Lockdowns: An Abortion Argument


David G. Bonagura, Jr.: COVID restrictions have exposed the privacy/liberty “right” to abort as what’s it always been: an arbitrary government edict.


The irony is sickening. For decades we have heard the shrieks in defense of abortion and birth control: “Keep the government out of my uterus!” “My body, my choice!” “No woman can call herself free,” said Margaret Sanger, “who does not control her own body.”
Democratic politicians have long supported abortion with this line of reasoning. Most recently, in signing the Reproductive Health Act into law in 2019, New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo declared that “women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body.” Out West, seeking codification of Roe v. Wade into the laws of California, Oregon, and Washington, Governors Newsom, Brown, and Inslee, in a joint letter, defined “reproductive choice” as “the right to make private decisions about one’s body,” and asserted that to intrude upon that choice “is a fundamental violation of individual liberty and freedom.”
Flash forward to 2020. These same governors have imposed the most restrictive measures in the nation to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Suddenly, the right to control one’s own body is no longer sacrosanct; individual liberty, touted so righteously just a year earlier, must now be curbed. These governors, along with others, have ordered their citizens to mask their faces, to limit the number of people in their homes, not to worship God in churches, not to exercise their bodies in gyms. In short, they have swiftly and systematically deprived their citizens of the very same “fundamental right to control their own bod[ies]” that they celebrate under another banner.
How far will this encroachment go? In New York, the governor decreed that food must be served in order to purchase alcohol. When one bar started offering “Cuomo Chips” as the plat du jour, the governor countered by mandating that “a substantial amount of food” must go into one’s body to drink alcohol.
Then, in October, New York released its “Mirco-Cluster Strategy” that sets thresholds at which schools must issue mandatory COVID tests to students. In essence, the government is forcing school personnel to poke into the bodies of minors, without their parents’ present. If parents object to testing their kids, the students are barred from attending school.
How can these “champions” of the right to control one’s body justify their blatant hypocrisy?
“COVID is a different matter,” they would surely say in reply. “We are protecting public health. With these measures we are saving lives.”
So we ask: in order to be consistent, shouldn’t the government ban abortion, if saving lives is so important?
We would then hear a sermon asserting women’s right to privacy, since abortion supporters must quickly shift the conversation away from the humanity of the child in utero. Advocating killing is seldom a winning argument. So they change the topic, masking abortion’s grim reality with the rhetoric of freedom, choice, and privacy.
Which returns the governors to their dilemma: How can the choice to have an abortion be protected under the penumbras of privacy but the choice of who comes over for Thanksgiving and Christmas be restricted for reasons of public health?
The governors, though, have lined up for yet another merry-go round ride. “If we don’t act now we’ll continue to see our death rate climb,” said Governor Newsom. Preventing the death of children in utero, it seems by extension, is not state interest. The message is clear: a government purportedly so concerned with saving lives has decided that only some lives are worth saving.
The severity and swiftness with which these governors have imposed COVID restrictions expose just how specious the abortion argument is. Its legality hinges entirely on an act of raw government power. We knew this in the past, but now, thanks to COVID, we feel it on our faces and up our noses. The government cannot with a straight face say that women can control their bodies when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to going to school.
Abortion has never been about privacy or liberty. Unlike COVID prescriptions, outlawing abortion requires no intrusion into women’s lives or bodies, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. In fact, abortion prevents the normal and healthy process of pregnancy from continuing – an odd choice when we are told that health is the government’s top priority. In fact, abortion is about ensuring that the sexual revolution has no consequences, and for this the government has declared it a compelling state interest.
To assert a “right to control one’s body” where it does not exist, as Roe did in legalizing abortion, is a lie. To continue to defend abortion on these same grounds while intruding into private homes and into the bodies of citizens to stop the pandemic transforms a lie into hypocrisy. “But COVID is different!” – is no defense at all. If the government wants to suspend livelihoods and poke into bodies to protect life, it has no choice but to protect all life, from womb to tomb.
The discussion now has to shift back to the humanity of the child in utero, where the governors and abortion supporters do not want to go. The “right to control one’s body” on the grounds of privacy and personal liberty argument has been exposed as an arbitrary government edict. We can then turn to science, which the governors claim to honor, but regularly flout, to finish the discussion, since science shows that a new human life begins at conception and is, therefore, unequivocally on the pro-life side.
COLUMN BY

David G Bonagura, Jr.

David G. Bonagura Jr. teaches at St. Joseph’s Seminary, New York. He is the author of Steadfast in Faith: Catholicism and the Challenges of Secularism (Cluny Media).
EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2021 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

VIDEO: Bill Gates Carbon Hypocrisy



Bill Gates wants you to pare down your over-the-top lifestyle.
How about we all agree to not let our “carbon footprints” exceed his.
CFACT’s Marc Morano exposed Gates’s hypocrisy on Fox and Friends:

“Bill Gates was listed in 2019 as the number one carbon footprint of all the celebrities. He beat Al Gore, Jennifer Lopez. He beat Bernie Sanders and a bunch of others [including] Harrison Ford. He came out number one, Bill Gates. He has a new book coming out about the climate crisis; what we can all do. He spoke to the World Economic Forum and claimed we have to change every aspect of our lives to fight global warming but Bill Gates is not willing to do it. The last estimate in 2010 he paid $30,000 a month in his electricity bill at his home. Since he…recently bought a 43 million-dollar oceanfront property, [he’s] not very worried about sea-level rise apparently.”
Marc reports that Gates and the rest of the climate elite want us to refrain from flying unless we can come up with a “morally justifiable” reason to do so.  Of course they expect their moral justification travel visas to be permanently stamped.
“Gates just said we need to continue lockdowns on bars, restaurants, small businesses. Meanwhile, the billionaire class is reaping benefits of lockdowns — his pals from Amazon, Walmart, all other big box stores. What is interesting [is that] climate activists are calling for flying only when it is ‘morally justifiable’ as the new normal post-pandemic. Bill Gates is in on that. He is saying, well business travel – he expects a 50% reduction. So now if you want to fly commercial, if you’re not Bill Gates or Leonardo DiCaprio or Al Gore, you need to come up with a ‘morally justifiable’ reason. This is what the climate activists are doing. Crushing the airline industry, by boosting private planes. They’re living one way for themselves and imposing…another set of austerity on the rest of us.”

Maybe Bill Gates and the rest of the carbon elite will shock us all someday and lead by example.
Don’t hold your (CO2-laden) breath.
EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The endgame of transgender ideology is to dismantle the family


Nancy Pelosi and her fellow gender-inclusive enthusiasts have taken a bold and much-disparaged move to erase language that expresses the reality of familial relationships. In the name of inclusivity, words like “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law” have been targeted for erasure from House proceedings.
If pursued, this scrubbing of gendered words from public communications in concert with other trans-inclusive initiatives will prove seismic in its effect on society.
Pelosi and her associates are echoing the socialist-feminist ideology articulated by Shulamith Firestone in the 1970s: “It has become necessary to free humanity from the tyranny of its biology” and “eliminate the sex distinction itself [so that] genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally.”
At its core, this means that male and female manifestations of the human body should no longer be legally recognized or culturally valued. We have been marching down this road for decades and are now approaching the endgame: a genderless society. The vilification of gendered language in public settings is a significant leap toward “freeing humanity from the tyranny of its biology” and undoing the significance of biological sex.

