Posts

Basheer Jones Hates America. He Wants to Be Mayor of Cleveland.

My latest in PJ Media:

Basheer Jones is a Cleveland city councilman and a candidate for mayor of Cleveland in the upcoming September 14 primary election. He is also unusually forthright, even for a twenty-first-century Democratic politician, about his contempt for the land in which he seeks elected office.

Jones is a devout, observant Muslim, and already, according to CleveScene, his “personal religious beliefs and organizational ties have become linked with his campaign. Jones made a number of questionable campaign expenditures in 2020 to international Muslim organizations and figures, including expenses likely related to his December travels in Egypt and the sponsorship of a Muslim orphanage there and a Quranic school in Senegal.”

What’s more, “a recent controversial video shows Jones saying, women are not our leaders.’” Jones, like Muslim spokesmen all over the Western world when confronted with statements that are politically inconvenient, insists that his words were “taken out of context.”

But that is not remotely the worst of it. On Sunday, the RAIR Foundation published an exposé on Jones that contained audio of Jones speaking on January 3, 2016, and making fun of Muslim immigrants who were thankful to be in the United States, and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

“Before 9/11,” Jones asserts, “our people, our brothers and sisters from the immigrant communities, like, ‘America is a great place. Oh, it’s the land of the free, home of the brave.’ You’d see the imams, big imams, on the stage, singin’, you know.” Here the crowd starts to laugh softly; Jones chuckles a bit along with them and continues: “‘I pledge allegiance to the flag,’ you know, ‘this is the greatest place in the world.’ And we were tellin’ you, ‘Ah, no it’s not. Ah, we know about this place. This place, we know, we know that guy, somethin’ about him.’ And then 9/11 hit. Everybody started comin’ to us. ‘Brothers, please, come, come march with us, stand –’ Brother, we been tellin’ you, that they’ll change on you just like that, man.”’

Jones was apparently referring to American authorities supposedly turning on Muslim communities after 9/11 and subjecting them to “Islamophobic” counter-terror measures. In any case, his contempt for the grateful immigrants, and I-told-you-so implication that he had somehow been vindicated after 9/11, when America proved to be not so great a place after all, ought to have raised eyebrows among those who backed Jones for Cleveland City Council and are now supporting his mayoral ambitions.

There is no indication, however, that anyone was concerned in the slightest with their candidate’s anti-Americanism. We are, after all, talking about the Democratic Party. This is the party that stood by and did nothing when Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Kabul) tweeted: “We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. I asked [Secretary of State Antony Blinken] where people are supposed to go for justice.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

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

Democratic Mayors Who Called To Defund The Police Spent MILLIONS On Own Security Details

Oh, the irony. No Democrat-criminal-media coverage, of course!

Democratic Mayors Who Called To Defund The Police Spent MILLIONS On Own Security Details

BY: Barnini Chakrabort | Washington Examiner | July 21, 2021 |

Democratic mayors in nearly two dozen major cities across the United States who have publicly called for defunding the police have received personal protection from a police detail at taxpayers’ expense.

An analysis of 25 major U.S. cities conducted by Forbes showed that in at least 20 of them, mayors and other city officials have said one thing publicly but have privately reaped the benefits from a dedicated police security presence.

Calls to defund the police coupled with taxpayer dollars spent to protect public officials only occurred in cities run by Democratic mayors, according to the report.

Baltimore, for example, slashed $22 million from its police budget in 2020 but didn’t have a problem spending $3.6 million for 14 officers to protect Mayor Brandon Scott, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, and Police Commissioner Michael Harrison.

Maryland’s largest city saw widespread protests against police in 2015 following the death of Freddie Gray and again in 2020 over the death of George Floyd. Gray, a 25-year-old black man, was arrested in April 2015 for possession of a “switchblade,” thrown into the back of a Baltimore Police Department van, and found unconscious 45 minutes later with his spinal cord nearly severed. He spent seven days in a coma.

Floyd, a black man, died after a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly 9 minutes. His death triggered coast-to-coast protests over police brutality and calls to defund the police.

The city of Chicago spent $17.3 million between 2015 and 2020 to guard “unnamed city officials,” according to information gathered through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Even though Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she was against defunding the police, records show that 400 police officer positions were cut last year while the cost of the security detail hit an all-time high of $3.4 million for 22 officers. The city spent $2.8 million for 17 officers in 2019; $2.8 million for 16 officers in 2018; $2.7 million for 20 police officers in 2017; and $2.9 million for 16 officers in 2016.

