When Biden’s COVID oppression gets so bad that the Houston graffiti artists take note …

Featured

For years, I have driven under various socially-conscious messages on the downtown Houston railroad bridges

From the banal Remüv Hate and Be Someone, the Graffiti artists have now taken to an anti-authoritarian COVID-1984

HoustonFreewayGrafitti_COVID1984When oppression from the Democrat ruling class gets so oppressive that graffiti artists start drawing inferences between Biden’s regime and novel warning of the dangers of totalitarianism, then maybe something has caught on. If you have read the book, you know it warns of a world ruled by propaganda, Big Brother, and censorship.

And for anyone who doubts the judgement of the Houston graffiti artists, think of how

I have included a video of the bridge for those who don’t believe it until they see it in video.

 

Bidenomics for you, your energy bill, your job, your grocery store, … and in a different way for Biden

Featured

Bidenomics for you

Build Back Pricier: Business Inflation Expectations Stuck at Record High

Breitbart summarizes the situation that not even the main stream press can deny: Biden policies have created inflation that is stuck at a record high.

A key signal of future inflation has settled in at a highly elevated rate, a development that should jolt the Federal Reserve out of its confidence that the recent inflation surge will fade soon.

A survey of business conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta found that the median expectation for inflation 12 months from now remained at 3.1 percent for the second straight month. That is the highest reading detected in the nearly 10-year-old survey.

It is well above the two percent inflation rate that the Fed says it targeting. Last year, the Fed changed its approach after years of consistently undershooting the target. Now the Fed says it hopes to achieve an average of two percent over time, an indication that it will allow inflation to run over the target for some time to balance out the earlier bouts of low inflation.

Inflation-Expectation

Fed officials tend to believe that inflation expectations can become self-fulfilling prophecies, powerfully influencing the path of future inflation by changing the behavior of businesses and consumers.

In the decade prior to the pandemic, businesses expected around 1.9 inflation on average. This year the average has been 2.7 percent and has been climbing most months.

In theory, businesses attempt to set prices based on what they expect inflation to be in the future. Businesses see prices rising for both themselves and their competitors and conclude that rising inflation gives them room to raise prices and raise wages.

In a speech yesterday, Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said that persistently high inflation risked pushing up inflation expectations, a process Fed officials refer to as “unanchoring.”

“Up to now, indicators do not suggest that long-run inflation expectations are dangerously untethered,” Bostic said in a speech to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “But the episodic pressures could grind on long enough to unanchor expectations.”

(Read more at Breitbart for push back from the federal economists)

If I had not seen it, I would not believe that a regime could screw up this royally in such a short time

On one hand, it takes years to screw things up this badly.

However, we have discussed the carry-over from the Obama regime to the Biden regime (thence, these problems may have been cooking for eight years and simmering for four prior to Biden).

And more Bidenomics for you

Heating Bills Set to Soar as Inflation Hits Energy Prices

Breitbart hits another topic that the main stream press can deny: Biden energy policies have created a special breed of inflation.

Get ready to pay sharply higher bills for heating this winter, along with seemingly everything else.

With prices surging worldwide for heating oil, natural gas and other fuels, the U.S. government said Wednesday it expects households to see their heating bills jump as much as 54% compared to last winter.

The sharpest increases are likely for homes that use propane, which account for only 5% of U.S. households, but others are also likely to see big increases.

Homes that use natural gas, which make up nearly half of all U.S. households, may spend $746 this winter, 30% more than a year ago. That could make this winter’s heating bills the highest for them since the winter of 2008-2009.

The second-most typical heating source for homes is electricity, making up 41% of the country, and those households could see a more modest 6% increase to $1,268. Homes using heating oil, which make up 4% of the country, could see a 43% increase — more than $500 — to $1,734.

This winter is forecast to be slightly colder across the country than last year. That means people will likely be burning even more fuel to keep warm, on top of paying more for each bit of it. If the winter ends up being even colder than forecast, heating bills could be higher than estimated, and vice-versa.

The forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration is the latest reminder of the higher inflation ripping across the global economy. Earlier Wednesday, the government released a separate report showing that prices were 5.4% higher for U.S. consumers in September than a year ago. That’s the hottest inflation since 2008, as a reawakening economy and snarled supply chains push up prices for everything from cars to groceries.

