Marxists Spoke! Sadly, We Listened. thumbnail

Marxists Spoke! Sadly, We Listened.

By Karen Schoen

Marxists spoke: Never talk about politics and religion.  Don’t trust your parents. Be the silent majority.  Sadly, we listened.

A newly released report from Steve Moore, states that there is no one, NOT ONE, ZERO person in the OBiden regime that knows anything about business. think about this: These people are pushing their untried, untested, complete failure policies on We the People because they don’t care about people or results. They only care about power.

It seems as though our SCOTUS believes in the US Constitution. We won great decisions in the Supreme Court but got screwed by the Gutless Outrageous Prostitutes = GOP. (Thank you Sally Baptiste for that great new name for the GOP.)   Are you still going to vote for the same traitors again? Chaney is out begging democrats to vote for her. I hope that even Wyoming Democrats are not that stupid.

To understand what’s going on today we really have to go back and look at the 60s-70s. Most Americans pushing abortion are Boomers from that era. The boomers, myself included were the hippies, the flower children, the rock n  rollers, anti-G-d, Anti-family and Anti-America.  Morality was tossed out the window when G-d was removed from public buildings, due to 1person complaining in Engel v. Vitale . Then we accepted perversion, drugs, liquor,  sex as the new lifestyle. We would do anything our parents didn’t do. We hated the establishment.

In the 60s-70s we were so despondent and in such despair at seeing our great American heroes being assassinated in front of our very eyes. We strongly believed that the assassinations were part of a government coup. Of course we were told we were conspiracy nuts. HA! John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King JR, Robert Kennedy, our hope for a bright future was slowly fading.  We were forced into a war by draft in Vietnam that no one wanted. We were forced to fight a war in Vietnam against communism while promoting communism at home in school. How sick was that?  We were taught to lay our hatred on the heroes that were forced to fight. While those who avoided the draft became teachers in this new education called Social Studies/sustainability aka communism.

And so like all other peoples of the world when we were abused we responded. We were angry .We demonstrated, we marched and we rioted. We destroyed statues, burned buildings and listened to the emotional news about the war even though we knew they were lying.

We were taught to divert our attention into sex and drugs which we learned in school through a variety of “new” SEX Ed courses and we learned fast. After all we learned in school so it had to be OK. We had multiple outlets to express our new found “free love” like Studio 54, Plato’s Retreat and Playboy Club.  We often took out our hostility in our music and art. Bill Ayers (Obama’s mentor and leader of the Weather Underground responsible for multiple bombings of federal buildings, now a professor) asked John Lennon to write a song for the revolution. John wrote “Revolution”. Bill was pissed. (Read the lyrics)

We took massive quantities of drugs and had Love Ins with sex, drugs and  lots of liquor hooking up at any time with anyone. Nothing has changed. Those teens, grew up and are now running America using their never tried utopian/Marxist theories that they write when under the influence of something. If they wanted the drug war over, they would end it instead of participating in it. These insane illogical theories don’t work, can’t work, will never work. They are instead designed to take forever and be way over budget.  If their programs worked, they couldn’t bleed us dry.

What did we learn? Well my group of teenagers were told never talk about politics and religion.  Don’t trust your parents after all anyone over 30 doesn’t know what is going on. Be the silent majority.  Never talk about the war. We were told the government knows best.  We grew up to being so anti-establishment that it didn’t matter what the establishment did or said we figured they were just lying. The GOP and DNC are filled with these globalists who vow to take down America’s greatness and steal everything they can’t get legally. . Check out the “GOP-Gutless Outrageous Prostitutes”  who just voted to take away the only protection we have with our guns while they bring terrorists into America. They hate Americans. They want us to suffer so we will be happy with their government crumbs. We will do more for less while they take everything and we will be happy with drugs and video games. Yuval Noah Harari from World Economic Forum describes their intent:

War makes their problem of too many useless eaters, easy to dispose of. These globalists will protect the border of Ukraine and provide Ukraine guns while disarming Americans. All they want is for us to DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity) so they can steal our property and keep power.

Where did we turn to vent our frustration and agree to transform America? Our educators took care of that. In 1989, Shirley Mc Cune from the McRel Foundation told the Governors Association:

We will change education from fact based to value based (on emotion) learning.

(Emotional people are easier to control using emotional triggers.)

We will stop focusing on the individual, and focus on the collective (we can conform everyone to the group mentality.)

We will train for work, not educate for life. (We need workers not thinkers or experts).

Communists learned that uneducated people are easier to control.

While all eyes looked at colleges, they infiltrated K-12 while convincing the family to “keep up with the Jones” by overspending so both mom and dad had to work ensuring the breakup of the family. The evolution of the family went from Father Knows Best to All in the Family to Married with Children showing how dysfunctional families are really the norm.

Today we suffer the results of those teachings as our government officials and experts are only capable of reading their talking points. I am just following directions, you will hear as their excuse for their third world actions of government against the people. Our police, after being emasculated (the goal of the feminist movement), will stand and watch as children are being slaughtered because they are just following directions.  The hell with the Americans.  They are just useless eaters. Less people is better they have been taught. According to Stalin, “Less people, less problems.”

We turned to a new type of government called socialism. It sounded so social, fun and inviting. It sounded so nice. All people will look after each other. Everyone would share. It will be wonderful. Everyone will all have the same stuff. And so the confused children turned to the communists who were so ready to open their arms for their new flock. The commies changed all the words and definitions to reflect Peace and Love. We followed Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and they offered the people exactly what Khrushchev said. I will feed you little bits of socialism and one day you will be a communist.

Now we have America’s new normal. How does that work?

Kevin Sorbo on  Twitter:

“Can I drive your car? No, you’re 5

Can I have a beer?  No, you’re 5

Can I have a cigarette? No, you’re 5

Can I have a gun? No, you’re 5

Can I take hormones and change my gender? Of Course, you know what’s best.”

My conversation (Italics) with a Greenie:   

Greenie: I am getting an EV. I will save tons of money on fossil fuel since it will soon be outlawed. I can depend on clean green energy from wind or sun. No dirty fuel for me.

That is great but what do you do if there is no wind or sun. 

It won’t matter because I will plug my car in the wall socket.

Where does the electricity in the socket come from?

It comes from the wires.

Where does the electricity in the wires come from?

It comes from the power company.

Where does the electricity in the power company come from? From the grid.  Where does the electricity from the grid come from? 

DUH! OOPS Ok Where?

Fossil fuel.


We are assisting in our own failure.

CO2 is necessary to produce food not climate change.

America is having a food shortage crisis. CO2 helps plants aka food to grow.

CO2 is about .03% of the atmosphere and is a result of warming, NOT the cause.

Joe said he doesn’t know why or what to do about the food shortages but Joe has a plan. He increased ethanol aka corn aka soy in gas which burns our food for fuel resulting in less food at a higher cost for Americans and more expensive gas.

“Growing ethanol not food wastes: 5Billion tons of N Fertilizer; 68 Trillion BTU of natural gas; 57000sq MILES (not acres) of farmland.” Dr. Sarah Taber.

Joe has opened border for illegals to eat our food giving Americans less food; higher cost.

Then Joe wrote an EO forcing new furnaces to eliminate CO2. No CO2 = No Food.  Since over 20 processing plants were attacked, Joe signed an EO to give $1Billion to farmers to build new plants. Only the EPA regulations make it cost prohibitive.  Is it Joe’s intent to starve Americans so he can trade food for guns?

American government schools teach their students to be mediocre.  Multiple educators, myself included know that Common Core insures America’s children will be 2 years below average. Now we are surprised that they are.

Based on their IQ test results, the woman from the U.S. scored 16 points lower than that of her sibling in Korea.

This is a recent article regarding the low numbers of 3rd Graders who can read at proficiency level of 4 or 5 on the scale of 1-5

These programs DON’T WORK!

We just had LGBTQ month. Where is the Hetero Month? Or the Cisgender Month.  After all we are the majority and in a “Democracy” the majority wins. So why are we not recognized?  These labels are just used to divide the people. Really who cares what anyone does in their bedroom?

My question is: Can you do the job?

It is obvious in this failed regime the answer is No, but not to worry their departments met their DIE quota.

Now the big question:  Is America worth saving? What will you do about it?

©Karen Schoen. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: San Francisco School Returns to Merit-Based Admissions

The U.S. Army Found the Cleverest Idea Ever — Force Women to Shower with Biological Males thumbnail

The U.S. Army Found the Cleverest Idea Ever — Force Women to Shower with Biological Males

By Royal A. Brown III

Below is all true – our Army is totally WOKE thanks to the likes of Obama clones Secretary of Defense Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Milley and others.

By the way so are the U.S. Navy, USMC and Air Force!

First they fire the warriors.

Next they put women into combat arms.

Then they claim that Climate Change or maybe White Extremism is the biggest threat to the nation.

Following that they bring the mentally deluded into the ranks and offer to pay for reassignment surgery and lifetime follow up care and therapy.

Of course the Army is cracking down on rapes and other sexual assaults.

So, naturally the most recent cleverest idea ever is this?

Report: The Army Will Force Female Soldiers to Shower With Biological Males

By Alex Parker

If your daughter is planning to join the Army, she might find more hanging out in the shower than expected.

As reported by Breitbart beneath the banner of “exclusive,” the branch’s training includes updated instructions for bathing. And the rules are plenty far from what veterans would find familiar.

Official guidance — purportedly delivered via scenarios labeled “vignettes” — prescribes proper responses to issues concerning transgenderism.

Vignette Nine deals with mandated urine specimens: What if an “observer” is uncomfortable having to watch a soldier — who has “not [had] sex reassignment surgery” — pee into a cup?

Comfort-minded measures are on the table:

Commanders may consider alternate observation options… Options could include observation by a different observer or medical personnel of the same gender as the soldier.

But what about washing with a penis-packing peer? According to the eighth vignette, reluctant ladies are out of luck. But maybe at least the person-with-a-prostate won’t pee.

A soldier transitioned from male to female… The soldier did not have sex-reassignment surgery. … [O]ther soldiers have expressed discomfort showering with a female who has male genitalia (in an open-bay shower configuration).

Read more.

Is this Biden’s idea of how to build our military into an effective fighting force?

We report, you decide.

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

A Fresh Theoretical Foundation for Modern Conservatism thumbnail

A Fresh Theoretical Foundation for Modern Conservatism

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

An Israeli-American scholar shows how conservatism went astray after the Reagan-Thatcher era.

The Israeli academic and Biblical scholar Yoram Hazony has acquired a considerable reputation as one of the intellectual leaders of the nascent “National Conservatism” movement.

As chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation, he has played a key role in organising NatCon conferences which have attracted various right-leaning figures (including populist nationalists and more traditionalist social conservatives) who are united in their dissatisfaction with the main centre-right parties.

Hazony’s new book, Conservatism: A Rediscovery, provides a thorough and thought-provoking overview of what he sees as the failings of the right-of-centre political establishment in the post-war era.

Setting out his stall early on, Hazony claims that in this time period Enlightenment liberalism became the new framework in which political life was conducted.

He further argues that this “liberal democracy” – which went hand-in-hand with a social revolution that weakened national, religious and familial ties — represented a new system divorced from the classic Anglo-American political tradition.

Cultural upheavals and the rise of the “woke” movements (which Hazony views as an updated variant of Marxism) have put the kibosh on talk of an “end of history,” and this means that conservatives must reconsider what they believe in.