Mothers on the trash heap of history

Firestone made a stunning prediction. She jubilantly declared that when biology was subdued and “transsexuality” became the legal and cultural norm, “the blood tie of the mother to the child would eventually be severed” and the triumphal “disappearance of motherhood” would follow. And she was right. Legal movements surrounding transgenderism are setting the stage for the legal marginalization of mothers, fathers, and families by force of law.
Though Firestone’s astute prediction has been largely overlooked in the debate about transgenderism, the fact remains that when women legally disappear, so do mothers because “mother” is a sex-specific designation. The same goes for fathers. If there are not two specific, perceivable sexes that can be definitively recognized by law, then it becomes difficult to define or defend mothers and fathers—along with their parental rights—in legal terms. Therefore, the belonging of children to their parents is increasingly thrown into question and the family stands on trembling legal legs—which is precisely the point.
When parents’ ties to their children are obscured or weakened it creates an environment hospitable to government intervention and socialist-communist revolution. That is why Marx’s Communist Manifesto openly called for the “abolition of the family.” Dethroning the family creates a void that can and must be filled—though it is impossible to adequately fill it. If we are to avoid the destruction of the family and the domination of the state that necessarily follows, we must resist efforts to cancel biological sex.

Rejection of anatomy

The push for gender abolition seems to be accelerating. Last year a California state Senate committee attempted to ban the words “he” and “she” during committee hearings. The “rainbow voting agreement” in the Netherlands calls for “the registration of gender to be abolished wherever possible.” A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably the world’s most prestigious medical journal, asserted that sex demarcations on birth certificates should be reconsidered because “assigning sex at birth perpetuates a view that sex as defined by a binary variable is natural, essential, and immutable.”
It is becoming difficult to keep up with the myriad initiatives being rolled out to forcibly suppress biological sex distinctions.
The legal and social embracing of transgenderism encapsulates rejection of the human body as inherently manifested in two distinct and complementary forms. This rebellion against anatomy is not only tragic for individuals, who wage war against their own bodies, but it also undercuts the inherent, two-pronged voltage of male and female that propels, balances, and drives the world.
If it becomes legally inappropriate to recognize the two bodily sexes or to articulate how the interplay of those sexes forges and perpetuates the basic relationships by which we fundamentally define ourselves (mother, father, son, daughter) then the core of civilized society is in peril.
What started out masquerading as a celebration of gender turns out to be an edict for the elimination of the sex distinction itself, which in turn erodes the family—the essential cradle of humanity. If we are to salvage the family and civilization with it, we must protect and defend the “gendered language” that is now on the chopping block.
COLUMN BY

Kimberly Ells

Kimberly Ells is the author of, The Invincible Family: Why the Global Campaign to Crush Motherhood and Fatherhood Can’t Win, and is a policy advisor for Family Watch International where she works to… 
RELATED ARTICLES:
Artificial girlfriends are holding China’s and Japan’s men in thrall
Is Down syndrome ‘tragic’ when they die – or when they live?
The demographics of 2021
EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Biden Estimated 250,000 COVID Deaths This Month. He Was Off By 178,000!


GUESTS AND TOPICS:

JEFF CROUERE
Jeff Crouere is the host of, “Ringside Politics,” which airs weekdays on WGSO 990-AM in New Orleans. He is a political columnist, the author of America’s Last Chance and provides regular commentaries on the Jeff Crouere YouTube channel and on www.JeffCrouere.com.
TOPIC: OH BROTHER, NANCY PELOSI IS INSANE!
GEORGE PARRY
George Parry is a Contributor to The American Spectator, The Federalist, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. George is a former federal and state prosecutor. George served as: Special Attorney for the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, U.S. Department of Justice ; Unit Chief, Investigations Division, Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office ; Special Organized Crime Prosecutor, Blair and Cambria counties (central Pennsylvania) ; and a Legal Analyst for KYW-TV in Philadelphia.
TOPIC: Beware of the Thing That Is Coming!
TRISTAN JUSTICE
Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism.
TOPIC: Biden Estimated 250,000 COVID Deaths This Month. He Was Off By 178,000!
©Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

Why the Real Villain of 2020 Was Big Government


COVID-19 was going to be bad, no matter what. But the failures of big government made it much, much worse.


The disaster that was 2020 is finally over. Now it’s time for the inevitable post-mortems.
First and foremost, the COVID-19 pandemic posed enormous challenges to American institutions, and continues to do so. Frankly, we were not prepared. We need to diagnose what went wrong, so that we are never caught unaware like this again. Fortunately, the diagnosis is straightforward. COVID-19 was going to be bad, no matter what. But the failures of big government made it much, much worse.
In particular, the Centers for Disease Control, Food and Drug Administration, and public teachers’ unions are the great American villains of 2020. Meanwhile, the heroes of this year are almost entirely in the private sector. From Zoom to vaccine development, Big Pharma and Big Tech—yes, you read that right—made this horrible year bearable. Even amid a crisis that led so many to cry out for vigorous government action, we saw that private markets still work best.
For progressives and so-called “national” conservatives who support big government, 2020 represented the ultimate test for their philosophies. Although they disagree on cultural issues, they see eye-to-eye on the role of government. Both want a big, energetic state promoting what (they believe to be) the good of the nation. Well, here was their chance for the government to shine.
The result was shameful failure. The COVID-19 crisis put left-wing and right-wing statism on trial—and both were found guilty of ill-intent and gross incompetence.
After all, the CDC is the reason America lagged behind other nations for so long in terms of COVID-19 testing. We had the virus genome fully mapped in January, which enabled the rapid production of private testing kits. But the CDC forced these operations to shut down, coming up with its own test—which was flawed, and even contaminated! Testing and tracing could have stemmed the worst of the COVID-19 tide.
On this issue alone, CDC ineptitude is likely responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Its red tape and incompetence made containing the COVID-19 pandemic, like a few other countries were able to, impossible.
How about the FDA?
It is no secret that the vaccine was delayed because it needed FDA approval. Indeed, several working vaccines could have come much earlier, were it not for our bungling bureaucrat gatekeepers. (Dear FDA: Can you please speed things up a little, so people do not, you know, die? It would make us ever so happy if you did. Thanks.)
As for schools, the data show that young people and children are at very low-risk from COVID-19, and that schools are not “super spreaders.” Despite this, largely due to pressure from public teachers’ unions, many schools remained closed in the fall. In fact, the US was pretty much the only country to pursue the alarmist policy of keeping schools closed.
The toll on school-aged children is immense, from psychological trauma to impeded learning. Low-income families were hit especially hard. They often lacked the means to participate in distance learning, and having their kids at home made it harder for parents to earn much-needed income.
Fortunately, there seems to be some well-deserved backlash against the crony public education establishment. Hopefully a mass exodus to more effective and accountable learning platforms will follow, whether that is charter schools, private schools, or homeschooling. Even more hopefully, parents will realize public education racketeers are not their friends. They should demand loud and clear: Fund students, not systems!
In stark contrast to these unacceptable failures by government agencies and employees, the private sector delivered.
Big Pharma and Big Tech are the winners here. Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and many other companies did amazing work getting the vaccines developed as quickly as they did. Public health “experts” repeatedly claimed a vaccine would not be available for 18 months, at the earliest. (Shows what they know!)
As for Big Tech, companies like Facebook and Twitter helped us stay connected while we were forced physically to remain apart. Amazon responded well to a huge surge in demand, stemming from the curtailment of in-person shopping. Faced with an immense logistical challenge, the online retailer surpassed expectations.
These sectors and their star performers are not perfect, of course.
In the past, Big Pharma lobbied for many of the regulatory roadblocks that made fighting COVID-19 so hard. Big Tech got egg on its face for covering up the Hunter Biden laptop story. Nevertheless, the takeaway is clear: 2020 would have been much, much more miserable without these supposedly evil big businesses in our corner. We owe them far more than we give them.
2021 is the perfect time to revisit our basic beliefs about the role of government and business in society. Both were unexpectedly challenged by the greatest public health crisis in recent memory.
Government failed. Business triumphed. Statism should be discredited, hopefully for an entire generation. Any coherent political philosophy for the 21st century must start from this basic truth.
COLUMN BY

Alexander William Salter

Alexander William Salter is an associate professor of economics in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University, the Comparative Economics Research Fellow at TTU’s Free Market Institute, and a senior fellow with the American Institute for Economic Research’s Sound Money Project. Follow him on Twitter @alexwsalter.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Growing Body of Evidence’ Shows COVID-19 Leaked from Chinese Lab: U.S. Official


And this is news. Always known. The only ones denying it was the ChiCom-supported Democrat media complex.