(Read more at Breitbart to see the widespread nature of the problem)

This hike in heating bills really burns, since it was the solar and wind power that failed spectacularly during the freeze last February

With Biden pushing the Green New Deal so heavily, we can look forward to repeats of the 2021 February freeze. However, due to Dementia Joe, we can also look forward to paying much more for the privilege of freezing while the windmills don’t work due to freezing conditions and stilled winds. Likewise, we can look forward to having solar panels not work at night, under cloud cover, and under blankets of snow.


Some Bidenomics concerns the number of illegal aliens you will support with tax dollars and compete against in the labor market

Catch and release at the border

Townhall discusses the numbers of illegal aliens released by the Biden regime since they assumed power.

New documents leaked to Fox News show how far the policy of “catch and release” has gone under the Biden administration during the ongoing crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Up to 160,000 illegal immigrants have been released into the U.S., with little to no supervision, by the Biden administration since March – including a broad use of limited parole authorities to make more than 30,000 eligible for work permits since August.

Since March 20, at least 94,570 illegal immigrants have been released into the U.S. with Notices to Report, which means they only report to a local Immigration and Customs office once they reach their final destination, but there is no way to track those who are released if they decide to not show up.

(continued)

Customs and Border Protection did not deny the validity of the documents.

(Read more at Townhall)

These numbers only include those who were caught and those who Biden wanted to count

Consider that only about half (or less) of the illegal aliens who crossed the border turned themselves in. The rest may have previous warrants for their arrest, may be wanted in other countries, may be terrorists, or may be involved in criminal enterprises.

Out of those that did turn themselves in, the Biden regime may make a point of not correctly counting the numbers released due to the resulting public relations problems that may ensue with the voters. Therefore, just as with the overcounts attributed to the COVID death count, there may be vast undercounts here.

Bidenomics for work

Documents Show Biden Regime Opening Border and Handing Out Work Permits

Newsmax quotes documents showing how Biden officials opened the border and handed out work permits.

Border Patrol documents show at least 160,000 illegal immigrants have been released into the country under the Biden administration with little oversight, monitoring, or risk for deportation — and have even been granted a level of legal status through temporary work permits — according to a new report.

Of particular concern to former Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott is that the documents show an abuse of the Biden administration’s parole authority, which can be used to grant work permits to illegal immigrants.

“By law and regulation, a parole shall only be granted on a case-by-case basis and only for significant humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” Scott told Fox News after reviewing the documents. “Neither of these appear to apply to the current situation.”

Documents obtained by Fox News show the administration has used parole authorities to grant nearly 32,000 work permits since August.

“As a field chief, I don’t believe I ever approved more than 5 or 10 paroles in a year,” Scott, who was forced out of his role earlier this summer by the Biden administration, told Fox News. “When I did, I ensured that the alien was monitored continuously and was detained or removed as soon as the circumstances allowed.”

The documents also show 94,570 illegal immigrants have been released into the country with Notices to Report, which would require a migrant to check in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement when they resettle into the U.S., according to the report.

(Read more at Newsmax)

This kills the manual workers of the American middle class

Not that Biden and Bloomberg care, but the American manual workers in the middle class — the successful plumbers, electricians, builders, and other trades — find themselves crushed under the boot of Biden’s border policy.

However, this should not come as news, since Democrat-backer George Soros short-sold the pound sterling in order to make his money. It might seem that the same might be in the works with America, if you look at the glee related in a Bloomberg article on their opinion that America needs more and longer inflation.

Bidenomics at the grocery store

Supply Chain: We’re Running Out of Food – Thanks to Biden

Heartland Daily News shows how a number of grocery stores have regularly been running out of certain essentials due to Biden policies.

Much discussed – and rightly so – is the Joe Biden-made disaster that is our frozen supply chain. 

Supply Chain Shortages Are Blocking Multiple Industries

We are a very large geographical country – with 330+ million people contained herein. We require lots of stuff to get by day-to-day. 

To service this landmass of humanity, we have developed a very intricate, interworking web of boats and planes, trucks and trains, cars, and even bikes and bicycles to get things to people who need or want them. This is the supply chain. 