Hazony defines political conservatism as “a political standpoint that regards the recovery, restoration, elaboration and repair of national and religious traditions as the key to maintaining a nation and strengthening it through time,” while adding that the crucial distinction between it and either liberalism or Marxism is that conservatisms is not “a universal theory, which claims to prescribe the true politics for every nation, at every time and place in history.”

His key criticisms of political conservatives in recent decades relates to their failure to conserve the ideas and institutions on which modern Britain and America were built, and he also takes aim at their alleged confusion as to the difference between conservatism and Enlightenment (or “classical”) liberalism.

Structurally, the book is divided into four parts: history, philosophy, current affairs and personal – with this final section dealing how Hazony and his wife came out of broken homes to rediscover the religious traditions of Orthodox Judaism.

Having grown up in the United States, Hazony focuses strongly on the historical development of that country’s politics, which owe much to the parliamentary tradition which had developed in Britain centuries before the American colonists declared independence.

Included among what the author sees as the key principles of Anglo-American conservatism are various historical traditions, the nation state, the importance of religion, limitations on executive power and individual freedoms.

Yet there was never uniformity among key historical figures about many of these matters. One of the most interesting elements of Hazony’s account is his examination of the sharp divisions between the Federalists and Jeffersonians in the republic’s early days.

Federalists took a conservative line on a range of issues, including attitudes towards the French Revolution, immigration and the role of religion in society.

While the Federalist Party eventually declined, their insistence on the need for a strong, unified and coherent nation was to have a lasting impact, just as Thomas Jefferson’s animosity towards religion would lead to the creation of a “wall of separation between church and state” which would harden considerably in the 20th century.

Yoram Hazony first came to the attention of many readers after writing The Virtue of Nationalism, and the importance of the national community is a recurring theme here, going back to when the 15th century theorist Sir John Fortescue recognised that though the English constitutional system was a superior model, it would probably not serve other nations so well.

As the father of philosophical conservatism, Edmund Burke’s description of England’s constitution as being born of the nation’s long experience (“It is made by the peculiar circumstances, occasions, tempers, dispositions, and moral, civil and social habitudes of the people, which disclose themselves only in a long space of time”) is a quote particularly well-chosen.

Less wise is the author’s attempt to portray the brutal and radically unconservative Tudor reformation as “the first modern movement for national independence,” while his description of Elizabeth I “tolerating Catholics … as long as they remained discreet in their practices” suggests that his knowledge of 16th century English history is rather limited.

Hazony is more convincing when he sticks to more familiar ground. One of the key weaknesses which he detects within political liberalism is its blindness to the importance of the nation state, and he sees this limitation as explaining why Western elites cannot recognise why foreign interventionism has failed so miserably in recent times.

In the same way that liberals seek to impose what they see as universalist norms abroad, they are also prone to making needless and often counterproductive changes at home: “[F]oolish rulers are moved by ideology and arrogance, or by an eagerness to make a name for themselves that will be remembered in place of those who came before them, to create everything they touch anew.”

Surveying the recent history of Anglo-American conservatism and the obvious difficulties since the Reagan/Thatcher era, Hazony lays much of the blame on the policy of “fusionism,” whereby American conservatives such as William F. Buckley forged a strong alliance with right liberals and libertarians to combat Communism abroad and economic statism at home. As well as contributing to confusion as to the difference between conservatism and liberalism, Hazony maintains that this led to a “dogmatic rejection of government” while also preventing people from recognising the need for restraints on individual freedoms.

Tradition – which for Hazony is heavily rooted in religion and Scripture – represents the unifying strand which ties together so much of his argument, just as it unifies whole societies. “[T]he enterprise of seeking truth is not one that the individual pursues by his own powers alone. Tradition is the instrument by means of which human societies pursue truth over time,” he observes.

A religious reader (Hazony is consistent in his attitude towards church-state relations, endorsing a strong role for Christianity in the public life of majority Christian societies) will likely agree with his denunciation of key US Supreme Court decisions in the mid-20th century which banned organised prayer and Bible reading in America’s public schools, and eased access to abortion and pornography.

Though he is surely correct about the importance of a religious underpinning in ensuring a stable society, at times he appears to overstate the importance of government action in driving a process of secularisation. After all, the de-Christianisation of the public square has tended to occur as a result of society’s widespread secularisation, not as a prelude to it.

Israel is that rare example of a country which has grown more religious recently, but the unique circumstances of its difficult existence foster this closer link between the spiritual and national identities of Jewish Israelis, just as the fecundity of the devout minority tilts the scale in their favour.

It is doubtful that many lessons from Hazony’s homeland can be applied to other societies, but he does a good job in laying out a basic and workable manifesto for “conservative democracy,” including: a clearer emphasis on national identity; greater openness to religion in public life; a stronger role for parents in education; more scepticism about the concentration of power among big business; immigration policies focused on national cohesion; and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Countries such as Poland and Hungary already have democratically-elected governments who more or less subscribe to this, and nations like Italy have popular parties of a similar mindset.

Britain’s Tory Party remains more socially liberal, but it has increasingly emphasised the importance of sovereignty and secure borders; while in the United States, large sections of the Republican Party (like Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis or the Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance) would happily identify with Hazony’s vision.

Clearly, his fellow travellers are growing in strength. For those pondering where this process may lead, Conservatism: A Rediscovery would be an excellent place to begin.


James Bradshaw

James Bradshaw works for an international consulting firm based in Dublin, and has a background in journalism and public policy. Outside of work, he writes for a number of publications, on topics including… More by James Bradshaw

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

New York Demands All Concealed Carry Permit Holders Surrender Their Social Media Account to the State thumbnail

New York Demands All Concealed Carry Permit Holders Surrender Their Social Media Account to the State

By Dr. Rich Swier

The Concealed Coalition reports that,

New York is one of America’s most densely populated states, with over 19 million people, yet only 1% of them are licensed to concealed carry (CC). This equates to around 196,000 licenses issued as of August 2021.

[ … ]

NY has a stricter stance on dispensing licenses than other states. It’s a “may issue” state, which means there’s no guarantee that applicants will receive a CC license even if they meet all the necessary criteria. It’s up to local law enforcement or the courts to apply their discretion to every request.

Applicants must prove that there’s proper cause for them to CC, defined under NY state law as: “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”

According to Sandy Hook Promise,

Guns used in about 68% of gun-related incidents at schools were taken from the home, a friend or a relative.

93% of school shooters planned the attack in advance.

The Violence Protection Center reports that people have been killed by 37 mass shooters who had a concealed carry permit from May 2007 and May 2022, citing media reports. As of 2021 there have been 21.52 million concealed weapon permits issued in the United States. The likelihood of a concealed carry permit holder carrying out a mass shooting is .00000017209.

A reader sent us an article from stating:

Starting in September [2022], New York conceal-carry permit applicants must surrender their social media accounts to the state.

If hindsight reviews of Facebook or TikTok lets us see what a crazed mass-shooter said before his atrocity, will the state be able to intercept these killers in advance?

WATCH: Background Check: Want to Conceal Carry a Firearm? Cough Up Your Social Media to the State

The Bottom Line

What New York is doing is create a law that allows them to either deny or revoke a person’s concealed carry permit if that person doesn’t agree with them politically.

Some examples of issues you might be putting on your social media that could get your concealed carry permit cancelled or revoked:

  • You’re a Republican or worse a supporter of Donald J. Trump.
  • Pro-Second Amendment.
  • Pro-Life.
  • Posts that calls the J6 Committee a “show trial.”
  • Posts that label those harass Supreme Court Justices as criminals for violating 18 U.S. Code § 1503. And because they are violating the law that they should be investigated, arrested and tried by a jury of their peers.
  • Disagree with New York City or State policies on any number of topics.
  • Disagree with getting the Covid-19 vaccines.
  • Disagree that Islam is the religion of peace.
  • Disagree with some of the policies of the Build Back Better agenda.
  • Won’t buy an all electric car because your love your vintage Ford mustang or Chevrolet Corvette.
  • Read and share articles from the eMagazine.

This is just another way to put law abiding citizens into harms way by not allowing them to carry their weapons, i.e. disarming them. We have contributors and members of our staff who have concealed carry permits. On person was notified by the FBI that they are on an international ISIS hit list. To disarm this person is a travesty. Luckily this person lives in a state where concealed carry and even open carry are codified is state laws.

We can’t help but wonder if New York will now look at all those individuals providing private security and have concealed carry permits. You know those who protect wealthy individuals, actors and actresses, politician and companies.

One example is Democrat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez paid thousands for personal security to a former Blackwater contractor. Will AOC’s security detail have to turn over their social media accounts to the state?

Time will tell.

To learn about your states concealed carry laws and how many fellow gun owners are in you state click here.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


Concealed Coalition database.

Number of Mass Shootings Committed By Concealed Carry Killers

Constitutional Sheriffs to Hold Summit to Encourage Elected Officials to Fight Ballot Fraud Ahead of 2022 Midterms thumbnail

Constitutional Sheriffs to Hold Summit to Encourage Elected Officials to Fight Ballot Fraud Ahead of 2022 Midterms

By The Geller Report

In order to avoid civil war, we must have free and fair elections. It is incumbent upon every American to ensure we the people choose our leaders. There are no casual observers or fence-sitters in the war against Americanism. You are either with us or against us.

Constitutional sheriffs to hold summit to encourage elected officials to fight ballot fraud ahead of 2022 midterms

By JD Heyes, Newstarget, July 11, 2022:

For decades we suspected that Democrats’ far-left agenda wasn’t really all that popular with the vast majority of our country, and the party proved that during the 2020 election cycle.

When it became apparent that President Donald Trump would cruise to reelection, noted by the massive rallies and spontaneous vehicle and boat parades that sprang up all over the country (including deep-blue California), the Democratic voter fraud machine kicked into high gear and the party, working with the allied deep state, literally stole the election.

Patriots years from now will question why there wasn’t a mass uprising over the blatant theft, but that is a discussion for another day. In the meantime, patriots — including constitutional sheriffs — are working to ensure that the Democrats can’t steal the upcoming 2022 midterm elections amid one of the dismal points in our country’s history.

Joe Biden’s approval rating has hit a low not seen for a president since the days of Jimmy Carter, and he’s taking his party down in flames with him. That leaves only one option for Democrats to cling to power: Vote theft. And the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) knows that which is why some of its members are having a press conference outside of Freedom Fest in Las Vegas this week — to expose voter fraud and press elected officials to take action to protect the integrity of the process.

Big League Politics reports:

The press conference will feature legendary Sheriff Richard Mack, and True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht and Greg Phillips to expose the immense voter fraud that occurred during the 2020 presidential election.

The itinerary for the press conference includes detailing the history of election fraud in America, showcasing current Investigations in progress from elected sheriffs, Sheriff Mack sharing his opening thoughts, Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips addressing the audience, and then a question-and-answer session for the media.

to determine the veracity of all elections. If allegations are incorrect, we want them exposed. If correct, we want proper investigations fully undertaken and the criminals responsible prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” said Mack, who serves as the CSPOA president.

“We ask for all Americans and public officials to demonstrate civility and cooperation as we pursue the truth. What we want is the truth; let the consequences fall where they may,” he noted further.

“We aren’t just here to say that election fraud is a problem but to begin to really try to enact proper solutions. Whether the winner of any race is a Republican or a Democrat makes no difference to us, we simply ask for the truth,” said Engelbrecht, whose research was used in Dinesh D’Souza’s “2000 Mules” smash-hit documentary, providing the evidence and proof Democrats and their garbage media allies had been demanding since Trump told them his victory was taken from him.