‘Growing body of evidence’ shows COVID-19 leaked from Chinese lab: US official

By Sara Dorn. The NY Post, January 2, 2021 |
U.S. National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger is doubling down on the theory that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese government-run lab in Wuhan.
Pottinger, a staunch critic of Beijing, allegedly made the claim in a recent Zoom meeting with British officials.
“There is a growing body of evidence that the lab is likely the most credible source of the virus,” Pottinger reportedly said, according to the Daily Mail.
The Trump appointee pushed the theory as the European Union made a new investment deal with China last week over protests from Pottinger and hesitance from the incoming Biden administration.
Pottinger, one of the first U.S. officials to raise alarms inside White House walls about the origins of the virus back in January 2020, has reportedly suspected since the early days of the outbreak that the coronavirus originated in a Chinese lab.
He ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to search for evidence that it had, the New York Times reported in April.
A Chinese virologist who said she did some of the earliest research on COVID-19 has publicly claimed COVID-19 was man-made, and that the Chinese government covered up its dangers. Western medical experts have discredited the theory.
see also
Wuhan ‘bat woman’ open to inspection to prove COVID did not originate in lab
The World Health Organization has been investigating the source of the virus since the first case was made public in January 2020. Patient Zero has not been found.
Pottinger suggested in the recent call with British officials that the WHO probe is a ruse.
“MPs around the world have a moral role to play in exposing the WHO investigation as a Potemkin exercise,” Pottinger told the parliamentarians, referring to fake villages created in Crimea in the 18th Century to convince the visiting Russian Empress Catherine the Great that the region was in good health.
“Even establishment figures in Beijing have openly dismissed the wet market story,” Pottinger allegedly said, referring to another theory that the virus was transmitted from animals to humans inside a wildlife market in Wuhan where the first cluster of cases emerged.

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

Why Would Blue State Governors Use Draconian Lockdowns that DO NOT Work to Slow the Chinese Virus?


Because they are dupes of those Socialist/Communist strategists who are working to destroy Capitalism and make everyone dependent on the government.
COVID-19 is a dream come true for modern day Commies who have dreamed of this day since Cloward and Piven wrote their thesis in the 1960s.
Here is one more of many stories about how California, with the most Chinese virus cases even as it is the most locked down state in the nation, is suffering.
To those of us looking on it makes no sense that Governor Newsom would want to inflict such economic misery on the people of California, unless….
…..Newsom and other Democrat governors want the suffering to force Americans to move toward Socialism/Communism.
From The Lid:

California COVID Cases Surge- Proving Lockdowns Don’t Work

If you still live in California, you probably deserve a medal. Living under the tyrannical rule of Newsom has to hurt. He keeps on adding to his COVID rules, but the only thing the rules accomplish is to prove that lockdowns don’t work. The economy sinks while the CoronaVirus cases surge.
[….]
Stephen Moore explains that the lockdowns don’t reduce deaths, and they hurt those who can least afford to be hurt:
Lockdowns are crushing the little guy. Even so, it is the Democrats who are pushing this anti-freedom agenda. Here are the 10 states listed by The New York Times with the strictest lockdown orders: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington. What do they have in common? Democratic governors.
[….]
The states that have not locked down their economy have lower death rates than New York and New Jersey. The unemployment rate for service workers in these states has skyrocketed to as high as 10%. In contrast, the red states, such as Utah and Florida, that are still open for business have unemployment rates for service workers as low as 4%.

Be confused no longer, they have a STRATEGY

So if you have been confused about why these Democrat governors are behaving in a way that is clearly aimed at bringing down the US economy, don’t be confused.  The Democrat Party has been indoctrinated for decades in the Cloward-Piven Strategy—bring down Capitalism by creating a massive welfare state.
In 2009 I wrote about it at Refugee Resettlement Watch positing that the reason the Left wanted more impoverished refugees and immigrants was to add to the numbers of poor people who would demand more ‘services’ from an increasingly strained government.
Here is my post from 2009.  I know it is long but maybe it will help clear up any confusion you have right now about what appears to be just dumb decisions by dumb Dems.  No, this is a strategy!

Cloward-Piven Strategy: bring down Capitalism by flooding the welfare system

More on November 23rd:   Jim Simpson, an expert on the Cloward-Piven strategy has more today at the American Thinkerhere.
That is the basic goal involved in the Cloward-Piven strategy that most of us never heard of until Obama and the community organizers got to the White House.  I’ve been reading about it lately, thanks to RRW reader Paul, and it came to mind last night as I considered the fact that Somali refugees had flooded Maine primarily for the generous welfare system (more shortly).
This is just some background from David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks that I want to post so we can continue to build our ‘community destabilization’ category, and not lose the links.
Cloward is dead. Piven is still alive and in 2011 Piven (now 88) attempted to try to tell students at a Christian college that the Tea Party was RACIST.
HotAir tells us what happened. https://hotair.com/archives/tina-korbe/2011/10/13/messiah-college-crowd-pushes-back-on-frances-fox-pivens-accusations-of-tea-party-racism/
Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.
You should take some time and read Cloward and Piven’s 1966 seminal work in the Nation magazine to fully understand the concept.  They (and their comrades today) want to enroll as many people as they can on public assistance, cause a crisis by overloading local governments, bring greater federal control and ultimately collapse Capitalism as the federal government takes greater control and brings about ultimately a guaranteed wage for all— a redistribution of wealth.
This is the opening paragraph of the Nation article:
[Update! The article is no longer available at The Nation, but a Leftwing publication reposted it here,at Common Dreams.]
How can the poor be organized to press for relief from poverty? How can a broad-based movement be developed and the current disarray of activist forces be halted? These questions confront, and confound, activists today. It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.
My theory is that the “poor” of the 1960’s were, in subsequent decades, entering the middle class.  Thanks to Capitalism there weren’t enough of them to collapse the system and many other Americans have an  antipathy to living off the government and accepting welfare!   So community organizers need the immigrants and refugees who have become accustomed, in the case of refugees, to living off of the United Nations, to help swell the welfare rolls.  That is the only logical explanation for the Obama Administration continuing to resettle very high numbers of refugees right now (in a recession!) when there is little work for them—well that, and the desire on their part to create a magical borderless utopian world.
The Somalis who migrated to Maine are only too happy to comply, next!  Here it is.

So here we are, decades later, just where Cloward-Piven, Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama, AOC and Ilhan Omar wanted us to be—redistributing wealth by handing out welfare checks to most of America.
If Biden/Harris succeed in stealing the White House, the demented old man could finish us off by handing us over to the Communist Party of China.
EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

COVERUP OF THE CENTURY: Leaked Documents Expose Extent Of Communist China’s Coronavirus Lies/Disinfo/ Censorship



Thousands of internal directives and reports expose how Chinese officials stage-managed what appeared online in the early days of the outbreak.
Called “The Wuhan Files,” the report reveals evidence of mishandling and purported destroying of evidence, based on a 117-page document marked “internal document, please keep confidential.”
The documents reveal that China’s censorship on information about the outbreak began in early January, before coronavirus had even been decisively identified.
China deliberately misled the world in the early stages of Wuhan’s Covid-19 outbreak, suppressed evidence, and mishandled the pandemic, stated a report published by CNN.

The Times reported that the documents include more than 3,200 directives and 1,800 other files from the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), the country’s Internet regulator located in the eastern city of Hangzhou. Also included were files and code from Urun Big Data Services, a Chinese company that produces software used by the government to track online discussions and oversee troops of online commenters.

And the Democrat media cabal and their tech giant handmaidens were only to happy to submit to the Chicoms. It’s bloody treason.