It is a marvel of free-market, private-sector ingenuity. But when we have a President this opposed to free market, private sector ingenuity – things rapidly grind to a halt.

About which we warned in August 2020…. 

Biden’s ‘Build Back Never’: His Endless Government Assaults Will Make Building America Impossible

Every aspect of our supply chain is now under attack. 

The chain requires lots and lots of oil and gasoline. Biden’s government is assaulting every aspect of their extraction, processing, and delivery.

The chain requires lots of people working to ensure everything is delivered – The Chain Gang if you will. Biden’s government is paying people quite generously to do nothing – so why would they look to get paid to do something? 

And lots of people who are willing to work – but not willing to subject themselves to experimental, highly problematic, and ineffectual vaccines for a virus with a 99+% survival rate? Biden’s government is forcing them out of work by the millions.

The chain is being damaged – way up the technology ladder. We are suffering a massive semiconductor chip shortage. This means the government is going to allegedly spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure, but won’t actually be able to upgrade or update a whole lot of the infrastructure or the machines to repair or build the infrastructure.     

Biden’s government is hyper-regulating everyone and everything. 

He is eviscerating the value of our money – causing everything to artificially cost more and more, as we make less and less. 

And he is looking to dramatically increase taxes on the companies that make the supply chain work. 

The chain can only take so much government sand – before the gears grind to a halt. And here we are.

But fear not – Biden’s on the case…in his way. Get this:

‘There Will Be Things You Can’t Get’: White House Gives Dire Holiday Warning Over Supply Chain Bottleneck

By “on the case?” We mean he’s saying a problem he’s caused that we’ve had for months – may start to be a problem in a few months.

Hey Clueless Joe – where have you been?

Supply Chain Issues, Labor Shortage Blamed for Resurgence of Empty Shelves Nationwide

Inflation and Supply Shortages Mean A Return of Empty Shelves

Actual Modern Infrastructure Problem: A Lack of Domestic Semiconductor Production

Some of the things of which we are short in this government-induced pinch – we can wait on a bit. It’s awful for the people who design, manufacture, deliver and sell these things – but the broader population can do without for a little while.   

PS5, Xbox Series X Supply Shortages Could Last Until 2023

The Chip Shortage Is Driving Up Tech Prices – Starting With TVs

Of course, a lot of the things of which we are short – are life staples. 

Supply Chain Impacts What Happened to All the Toilet Paper?

And nothing is a bigger life staple – than food. Uh oh….

Grocery Store Shelves to Be Bare: Brace Yourself:

“The ongoing global supply chain disruption is becoming a bona fide crisis. Already, strains on the supply chain are prompting many of the nation’s biggest food manufacturers to give a heads up to giant grocery store chains that they are going to have trouble keeping up with demand….

“Basics…are, in all likelihood, going to be hard to come by….”

Outstanding news. 

We’ve warned for many years that the government’s serial mass abuse of our farmers and ranchers has created a highly tenuous food supply chain situation. 

(Read more about the expanding food distribution problem at Heartland Daily News)

While this might seem disturbing, it doe not surprise me

Nothing that the Biden clan has done since the initiation of his regime has resulted in success. Therefore, to see all of these harmful facets of supply chain mismanagement coming together for the Biden regime — how could that seem anything but normal for Biden?

Bidenomics for “the Big Guy”

Biden and Son Shared Bank Account

Newsmax details the sharing of a bank account between Joe and Hunter.

President Joe Biden and his son Hunter shared a bank account and paid each other’s bills out of it, the Daily Mail reported citing emails it says could ensnare the U.S. chief executive in an FBI investigation into possible money laundering by the younger Biden.

The publication says the emails were obtained from a laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden and were between himself and Eric Schwerin, his business partner at consultancy Rosemont Seneca.

The correspondence involved Schwerin’s work on Joe Biden’s taxes and include discussions about payment of each other’s household expenses, offers for a book contract to the then-vice president, and the donation of the elder Biden’s Senate documents to the University of Delaware.

The Daily Mail quoted a former federal prosecutor, whom it did not identify, as saying that if Hunter and Joe Biden shared assets, both could become a target of an investigation. Hunter Biden admitted in December that he was aware that federal officials were examining his “tax affairs.”