“We have the utmost faith in our country and feel strongly that when voters are educated, more will be done to support fair voting. Together, we are always stronger,” she added.

The press conference will take place at Ahern hotel on July 12 at 10am PST.


Pamela Geller

RELATED VIDEO: Selection Code – Premier Trailer on July 16, 2022


“New Fall COVID Variants”: Here’s The Democrats’ Mid-Term October Surprise to Rig the Election

Jihad Jew-Hating Reps. Omar and Tlaib among Democrats tied to group with alleged links to Hamas slaying

Will The U.S. Fall Just As Rome Did?

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

Uvalde Footage Underscores the Myth of Police Protection: ‘Just Call 9-1-1’ thumbnail

Uvalde Footage Underscores the Myth of Police Protection: ‘Just Call 9-1-1’

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The gunman walked into Robb Elementary School almost casually.

Minutes earlier he had crashed a vehicle near the school, spraying three bullets at a pair of men who approached the scene to see if he was okay. After walking into the school, AR-15 in hand, the gunman takes a right turn down a hallway. From a different hallway, a child sees the gunman. The child pauses, watches, and then jumps at a roar of gunfire. He darts away.

Less than three minutes later, police officers begin to fill the corridor, weapons drawn.

The scene described comes from new video footage obtained by The Statesman and KVUE News on the May 24 mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, which left 22 people dead and 18 injured. (Editor’s note: the footage, which is embedded below, does NOT show anyone being shot.)


The @statesman and @KVUE have obtained body cam footage and security camera footage from the shooting at Uvalde’s Robb Elementary.

Pay close attention to the time stamp in the upper left hand corner.

You don’t see anyone get shot in this video.

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) July 12, 2022

The 77-minute video shows that police were on the scene minutes after the shooter entered the school, but they quickly retreated after receiving a burst of gunfire. As KVUE notes, over the next hour little is done, even as more and more police arrive.

In the video, 13 rifles can be seen arriving in the hallway in the first 30 minutes of the incident. The first shield arrives in under 20 minutes. Dozens of law enforcement officers can be seen in the hallway, along with equipment. No officers make entry into the classroom for more than 70 minutes.

The tragic events in Uvalde have naturally sparked both outcry and discussion. On good and evil. On mental health. On courage and cowardice.

A Uvalde mother was PLACED IN HANDCUFFS by Federal Marshalls on scene for attempting to enter the school to get her child. Another man was tased for trying to get his kid off a bus. All while Salvador Ramos was alive inside killing kids

— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) May 26, 2022

Above all else, however, Uvalde has reignited the debate over gun control.

Following the shooting, and heated demands for new gun control laws, lawmakers in DC passed federal gun legislation for the first time in nearly 30 years, imposing tougher background checks on younger buyers and encouraging states to impose “red flag” laws.

This is peculiar, because the events at Robb Elementary School actually undermined one of the key arguments used to argue for gun control.

As Richard W. Stevens pointed out in a FEE article more than two decades ago, a common—and false—belief underpins gun control ideology.

“Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime,” wrote Stevens, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die.

This belief, Stevens noted, is false for two reasons. The first reason is the most obvious one, which was on full display in Uvalde. Police can’t protect everyone from crime, and rarely do. The primary purpose of police is to respond to crimes after they occur, and data suggests even this they do not do very well.

“In reality, about 11% of all serious crimes result in an arrest, and about 2% end in a conviction,” writes Shima Baughman, professor of criminal law at the University of Utah, in The Conversation.

Second, Stevens notes, the government generally and the police specifically have no legal obligation to protect people from criminal attacks in most localities. In fact, they don’t even have to show up, Stevens explains.

It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the ‘fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.’

The “no duty” rule was established in a particularly gruesome landmark case.

Just before dawn on March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C., shared by three women and a child. On the second floor one woman was sexually attacked. Her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police. The women’s first call to D.C. police got assigned a low priority, so the responding officers arrived at the house, got no answer to their knocks on the door, did a quick check around, and left. When the women frantically called the police a second time, the dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched. The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours.

The horrifying events were made more horrifying in the legal aftermath. The victims sued the city and the police department for negligence to protect them (or even respond to the second call).

“The court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them,” Stevens writes. “Case dismissed.”

The court’s response was not unique. Most states have similar laws, Stevens notes, and some are quite explicit. A statute in Kansas precludes citizens from suing the government for negligence in police protection, while a California law states “neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service.”

While police may not be obligated to help people in need, it’s fair to assume that most want to help people. Unfortunately, by its very nature, bureaucracy tends to frustrate the ability of police departments to effectively do so.

An example of this can also be seen in Uvalde. A New York Times description of Uvalde Police Chief Pedro Arredondo’s decision making process reveals how bureaucratic processes and red tape appear to have cost lives.

[Arredondo] ordered the assembled officers to hold off on storming the two adjoining classrooms where the gunman had already fired more than 100 rounds at the walls, the door and the terrified fourth-graders locked inside with him, the state police said. (…)

Officers were told, under Chief Arredondo’s direction, that the situation had evolved from one with an active shooter — which would call for immediately attacking the gunman, even before rescuing other children — to one with a barricaded subject, which would call for a slower approach, officials said.

That appeared to be an incorrect assessment, according to the state police director, Steven McCraw: Gunfire could sporadically be heard inside the rooms, including on continuing 911 calls by the children.”

Police officers standing around debating protocols while a gunman in a nearby room executes children is both horrifying and mind-boggling to most people, but it perfectly illustrates the very real problems inherent in bureaucracies noted by economist Ludwig von Mises, who wrote about the inherent “slowness and slackness” pervasive in bureaucratic institutions.

On Tuesday, the Uvalde City Council accepted the resignation of Uvalde school district police chief Pedro Arredondo, who rightly stepped away from his position under pressure. But make no mistake: the lack of response by the Uvalde Police Department is a characteristic of bureaucracy itself, a problem that goes far beyond Arredondo’s leadership shortcomings.

Uvalde school district police chief Pedro Arredondo finally resigned from the City Council yesterday:

49 days after the massacre, when he was guilty of the most egregious dereliction of duty imaginable.

That’s how insulated government bureaucrats are from accountability.

— Dan Sanchez (@DanSanchezV) July 13, 2022

The bottom line is that police usually have no obligation to protect individuals from crimes, and even if they do they lack the ability to effectively do so. The idea that Americans can protect themselves just by calling 9-1-1 is simply not true, and the tragic events in Uvalde and countless other examples show this.

When they say you don’t need a firearm because the police will protect you, don’t believe it.


Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times,, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.


Was the Uvalde Massacre a Drug Cartel Warning to Border Agents to Back Off?

The Key to the Uvalde Massacre is: The Critical Importance of One Brave Good Guy with a Gun

PODCAST: What the Uvalde Cops Were Probably Thinking

How Bureaucracy May Have Cost Lives in Uvalde

The Devil Went Down to Texas: The Utter Evil of the Uvalde Massacre

For 77 Minutes, Cops Never Even Tried to Enter Classroom, Police Could Have Stopped Uvalde Shooter ‘3 Minutes’ After Entering School

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

Two and 3-Year-Old Vaxxed Kids With Seizures Is ‘The New Normal’ thumbnail

Two and 3-Year-Old Vaxxed Kids With Seizures Is ‘The New Normal’

By The Geller Report

ONLY vaxxed kids. The only thing these kids have in common is that they were given the COVID vaccine just days earlier (two to five days earlier).

This is the new normal. Like the new ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.’

Two and 3-year-old kids with seizures is “the new normal”

I’m getting multiple reports from my nurse friends about kids 2 and 3 years old having seizures. It is ONLY happening on vaccinated kids, and symptoms start 2 to 5 days after the COVID vaccine.

By: Steve Kirsch, July 5, 2022:

Doctors are mystified by a rash of seizures, rashes, etc. happening to 2 and 3-year-old kids.

The only thing these kids have in common is that they were given the COVID vaccine just days earlier (two to five days earlier).

The doctors cannot figure out what is causing the seizures (since it couldn’t be the vaccine since those are safe and effective). The medical staff is not permitted to talk about the cases to the press or on social media or they will be fired.

One nurse posted something to the effect of “how is this legal????” I had to paraphrase to protect the poster.

This is why you are hearing these reports from me. They can’t fire me.

There is nothing on the mainstream media about this since the nurses and doctors aren’t allowed to talk about it.

This will all come out some day, but for now, everyone is keeping quiet about it and the doctors are instructed to convince the parents that it isn’t vaccine related and that they are the only ones having the problem.

Because that’s how science works.

Keep reading…..


Pamela Geller


Cruise ships full of only the vaccinated are experiencing large outbreaks of Covid.

What does that tell you?

— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) July 14, 2022


Data Proves ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome’ Fiction Is Death by Covid Vaccination

Vaxxed Young Adults are 92% More Likely to Die than Unvaccinated

Are We Now in the Era of the ‘COVID Matrix’ with the Mandated Vaxxed Passports?

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

Inflation Hits Yet Another Record High As Americans Feel The Squeeze thumbnail

Inflation Hits Yet Another Record High As Americans Feel The Squeeze

By The Daily Caller

Inflation climbed 9.1% over the past 12 months, the highest year-over-year percentage increase since December 1981, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced Wednesday.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 1.3% between May and June, according to the DOL report released Wednesday. Economists had predicted that CPI would increase by 1.1% last month and 8.8% over the 12-month period ending in June.

“The energy index rose 7.5 percent over the month and contributed nearly half of the all items increase, with the gasoline index rising 11.2 percent and the other major component indexes also rising,” the DOL said in their report. “The food index rose 1.0 percent in June, as did the food at home index.”

The White House preemptively downplayed the inflation data, saying the metric was already outdated as prices have begun to supposedly decrease.

“June CPI data is already out of date because energy prices have come down substantially this month and are expected to fall further,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Tuesday.

BREAKING: Inflation just hit 9.1% in the United States.


— Pomp 🌪 (@APompliano) July 13, 2022

“I don’t think that number peaks until September and I think at that point it will be in double digits,” E.J. Antoni, research fellow for Regional Economics at The Heritage Foundation told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Wednesday’s report follows a steady stream of negative polling for President Joe Biden, including one New York Times survey that found a majority of Democrats would prefer the 79-year-old not run in 2024. Voters have cited the economy and inflation as major issues ahead of the midterms.

The gasoline index rose 11.2%, while the food at home index increased 10.4%,  year over year, BLS reported. Almost all aspects of American purchases increased in June, including shelter, airline fares, new and used cars and trucks, medical care, household furnishings and operations, recreation and clothing, according to BLS.

CPI surpassed the Federal Reserve’s 2% target in May 2021 and has continuously climbed higher and higher since, according to federal data.




RELATED ARTICLE: The DeSantis Boom: Florida Economy Soars As State Records Highest Budget Surplus Ever

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

Why We Should Take the ‘Socialism’ Part of Democratic Socialism Seriously thumbnail

Why We Should Take the ‘Socialism’ Part of Democratic Socialism Seriously

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Democratic socialism isn’t the same as autocratic communism, but there are problems with socialism that democracy can’t solve.

In the wake of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s recent primary victory, many writers have made the cases for and against democratic socialism. Both its defenders and its critics have tried to insist, quite rightly, that those who support democratic socialism are serious about the “democratic” part.