Leaked documents reveal extent of China’s attempts to control coronavirus message

By: i24NEWS, December 20, 2020:
Chinese censorship on information about outbreak began in early January, before decisive identification
China’s attempts to influence opinion regarding the coronavirus pandemic have been brought to light through secrete government directives and “reclaiming the narrative” after The New York Times and ProPublica reviewed hacked documents.
A hacker group known as CCP (Chinese Communist Party) Unmasked shared the documents, which reveal the Herculean efforts that the actual CCP invested in maintaining control of the Internet. “The Times and ProPublica verified the legitimacy of many of the documents, some of which had been acquired independently by China Digital Times, a website that follows Chinese Internet controls,” according to The Jerusalem Post/.
The documents show as early as January – before the coronavirus had been decisively identified – Chinese authorities clamped down on information to make the virus look less severe, and the government more capable.
This was particularly true when Li Wenliang, the doctor who had initially sounded the alarm about the new viral outbreak died of COVID-19 on February 7, sending Chinese sensors into overdrive.
“They ordered news sites not to issue push alerts about his death, and told social platforms to gradually remove his name from trending topics pages and activated legions of fake online commenters to flood social sites with distracting chatter,” reported The New York Times.
Beijing was caught off-guard at the outpouring of emotion and became deeply concerned about creating a “butterfly effect,” in turn causing officials to get to work suppressing inconvenient news.
The Times also maintained that propaganda workers produced reports that ensured people saw nothing other than the calming message from the Communist Party, i.e. that the government had everything under control.
In addition to employing hundreds of thousands of people part-time to promote information that parrots the CCP’s ideology, WeChat, China’s version of WhatsApp also censored data at the beginning of the pandemic, according to The Post.
Wired reported that by March, WeChat blocked mentions of international groups, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Red Cross, in addition to censoring references to outbreaks in other countries.”

RELATED ARTICLE: You Can Kill Covid With a Flick of a Light Switch, Study Shows
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

You Can Kill Covid With a Flick of a Light Switch, Study Shows


Ultraviolet LED lights kill coronavirus quickly, efficiently and cheaply — but don’t go stringing purple lights all over your home.
You can kill Covid with a flick of a switch, study shows:

Ultraviolet LED lights kill coronavirus quickly, efficiently and cheaply — but don’t go stringing purple lights all over your home.

 December 17, 2020:

Israeli researchers discover that coronavirus can be quickly and easily killed using UV LED lights. =
As the world continues to race toward a vaccine for Covid-19, new Israeli research shows that the humble light bulb could become a major player in the fight against the pandemic.

Researchers have discovered that coronavirus can be killed quickly, efficiently and cheaply using ultraviolet light-emitting diodes, or UV LED lights.

In a study recently published in the Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology researchers found the optimal wavelength for killing the coronavirus is 267 nanometers.
They also discovered that a wavelength of 286 nanometers is almost as efficient, requiring less than half a minute to destroy more than 99.9 percent of the coronaviruses – good news considering that 286 nm LED bulbs are much cheaper and more readily available, and could be installed in air conditioning and water systems.
“The entire world is currently looking for effective solutions to disinfect the coronavirus,” she says. “The problem is that in order to disinfect a bus, train, sports hall or plane by chemical spraying, you need physical manpower, and in order for the spraying to be effective, you have to give the chemical time to act on the surface.
“The disinfection systems based on LED bulbs, however, can be installed in the ventilation system and air conditioner, for example, and sterilize the air sucked in and then emitted into the room.”
Mamane explains that it is quite simple to kill the coronavirus using LED bulbs that radiate ultraviolet light.
“But no less important, we killed the viruses using cheaper and more readily available LED bulbs, which consume little energy and do not contain mercury like regular bulbs. Our research has commercial and societal implications, given the possibility of using such LED bulbs in all areas of our lives, safely and quickly.”
Ultraviolet radiation is a common method for killing viruses and bacteria. Ultraviolet disinfecting bulbs can be found, for example, in home water purifiers.
Earlier this year, scientists determined that applying ultraviolet light on the inside of ventilation systems in indoor spaces can quickly and efficiently deactivate both airborne and surface-deposited Covid-19.
Despite the exciting discovery, this is not the time to string purple lights all over your home.
“Of course, as always when it comes to ultraviolet radiation, it is important to make it clear to people that it is dangerous to try to use this method to disinfect surfaces inside homes,” Mamane warns.
“You need to know how to design these systems and how to work with them so that you are not dire

RELATED ARTICLE: COVERUP OF THE CENTURY: Leaked Documents Expose Extent Of Communist China’s Coronavirus Lies/Disinfo/ Censorship
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Capitalist Surrender


American business is terrified of the Greens.
Green / climate pressure groups love to spread the myth that corporations spend vast sums to block their agenda.
The opposite is true.  When Greens attack, business surrenders… and hands over billions in payoffs.
Jeff Bezos built Amazon into a global powerhouse and became the world’s richest man.  Bezos wants Amazon’s astounding growth to go on unimpeded, so he’s trying to massively buy the Left off.  Senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen reports at CFACT.org:

Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post, has announced that he is giving $793 million to 16 environmental groups to fight climate change and undertake other activities to save the planet. The largess comes from Bezos’s Earth Fund and is, he says, “just the beginning of my $10 billion commitment to fund scientists, activists, NGOs, and others.”
More than half of the donations are going to established, already well-funded green groups, with $100 million grants each going to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Nature Conservancy (TNC), the World Resources Institute (WRI), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

That’s right.  Bezos is paying billions to the most radical left-wing Greens to use to undo the very free market prosperity that made Amazon possible.
What a craven bargain Bezos has made.
As Winston Churchill said, “An appeaser Is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump Nominates Charlie Kirk, Several Others, To New Commission That Counters 1619 Project


President Donald Trump announced 18 individuals who he intends to appoint Friday as two-year members of the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission.
Trump first announced the initiative in September and slammed The New York Times’ “1619 Project,” which pushes slavery to the center of America’s founding. The 1776 Commission “will work to improve understanding of the history and the principles of the founding of the United States among our Nation’s rising generations,” according to a previous press release.
Some people took to Twitter to point out one of Trump’s picks in particular: Turning Point USA President Charlie Kirk.

It’s not immediately clear how the president picked the incoming members or what qualifications were needed.

Other notable choices include Acting Director of the United States Domestic Policy Council Brooke Rollins and Hoover Institution senior fellow Victor Davis Hanson, according to a Friday press release.
https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1339966442842828800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1339966442842828800%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2020%2F12%2F18%2Fdonald-trump-nominates-charlie-kirk-1776-commission-advisory%2F
The president previously called the “1619 Project” a “crusade against American history.” It has been implemented in schools across the country and criticized by some historians. The president also accused the project of being “toxic propaganda, ideological poison that, if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together” and “destroy our country.”
While the executive order Trump signed in early November doesn’t directly name the NYT’s project, it includes similar language that the president has previously used in denouncing the initiative.
“Despite the virtues and accomplishments of this Nation, many students are now taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but rather villains,” according to the executive order. “This radicalized view of American history lacks perspective, obscures virtues, twists motives, ignores or distorts facts, and magnifies flaws, resulting in the truth being concealed and history disfigured.”
COLUMN BY

Shelby Talcott

Media Reporter. Retired college and professional athlete, big fan of dogs and mimosas without the OJ, sarcastic New Yorker at heart.
RELATED ARTICLE: Why Some Members Of The American Right Are Pushing Back Against Trump’s 1776 Commission
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