“Whatever transaction you’re looking at, if there’s a connection to a family member or a friend, sure the answer is yes [they would be investigated],’ the unidentified former prosecutor told the publication. “Obviously, if you’re talking about the president of the United States, you’d better have a pretty damn good reason to talk to that person.”

Reports last year disclosed that the FBI had labeled documents of its investigation of Hunter Biden’s purported laptop with a “272D-BA-3065729″ designation, indicating “money laundering.” 

Before the presidential election, many outlets ignored the laptop revelation as reported by the New York Post. That included NPR, which declared it didn’t want to “waste our time on satires that are not really stories.”

More recently, however, a few outlets have begun to consider the laptop computer genuine.

If Joe Biden were not president, he likely would already be under strict scrutiny, the Daily Mail quoted John Cassara as saying. He’s a former U.S. intelligence officer and treasury special agent and expert in money laundering investigations.

“The information available publicly is very worrisome, particularly in the areas of corruption,’ Cassara said. “They could go at this from all different avenues. Follow the corruption trail and then charge money laundering.

“Corruption is a predicate offense for money laundering. And besides corruption, it’s the perception of corruption.

(Read more at Newsmax)

If they shared a checking account, then “the Big Guy” paid for Hunter’s crack and prostitute binges

Although I know that this has a snowball’s chance in hell of being investigated as long as “the Big Guy” remains in the Oval Office, it would be nice to see obviously guilty parties being held responsible. Additionally, since police departments have used forfeiture as a weapon against criminal enterprises, it would be nice to see the Biden estates being put on the chopping block.

Bidenomics in Zuckerbucks

Zuckerberg spent $419 million on nonprofits ahead of 2020 election — and got out the Democrat vote

The New York Post outlines in fair detail how Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg paid for the Biden takeover.

During the 2020 election, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars to turn out likely Democratic voters. But this wasn’t traditional political spending. He funded a targeted, private takeover of government election operations by nominally nonpartisan — but demonstrably ideological — nonprofit organizations.

Analysis conducted by our team demonstrates this money significantly increased Joe Biden’s vote margin in key swing states. In places like Georgia, where Biden won by 12,000 votes, and Arizona, where he won by 10,000, the spending likely put him over the top.

This unprecedented merger of public election offices with private resources and personnel is an acute threat to our republic and should be the focus of electoral reform efforts moving forward.

The 2020 election wasn’t stolen — it was likely bought by one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful men pouring his money through legal loopholes.

The Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) passed a staggering $419.5 million of Zuckerberg’s money into local government elections offices, and it came with strings attached. Every CTCL and CEIR grant spelled out in great detail the conditions under which the grant money was to be used.

This is not a matter of Democrats outspending Republicans. Private funding of election administration was virtually unknown in the American political system before the 2020 election.

Big CTCL and CEIR money had nothing to do with traditional campaign finance, lobbying or other expenses that are related to increasingly expensive modern elections. It had to do with financing the infiltration of election offices at the city and county level by left-wing activists and using those offices as a platform to implement preferred administrative practices, voting methods and data-sharing agreements, as well as to launch intensive outreach campaigns in areas heavy with Democratic voters.

For instance, CTCL/CEIR funded self-described “vote navigators” in Wisconsin to “assist voters, potentially at their front doors, to answer questions, assist in ballot curing … and witness absentee ballot signatures,” and a temporary staffing agency affiliated with Stacey Abrams called Happy Faces counting the votes amid the election night chaos in Fulton County, Georgia.

CTCL-USAMAP-SPENDING

(Read about drop boxes, staffing paid by Zuckerberg, and more at the New York Post)

Sadly, just about all of this is old news

One new thing that has popped up recently (but not necessarily in this article) is how Facebook wants to further censor conservative voices.

However, the news on Zuckerberg’s involvement with drop boxes, staffing contributions, and other involvement have been in the forefront for some time.