And it is important that critics take this point seriously: arguing that someone like Ocasio-Cortez is just a Stalinist wannabe is not an effective counter-argument. Those making the case for democratic socialism really do wish to avoid the totalitarianism of the 20th-century history of socialism. Whether they can avoid that outcome, despite their good intentions, is an issue I will return to in what follows.

Critics and supporters should also take the “socialism” part of democratic socialism seriously.

The website of the Democratic Socialists of America is clear about their desire to eliminate the profit motive, or the very least to subordinate it to “the public interest” in a large number of sectors of the economy. A good number of democratic socialists would expand public ownership and control into many of those same sectors. And all of them seem to agree that democratic control is needed for major decisions about “social investment” as well as trade, monetary, and fiscal policy.

The question is whether—even if we assume that the process is as democratic as the democratic socialists desire—they can actually create a world of peace and prosperity given the degree to which they wish to abolish markets and profits. I will argue that the answer is no.

As is often the case with these sorts of proposals, the details of how more democratic control over economic decision-making would work are left vague, but if they are serious about the “democratic” part, it will necessarily involve the participation of as many people as possible, presumably through some sort of voting mechanism. If instead, such decisions were left in the hands of a small group, even if they were elected by people in general, it would risk reproducing the same alienation and exploitation of the masses supposedly committed by capitalists and their bought-off politicians today.

In a recent piece for The AtlanticConor Friedersdorf raised the important critical point that leaving economic decision-making to majority voting imperils the ability of those with minority tastes to acquire the things they desire. For example, if we let Americans vote on whether resources should be devoted to the medical needs of transgender people, would it happen? Would residents of Utah vote to make sure that those who wished to consume alcohol and caffeine could do so?

That we aren’t sure that the answers to both questions are “yes” is a matter of much concern about the democratic-socialist vision. How a democratic and participatory process would ensure that the needs of minority consumers were met without over-riding the will of the people is not clear.

As important as Friedersdorf’s point is, there is an even deeper problem at the heart of the socialist part of the democratic socialist vision. If public ownership is expanded and the profit motive removed, this implies the elimination of markets as the way in which resources in those industries are allocated. It certainly eliminates markets for ownership of capital resources by eliminating private and tradeable ownership claims to firms.

The question facing democratic socialists is this: how, in the absence of market prices, profit and loss signals, and private ownership of the means of production will even the most purely motivated actors in a deeply democratic process know what their fellow citizens want and need and, what’s more important, how best to produce those goods and services?

Even if “the people” want to ensure that minority tastes and needs are accommodated, how will they know what those are? In a market economy, the exchange of private property generates prices that work to signal producers about what is wanted and how urgently. The ability of owners of private resources to risk those resources on their best guesses about what is wanted, and to have the feedback of profits and losses to inform them whether they judged correctly, is what enables us to figure out what people want.  And that’s true whether it’s the masses or more specialized tastes. Markets are processes of discovery by which we learn things we otherwise would not, and could not, know.

Those same prices and profits of the market help us figure out how best to make the things that people want. This part of what markets do is often overlooked by socialists of all stripes. They might be able to offer mechanisms by which consumers could communicate their desires so that “the people” could know what needs to be produced. Even then, however, socialists over-estimate how much of what we know can be effectively communicated in words and statistics.

A good deal of human knowledge, including the knowledge relevant to economic decision-making, is tacit. There are things we know yet are unable to articulate. Think about how you keep your balance on a bicycle. You know how to do it, but you cannot explain to someone else exactly how it’s done.

Acts of buying and selling in the market enable us to make tacit knowledge usable by others in the form of prices and profits. This is the sense in which prices are knowledge surrogates that enable our fields of economic vision to overlap such that we can coordinate our actions and use resources wisely. Market exchange is a process of communication that enables us to go beyond the articulate knowledge of words and numbers.

Given this role of prices, what socialists don’t have an answer to is how democratically controlled industries—in which there are no market prices, profits, or private property in the means of production—will know which inputs to use to make the outputs they believe people want. If you want to socialize health care, how do you know how many nurses, NPs, doctors, and lab techs you will need in each state, city, or hospital?  You want people to get medical care without paying a monetary price for it?  How will you decide who should provide that care?  And with what machines?  Made out of what materials?

We completely take for granted the way in which markets smoothly enable producers to make these decisions using the signals of prices and profits.  Prices and profit calculations enable resources-owners to determine what combination of inputs appears to be the least wasteful in order to make what people want before they start producing, thereby not wasting valuable resources. Prices work as knowledge surrogates to help producers know how valuable people think those resources are so that producers make decisions that are the least wasteful possible.

Prices are the ways we make our private assessments of value publicly available for others to use to make their decisions before they produce. Profits and losses tell entrepreneurs after the fact just how well they decided. Those profits or losses inform the next round of decisions by entrepreneurs, all the time helping them figure out how to best provide what we want using the least valuable resources possible. Without prices or profits, what will perform this task under socialism, even the most widely democratic socialism one can imagine? How will this dispersed, contextual, and tacit knowledge be mobilized and made available for others to use?

Notice that this is not a matter of people’s motivation or psychology. Socialists sometimes like to invoke a version of “New Socialist Man” to escape these problems. They argue that people will just be different under socialism and that they will be motivated to serve the public interest. But motivation isn’t the problem here—knowledge is. How even New Socialist Man will acquire knowledge from others that they cannot express in words or numbers is a question most socialists have never faced.

Furthermore, consider what happens to firms in markets when they consistently fail in this task. Firms whose profits are negative period after period must either change their behavior or find themselves out of business. Firms with publicly traded private ownership shares will find the value of those shares (their stock) falling, reducing the firm’s value and making it more likely that other people might buy up those shares and take over the firm.

The opportunity to purchase the means of production and use them more wisely than the current owners is a key advantage of markets. In the absence of private ownership of the means of production, what will be the comparable corrective process? The long history of wasted resources and unwillingness to change that describes so many government programs would be spread to additional sectors of the economy. There is a reason that the stock market is the very heart of a market economy: it is where those who think they can do things better are free to take their shot. Even the most democratic version of socialism lacks that feature.

If what one supports, however, is something like worker-owned or worker-managed firms who still compete with each other in a genuine market, the argument above does not apply nearly as strongly. Such a system might well be immune to the problems associated with eliminating prices, profits, and private property. Whether such firms would face significant collective action problems associated with worker ownership or management is a separate issue for another time.

Without prices, profits, and a market for the means of production, the areas that democratic socialism would socialize would fail consumers and waste resources, impoverishing societies that adopted such policies. Those failures would force democratic socialists into an unresolvable dilemma.

Critics might argue that specialized experts were needed to run these industries better than the people at large, undermining the democratic part of democratic socialism. Other critics might argue that it was necessary to re-introduce prices and profits, undermining the socialism part. Either way, the democratic socialist vision collapses. Down the first path lies the very totalitarianism they wanted to avoid, and down the second lies the market economy they are committed to rejecting.

This process also demonstrates how even the best-intentioned democratic socialism can end up with 20th-century style totalitarian socialism. As the socialism part of democratic socialism fails to reduce poverty and ensure that people get the goods and services they want and need, and as it becomes clearer that public ownership cannot provide anything close to responsible use of resources, the democratic planning process will become increasingly dominated by those with a comparative advantage in using the levers of power it has created.

As Friedersdorf points out, putting economic control in the hands of the people actually centralizes control over resources in comparison to the decentralized ownership we see in the market. Such centralized control, even in the hands of “the people,” requires institutions of power and domination. Democratic socialists might be confident in their belief that “the people” would handle such power responsibly, but because they overlook the inevitable failure of an economic system lacking prices, profits, and private ownership, they have not thoroughly considered what might happen when the socialism half fails. When public ownership fails at allocating resources in any rational fashion, it is ripe to be taken over by those who care much less about meeting the needs of humans and much more about exercising power over them.

Marx never intended Stalin, but the latter is an unintended consequence of the Bolsheviks trying to put Marxism into practice in the immediate aftermath of the Russian Revolution. Democratic socialists can emphasize the adjective as much as they want, but the realities of socialism’s flaws will ultimately undermine both its democracy and its socialism.

Until socialists of all stripes come to grips with the role that prices, profits, and private ownership play in helping us to figure out both what people want and how best to produce it, they will continue to be mystified by socialism’s continued failure. Increased democratic control will not solve the structural problems that arise whenever people attempt to abolish the institutions of the market. In the end, the problem with democratic socialism is that it’s socialist.

Reprinted from


Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Distinguished Professor of Free Enterprise in the Department of Economics at Ball State University, where he also is Director of the Institute for the Study of Political Economy. He is the author of Austrian Economics: An Introduction.

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

The FDA Is Considering a Change That Would Have Huge Implications for Birth Control thumbnail

The FDA Is Considering a Change That Would Have Huge Implications for Birth Control

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The downsides of government mandates requiring a prescription are significant.

With the Supreme Court’s recent abortion decision, unplanned pregnancies are top-of-mind for many Americans. So, whatever one believes about abortion, the timing of a new debate on birth control policy within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) couldn’t be more important.

The FDA just received a request from a contraceptive company seeking authorization to sell its birth control pills over-the-counter—without a prescription, as is required nationwide under current laws. This has prompted renewed calls for the FDA to approve this change. And, according to the New York Times, it’s seriously considering it this time.

The FDA received its first application for the sale of a nonprescription birth control pill. The Paris-based company that asked for the over-the-counter authorization said the timing, weeks after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, was a coincidence.

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 11, 2022

Why? Well, the downsides of government mandates requiring a prescription are significant.

For one thing, it makes birth control harder to access for people without health insurance or the time/resources to obtain professional medical care. It also adds significantly to the cost of birth control by introducing middlemen and additional steps.

The current restrictive regime is defended in the name of safety. After all, hormonal birth control pills can have serious side effects and some women shouldn’t take them if they have certain medical factors that conflict with the medication.

Still, while the medication is indeed serious, it should still be made available over the counter. Right now, the government is needlessly standing in the way between the medical community and countless women who could benefit from care but can’t necessarily obtain a prescription.

You don’t have to take my word for it. The American Medical Association (AMA) has firmly endorsed making birth control available over-the-counter and called on the FDA to approve the change.

“Providing patients with [over-the-counter] access to the birth control pill is an easy call from a public health perspective,” AMA Board Member David H. Aizuss, M.D. said. “Access is one of the most cited reasons why patients do not use oral contraceptives, use them inconsistently, or discontinue use. Expanding [over-the-counter] access would make it easier for patients to properly use oral contraceptives, leading to fewer unplanned pregnancies.”

Studies have shown that, in absence of a required doctor consultation, women are able to self-screen and determine if they meet any of the conditions where one shouldn’t take hormonal birth control. (You know, like people do all the time with various medications). They can also always consult the pharmacists, which doesn’t typically require insurance or even an appointment.

Other expert groups like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also support making the medication available without a prescription.

It would hardly be an unprecedented move.

Dozens of other countries don’t require a prescription for birth control, including Mexico, Portugal, India, Greece, and Brazil. It’s mostly western Europe, the US, Canada, and other advanced nations—with big, bloated bureaucratic governments—that have barriers in place. But in the countries where it is available, it seems to work out just fine.

More fundamentally, it’s a matter of who gets to decide. Can women weigh the risks and benefits of a medication and decide for themselves? Or should that decision be made for them by supposedly benevolent bureaucrats and the nanny state?

For those who believe in individual liberty, the answer is clear.

“Freedom over one’s physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies,” former Congressman Ron Paul, himself a medical doctor, once said. “When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies.”