In San Francisco, officials made headlines for promising to divest $120 million from police over two years and move the money into health programs. However, the city spent $12.4 million between 2015 and 2020 to protect Democratic Mayor London Breed.

The cost of Breed’s security detail has increased over the years, with the city spending $2.6 million in 2020 compared to $417,489 in 2016.

San Diego city council members this year budgeted $2.6 million for 12 full-time officials to protect Mayor Todd Gloria, as well as city council members during meetings and for security at the city administration building. However, Gloria’s budget proposed a $4.3 million cut from the police overtime budget while spending $1 million to set up the Commission on Police Practices, a new oversight body to review and evaluate complaints brought by the public against police officers.

As crime spiked in New York, the city slashed $1 billion from its $6 billion police budget in 2021, reallocating $354 million to help curb homelessness and promote educational services. However, Mayor Bill de Blasio, his wife, and his son have had no problems traveling the country with an NYPD security detail.

RELATED TWEET:

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

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

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

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

Racist Democrat Gov. Candidate Nikki Fried: Ron DeSantis Seeks ‘Race War’ With Critical Race Theory Ban

This is what desperation looks like. Nikki Fried knows that she can’t defeat Governor DeSantis on the issues. That is why she is playing the race card. A very typical tactic from the Left. When they can’t win an argument, they will more often then not accuse their opponent of racism. Here is the good news. It’s not going to work. Nikki Fried will get trounced by Governor DeSantis in Florida’s upcoming gubernatorial election. No matter how much favorable news coverage she gets from the mainstream media. That’s assuming she even wins her party’s nomination.

Nikki Fried: Ron DeSantis seeks ‘race war’ with critical race theory ban

By Florida Politics, June 14, 2021

Fried made the comments on Jacksonville radio Monday.

Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried contended Monday that Gov. Ron DeSantis seeks a “race war and a cultural war.”

Fried, appearing on WJCT-FM’s “First Coast Connect,” was answering a listener question about the recently instituted Board of Education ban on teaching critical race theory and the 1619 Project, when she made the comment critical of the rule change.

“This is another opportunity for the Governor to create a race war and cultural war, inside of our state,” Fried told host Melissa Ross.

“I want everybody to rest assured. First of all, critical race theory is the new bogeyman of the Republican Party. It’s not something that’s taught in the state of Florida,” Fried noted. “But we need to let our teachers do their jobs and that’s teach.”

“This Governor and this Board of Education who is, again, appointed solely by Republican Governors like Ron DeSantis and the previous Governor as well, it is not their job to tell our teachers how to — sure, there’s parameters (and) policies, but this is a time when they have overstepped once again, government stepping into the job of educating, and not the teachers.”

“This is, again, a bogeyman the Governor is pushing out there to put fear into the people’s minds,” Fried continued.

“He did it intentionally, not because there’s a worry about something like this, but to create a culture war in our state. I know people in our state are smarter than this and aren’t going to fall for this political rhetoric spewed by Ron DeSantis and the Republican Party,” Fried said.

Fried’s criticism of DeSantis drew a response Tuesday morning from the Republican Governors’ Association.

“Nikki Fried’s accusations against the Governor aren’t just desperate, they’re dangerous,” said RGA spokesperson Joanna Rodriguez. “Fried has shown repeatedly that she’s incapable of being truthful about pretty much anything. Her resorting to lies and malicious manipulations on her own liberal biography and views on critical race theory are just more of the same.”

Fried’s direct criticisms of the Board of Education’s ban on teaching critical race theory and like concepts comes after DeSantis, in the wake of the board’s decision, contended some teachers would rather teach critical race theory than reading.

“Some of the nonsense that you see in some of these places around the country, I mean, they will attack cops with this type of ideology in schools, and meanwhile, they have like 87% of the kids that aren’t even literate in some of these schools. So it shows you they’re not trying to educate; they’re trying to indoctrinate,” DeSantis said.

“We’re not going to let that come to Florida. And so I’m glad that they acted. I think it’s the right thing to do. We’re going to make sure that we’re providing access to education, but solid education, free of some of this ideology that people are trying to shove down everybody’s throats.”

Even as Democrats such as Fried object to the DeSantis agenda, donors flock to him.

DeSantis, who reported nearly $40 million cash on hand in his Friends of Ron DeSantis political committee as of the end of May, has been fundraising off the critical race theory ban for days.

“I will NOT allow this Cultural Marxism to Gain a Foothold in Florida Schools,” an email solicitation sent Thursday reads.

The new guidance for teachers certainly offers content guardrails.

American history is to be defined “largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.” Teachers’ apparent efforts “to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view” will also be banned, as is “fiction or theory masquerading as facts.”