And now the graphic comics (as opposed to the ones that stroll the Capitol)

A boy speaks the truth

A_boySpeaksTheTruth

An idiot, a vampire, a witch, and a domestic terrorist

AnIdiotVampireWitch&Terrorist

Biden’s nuts

BidensNuts

Border states

BidensOpenBorder

Blame Trump

BlameTrump

Crime up by COVID

CrimeUpDueToCOVID

Isolated weather

IsolatedWeather

It fits

ItFits

Just us

JustUs

Charlotte’s web 2021

MC_CharlottesWeb_web2021

One thing down

OneThingDown

Self portrait

SelfPortrait_

Sinking the supply chain

Sinking_the_chain

Social welfare for the flight

SocialWelfareForTheFlight

 

Things you will not thank Biden for: Vets smuggle in the Afghan who saved Joe Biden; Joe asks to snoop in any bank account with more than $600; and Libs like censoring you with social media

Featured

U.S. Vets smuggle the Afghan interpreter who helped save Joe Biden out of Afghanistan

The Daily Wire reports on a group of American veterans who pulled the Afghan interpreter who risked his life to help then-Senator Joe Biden out of a crashed helicopter and to safety.

BidenSaved
Dementia Joe (circled) was saved by the Afghan just to his left; however, Joe couldn’t return the favor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Afghan interpreter who helped save President Joe Biden and two other U.S. lawmakers in 2008 has escaped Afghanistan with the aid of volunteers working to evacuate stranded Americans and U.S. allies from the country.

Aman Khalili and his family escaped from Afghanistan over the border to Pakistan last week, Khalili told The Wall Street Journal. After hiding from the Taliban for weeks under the care of various volunteer organizations, a group of military veterans smuggled the former U.S. interpreter and his family through numerous Taliban checkpoints and out of Afghanistan.

Khalili’s story recently appeared in the news after he pled for Biden to help save him and his family. Instead, Khalili was left in Afghanistan to the mercies of the Taliban after Biden withdrew U.S. forces from the country in August, leaving behind thousands of U.S. allies, Special Immigrant Visa-holders, and American citizens.

After Khalili’s story appeared in the Journal in an August 31 story, he was flooded with offers to help from volunteer rescue workers in Afghanistan and the Biden administration. However, despite the White House’s pledge to “get you out,” as Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on August 31, the Biden administration was minimally involved in extracting Khalili from Afghanistan. As the Journal reported:

The main drivers of the mission to save Mr. Khalili, his wife and five children were U.S. military veterans from Arizona who worked with the interpreter on the 2008 operation to rescue the stranded senators.

Although an array of high-profile people and U.S. officials said they would try to help evacuate him, it was a group led by an Afghan-American who worked as a linguist with elite U.S. forces in Afghanistan who carried out the ground operation that got Mr. Khalili safely out of the country.

“After 144 hours of driving day and night and getting through so many checkpoints my family was so scared, but right now this is a kind of heaven,” he told the Journal. “Hell was in Afghanistan.”

Rescue workers in Afghanistan have criticized the Biden administration’s efforts in the country, from the evacuation efforts pre-withdrawal to the administration’s attempts to downplay some of the failures and consequences of pulling U.S. forces out of Afghanistan.

(Read details of one Army veteran’s account at the Daily Wire)

Remember the guy who never said thank you and never returned the favor?

If you grew up across the street from someone who never said “thank you” and never helped you fix something after you had helped them, then we might have found his ideological cousin in Joe Biden.

Backlash grows as Biden seeks to grant the IRS new access to your banking privacy

The Christian Broadcasting Network tells us of backlash that has been growing over Joe Biden’s plan to invade our privacy over transactions as small as $600.

The Biden administration wants to give the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) access to the financial income data for millions of Americans and businesses. It’s part of the president’s plan to hunt down extra money to pay for his proposed massive $3.5 trillion social spending bill. 

The government says if the IRS can see people’s private bank information, they’ll be able to determine who isn’t paying their full taxes. They estimate the total in unpaid taxes amounts to more than $7 trillion. 

The New York Times reports the administration wants banks to give the IRS new details on customers who have total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $600.

Financial institutions and Republicans are strongly objecting to the plan, saying the administration’s attempt to grant this broad new power to the IRS is a monstrous breach of Americans’ privacy as well as clear government overreach. 

Bank customers have also let their voices be heard after receiving emails and phone calls from industry trade groups criticizing the administration’s proposal.  

Financial institutions from Denver to Philadelphia say they are being deluged with calls, emails and in-person complaints from both savers and small-business owners worried about the proposal, according to the Times

“We have heard a lot from our customers about their concerns about their privacy,” said Jill Castilla, the chief executive of the one-branch Citizens Bank of Edmond, just outside Oklahoma City. “I’ve gotten calls, emails, and then we’ve had many customers come in.”