The FDA shouldn’t own women’s bodies. They should.

As one long-time advocate of making birth control available over-the-counter, (my friend) the Washington Examiner writer Tiana Lowe, put it, “[The FDA] could do something that not only is broadly supported by people of all political stripes but also has a marked ability to prevent unplanned pregnancies from occurring in the first place.”

All it has to do is get out of the way.


Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: President Donald J. Trump Declares Border Security a ‘Vital National Security Interest’ thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: President Donald J. Trump Declares Border Security a ‘Vital National Security Interest’

By The United West

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: President Donald J. Trump Declares Border Security a ‘Vital National Security Interest’ – Dr. Rich Swier

Copyright © 2021 LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact:

SUPPLY CHAIN CRISIS: 70,000 Self-Employed Truckers in California Forced Off The Road Under New Democrat State Law thumbnail

SUPPLY CHAIN CRISIS: 70,000 Self-Employed Truckers in California Forced Off The Road Under New Democrat State Law

By The Geller Report

The Democrats war on the hard working American ratcheted up another unimaginable notch. But this time, it not only outs the small businessman out of business, throw in massive shortages (food, supplies etc.), supply chain issues etc. It’s a catastrophe

Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a review on whether California Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5) violates the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 as it applies to self-employed truck drivers.

70,000 Self-Employed Truckers in California Face Shutdown Under New State Law

Industry says it’s ‘pouring gasoline’ on supply chain crisis

By Allan Stein, The Epoch Times, July 8, 2022:

Tens of thousands of independent California truck owner-operators could be out of business soon under a new statewide worker classification law designating them as employees.

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a review on whether California Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5) violates the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 as it applies to self-employed truck drivers.

“Gasoline has been poured on the fire that is our ongoing supply chain crisis,” the California Trucking Association (CTA) wrote in a June 30 response to the high court’s decision regarding the association’s legal challenge to the bill.

“In addition to the direct impact on California’s 70,000 owner-operators—who have seven days to cease long-standing independent businesses—the impact of taking tens of thousands of truck drivers off the road will have devastating repercussions on an already fragile supply chain, increasing costs and worsening runaway inflation,” the association added.

“We are disappointed the court does not recognize the irrevocable damage eliminating independent truckers will have on interstate commerce and communities across the state.

“The legislature and [Gavin] Newsom administration must immediately take action to avoid worsening the supply chain crisis and inflation.”

The California State Assembly adopted AB-5 in September 2019, sparking CTA’s legal challenge and the Supreme Court’s latest decision.

The bill’s primary sponsor was Lorena Gonzalez (D), a union leader and former Assembly member.

Under AB-5, a self-employed commercial truck owner must satisfy a three-part test to be considered an independent contractor, with exceptions for construction trucking services.

The bill adds that existing law “creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission.”

Existing law defines employees for purposes that include “any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee.”

Self-Employed Truckers Entitled to Benefits

The bill would entitle those self-employed truck drivers and owners to the same benefits and workers’ compensation as regular employees.

According to Globecom Freight Systems, a leading provider of transportation services, owner-operators make up 9 percent (350,000) of the commercial truckers on the road today. Their average salary is about $50,000.

A recent study by the American Trucking Association found that the nationwide shortage of 80,000 truck drivers could double by 2030. In light of the shortage, many trucking companies now offer lucrative sign-on bonuses and salaries to attract more drivers.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration recently launched an apprenticeship driver program for those aged 18–to–20 that would allow them to cross state lines to help further alleviate the shortage.

Tony Bradley, president and CEO of the Arizona Trucking Association, criticized AB-5 as a “horribly misguided piece of legislation” by California labor unions that will have a “drastic impact across all trucking.”


Pamela Geller

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

EU Declares Fossil Fuel To Be ‘Green’ Energy As ‘Climate Change’ Narrative Self-Destructs thumbnail

EU Declares Fossil Fuel To Be ‘Green’ Energy As ‘Climate Change’ Narrative Self-Destructs

By The Geller Report

When reality meets propaganda, it’s brutal.

Trump was right. Right about “green energy’ farce, right about the climate accord, right about the Paris Agreement …. he was right about everything.

“EU Parliament backs green label for nuclear and natural gas, defying climate Left,” reports the Washington Examiner. The decision will, “ease construction of infrastructure for those power sources over the objections of some environmentalists and members of the bloc.”

When Trump spoke at the UN and called out countries for depending on Russian oil, the German delegation laughed at him.

Trump was right.

— Hananya Naftali (@HananyaNaftali) March 7, 2022

This decision is the first sign that European leaders may be pulling back from the green energy suicide cult that now typifies socialist, progressive “libtard” governments that are more interested in virtue signaling than allowing their own domestic economies to function. The fraudulent, junk science narrative of “climate change” has caused western nations (including the USA) to dismantle much of their fossil fuel infrastructure over the last 20 years. With Russia’s energy exports suddenly cut off due to economic sanctions, Western Europe is finding itself mired in an unprecedented energy crisis with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Suddenly, European nations are panicking to try to rebuild their energy infrastructure. But since they’ve officially blocked most funding for non-green energy projects, the only way to get funds to rebuild fossil fuel infrastructure is to declare fossil fuels to be “green.”

And that’s exactly what the EU parliament just did with natural gas, delivering a devastating blow to the climate change narrative, which was always based on so much quackery and bunk that I’ve called it “atmospheric transgenderism.” If men can get pregnant, then CO2 is a pollutant, you see. If you’re fabricating reality, then anything goes.

It turns out that even “progressive” national leaders of European nations are being dragged back to reality, kicking and screaming, reluctantly admitting that fossil energy is the only thing that can power modern economies at the moment, at least until hot fusion or cold fusion are commercialized…… (more here)

EU parliament backs labelling gas and nuclear investments as green

By Kate Abnett, Reuters, July 6, 2022

Lawmakers back ‘green’ EU investment label for the fuels

Likely to become law unless super-majority of states veto

Gas, nuclear rules have split EU countries and lawmakers

Luxembourg, Austria to challenge law in court

BRUSSELS, July 6 (Reuters) – The European Parliament on Wednesday backed EU rules labelling investments in gas and nuclear power plants as climate-friendly, throwing out an attempt to block the law that has exposed deep rifts between countries over how to fight climate change.

The vote paves the way for the European Union proposal to pass into law, unless 20 of the bloc’s 27 member states decide to oppose the move, which is seen as very unlikely.

The new rules will add gas and nuclear power plants to the EU “taxonomy” rulebook from 2023, enabling investors to label and market investments in them as green.

Out of 639 lawmakers present, 328 opposed a motion that sought to block the EU gas and nuclear proposals.

The European Commission welcomed the result. It proposed the rules in February after more than a year of delay and intense lobbying from governments and industries.

“The Complementary Delegated Act is a pragmatic proposal to ensure that private investments in gas and nuclear, needed for our energy transition, meet strict criteria,” EU financial services chief Mairead McGuinness said.

The rules have split EU countries, lawmakers and investors. Brussels redrafted the rules multiple times, flip-flopping over whether to grant gas plants a green tag. Its final proposal fuelled fierce debate about how to hit climate goals amid a crisis over dwindling Russian gas supplies.

Gas is a fossil fuel that produces planet-warming emissions – but far less than coal, and some EU states see it as a temporary alternative to replace the dirtier fuel.

Nuclear energy is free from CO2 emissions but produces radioactive waste. Supporters such as France say nuclear is vital to meet emissions-cutting goals, while opponents cite concerns about waste disposal.

Read more


Pamela Geller


Dutch Farms Seized To Make Way For Migrants

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre: ‘Our Economy is Stronger Now Than Ever Before!’

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

Biden Administration’s Racist DOJ Official Seeks to Protect Non-Citizen Voting in Arizona thumbnail

Biden Administration’s Racist DOJ Official Seeks to Protect Non-Citizen Voting in Arizona

By Jihad Watch

Racist DOJ official Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke announced that the Biden administration is targeting Arizona for trying to prevent non-citizens from voting.

At issue is an Arizona law asking voters to show proof of citizenship. What should be an elementary and common sense requirement is being opposed by the Biden administration, officially on technical grounds, but as a practical matter because it is trying to protect voter fraud.

Why fight against asking voters to show a legal right to vote unless…

  1. They are your voters
  2. You believe that they don’t have a legal right to vote

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona is dedicated to protecting voters in the state,” said U.S. Attorney Gary M. Restaino for the District of Arizona. “We are proud to join the Civil Rights Division in bringing this lawsuit to ensure that all eligible citizens in Arizona have the opportunity to register to vote and exercise their fundamental right to participate in our elections.”

Voters have the right to vote. And they have the right to protect the legitimacy of their vote by passing common sense voter tests to fight fraud.




A Revolution Against the Administrative State

Global Jihad Over There and Over Here

Robert Spencer’s new book ‘The Church & the Pope’: Available Now

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

Clinic Funded By Biden Administration Distributes Crack Pipes To Addicts Outside A ‘School’ thumbnail

Clinic Funded By Biden Administration Distributes Crack Pipes To Addicts Outside A ‘School’

By The Daily Caller

A “harm reduction” clinic that received grant funding from President Joe Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is distributing crack pipes to addicts in New York City, the Daily Caller confirmed Wednesday.

New York Harm Reduction Educators (NYHRE), a part of OnPointNYC, was awarded nearly $400,000 in grant money from the Biden administration in May to further its services for drug addicts, government records show. Biden officials denied reports that the grant money could fund distribution of crack pipes, but a visit to NYHRE’s office revealed that the organization still offers the smoking paraphernalia to addicts.

OnPointNYC operates two drug use sites, one of which NYHRE runs in East Harlem. After spending about 10 minutes on paperwork with basic information Wednesday evening, staff at the facility provided a Daily Caller reporter a smoking kit containing a crack pipe, condoms and lubricant.

A second Caller reporter returned Thursday and yet again, within minutes, staff provided another crack pipe. A staffer directed the reporter to back rooms for addicts to use drugs under supervision, where the reporter witnessed individuals smoking and injecting various substances.

CLICK HERE FOR A PHOTO OF: A condom and crack pipe acquired from New York Harm Reduction Educators. (Daily Caller)

A second Caller reporter returned Thursday and yet again, within minutes, staff provided another crack pipe. A staffer directed the reporter to back rooms for addicts to use drugs under supervision, where the reporter witnessed individuals smoking and injecting various substances.

The reporter, citing claustrophobia, asked if she could step outside to smoke. A staffer denied the request because the facility is located next to a “school.”

The facility is directly across the street from the Association To Benefit Children, a childcare facility for underprivileged kids in the New York area.

Prior to those visits, the Caller reached out to NYHRE and OnPointNYC on multiple occasions to ask if the organization was still distributing crack pipes, receiving no response. A PBS segment aired December 2021 highlighted that the organization was distributing crack pipes at the time, before the latest Biden grant.

NYHRE provides other services aside from harm reduction, including HIV and hepatitis testing, safe sex education and counseling services. It has received various government grants dating back to 2001 for some of these other services, a review of HHS grant documents shows. This year’s grant is the first “harm reduction” grant the group has received as part of a new administration initiative under Biden’s American Rescue Plan to support “harm reduction” efforts. The so called “safe smoking kits” are a key plank in “harm reduction” efforts across the country.

In addition to the drug and sex paraphernalia, a staffer at NYHRE gave the Caller an ID card after registering personal information. According to that staffer, an individual caught with drugs by police in the city could show that card to avoid punishment.