COVID Vaccine: A Promising Start, But Freedom Must Be Paramount


Yesterday, after nine long months of praying for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic, Sarah Lindsey — a critical-care nurse at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in Queens — received the first coronavirus vaccination. While the distribution of this vaccine is a sign of hope for many, the hyper-political climate in which it was created has caused moral, ethical, and medical concerns surrounding the vaccine. Chief among these concerns are: was the vaccine ethically created, or was it derived from an abortion-derived cell line? Is the vaccine effective? And finally, will taking the vaccine be mandatory?
The Pfizer vaccine made its mark as the first vaccine distributed in the United States. In phase three testing, Pfizer reported the vaccine demonstrated 95 percent efficacy against COVID-19. While this is promising, as Dr. Michelle Cretella pointed out in her interview on “Washington Watch,” “we do not have any long-term studies” showing the effectiveness of the vaccine or its potential side-effects. Though abortion-derived cell lines were used during some of the animal phase testing of this vaccine, thankfully, there were no abortion-derived cell lines used in its production, leading the Charlotte Lozier Institute to declare the Pfizer vaccine as ethically uncontroversial.
The Moderna vaccine, currently under review by the FDA, has reported a 94.1 percent efficacy rate and could be available for distribution as early as this weekend. Dr. Cretella explained that — similar to the Pfizer vaccine — this vaccine uses new technology to fight the virus: “These vaccines contain a messenger, a genetic messenger within them that will enter our cells and cause our cells to create a particle that resembles the virus. Protein resembles the COVID virus protein. And that is what is going to trigger our immune system to make antibodies.” While the Moderna vaccine also used abortion-derived cell lines in its animal testing phase, abortion-derived cell lines were not used in the creation of the vaccine itself. As such, this vaccine also made Charlotte Lozier’s ethically uncontroversial list.
A third vaccine from AstraZeneca has been touted as a promising vaccine candidate because it is cheaper and easier to store than both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines; however, this vaccine has had much more moderate success than the other two. More distressingly, this vaccine is derived from aborted baby cell-lines, causing serious ethical concerns for pro-lifers across the country.
Though the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are reasons for optimism, hesitancy caused by conscience concerns and the lack of long-term testing cannot be ignored. Over the last nine months, our health care workers and people on the front lines have certainly proven that America is the home of the brave, but many of our government officials seem to have forgotten that this is also the land of the free. Across the country, governors and local governments — often against the urging of the White House — have restricted worship, shut down schools — even religious ones — and even tried to cancel Christmas. Basic freedoms have been limited, and so, many are wondering whether the U.S. government will make the COVID-19 vaccination mandatory.
While the White House and Dr. Anthony Fauci have assured the public that mandatory vaccination of the general population will not happen, Dr. Fauci did not rule out a mandate for health care workers, and private businesses can legally mandate the vaccine. Given the ethical and medical concerns surrounding the vaccine, let’s hope that both government officials and private employers remember that America was founded so Americans could be free — free to practice their religion (especially at Christmas), free to assemble (especially in their own homes), and free to decide whether or not to get a vaccine.
COLUMN BY

Mary Szoch

Director of the Center for Human Dignity
Mary Szoch serves as the Director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council. In this position, Mary researches, writes, and coordinates collaborative efforts with other pro-life advocates on policies surrounding life and human dignity.
Prior to joining Family Research Council, Mary was the Director of the D.C. Catholic Conference and the Manager of Catholic Policy and Advocacy for the Archdiocese of Washington. In her role, Mary led the Archdiocese’s public policy work in D.C. including the fight against the legalization of prostitution, the complete deregulation of the abortion industry, and limitations on the freedoms of religious organizations. Mary also directed the Department of Life Issues for the Archdiocese where she collaborated with churches and pro-life organizations to educate and raise awareness on the life issues including abortion, assisted suicide, and discrimination against people with disabilities.
Mary received her master’s in education through the University of Notre Dame’s ACE program where she taught history and English to high school students at an under-resourced school. In 2015, while teaching at St. Peter’s on Capitol Hill, Mary founded a non-profit, Teaching Together, that provides meaningful jobs in schools to adults with special needs.
Mary is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame where she majored in political science and philosophy. While at the University of Notre Dame, Mary played basketball for the Fighting Irish and lettered on the 2010-2011 National Championship Runner-Up team. A native of Altoona, Pennsylvania, Mary currently lives in D.C. with her husband, Ben.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Analysist Identifies ‘Phantom Voters’ Used to Dilute Legal Votes in Several States


Fake people who cast votes. In Arizona alone, he identified as many as 300,000 of these voters.

Analysist Identifies “Phantom Voters” Used to Dilute Legal Votes in Several States

By: Dr E, Washington Pundit, December 15, 2020:
Enthusiasm is contagious and Bobby Piton has no shortage of it. Piton became an instant success after his appearance at the first round of hearings on election integrity in Arizona. Piton, an investment advisor and managing partner of Pre-Active Investments, is also a self-proclaimed math enthusiast, who was called in to assist a colleague to decipher election data from Arizona, just days before the hearing.
Piton analyzed the data from Arizona’s own government databases and discovered a unique subset of voters who could not be identified by their binary sex (male or female), which he termed ‘U’ voters. In Arizona alone, he identified as many as 300,000 of these U voters. He believes the voters comprising the U group are “phantoms”, or fake people who cast votes.
To prove his theory, Piton identified a subset of about 95,000 of these “phantom sleeper voters” in Arizona. A group of volunteers led by Liz Harris, candidate for AZ state representative in the 17th district, set out to determine whether these voters existed or whether they were truly phantoms. Of the 95,000 names identified, Piton narrowed down the potentially fake voters to a subset of 3899 potential phantoms on which to focus their efforts. He estimated 20 to 30% would be non-existent phantoms.

https://twitter.com/BobbyPiton3/status/1337112741614653449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1337112741614653449%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fanalysist-identifies-phantom-voters-used-to-dilute-legal-votes-in-several-states.html%2F

Harris and her team set out to find these voters and began a door-knocking campaign. The volunteers were able to knock on 2000 doors in an attempt to find the individual voters on the phantom list. They were successful in finding 1000 people willing to talk to them and of those, 539 voters who should have resided at the residence were non-existent. That is an incredible 53.9% of the registered voters who were “phantom sleeper voters”.

https://twitter.com/BobbyPiton3/status/1338095162426265603?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1338095162426265603%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fanalysist-identifies-phantom-voters-used-to-dilute-legal-votes-in-several-states.html%2F

Piton believes the algorithm he devised could be used to easily identify fake voters in every state.

https://twitter.com/BobbyPiton3/status/1336323965493465093?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1336323965493465093%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fanalysist-identifies-phantom-voters-used-to-dilute-legal-votes-in-several-states.html%2F

He also theorizes that the phantom voters are used to cancel out a legal vote, yet remain hidden from detection. This is accomplished by casting a vote for the phantom, then modifying the voter rolls. He believes his theory can easily be proven by looking at the timestamps of changes made to a state’s voter files.

https://twitter.com/BobbyPiton3/status/1336759437260972034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1336759437260972034%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fanalysist-identifies-phantom-voters-used-to-dilute-legal-votes-in-several-states.html%2F
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337385736530780161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1337388180622995456%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fanalysist-identifies-phantom-voters-used-to-dilute-legal-votes-in-several-states.html%2F

A similar effort is now underway in Pennsylvania, where Piton has gone on to identify Phantom Sleeper Voters. Thus far he has uncovered nearly 288,220 records that appear to be phantom sleeper voters in the 67 PA counties.

https://twitter.com/BobbyPiton3/status/1338530418790948867?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1338530418790948867%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fanalysist-identifies-phantom-voters-used-to-dilute-legal-votes-in-several-states.html%2F

In looking into one congressional race in the state, volunteers were able to discern 34% of identified phantom voters were in fact fake people.

https://twitter.com/BobbyPiton3/status/1337939235647729664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1337939235647729664%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fanalysist-identifies-phantom-voters-used-to-dilute-legal-votes-in-several-states.html%2F
Piton likens these phantom sleeper voters to a digital invading army. They attack by voting, then retreat into hiding by being deleted from the records. He plans to continue identifying these fake voters, and expose what he says is the ‘biggest fraud in history”.
https://twitter.com/BobbyPiton3/status/1338349693886222336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1338349693886222336%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwpundit.com%2F2020%2F12%2F15%2Fanalysist-identifies-phantom-voters-used-to-dilute-legal-votes-in-several-states%2F
RELATED VIDEO: The Charlie Kirk Show – NEVER GIVE UP