Banks say their costs would rise if they had to make the extra effort to turn their client’s information over to the IRS. Plus, it would be a compliance and privacy nightmare. 

But Biden administration officials say the government needs more information from its citizens in order to hunt down Americans who do not pay their taxes. 

More than $460 billion in additional revenue could allegedly be recovered in the next 10 years, according to government officials. 

“This is a very serious policy proposal,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said at a congressional hearing last month. “We have a $7 trillion estimated tax gap that we have a great deal of tax avoidance by individuals and businesses — typically very high-net worth, high-income individuals and businesses that have opaque sources of income that are not paying the taxes that are due.”

However, the public outcry is causing the administration to take a second look at the proposal, possibly changing the required number to $10,000 rather than $600. 

Banking industry trade groups have spearheaded the effort to sink the proposal. They have also created their own hashtag #KeepMyBankingPrivate. 

Bankcda, one small bank in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho is keeping its customers aware of the proposal through social media. 

“We proudly join @ICBA and others in telling Congress that we serve our customers, not the IRS. Join us and help us #KeepMyBankingPrivate,” the bank recently tweeted. 

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

Speak up against the Build Back Better bill if you don’t want the IRS looking at $600 transactions

If you don’t want the IRS in your bank account for $600 transactions (and you know that the Democrats have been grandfathered out), then speak up. Don’t just complain to social media.

Call both senators and your representative.

The Left has grown accustomed to censorship and wants more

The New York Times tries desperately to seem as if it reports both sides of an issue that has become central to the socialist Big Tech companies.

“Facebook and Big Tech are facing a Big Tobacco moment,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said this week when a whistle-blower testified about how the social media company’s products harmed teenagers.

“I think that that’s an appropriate analogy,” Senator Cynthia Lummis, Republican of Wyoming, added later.

The whistle-blower’s testimony, and the thousands of internal documents she shared with lawmakers, generated unusual bipartisan bonhomie in a divided Washington. Senators said it was time for Congress to coalesce around new regulations to rein in the company and perhaps the technology industry as a whole.

But if what faces Big Tech is anything like what happened to Big Tobacco — a reckoning over the industry’s harms to society, and children in particular — what lies ahead is likely to be a yearslong, complicated path toward new rules and regulations, with no guaranteed result.

Washington is weighing numerous proposals to curtail the industry and hold it more accountable. Some lawmakers have urged reworking a law that shields tech companies from lawsuits, changing it so that the firms could be held responsible if their software amplifies harmful speech. Another idea would force social media companies to share far more insight about their software, which is often a black box, and data on how people interact with their services.

Lawmakers have proposed creating a new federal agency dedicated to oversight of the tech companies, or expanding the power of the Federal Trade Commission. They have pushed stronger laws for child privacy and security and to regulate the behavioral advertising business models of Facebook and Google. And a handful of bills to overhaul antitrust laws, with an eye toward making the public less reliant on a small number of tech companies, have progressed out of a House committee.

But passing any one of those options is a steep climb. Tech companies are swimming in riches and use them to sway lawmakers, building the largest lobbyist army of any industry in Washington. Dozens of privacy and speech bills have stalled in Congress in recent years.

The issues are also complicated. Sharing far more data with researchers, some say, could undermine people’s privacy. Attempts to even narrowly regulate the content on platforms like Facebook run into free-speech concerns.

Perhaps the best chance of a crackdown on the industry is if President Biden and his administration act forcefully. He has not yet put his weight behind any bills, but has placed some of the industry’s leading critics in top regulatory jobs. Lina Khan, the chair of the F.T.C., and Jonathan Kanter, the nominee to run the Justice Department’s antitrust division, have promised to hobble the power of the companies.

“Facebook took a big hit this week, but they are capable of taking many hits just as the tobacco industry was,” said Allan Brandt, a professor at Harvard and an expert on the rise and decline of the tobacco industry.

It took more than 50 years from the first published research about the dangers of cigarettes, and more than a decade after a whistle-blower shared internal documents proving that the tobacco companies hid its knowledge of the ills of their products, before there was meaningful government regulation, he said.