The Biden administration denied in February that it was giving grants to fund distribution of crack pipes, following a Washington Free Beacon report that HHS had closed applications for funding to do so.

“No federal funding will be used directly or through subsequent reimbursement of grantees to put pipes in safe smoking kits,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

“The goal of harm reduction is to save lives. The Administration is focused on a comprehensive strategy to stop the spread of drugs and curb addiction, including prioritizing the use of proven harm reduction strategies like providing naloxone, fentanyl test strips, and clean syringes, as well as taking decisive actions to go after violent criminals who are trafficking illicit drugs like fentanyl across our borders and into our communities.”

An HHS spokesperson told the Daily Caller the funds from this grant are still prohibited from being used for any federally illegal activity or equipment, including drug paraphernalia like crack pipes. NYHRE has not yet tapped into the grant money they were awarded, and once they do so, the organization must provide specific details on how the money will be spent so HHS can approve it.

“No federal funding is used directly or through subsequent reimbursement of grantees to purchase pipes in safer smoking kits. Grants include explicit prohibitions of federal funds to be used to purchase drug paraphernalia,” the spokesman said. “As the United States confronts record overdose numbers, the Biden-Harris Administration is focused on a comprehensive drug control policy focused on stopping the illicit flow of drugs like fentanyl and evidence-based policies that reduce overdoses and save lives.”

The administration has embraced “harm reduction” — which can include supplying drug paraphernalia and in some cases drugs themselves — as a strategy for treating addiction. The effort facilitates drug use in a safer setting for addicts than they might otherwise use, and offers clean equipment for drug use to prevent the spread of disease.

In total, the SAMHSA grant awarded almost $10 million to 25 different organizations. The grant recipients are disproportionately located in New York and California, not areas within the rust belt hardest hit by the overdose epidemic. Six of the 25 grants went to harm reduction groups in New York state. The Daily Caller has not confirmed which of the other 24 organizations have provided, or still provide, safe smoking kits or crack pipes to addicts.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which awarded the grants, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Caller, including questions about whether the agency knew NYHRE distributed crack pipes when it awarded them the grant or how it is ensuring that taxpayer funds don’t go to the distribution of smoking equipment.



Healthcare reporter. Follow Dylan on Twitter


Even Democrats Now Agree That The Government Should Not Fund Crack Pipes

Knives Are Out For Biden As Contenders Crop Up For 2024

WaPo Writer Says Americans Need To ‘Give Biden A Break’

ANALYSIS: These Four Polls Will Strike Fear Into The Hearts Of Democrats

Biden’s Little Noticed Tax Hike On Everything

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

Will ESG Reform Capitalism—or Destroy It? thumbnail

Will ESG Reform Capitalism—or Destroy It?

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

What “stakeholder capitalism” really means for the world.

Stakeholder capitalism has taken the global economy by storm in recent years. Its champions proclaim that it will save—and remake—the world. Will it live up to its hype or will it destroy capitalism in the name of reforming it?

Proponents pitch stakeholder capitalism as an antidote to the excesses of “shareholder capitalism,” which they condemn as too narrowly focused on maximizing profits (especially short-term profits) for corporate shareholders. This, they argue, is socially irresponsible and destructive, because it disregards the interests of other stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, employees, local communities, and society in general.

Stakeholder capitalism is ostensibly about incentivizing business leaders to take these wider considerations into account and thus make more “sustainable” decisions. This, it is argued, is also better in the long run for businesses’ bottom lines.

Today’s dominant strain of stakeholder capitalism is the doctrine known as ESG, which stands for “environmental, social, and corporate governance.” The label was coined in the 2004 report of Who Cares Wins, a joint initiative of elite financial institutions invited by the United Nations “to develop guidelines and recommendations on how to better integrate environmental, social and corporate governance issues in asset management, securities brokerage services and associated research functions.”

Who Cares Wins operated under the auspices of the UN’s Global Compact, which, as the report states, “is a corporate responsibility initiative launched by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000 with the primary goal of implementing universal principles in business.”

Much progress has been made toward that goal. Since 2004, ESG has evolved from “guidelines and recommendations” to explicit standards that hold sway over huge swaths of the global economy.

These standards are set by ESG rating agencies like the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and enforced by investment firms that manage ESG funds. One such firm is Blackrock, whose CEO Larry Fink is a leading champion of both ESG and SASB.

In December, Reuters published a report titled “How 2021 became the year of ESG investing” which stated that, “ESG funds now account for 10% of worldwide fund assets.”

And in April, Bloomberg reported that ESG, “by some estimates represents more than $40 trillion in assets. According to Morningstar, genuine ESG funds held about $2.7 trillion in managed assets at the end of the fourth quarter.”

To access any of that capital, it is no longer enough for a business to offer a good return on investment. It must also report “environmental” and “social” metrics that meet ESG standards.

Is that a welcome development? Will the general public as non-owning “stakeholders” of these businesses be better off thanks to the implementation of ESG standards? Is stakeholder capitalism beginning to reform shareholder capitalism by widening its perspective and curing it of its narrow-minded fixation on profit uber alles?

To answer that, some clarification is in order. First of all, “shareholder capitalism” is a misleading term for laissez faire capitalism. It is true that, as Milton Friedman wrote in his 1970 critique of the “social responsibility of business” rhetoric of the time:

“In a free‐enterprise, private‐property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.”

Since the owners of a publicly traded corporation are its shareholders, it is true that they are and ought to be the “bosses” of a corporation’s employees—including its management. It is also true that corporate executives properly have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders.

But that does not mean that shareholders reign supreme under capitalism. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises explained in his book Human Action:

“The direction of all economic affairs is in the market society a task of the entrepreneurs [which, according to Mises’s technical definition includes shareholding investors]. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain’s orders. The captain is the consumer.”

The “sovereign consumers,” as Mises calls them, issue their orders through “their buying and their abstention from buying.” Those orders are transmitted throughout the entire economy via the price system. Entrepreneurs and investors who correctly anticipate those orders and direct production accordingly are rewarded with profits. But if one, as Mises says, “does not strictly obey the orders of the public as they are conveyed to him by the structure of market prices, he suffers losses, he goes bankrupt, and is thus removed from his eminent position at the helm. Other men who did better in satisfying the demand of the consumers replace him.”

Under laissez faire capitalism, consumers, not shareholders, are the principal stakeholders whose preferences reign supreme. And shareholder profit is a measure of—and motivating reward for—success “in adjusting the course of production activities to the most urgent demand of the consumers,” as Mises wrote in his paper “Profit and Loss.”

This is highly relevant to the “stakeholder capitalism” discussion, because it means that, to the extent that the profit-and-loss metric is discounted for the sake of competing objectives (like serving other “stakeholders,” the sovereign consumers are dethroned, disregarded, and relatively impoverished.

Now it’s at least conceivable that ESG standards are not competing, but rather complementary to the profit-and-loss metric and thus serving consumers. In fact, that’s a big part of the ESG sales pitch: that corporations who adopt and adhere to ESG standards will enjoy higher long-term profits, because breaking free of their fixation on short-term shareholder returns will enable them to embrace more “sustainable” business practices.

In a free market, whether that promise would be fulfilled or not would be for the sovereign consumers to decide, and ESG would rise or fall on its own merits.

Unfortunately, our market economy is far from free. The State has rigged capital markets for the benefit of its elite lackeys in the financial industry: like the “Who Cares Wins” fat cats who started the ESG ball rolling in 2004 under the auspices of the United Nations.

One of the prime ways the State rigs markets is through central bank policy.

The prodigious amount of newly created money that the Federal Reserve and other central banks have pumped into financial institutions in recent years has transferred vast amounts of real wealth to those institutions from the general public. As a result, those institutions—big banks and investment companies—are now much more beholden to the State and much less beholden to consumers for their wealth.

As they say, “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” So it’s no surprise that these institutions are stumbling over themselves to get on board the State’s ESG bandwagon.

And that means that non-financial corporations also have to get with the ESG program if they want access to the Fed’s money tap and thus to capital. Especially as the average consumer becomes increasingly impoverished by disastrous economic policies, the incentive for corporations to earn market profit by pleasing consumers is being progressively superseded by the incentive to gain access to the Fed’s flow of loot by meeting the State’s “social” standards.

By increasingly controlling capital flows, the State is gaining ever more control over the entire economy.

This may explain the recent willingness of so many corporations to alienate customers and sacrifice profits on the altar of “green” and “woke” politics.

It is no coincidence that Klaus Schaub, the preeminent champion of the “Great Reset” also co-authored a book titled Stakeholder Capitalism. The upshot of stakeholder capitalism is that the State supplants the consumer as the supreme stakeholder in the economy. The sick joke of stakeholder capitalism is that it “reforms” capitalism by transforming it into a form of socialism.

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

How Democrats keep Blacks Hostage in their ‘Nouveau Plantations’ the Ghetto thumbnail

How Democrats keep Blacks Hostage in their ‘Nouveau Plantations’ the Ghetto

By Dr. Rich Swier

“For those looking for security, be forewarned that there’s nothing more insecure than a political promise.” — Harry Browne, Libertarian candidate for U.S. President 1996 and 2000

“You cannot have a political solution for a spiritual problem. You must have spiritual solutions for spiritual problems!” ― Ken Ham, Understanding the Times

We have grown up seeing how Democrats have worked tirelessly to keep blacks on their political plantation. Democrats promise one thing to the black community but their policies do just the opposite.

The Democrats before during and after the Civil War were, and still are, segregationists. They have replaced the Southern plantations with American ghettos.

The new Democrat segregationist policy is called intersectionality which is the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group. Intersectionality is focused on identifying multiple factors of advantage and disadvantage.

Rather than focus the positives like individual responsibility, strengths, possibilities, successes and outcomes intersectionality focuses on the negatives. It is one of the great myths of our time.

Intersectionality does one thing and one thing only, it pits one group against other groups in order to gain political power. It divides rather than unites America and Americans.

Ghetto is defined as “a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups.

The United Nations considers a slum-dweller as exhibiting one or more of the following attributes:

  • insecurity of tenure
  • low structural quality of dwelling
  • poor access to safe water
  • poor access to sanitation facilities
  • insufficient living space

In an August 9th, 2015 The Atlantic article titled “The Resurrection of America’s SlumsAlana Semuels wrote,

After falling in the 1990s, the number of poor people living in high-poverty areas has been growing fast.

Half a century after President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty, the number of Americans living in slums is rising at an extraordinary pace.

he number of people living in high-poverty areas—defined as census tracts where 40 percent or more of families have income levels below the federal poverty threshold—nearly doubled between 2000 and 2013, to 13.8 million from 7.2 million, according to a new analysis of census data by Paul Jargowsky, a public-policy professor at Rutgers University-Camden and a fellow at The Century Foundation. That’s the highest number of Americans living in high-poverty neighborhoods ever recorded.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE INFOGRAPHIC: Population Living in High-Poverty Neighborhoods

According to the infographic in the Atlantic article infographic on Population Living in High-Poverty Neighborhoods during the period 2009-2013 there were a total of 13.8 million living in high poverty neighborhoods. This was up from 7.2 million in 2000. Of the 13.8 million living in high-poverty neighborhoods in the period 2009-2013: 3.5 million were white, 5 million were black and 4.3 million were Hispanic.