RELATED ARTICLES:
PATHETIC: McConnell congratulates Joe Biden as president-elect
Kemp and Raffensperger “Will Soon be Going to Jail,” PRESIDENT TRUMP Retweets Attorney Lin Wood
Dominion Audit: Ballot Error Rate Was At Least 85,000 Times Higher Than FEC Allows
WATCH LIVE: Dominion Voting CEO Testifies at Michigan Legislature Hearing
U.S. Treasury, Commerce Depts., USG Agencies Hacked Through SolarWinds (Dominion IT Provider) Software Backdoor
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Renowned Epidemiologist Aids St. Michael Academy’s Challenge of Michigan’s Lockdown


St. Michael Academy, a small private independent Catholic high school located in Petoskey, Michigan has a total of 30 high school students.  St. Michael is challenging Michigan’s current MDHHS order which has shut down in-person instruction at high schools across the state on the bogus claim that it is “following the science.”  Citing to the recent Roman Catholic Diocese opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court that observes, “even in a pandemic the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a lawsuit on behalf of St. Michael late Friday in the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan.
In an astonishing turn of events, St. Michael was able to enlist the support of a world-renowned epidemiologist and expert on the spread of COVID-19, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Dr. Bhattacharya is an author of 136 articles in peer-reviewed journals and has provided testimony relating to COVID-19 to both federal and state governmental bodies. He is assisting St. Michael Academy without charge, as is the Law Center.
Dr. Bhattacharya has already filed an affidavit in the case. He points out that MDHHS’s orders shutting down schools to in-person instruction are inconsistent with the best scientific evidence regarding the safety of students and the guidelines provided by the World Health Organization. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, supports the WHO guidelines.
Moreover, Dr. Bhattacharya, citing to July guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control, warns that prohibiting in-person instruction potentially causes tremendous damage to students, including: severe learning loss, widening disparities in educational outcomes, hampered development of social and emotional skills, potential harm to mental health, exposure to heightened risk of maltreatment and abuse at home, nutritional deprivation of poor children, and a sharp reduction in regular physical activity.
Dr. Richard A. Brake, the Headmaster of St. Michael Academy, is not only in charge of the academic and spiritual development of St. Michael students but also of the development and implementation of the Academy’s plans to keep its students safe from the COVID-19 virus. He and his staff kept up in-person instruction this school year, until the November 15, 2020 shutdown order was issued by the state. Thus far, St. Michael has not experienced any cases of COVID-19 among its students, faculty, or staff.
Dr. Brake believes that banning in-person instruction precludes the Academy from exercising its religious freedom to inculcate in its students the sense of awe and wonder about all of God’s creation, encouraging them to look beyond the temporal and mundane towards the eternal and transcendent. Education and formation at St. Michael Academy involve prayer, worship, devotional practices and the Socratic method. These are not effective when done remotely, with students looking at computer screens.
Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President, observed, “No one denies that slowing the COVID‑19 pandemic is a compelling state interest. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s November 25, 2020 decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo held that, even so, where a state’s COVID-19 mitigation law burdens religious exercise and is not neutral, as in our case, states must narrowly tailor their edicts to meet the state interest in the least restrictive manner. The State of Michigan cannot suspend a fundamental right of the people to the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment.”
Thompson added, “And based on the scientific evidence that very few children under the age of 19 suffer or die as a result of COVID-19 infection, and rarely transmit the virus to other children or adults, weighed against all the negative ramifications of keeping children home, the state cannot meet the ‘strict scrutiny’ test which demands that it address its interests by the least restrictive means. Experts like the CDC Director are now saying that one of the safest places for students during this pandemic is in school.”

Click here to read St. Michael’s filed Complaint

Click here to read Dr. Bhattacharya’s 20-page Affidavit
Please support the Thomas More Law Center’s mission by clicking here.
©Thomas More Law Center. All rights reserved.

The U.S. Army Adopted the Sig Sauer P320. Can This Gun Protect Your Home?


The Sig Sauer P320 Compact is a modular-framed, striker-fired pistol designed for versatility and customization. It’s got a lot of interesting features and supports the Sig Sauer reputation for reliable and quality firearms. But is it worth buying? Keep reading to find out.
Accuracy
This gun is very accurate. Right out of the box, the P320 averages 1.5-inch groupings at anywhere from 7 to 25 yards, slow-fire. There is very little recoil, which is surprising considering it can feel a little top-heavy until you get used to it. You may have to allow yourself some time to adjust to the 6’oclock hold as well, especially if you are used to shooting with a more angled grip, like with a Glock. The photoluminescent sights provide an accurate sight picture and allow for precise shooting in low-light situations. The RX model also comes with a great red dot optic, Sig’s Romeo 1. Speaking of romeo, you can upgrade your Ruger 10/22 with this optic.
Reliability
The Sig P320 is amazingly reliable. After over 500 rounds and a wide variety of ammo — including Hornady TAP, Winchester White Box, and Blazer Brass FMJ — there were no misfires or jams. Testing out all the frames with hollow and plink ammo has proven you can count on this gun to fire consistently and without issue.
Handling
I really like how the P320 handles. It’s lightweight, if a little top-heavy, and is easy to maneuver between targets. The RX Carry model is great for concealed carry, and the potential for customization on this pistol means it can be customized for almost every shooter’s needs. The P320 is a technically a chassis gun with a series of interchangeable grip frames or a Sig X-change kit. You can change out the caliber, barrel, grip, and slide for the entire series — excluding the .45 ACP — to fit your needs and specifications. So, if you don’t like the grip, or decide you want a to try out another caliber, the P320 provides an alternative to buying a completely different gun.
Even with all the customizations available, the P320 remains fairly simple in its design. The magazine release is reversible, the slide lock and disassembly lever are easy to use and there isn’t an external safety.
Trigger
The trigger seems to be the only point of contention for the Sig P320. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just going to come down to preference. The trigger on the P320 is a wide, single-action trigger that breaks cleanly at around 5.5 pounds with a smooth reset. There’s no stacking and some overtravel that could affect accuracy, so you may have to make some adjustments if the trigger isn’t a fit for you.
Magazine & Reloading
Sig Sauer packages these guns with two 15-round for the compact model and 17-round mags for the carry. These steel mags are easy to load and smoothly drop free when released. Another great thing about the P320 is that its magazines are exchangeable with the P250.
Length & Weight
The P320 is only 7.2-inches in overall length, 5.3 inches tall, and 28 oz when loaded. It’s small, compact, and has a sleek design. No matter your application, this gun won’t weigh you down.
Recoil Management
The high, vertical grip, high bore axis, and undercut trigger guard all contribute to excellent recoil management in the P320. With the custom grip models available, there’s no reason you should have trouble keeping an accurate sight picture between shots or have the gun jerk out of your grip.
Price
The P320 runs for about $500 retail, depending on the model. The X-Change kits sell from Sig Sauer for around $450 and the grip frames for about $45.
My Verdict?
The Sig Sauer P320 Compact is a great gun for anything from concealed carry to competition shooting. It’s accurate, reliable, and primed for customization. If you are looking for a unique and dependable handgun, you can’t go wrong with the P320.
RELATED VIDEO: The Army’s New Handgun | SIG SAUER P320 | Tactical Rifleman

©Richard Douglas. All rights reserved.

Gallup Poll: Americans’ Mental Health Hits 20-Year Low Ahead of Renewed Lockdowns


Any retrospective analysis of lockdown policies—the effectiveness which is seriously disputed—must be weighed against the loss of life and human suffering they caused.