RELATED ARTICLE: NASA Starts New Critical Race Theory Initiative

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

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here a>— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Federal Judge: ‘The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions’

The American press is the enemy of the people and has done incalculable, irrevocable harm to our Constitutional Republic.

Federal judge pens dissent slamming decades-old press protections

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe amounted to an assault on a Supreme Court decision
Politico reports: A federal appeals court judge issued an extraordinary opinion Friday attacking partisan bias in the news media, lamenting the treatment of conservatives in American society and calling for the Supreme Court to overturn a landmark legal precedent that protects news outlets from lawsuits over reports about public figures.

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe, contained in his dissent in a libel case, amounted to a withering, frontal assault on the 1964 Supreme Court decision that set the framework for modern defamation law — New York Times v. Sullivan.

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe amounted to an assault on a Supreme Court decision that set the framework for modern defamation law.

Could the Courts Wheel on the Press?

Special to the NY Sun, March 20, 2021:

Could the United States federal courts turn against the press that emerged in the Age of Trump? Feature the dissent uncorked Friday by one of America’s greatest judges, Laurence Silberman of the District of Columbia circuit. In an otherwise prosaic libel case, the judge seems to have taken a satisfying swig of the ink of liberty before issuing a blistering rebuke of a press that he reckons has become dangerous to our democracy.

Pass the flask, we say. We bow to no one in our fealty to the press. We get that the First Amendment was designed to protect an irresponsible press (the non-irresponsible press, after all, has never really needed protecting). Yet we’ve never seen anything like the nihilism that has entwined our biggest newsrooms with the woke Democratic Party. At some point our courts are bound to take notice.

The case that ignited Judge Silberman was levied by two former officials of Liberia. They claimed that a human rights organization called Global Witness defamed them by publishing a report, as the court put it, “falsely implying that they had accepted bribes in connection with the sale of an oil license.” The District Court allowed them to shelter under the Supreme Court precedent known as Times v. Sullivan.

That case, decided in 1964, involved an advertisement that was run in the Times by supporters of the Reverend Martin Luther King. The police commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan, won a $500,000 libel judgment. It was overturned by a U.S. Supreme Court that, at the time, was all too willing to proclaim rules that hadn’t been passed by any legislature and didn’t appear in the Constitution.

The justice who wrote up Sullivan, William Brennan, would later craft the most famous farrago of judicial law-writing in American history, Roe v. Wade. In Sullivan, the rule the Court produced did not involve trimesters of pregnancy and the like. What Sullivan established was a system of unequal justice, where private citizens had an easier time suing for libel than public figures.

Public figures would have to prove any libel had been uttered with “actual malice.” That is, the libel would have to be not only untrue and defamatory but also made with “with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.” We newspaper roughnecks loved that license, since we could accuse public officials without knowing what was true. Henceforth, the press ruled the roost.

In Global Witness, Judge Silberman spent the first part of his dissent arguing that the court majority had tried to “stretch the actual malice rule like a rubber band.” He then announced outright that he was “prompted to urge the overruling of New York Times v. Sullivan.” He proceeded to do so with astonishing bluntness, even while acknowledging the uphill nature of the legal contests ahead.

In one footnote, Judge Silberman likened the precedent on libel to the Brezhnev Doctrine, named after the Soviet party boss who proclaimed that, as Judge Silberman paraphrased the point, “once a country has turned communist, it can never be allowed to go back.” Wrote Judge Silberman: “Apparently, maintaining a veneer of infallibility is more important than correcting fundamental missteps.”

The Sullivan precedent, Judge Silberman warned, has allowed the press “to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” That, he averred, would be one thing were it a two-sided phenomenon. The “increased power of the press,” he averred, “is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions.” He singled out the Washington Post, the Times, and even National Public Radio.

“Our court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a ‘bland and homogenous’ marketplace of ideas,” Judge Silberman warned. “It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat.” He doesn’t map out how he thinks all this can be won, but he seeds his opinion with grist for the Supreme Court to focus on.

It is a moment to remember that our doctrines on libel, as on other things, can change. When America’s first great libel case, was brought by New York’s colonial governor, Wm. Crosby, against the printer John Peter Zenger, the doctrine was the greater the truth of a defamation, the greater the libel. Zenger began the process of turning truth into a defense of libel. A time of reckoning could well be at hand where truth gets the premium part.

RELATED ARTICLE: Jewish groups condemn CNN’s Don Lemon for vile antisemitism in remarks suggesting Black and Brown Jews don’t exist

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.