“There will be regulation for Facebook and other tech companies,” Mr. Brandt said, “but I’m skeptical of a route to successful regulation anytime soon.”

The European Union has for years been more aggressive against the tech companies than the United States, on issues including antitrust and data privacy. This past week’s testimony from the Facebook whistle-blower, Frances Haugenintensified calls to adopt proposals that would impose tougher rules for how Facebook and other internet companies police their platforms, and add stricter competition rules in an effort to diminish their dominance over the digital economy. The laws could be adopted as early as next year.

But in Washington, a key impediment to legislation is that Democrats and Republicans view the issues of tech power and speech on social media differently. Democrats want to address the spread of misinformation and the amplification of harmful political rhetoric, while Republicans argue that Facebook, Google, Twitter and other social media platforms censor conservative views.

And when it comes to questions about whether to break up the companies, many Democrats see antitrust action as a way to slow the most powerful tech platforms and address data privacy, security and misinformation. Some Republicans say that there is plenty of competition in the industry, and that breaking up the companies would be an example of government overreach.

“Just because we hold the hammer of antitrust law in our hands does not mean we should treat every concern as a nail, lest we risk bludgeoning our entire economy,” Christine Wilson, a Republican member of the F.T.C., told Congress recently.

(Read more at the New York Times)

We need to use antitrust laws against the Big Tech companies that have become terrorizing giants

The only reason that Big Tech remains as a force is that it has become another voice of the Democrat party. It represses conservative voices (since I once had over 10,000 Twitter followers and now I have 3). Further, the greatest portion of censorship demonstrably goes against conservatives while the monetary support goes to Democrats (as did Zucker bucks).

 

This is what authoritarianism looks like

Featured

This is what authoritarianism looks like



Build Back Better for who? (Hence, this does not exemplify equal protection under the law)

Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden working closely to resettle Afghans across America

Breitbart points out how globalists Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden have been working together to resettle Afghans.

OBCA non-governmental organization (NGO) backed by former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, as well as first ladies Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, and Michelle Obama, is working closely with President Joe Biden to resettle tens of thousands of Afghans across the United States.

The NGO, called Welcome.US, was launched by former Clinton, Bush, and Obama staffers with the former presidents’ serving as honorary chairs and receiving backing from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors which has ties to billionaire George Soros.

Likewise, the NGO is working alongside multinational corporations like Airbnb, Walmart, Starbucks, Instacart, Facebook, Microsoft, and Chobani to provide newly arrived Afghans with financial assistance. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also helping to funnel Afghans into American jobs.

In an interview with National Public Radio (NPR), an official with Welcome.US states that the NGO is in close contact with former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell (D) whom Biden has put in charge of facilitating the massive Afghan resettlement operation.

“We’re in touch with Governor Markell five times a day,” Welcome.US’s John Bridgeland, who previously worked as a top aide for Bush, told NPR. “… it’s going to be really hard and it’ll be uneven but Markell is setting this up for a better chance of a response than we’ve had in the past.”

After Afghans arrive in the U.S. at either Dulles International Airport in Virginia or Philadelphia International Airport in Pennsylvania, without having completed their immigration processing, they are brought to one of eight U.S. military bases that have been transformed into refugee camps.

Currently, about 53,000 Afghans are living temporarily on U.S. bases and the Biden administration is planning to bring an additional 14,000 Afghans to the U.S. for resettlement in the next week. The administration’s goal is to resettle at least 95,000 Afghans across 46 states and in more than 200 American communities.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Hundreds of Afghan evacuees allegedly walk off US military bases, GOP senators demand answers

BizPacReview reports that hundreds of the Afghans who have been brought over (unvetted) by Dementia Joe are wandering off of the military bases in America.

AfghansWalkOffSenate Republicans have written an urgent letter demanding answers after at least 700 Afghan refugees reportedly walked off U.S. military bases and disappeared while awaiting resettlement services.

The letter was sent to Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Sixteen Republican senators who were led by Sen. Joni Ernst (IA) argued that the vetting procedures surrounding Afghan evacuees “remain unclear and incomplete, and, unless changed, are insufficient to preserve the safety of the American homeland.”