In California and other parts of the country, Americans are headed back to lockdown or otherwise facing renewed restrictions on their day-to-day lives amid another spike of COVID-19. Yet a new Gallup poll shows these lockdowns come as people are already struggling with their mental health.
“Americans’ latest assessment of their mental health is worse than it has been at any point in the last two decades,” Gallup reports.


The new polling found that 34 percent of respondents said their mental health was “excellent,” which is 9 points down from 2019. Similarly, 85 percent of Americans had rated their mental health as “good or excellent” in 2019. Just 76 percent did this year. [VIEW CHART HERE]
This poll only further documents an ongoing trend.
As Jon Miltimore previously explained for FEE.org, the Centers for Disease Control found that 1 in 4 young Americans considered suicide this past summer amid life under lockdown and unprecedented levels of social isolation. In one anecdote that painfully demonstrates this broader trend, a California hospital doctor told local news in May that during lockdown he witnessed “a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.”

Much of the decline in mental health over the last 9 months can reasonably be attributed to pandemic lockdowns rather than COVID-19 itself.
Why? Well, consider that for the aforementioned suicidal young adults, the actual mortality risk of COVID-19 is close to zero. It’s the shuttering of their schools, closures of their offices, and isolation from family, friends, and community that has affected them so drastically.
And the negative health effects, both physical and mental, of social isolation are well-documented. Consider this report from the New York Times:

A wave of new research suggests social separation is bad for us. Individuals with less social connection have disrupted sleep patterns, altered immune systems, more inflammation and higher levels of stress hormones. One recent study found that isolation increases the risk of heart disease by 29 percent and stroke by 32 percent.
Another analysis that pooled data from 70 studies and 3.4 million people found that socially isolated individuals had a 30 percent higher risk of dying in the next seven years, and that this effect was largest in middle age.
Loneliness can accelerate cognitive decline in older adults, and isolated individuals are twice as likely to die prematurely as those with more robust social interactions. These effects start early: Socially isolated children have significantly poorer health 20 years later, even after controlling for other factors. All told, loneliness is as important a risk factor for early death as obesity and smoking.

It’s certainly true that we can’t solely attribute the burgeoning mental health crisis to the lockdowns. But there’s no denying the intuitive and demonstrable fact that confining people to their homes and stripping away their livelihoods has driven the spikes in suicide and depression.
How could it not?
Ample research shows how stripping people of their agency and leaving them feeling powerless contributes to mental health decline.
“Having a high sense of control is related to proactive behavior and positive psychological outcomes,” health researchers point out. “Control is linked to an ability to take preventative action and to feel healthy. An impairment of control is associated with depression, stress, and anxiety-related disorders.”
So, such drastic government lockdowns seizing control of the minutiae of American life were always going to have severe mental health consequences. Unintended consequences plague all top-down government efforts to control or manage society.
“Every human action has both intended and unintended consequences,” Antony Davies and James Harrigan explain for FEE. “Human beings react to every rule, regulation, and order governments impose, and their reactions result in outcomes that can be quite different than the outcomes lawmakers intended.”
Replacing individual decision-making of hundreds of millions’ of peoples’ everyday lives with centralized government mandates intended to slow the spread of COVID-19 inevitably causes enormous ripple effects. Our retrospective analysis of lockdown policies—the effectiveness which is seriously disputed—must be weighed against the loss of life and human suffering they caused in their own right.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: COVID-19 Bounty? Is Pandemic Death Count Skewed by Medicare Reimbursement Bonus?


Government-mandated pandemic shutdowns may force cash-starved hospitals to attribute patient deaths to COVID-19, even if another comorbidity or accident, caused the death. What role might a Medicare COVID-19 ‘bounty’ play in the growing trends, as cases and deaths from the novel coronavirus spike to new records? And what to make of the stat that 89% of those who die from the pandemic had an advanced directive ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ order (DNR)?

Listen to the Audio Version

NOTE: Bill Whittle, Stephen Green, and Scott Ott, create 20 new episodes of Right Angle monthly thanks to our Members. Become a Member today., or make a one-time donation.
©Bill Whittle. All rights reserved.

Israel has tape of Iranian nuclear scientist saying mullahs ‘want five warheads’


Yet His Fraudulency Joe Biden plans to enable Iran’s nuclear program anew by returning to the Iranian nuclear deal. Find out why that would be a catastrophic move in The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran.
“‘Israel has tape of slain Iran nuke chief talking about building five warheads,’” Times of Israel, December 4, 2020:

Israel intelligence managed to recruit an Iranian official close to the recently assassinated Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and recorded the nuclear scientist speaking about his efforts to produce “five warheads” on behalf of the Islamic Republic, according to a Friday report in the Yedioth Ahronoth daily.
This top-secret recording was played in 2008 by former prime minister Ehud Olmert for then-president George W. Bush during a visit by Bush to Israel and was a key element in convincing the Americans to step up efforts to combat Iran’s nuclear program, the report said….

“I’m going to play you something, but I ask that you not talk about it with anyone, not even with the director of the CIA,” the report quoted Olmert as telling Bush from within the closed-door meeting. Bush reportedly agreed to the request.

Olmert pulled out a recording device, hit play and a man could be heard speaking in Persian.

“The man speaking here is Mohsen Fakhrizadeh,” Olmert reportedly explained. “Fakhrizadeh is the head of the “AMAD” program, Iran’s secret military nuclear project. The one it denies exists at all,” Olmert told Bush according to the report.

The prime minister then revealed that Israeli intelligence services had managed to recruit an Iranian agent close to Fakhrizadeh who had been feeding Jerusalem information on the nuclear scientist for years.

Olmert provided Bush with an English-language transcript of what Fakhrizadeh had said in Persian.
According to the report, Fakhrizadeh could be heard giving details about the development of Iranian nuclear weapons. However, the Yedioth report only quotes selected phrases, without the word nuclear. The scientist complains that the government is not providing him with sufficient funds to carry out his work. On the one hand, Fakhrizadeh says, in an apparent reference to his superiors, “they want five warheads,” but on the other, “they aren’t letting me work.”

Fakhrizadeh then goes on to criticize colleagues in the defense ministry and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to the report.

Bush read the recording’s translation and reacted with silence. Yedioth claimed the recording served as a “smoking atomic gun” for Olmert….

RELATED ARTICLES:
Islamic State plotting Christmas jihad massacres in UK and Europe to avenge Muhammad cartoons
France: 76 mosques will be investigated, those found to be ‘breeding grounds of terrorism’ will be closed
Indonesia: Muslim cleric issues video in which he calls for jihad as those behind him raise machetes
Malta: Archbishop says Maltese must welcome migrants, ‘We have to open our hearts to the whole world’
France: Muslim migrant stabs man in the heart for refusing him a cigarette, gets five years prison
EDITTORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New Study Reveals that Muslim Religiosity Strongly Linked to Hatred Towards the West


