles of international air navigation.”

Russia’s military buildup is an attempt to be heard, to underscore the seriousness of what we’ve been doing there. Russia has been trying to tell us it has nowhere to which it can retreat. “We are not deploying our missiles over at the border of the US,” a Sky News report quoted Putin as saying. “The US is deploying its missiles . . . on the doorstep of our house. . . . And you keep demanding some guarantees from us. You must give us the guarantees.” The Russian leader recalled that in the 1990s Russia did much to build good relations with the United States. “He added that CIA advisers were able to visit Russian military nuclear sites . . . ‘What else did you need? Why did you have to support the terrorists in the North Caucasus . . . to reach your goals and break down the Russian federation?’”

But we don’t talk to prey. That’s why, days later, there was still no response from the State Department to the letter about our illegal air maneuvers. And it’s why our political class scoffs at the idea of giving any heed to Putin’s terms, practically everyone calling his proposal a “nonstarter,” despite his conditions essentially being an opportunity for us to unbreak our promises and show some integrity as the good-guy winner of the Cold War.

“Not gonna happen,” former CIA Director Leon Panetta recently swaggered on “Meet the Press.” Then Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), as if we haven’t been encircling Russia, deaf-toned with “If they do invade . . . we will move more NATO assets closer to Russia.” How much closer can we get? Russia is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t.

As with Bosnia, our politicians are being egged on by the press. Reporters goaded Biden during his June summit with Putin, and last month Chuck Todd told former Ukraine ambassador Bill Taylor, “I worry that we have not given [Putin] consequences. He messed with Georgia, not a lot of consequences. He took Crimea, not a lot of consequences.”

Report Ad

Oh yes, the Putin of our imaginations just “messes with” neighbors. He invaded Georgia just because he wanted to, and not because we gave Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili the nod to invade South Ossetia; then Putin up and “took” Crimea, surely not because our Soros-sponsored operatives helped stage a Ukrainian coup against the Moscow-friendly government of Viktor Yanukovych, spurring a Crimean referendum that chose Russia. These events facilely enter the American lexicon as “Russian aggression,” such that right now Putin is about to “invade Ukraine” just because and not because we’ve been amping up Ukraine’s war preparations, practically buzzing Russian planes, or going on fly-alongs with trespassing British ships (see the HMS “Defender” incident). That’s without mentioning our performing military exercises on Putin’s borders, stoking his neighbors’ alienation of him, or liquidating nearby Yugoslavia, where America’s second-largest from-scratch military base promptly went up..

Provoke a reaction from the strawman, then start the clock for the public at the point of the reaction. It’s our Yugoslavia M.O. again. Watch for acts of self-defense in the early days of the war to be used as retroactive proof of hostility, where it had been missing in “hacking”; “bounties on Americans in Afghanistan”; “election meddling”; “electric-grid tampering,” and every other concoction against Russia that’s fallen apart.

“Look what Russia is doing!” we’ll scream as we continue on with our gushing, unifying, politically correct hatred of Vlad the Paler and consume a glut of Russian-villain TV and film, instead of understanding that it’s our government that’s brought us to the brink of Armageddon. After all, if they can do to us what they’ve been doing these past two years, why would we think they wouldn’t subject us to potential thermonuclear war? Our expendability is now a known quantity.

Is this where anyone thought we’d be 15 years after Putin was on hand in Bayonne, New Jersey at the groundbreaking of the 100-foot September 11 monument that Russia gave us? “It is not every day that the president of Russia comes to visit a blue collar New Jersey town,” the New York Times coverage read, “but here he was, Vladimir Putin . . . clasping hands with the mayor, and speaking of Russia’s ‘unity’ with the United States.”

Even conservatives, usually more immune to propaganda, don’t recognize they’ve been conditioned by a protracted, skewed presentation of events. So Putin doesn’t even get points for warning against Wokeism, nor for vocalizing that January 6 prisoners are victims of political persecution and reeducation? In case some do give him points, trusted luminaries such as National Review editor Rich Lowry are there to keep us on track to war. “Vladimir Putin Shouldn’t Be a Right-Wing Hero,” read his headline in Politico last month. Russian-born libertarian columnist Cathy Young beat him to it in 2013 with the Boston Globe column “Vladimir Putin is no Ally for the Right.” At the same time, the Right’s taunts that our effeminate military can’t win wars have likely gotten under the skin of our military brass and given them something to prove. “And what better way to do that than to kill people,” Tucker Carlson recently quipped. Add our “dangerously angry” American public, and the pressure cooker needs a release. Russia is the proverbial It.

Report Ad

So will the by-now anti-Russian Right unite behind Biden’s America at war? Sure. They’ll be glad to fit in for a moment with the lobotomized, left-molded mainstream, and show they can eschew partisanship when it’s “truly important” (watch for those op-eds), not stopping to question whether an administration that has all but dehumanized them is fighting a war for us, or for itself.

Indeed, a war with Russia would fix everything: show strength, distract, and unite. Russia makes for the perfect target: the public is already primed against it; there are no ethnic tripwires; and we’re not economically dependent on it as with China. Which is why, as former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe complained to Maria Bartiromo in late 2020, when he would brief Congress on election security threats posed by China, Russia and others, lawmakers would immediately start leaking just the Russia parts. And it’s why Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley said in a 2015 interview, “I consider Russia the number-one threat to the United States . . . Russia is the only country on earth that has the capability to destroy the United States of America. . . . China is not an enemy. They are . . . developing themselves into a great power.”

As we know, in 2020 Milley phoned China behind President Trump’s back, to reassure his counterpart that we weren’t planning an attack. “If we’re going to attack,” he said, “It’s not going to be a surprise.” But China may have a surprise for him. The memory of China’s NATO-bombed embassy in our last Eastern European war of convenience isn’t so distant, so no doubt President Xi Jinping and Putin have gamed out what happens in the event of a NATO attack on Russia. Ironically, our inability to forgive Russia’s abandonment of communism and return to Christianity has pushed it into an alliance with today’s most powerful communist regime, one that we do fear jabbing.

Only Russia can destroy America, say America’s destroyers. Have they missed 2020-21? And yet, these past two years of COVID that we complain so bitterly about may turn out to have been a reprieve, a comparative quiet before the storm. We naively ask for a better 2022, when things really could get even darker. The overgrown boys with four stars on their lapels are eager to play with their explosive toys and there’s nothing we can do about it.

But the powerful are prone to forgetting who’s actually in control. They consistently forget that they live in a diorama and are themselves mere figurines who, along with their high-tech death machinery, can be folded like paper at the Creator’s whim. They don’t have the right to destroy His diorama, and He may have sent emissaries to prevent it. Last year, the all-mighty Pentagon formally admitted to the existence of UFOs, to their constant presence since the dawn of the nuclear age, and to their recent crescendo. Early last month, TMZ and others broadcast footage from above Chino Hills, California, of what has been called a “swarm” of UFOs. One senses that such a display at this time isn’t mere coincidence. Nukes have gone offline mysteriously before. For now, however, we can only plead futilely, like victims to their killers, “Washington, you don’t have to do this.”

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

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

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

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