In an Oct 31st, 2021 Forbes article Laura Begley Bloom wrote,

Americans are dealing with a surge in murder, violence and crime. According to FBI data, murders in the United States increased by 30% in 2020 over the previous year and violent crimes jumped by 5.6% for the first time in four years. While the numbers are still below historic peaks, the statistics have left many people wondering where they can go to feel safe. SafeWise—a safety and home security site—just released a timely report on “The 100 Safest Small Towns in America for 2021.” The report also looked at the 100 most dangerous small towns in the United States.

Here are the SafeWise most dangerous small towns in the United States:

  1. Emeryville, California (also had the highest property crime rate in the U.S.)
  2. Sauk Village, Illinois (also had the highest violent crime rate in the U.S.)
  3. Glendale, Colorado
  4. Florida City, Florida
  5. Ocean City, Maryland
  6. Marksville, Louisiana
  7. Osceola, Arkansas
  8. Hartsville, South Carolina
  9. Darlington, South Carolina
  10. Globe, Arizona

In a September 8th, 2021 article Top 10 Most Ghetto Cities in the USA Markie Young listed the following as “ghetto” cities:

  1. Detroit, Michigan
  2. Memphis, Tennessee
  3. Birmingham, Alabama
  4. Baltimore, Maryland
  5. St. Louis, Missouri
  6. Kansas City, Missouri
  7. City of Cleveland, Ohio
  8. Little Rock, Arkansas
  9. City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  10. Stockton, California

The Bottom Line

The factors that have led to American ghettos are Democrat policies including: the welfare state (i.e. LBJ’s great society), socialist economic policies (i.e. creation of social security and the income tax under FDR), the promoting of racial violence in cities in the name of diversity, inclusion and equity (i.e. funding road and bridge repairs based on race not on need), and policies that put caring for the plant over caring for the American people (i.e. Green New Deal and Build Back Better under JRB).

Democrats have build ghettos and slums that put blacks back on their plantations. This time they aren’t the plantation owners but rather they are the politicians who control the budgets and public policies of these cities.

If you want to keep blacks in their ghettos and slums then first disarm them so that they cannot defend themselves from the crime and criminals that surround them. Then you defund the police in order to give free reign to the criminals of each ghetto and slum.

When Democrats do these two simple things, which they have now for decades, then you get more ghettos and slums until every major metropolitan area becomes a huge ghetto and slum.

When Mac Davis was 5 or 6 years old, the esteemed Nashville songwriter couldn’t understand why one of his best friends had to live in a bad part of town (a ghetto). He remembered that friend as he wrote “In the Ghetto,” which Elvis Presley turned into a chart-topping hit in 1969. Elvis Presley understood this threat to both blacks and whites as he lived in Memphis, Tennessee and saw it first had. This led Elvis to release in 1969 his song “In the Ghetto” (originally titled “The Vicious Circle”). Elvis recognized a vicious circle in America that created no hope for black boys who were raised in a single parent home and no father.

Here’s Elvis singing “In the Ghetto:

You see Elvis witnessed what are not known as King assassination riots in 125 cities in April and May of 1968, in response to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.,

This ends this lesson on Democrats and their modern version of the plantation—the ghetto.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


1943: Detroit In the 1940s, Detroit, a segregated city, was a hotbed of racial tension. On a steamy evening in late June, a fistfight broke out between a Black and white young men at an amusement park called Belle Isle. The fighting quickly grew in scope and intensity. The violence escalated when rumors about violence against white and Black women circulated, and both whites and Black people engaged in retaliatory attacks. Homes and businesses were burned and looted and people were beaten and shot. The fighting raged for three days, and 6,000 U.S. Army troops were brought in. Twenty-five Black people and nine whites were killed. About 700 were injured.
1965: Watts Watts, the predominately Black neighborhood in Los Angeles, erupted in riots that lasted from August 11 to 17 after the arrest of 21-year-old Marquette Frye, a Black motorist, by a white highway patrolman, Lee Minikus. Racial tension had been on the rise in Los Angeles, and particularly in Watts, because of years of discrimination and racial injustice. A crowd of African Americans gathered and watched as a scuffle broke out between police; Frye; his brother, Ronald; and their mother, Rena Price. Ronald and Price were also arrested. The number of people gathering increased, and the crowd of Black onlookers through rocks and concrete at police. Nearly 4,000 National Guardsmen were deployed, in addition to about 1,600 police officers. Martial law was declared and a curfew implemented. More than 30,000 people participated in the riots, fighting with police, looting white-owned homes and businesses, and attacking white residents. The riots left 34 dead, more than 1,000 injured, and about 4,000 arrested.
1967: Newark Black residents of Newark felt disenfranchised and that they were victims of racial profiling, creating a palpable sense of racial tension. On July 12, John Smith, a Black cab driver, was arrested for improperly passing a police car. He was taken to a police station across the street from a public housing project. Residents of the project reported that Smith was seriously injured and was dragged from the police car into the station. They reported the event to several civil rights groups, who asked to see Smith. They requested that Smith be taken to the hospital for treatment. Word of the incident spread, and Black leaders organized a peaceful protest. However, the protest turned violent, with Black demonstrators throwing bottles, rocks, and Molotov cocktails at the police station. Rioting followed for the next several nights, and the National Guard was deployed. Despite the presence of the National Guard, the violence and looting continued for three nights. The worst rioting in New Jersey’s history left 26 dead, 725 injured, about 1,500 arrested, and more than $10 million in property damage.
1968: King Assassination Riots Riots broke out in about 125 cities following the April 4, 1968, assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Washington, DCChicago, and Baltimore experienced the most violence. In Washington, violence broke out hours after the assassination. On April 5, looting, arson and attacks on police increased, and as many as 20,000 people participated in the riots. The National Guard and Marines were dispatched. The riots reached within two blocks of the White House. Twelve people were killed, more than 1,200 buildings were destroyed, and damage was tallied at $27 million, leaving the district’s economy in tatters.

Rioting in Baltimore began April 5. Maryland’s governor Spiro Agnew called in the National Guard, and later needed to dispatch federal troops to help control the violence and looting.

Rioting continued until April 14. Seven people were killed, 700 injured, and about 4,500 were arrested.In Chicago, rioting took place over a 28-block area in Chicago’s West Side. As in other cities, rioters looted stores and homes, set buildings on fire, and broke windows. In addition to some 10,500 police officers, about 6,700 members of the National Guard and 5,000 federal troops were deployed. Eleven people were killed in the violence and 2,150 arrests were made.

Lyrics to In the Ghetto By Elvis Presley

On a cold and gray Chicago mornin’

A poor little baby child is born

In the ghetto

(In the ghetto)

And his mama cries

‘Cause if there’s one thing that she don’t need

It is another hungry mouth to feed

In the ghetto

(In the ghetto)

People, don’t you understand

The child needs a helping hand

Or he’ll grow to be an angry young man some day

Take a look at you and me

Are we too blind to see?

Do we simply turn our heads

And look the other way

Well, the world turns

And a hungry little boy with a runny nose

Plays in the street as the cold wind blows

In the ghetto

(In the ghetto)

And his hunger burns

So he starts to roam the streets at night

And he learns how to steal

And he learns how to fight

In the ghetto

(In the ghetto)

Then one night in desperation

The young man breaks away

He buys a gun, steals a car

Tries to run, but he don’t get far

And his mama cries

As a crowd gathers ’round an angry young man

Face down on the street with a gun in his hand

In the ghetto

(In the ghetto)

And as her young man dies

(In the ghetto)

On a cold and gray Chicago mornin’

Another little baby child is born

In the ghetto

(In the ghetto)

And his mama cries

(In the ghetto)

(In the ghetto)


Source: Musixmatch

Songwriters: Graham David Bates / Writer Unknown

In the Ghetto lyrics © Sony/atv Songs Llc, R & H Music Company, Atal Music

Republicans Charge Biden With ‘Intentional Destruction’ of the United States of America thumbnail

Republicans Charge Biden With ‘Intentional Destruction’ of the United States of America

By Dr. Rich Swier

(RepublicanPartyNews) – I think it’s pretty safe to say, at this point, Joe Biden is the worst president this country has ever seen. Given that the ranks for such a title include names like Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, this is a major accomplishment, albeit one that no normal, sane individual would be happy to have bestowed upon them.

There are a number of things that make Biden’s term so egregiously bad. The fact that gas prices are so high you nearly have to sell off a kidney on the black market just to get work everyday is a good starting point. Then, of course, there’s the 9 percent inflation rate, the crisis at the southern border, and the fact that many of our nation’s enemies are more emboldened to take action against us than ever before.

Yeah, things are looking pretty bleak right now.

In fact, according to WND, who cited a report from Just the News, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan from Ohio is calling it a deliberate assault on the United States. Jordan made an appearance on the John Solomon Reports podcast where he cited Biden’s threat to withhold funding for school lunch programs from establishments that don’t fall in line with the LGBT agenda.

“It makes no sense. That tells you this is intentional,” Jordan said.

Deroy Murdock, a columnist and London Center fellow, spoke with Just the News, stating, “The wide-open ‘border’ is no accident. It is deliberate. This is not a sign of incompetence. It is a reflection of [Biden’s] relentless, intentional destruction of the southern ‘frontier.’”

“Those high fuel prices, triggered by Biden’s cancellation of drilling leases in the Gulf and blocked energy exploration in oil-rich part of Alaska?” the report posits.

“It’s intentional,” Liz Harrington, a former spokesman for President Trump, remarked.

The Just the News report said, “House Minority Whip Steve Scalise expounded in a recent statement, noting Biden approved a pipeline for Russia but blocked one for America.”

Scalise stated, “It’s not that he’s against all pipelines. As my colleagues have pointed out, he approved Russia’s pipeline, the Nord Stream 2, which builds on top of the Nord Stream 1, which was already supplying Russian oil to parts of Europe. We could have been there to provide all of the oil and gas that Europe needs. And instead, Biden turned off the spigots here and sent leverage to Putin.”

Scalise then went on to explain that Americans are not that dumb.

“People get this,” he said during a conversation with Just the News. “As [GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik] said, ‘The American people are smarter than Joe Biden gives them credit for.’ They know it’s Biden’s policies — anti-American energy policies — that have led to this skyrocketing sticker shock at the pump, where it costs over $150, in some cases, to fill your car.”

“It actually was Biden, and Kamala Harris too, who suggested that high fuel prices were just part of their intentional scheme, even though Republicans had been labeled conspiracists when they suggested it first,” WND reported.

Biden confessed, “When it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels.”

Harris then stated, “We are all in the midst of a turning point. We have the technology to transition to a zero-emission fleet. Our administration — together, all of us — is working to make that possibility a reality.”

The congressman then said that Biden, along with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, basically lied to the American public when they said that inflation was transitory, so Democrats could spend however much they wanted.

“Janet Yellen said this week, ‘We were surprised that we had this kind of inflation. We didn’t really see it coming.’ And I’m like, how could you not see it coming? You spent like crazy. You paid people not to work, and you drove up the cost of energy,” Jordan noted.

“Yellen’s claims, Jordan said, make clear that what is happening under Biden ‘is intentional,’” WND reported.

Copyright 2022. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Violent leftist group promises more violence because Biden’s DOJ, FBI and media approve of it

Supreme Court Overturns 2nd Amendment Decisions in 4 States thumbnail

Supreme Court Overturns 2nd Amendment Decisions in 4 States

By The Geller Report

The Second Amendment is the last line of defense for each and every one of us. The Supreme Court ruling on gun rights reiterated our fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution.