I am a Social and Political Psychologist that has been researching in the area of Psychology of Religion. What fascinates me about this discipline is that it goes beyond collecting people’s responses to understanding and examining their attitudes. Our aim is not limited to knowing what people think about a particular issue, but it expands to answer questions about why do they think and behave in a certain way and what we can do to change or sustain their behaviour.
The Christian faith dominates the field of Psychology of Religion. This is understandable since the West was the first to study religion using empirical scientific methods. As a Middle Eastern, I was keen to enrich the literature by expanding it to cover Islam and Muslims. In a recent study that I published in one of the top journals of the scientific study of religion, I examined the relationship between Muslim religiosity and prejudice towards the West. I wanted to investigate whether there was an association between being a religious Muslim and having negative attitudes toward the West. The sample of this study was collected from 17 Arab countries and from a variety of ages ranging from 18 to over 70.
The results were distressing and revealed that Muslim religiosity was strongly linked to hatred towards the West. It was expected to see a link between Islamic fundamentalism and negative attitudes towards the West; however, even intrinsic Muslim religiosity (moderate Islam) strongly predicted prejudice towards the West. In fact, the only groups that had favourable attitudes toward the West were the secular and nonreligious Arabs. What makes this finding intriguing is that it is different than what is found in a Western context. For instance, Christian fundamentalism is still linked to prejudice toward Muslims, but moderate Christian religiosity is not. Also, when we add ideological variables like Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Dogmatism to mediate this relationship, the Christian fundamentalism – prejudice link disappears. This means that in a Western context, Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Dogmatism have a substantial impact on prejudiced attitudes that the religiosity factor becomes insignificant. In comparison, Muslim religiosity remains even after including ideological factors like Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Dogmatism to try to mediate the link between Islam and negative biases towards the West. In other words, Muslim religiosity remains the dominant predictor for disliking the West regardless of it being moderate or reaching a fundamentalism level.
The crucial thing about these findings is that it shows that Islam is not like other religions and that this ideology needs to be understood and examined from a different scope. I have prepared a project entitled: “Conceptualizing and measuring Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, and consequences for anti-Western prejudice.” This project will examine Islamic fundamentalism in more detail in the Middle East and test its relationship to anti-Western prejudice, its link to political Islam, and other related psychological traits. Long story short, I was quite surprised by the response of many Western universities that were hesitant to invest in this research. I was asking myself why is it ok to study and examine other religions but one of a sudden it might not be a good idea to study Islam? After all, this is science, and science should remain objective.
As a psychologist, I believe that if we are serious about finding a cure for a patient, then we must begin by a proper diagnosis. But if we insist that the patient is ok and does not need treatment than things will only get worse. That is why science is crucial to help us understand and work on finding solutions to deal with extreme ideologies rather than leaving things the way they are which will only bring more violence and risk stability and security in both the East and the West. And if the recent horrifying act of beheading a schoolteacher in France because of showing some pictures was not enough to bring a wake-up call then I’m not anticipating a bright future! If you would like to read the details of my study you can reach it through this link: Islam and the West
COLUMN BY

Bashar Albaghli is a Kuwaiti academic that specialises in the scientific study of religion. He was sponsored by Kuwait University and was supposed to go back to Kuwait and be a lecturer after he completed his PhD studies. However, he was prosecuted and sentenced to prison because of his political opinions against the Islamists and funding terrorism in the Gulf.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law
EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Dr. Fauci (Basically) Admits Rand Paul Was Right 6 Months Ago on Schools and COVID-19


Top White House COVID-19 Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci recently changed his prior position and recommended that we keep schools open (while also advising the nation to close bars back down).
“Obviously, you don’t have one size fits all, but as I said in the past and as you accurately quoted me, the default position should be to try as best as possible within reason to keep the children in school or to keep them back at school,” Fauci said. “The best way to ensure the safety of our children in school is to get the community level of spread low.”
In the same interview, Fauci noted that the spread of the disease among school children has remained incredibly low throughout the pandemic.
“If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not very big at all,” Fauci added. “Not like one would have suspected.”
Fauci is correct. Schools have certainly not proven to be the hotbeds for the virus that many warned of this summer.
Two international studies have found no relationship between in-person K-12 learning and the spread of COVID-19. And another study, this one from the United States, found that childcare workers have experienced no greater risk of infection either.
These data, coupled with anecdotal evidence gathered from more than 2,000 schools across the nation, have led many health experts and pediatricians to warn of the risks of keeping schools closed, expressing concerns that the unintended consequences may be outweighing the threat of the virus.
The American Academy of Pediatrics said in a statement that:

“All policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school…. Lengthy time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation, making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal ideation.”

When families are able to homeschool their children or choose the private or public school that’s right for them, they thrive. However, when you take those options away and force all families into remote distance learning, the many kids for whom this isn’t the right fit suffer. Since the vast majority of districts have not passed school choice programs, most families have been left in a bind this year—paying for public schools they often cannot use or whose new models do not work for their children. The consequences include the risks of mental health problems, hunger, missing routine exercise, lack of medical care, child abuse in the home, and the loss of education.
Other research shows that kids are indeed beginning to fall significantly behind in math scores and modestly behind in some other proficiencies such as reading. This is especially troubling news as American children already lag in international proficiency scoring.
Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released a report suggesting that the social isolation caused by COVID-19 and ongoing government lockdowns is taking a toll on children’s mental health.
All of that to say, Fauci’s new recommendations will come as welcomed news to millions of people who have been negatively impacted by private and public school closures, while being left with few or no alternatives.
Parents have been unable to work a regular schedule. Women have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic as a whole, but especially by school shutdowns as the brunt of childcare falls to them. In September alone, 865,000 women dropped out of the workforce, a number four times higher than that of men.
Businesses have struggled to provide flexible work schedules for impacted parents. And childcare providers have been met with uncertainty and a constantly changing landscape of regulations as they work to tailor curriculum to virtual environments, keep children physically distanced, and implement other new policies, like mask-wearing, for their pupils.
But while Fauci is currently correct in his findings and recommendations, he is incorrect when he asserts that this has been his consistent position. In reality, his newfound mentality is at least six months behind the curve, and there were many others who told him as much as far back as this summer. Notably, Senator Rand Paul, a doctor himself, took the correct position many months ago.


Fauci and Paul sparred over the question of whether schools should reopen back in May of this year, leading to countless online attacks against Senator Paul by many prominent progressives.


What did Paul do to deserve such visceral attacks? He merely pointed out the same science Fauci is now hanging his hat on.
“There’s a great deal of evidence that’s actually good—good evidence—that kids aren’t transmitting this—it’s rare—and that kids are staying healthy, and that yes we can open our schools,” Paul stated during a committee hearing.
While Fauci has maintained all along that the goal should be for children to return to schools, he previously issued much more cautious recommendations. He suggested some schools remain closed and pushed for a heavier handed approach from the federal government when it came to deciding protocols for reopening schools. At that time, he also indicated that children could spread the disease as easily as adults.
Fauci’s change in position has led many, including right-wing Twitter commentator Jack Posobiec, to call for apologies to Rand Paul, which wouldn’t be the first time the senator has been owed one by the establishment.


As per usual, Paul is right. Dr. Fauci does owe an apology to the American people. But his mistake is one of arrogance, not malice—and it’s one we see repeated over and over again by the adherents of central planning.
F.A. Hayek once famously said, “The more the state ‘plans’ the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.”
Central planning fails and wreaks havoc on the individuals in a country because of the knowledge problem. The knowledge problem refers to a concept developed by Hayek in his work “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” It’s actually a pretty simple economic concept that holds that central planners cannot possibly possess all of the information they need to successfully direct the lives of others—especially given the need for rapid adaptation in response to changing circumstances.
Such has been the case with Fauci and many others in our government as they seek to combat the coronavirus. They overestimate their abilities, presume they know more than they do, and seek to tell others from afar how to best respond to their rapidly changing environment. It hasn’t worked, and it never will, and the reasons for this trace their way back to the knowledge problem.
Dr. Fauci, and many of our other political leaders, have issued incorrect information, overstepped their constitutional boundaries, and often amplified the negative impacts of the coronavirus. Instead of recognizing their own limitations in the face of a virus, they’ve instead doubled down on their authority and continued to try and control the minute details of people’s lives. This has caused chaos, often needlessly, and it has placed undue hardships on individual Americans who are attempting to do the right things and rebuild their lives.
Fauci’s new recommendations ought to come with a dose of humility and a recognition that the government, and even very smart scientists working within it, cannot centrally plan their way out of an unprecedented pandemic and crisis. Instead, Americans should be given the best, most up-to-date information available and allowed to decide for themselves what the best path forward is for their family and their community.
COLUMN BY

Hannah Cox

Hannah Cox is a libertarian-conservative writer, commentator, and activist. She’s a Newsmax Insider and a Contributor to The Washington Examiner.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.