“Our Founding Fathers didn’t give us the Second Amendment for duck hunting or simply for self-protection in a country that at the time had a vast and yet unknown frontier. They bestowed it upon us so that we could protect our precious nation from devolving into tyranny as so many others have done.”

Eduardo Bolsonaro talks to Tucker Carlson about what happened after gun restrictions in Brazil were loosened:

“Brazil is safer, thanks God, because of this policy.”

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 30, 2022

There are historical lessons of totalitarian governments that rule because citizens have been deprived of their weapons.

The Nazi policy

In Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews, page 537, Stephen P. Halbrook observed:

“The record establishes that a well-meaning liberal republic would enact a gun control act that would later be highly useful to a dictatorship. That dictatorship could then consolidate its power by massive search and seizure operations against political opponents, under the hysterical ruse that such persons were ‘Communist’ firearm owners.”

“It could enact its own new firearms law, disarming anyone the police deemed ‘dangerous’ and exempting members of the party that controlled the state. It could exploit a tragic shooting of a government official to launch a [sic] pogrom, under the guise that Jewish firearm owners were dangerous and must be disarmed.”

“This dictatorship could, generally, disarm the people of the nation it governed and then disarm those of every nation it conquered.”

The USA’s fundamental rights

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the ‘Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.’” Reported by the Legal Information Institute of the Cornell Law School.

“The above experiences influenced perceptions of fundamental rights in both the United States and Germany,” Halbrook explained: “Before entering the war, America reacted to the events in Europe in a characteristic manner. Seeing the Nazi threat and its policies, Congress passed the Property Requisition Act of 1941 authorizing the President to requisition certain property for defense, but prohibiting any construction of the act to ‘require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport’ or ‘to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms.’” Nazi Firearms Law, pp. 536-37.

“Remember that registration of firearms is only the first step,” stated the Requisition Act’s sponsor, Rep. Paul Kilday (D-TX). “It will be followed by other infringements of the right to keep and bear arms until finally the right is gone.” Nazi Firearms Law, p. 537, fn. 289.


A secret Nazi Gestapo Order (1941) is compared to Pennsylvania’s Firearm Registration bill (2019) in this side-by-side chart. Pennsylvania’s bill has more requirements than the Nazi’s order. In Pennsylvania, if the bill becomes law, a gun owner will be required to provide more information than a person who registers to vote.

For the right of self-defense, a person would be required annually to self-report ownership of each gun and describe it in detail. A certificate or renewal is not guaranteed because the State Police could deny the application. Partisan bureaucrats may not appreciate an applicant’s conservative politics: Allegiance to the Bill of Rights and limited government. Far-fetched? Just ask Tea Party organizations who were delayed or denied non-profit status by Obama’s IRS.

The State Police’s database could be released for official or nefarious purposes: The Pennsylvania Legislature under the guise of oversight. Freedom of Information requests by liberal media and advocacy groups.

Anti-gun zealots could dox persons who own guns. New York’s concealed weapon permit holders were posted via a map on the internet. There was proposed a multi-state map. Liberal news agencies and the social media mob have harassed law-abiding, private citizens. Identification of gun owners is not likely to deter criminals, who may have a shopping list for gun collections.

An enemy could learn that you own a gun. A related “red flag” law may be used for a fraudulent claim against you. The police will confiscate your gun pending a court hearing. Meanwhile, an enemy has an opportunity to cause injury or murder of you.

Law-abiding citizens’ registration of guns will not prevent criminals from obtaining unregistered guns. No lives will be saved. Note the bill’s absence of “whereas” clauses of findings of facts to support unidentified benefits. Also, the absence of redeeming press releases of the bill being introduced by Democrats: Angel CruzMary Jo Daley, and Mary Louise Isaacson; and Democrat co-sponsors: Joseph C. HohensteinJoanna E. McClinton, and Benjamin V. Sanchez. The bill failed in 2009-102011-122013-142015-16, and 2017-18.

This proposed law could be enforced only if the government is aware that you own a gun. Will the police conduct a search for guns, literally door to door?

If you are forced to use a gun for self-defense, but fail to comply with registration, could your defense effectively be an infringement of the Fifth Amendment?

Fail to register a gun, then risk a criminal penalty of 90 days in jail. The government likely will confiscate your gun; You likely will not be eligible to possess another gun; and you likely will be limited to lesser forms of self-defense.

Gun registries will lead to gun confiscation, as illustrated by AustraliaCanada, and Germany; as well as the United States: CaliforniaIllinois, and the heart of liberalism: New York City.

National gun confiscation has been proposed by liberals including Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA; 2018); the NAACP (2018); and Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate (2016).

Admit it, liberals, you really do want a total ban on firearms.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, suggested that a Democrat President could declare gun violence as a national emergency.


Have we not learned the lesson of the Nazi policy to disarm, and then control, its citizens? Nazi gun laws facilitated the murder of political enemies, specifically the Holocaust of more than six million Jews.

What part of the Second Amendment’s independent status, “shall not be infringed,” did these legislators, some attorneys, not understand? The U.S. Constitution trumps a state statute. A first-year law student learns this principle.

Liberals ignore constitutional law in favor of an agenda of a gun-free society. Liberals use safety as subterfuge for registration leading to confiscation of guns.

I appreciate our Founding Fathers’ wisdom that the Second Amendment is a guard against tyranny, whether the enemy is foreign or domestic.

Since self-defense is a God-given right, I believe in the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates: Should gun registration become law by an act of either a state or federal government, such a law would classify this patriot as a criminal.

Read relevant documents:

Law Comparison

Pennsylvania HB768: Firearm Registration Act

Pennsylvania Summary Offenses

Nazi Firearms Laws

Nazi Gestapo Order

Gerald Lostutter is a Florida licensed attorney, college professor, journalist, and patriot life member (endowment level) of the National Rifle Association

Supreme Court Overturns 2nd Amendment Decisions in 4 States

The Supreme Court followed up its June 23 landmark ruling that for the first time recognized a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, by issuing a series of rulings June 30 reversing federal appeals court decisions that upheld gun restrictions in California, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii.

Courts will find it difficult to uphold the firearms laws in question after the high court’s June 30 and June 23 rulings.

In unsigned orders, all four cases were remanded June 30 to lower courts “for further consideration in light of” the Supreme Court’s June 23 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that 6–3 ruling, the high court invalidated New York state’s tough concealed-carry gun permitting system.

Epoch Times Photo

Lisa Caso sells guns at Caso’s Gun-A-Rama store in Jersey City, N.J., on March 25, 2021. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court has been strengthening Second Amendment protections in recent years. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held the amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), that this right “is fully applicable to the States.”

It makes no sense to recognize Americans’ right to defend themselves in their homes while denying them the ability to defend themselves outside their homes, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote June 23 in the court’s majority opinion.

“After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an ‘individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,’ and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. … Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it,” Thomas wrote.

In the new orders, the Supreme Court summarily disposed of the four pending cases, simultaneously granting appellants’ petitions seeking review while skipping over the oral argument phase. Some lawyers call this process GVR, standing for grant, vacate, and remand.

In the Maryland case, Bianchi v. Frosh, court file 21-902, a coalition of 25 states led by Arizona challenged Maryland’s Firearms Safety Act of 2013. The statute, which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in September 2021, required pistol purchasers to seek a license, complete safety training, and be fingerprinted. Maryland bans popular weapons such as the AR-15 and similar rifles and limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, a Democrat, was defiant after the remand order. Military-style firearms “pose grave risks to public safety, as recent mass shootings in other states have made clear,” Frosh stated. Despite the Bruen ruling, the state’s law remains in effect, he said. “Marylanders have a right to be protected from these dangerous weapons.”’

The California case, Duncan v. Bonta, court file 21-1194, challenged the state’s ban on magazines containing more than 10 rounds. The ban went further, requiring the confiscation of such magazines, which had previously been lawful to own. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the ban in November 2021.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, is currently scrambling to deal with the fallout after his office leaked sensitive personal information, including the names and addresses of every concealed-carry permit holder in the state. Some holders say they now fear for their lives.

The New Jersey case, Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Bruck, court file 20-1507, is similar to the California case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed the New Jersey law in December 2021.

Petitioners challenged the state law that bans 10-round magazines and requires that owners surrender such magazines to law enforcement. The law also forbids the transfer or sale of these magazines but allows owners to keep them if they modify them to reduce how many rounds may be held. Failing to comply with the law is a crime that can be punished with a sentence of up to 10 years of imprisonment and $150,000 in fines.


Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: After the Guns Were Confiscated, the Killing Fields Began

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

Biden Administration Report Shows MASSIVE Fuel Industry Job Losses thumbnail

Biden Administration Report Shows MASSIVE Fuel Industry Job Losses

By The Geller Report

If America’s worst enemy inhabited the White House, what would they be doing differently? Nothing. We are living a nightmare. The Democrats agenda is to destroy everything good in this country in rapid time.

It’s going to get ugly, really ugly, fast.

Biden administration report shows massive fossil fuel industry job losses

A spokesperson for a petroleum association says the Biden administration has worked ‘overtime on restricting American natural gas and oil production’

By: FOX Business, July 1, 2022:

The Biden administration published its annual U.S. Energy and Employment Report (USEER) Tuesday, showing large fossil fuel industry job losses.

The Department of Energy (DOE) report found that the fuels technology sector experienced job losses totaling 29,271 jobs in 2021, a 3.1% year-over-year decline, with the majority coming in the fossil fuel industry. Onshore and offshore petroleum companies shed 31,593 jobs, a 6.4% decline, the coal industry lost 7,125 jobs, down 11.8% year-over-year, and fossil fuel extraction jobs declined by 12%.

“The DOE jobs report is not only reflective of the broader pandemic slowdown, but also highlights an Administration that has worked overtime on restricting American natural gas and oil production,” Independent Petroleum Association of America spokesperson Jennifer Marsteller told Fox News Digital in an email.

“We are confident in our sector, and in the work oil and natural gas employees do to bring energy safely and reliably to our country and the world,” she continued. “We urge President Biden to get on board with that same made-in-America pride in our workers.”

Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas, weighs in after French President Emmanuel Macron was caught on camera at the G7 telling President Biden that the UAE and Saudi Arabia say they can barely increase oil production.

US has ‘got to be leading producer’ of oil in the world: Rep. Williams

— Dr. Rich Swier (@drrichswier) July 2, 2022

Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas, weighs in after French President Emmanuel Macron was caught on camera at the G7 telling President Biden that the UAE and Saudi Arabia say they can barely increase oil production.

The fuels sector category was the only category that saw overall declines, according to the USEER.

The Biden administration has pursued an aggressive climate agenda since taking office, canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, limiting oil and gas lease sales on public lands and pushing environmental regulations impacting fossil fuel project development.

“The American natural gas and oil industry is proud to support nearly 11 million U.S. jobs,” an American Petroleum Institute spokesperson told Fox News in a statement. “While we have grappled with many of the same labor shortages that the rest of the U.S. economy is facing due to the pandemic, we have seen a slow but steady rebound in both drilling and oil & gas support service employment in 2022.”


Pamela Geller


Manchin blasts anti-fossil fuel agenda amid Russia-Ukraine war: ‘Beyond the pale’

Judenrat Ben & Jerry’s opposes Unilever deal to continue selling iconic ice cream in Israel

Biden: Additional $800M For Ukraine Coming ‘In The Next Few Days’

Bill Gates $13.5 Million Farmland Purchase Triggers Outrage in North Dakota, Attorney General Launches Investigation, Gives Approval

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