“We are concerned the hastily developed process creates gaps in security and criminal vetting and risks our nation’s security,” the letter contends. “The vetting process must ensure the security, medical and criminal screening of each Afghan seeking admittance into the United States.”

“We urge that you pause relocating any more Afghan evacuees to the United States, except for fully-vetted Afghans holding Special Immigration Visas (SIV), and complete all appropriate vetting procedures at safe locations abroad,” the letter added.


“Afghans selected to board American military planes in Kabul did not complete the long-established interagency vetting processes…” they wrote in the letter. “Instead, much of the vetting is occurring on military bases on U.S. soil.”

“Furthermore, the State Department’s inability to facilitate or process SIV applicants on-ground, those that aided American operations in Afghanistan, fails our partners and breaks promises made to those who put themselves and their families at significant risk to aid U.S. efforts in Afghanistan,” the letter continued.

“The vetting process must ensure the security, medical, and criminal screening of each Afghan seeking admittance into the United States,” wrote the senators.

“DHS also needs to clarify exactly what actions will be taken when derogatory information is uncovered on an Afghan already paroled into the United States – we cannot release a potential terrorist into the United States, but returning such an individual to Afghanistan where he or she can cause further harm is also not an acceptable solution,” they blunted posited.

As the catastrophic and chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan unfolded, evacuees were housed on U.S. military bases and given the temporary status of “humanitarian parole.” They were then to undergo the process of resettlement for transition into the country.

Reuters released an alarming report on Saturday that asserted that at least 700 Afghan evacuees had simply walked away from military bases without completing the resettlement process.

(Read more at BizPacReview)

What could go wrong with 700 unvetted Afghans Biden imported and released while the FBI has started obsessing over moms at school board meetings?

Can you think of anything that could go wrong with 700 unvetted Afghans brought into America? Of course, the FBI has no idea where they are — they have been too obsessed with using the Patriot Act to charge parents who speak too forcefully at school board meetings.

Tell me, liberals, what could go wrong? Do you remember the regular attacks by Islamists under Obama?

Before looking at the whistleblower on Afghanistan, consider what charges were levelled against Lt. Col. Vindman. (Hence, this is not what equal before the law looks like)

Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller faces six charges in court martial

The Daily Wire reports that Lt. Col. Scheller (who spilled the beans on the $85 billion in equipment left by Biden in Afghanistan) faces six charges in court martial.

Lt.-Col.-Stuart-SchellerThe U.S. Military has charged Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller for allegedly committing six violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and he has been referred to a special court martial.

Scheller burst onto the media scene several weeks ago when he criticized U.S. military leadership over the Biden administration’s disastrous pullout from Afghanistan.

Scheller faces the following charges at his special court martial next week:

  • Article 88 (Contempt toward officials)
  • Article 89 (Disrespect toward superior commissioned officers)
  • Article 90 (Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer)
  • Article 92 (Dereliction in the performance of duties)
  • Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
  • Article 133: (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman)

Scheller was thrown into the brig last week after he allegedly violated a gag order to not talk about the ongoing situation.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

Although a number of conservative voices spoke up for the court marshalling of Lt. Col. Vindman, nothing happened

26 January 2020 NewsMax article pointed out how a number of conservatives wanted Lt. Col. Vindman to be court marshalled; however, nothing happened.

Despite U.S. whistleblower protections and warnings against reprisals, a former Trump and Bush administration advisor believes Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman must be “court martialed” for speaking out against the president and violating his chain of command.

Christian Whiton tweeted Saturday:

“To protect the military from being seen as political, Vindman must be court martialed for speaking contemptuously of the President and violating the chain of command. The law isn’t optional just because an officer hates his commander in chief.”

Whiton is not the first one to call for Vindman answering to his violation of chain of command when he facilitated the whistleblower’s complaint against President Donald Trump and subsequently testifying against the president in the House impeachment inquiry.

The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis tweeted in November:

“Vindman was insubordinate, ignored chain of command, leaked, and lied to Congress about not knowing who the whistleblower is, when he clearly knows because he was the whistleblower’s primary source.

“He deserves to be court-martialied under the UCMJ.”

Even one of the Senate jurors took to Twitter this week to call out Vindman as a “political activist.” Citing his commanding officer, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., tweeted:

“Vindman’s commanding officer, Army Lt. Col. Jim Hickman: ‘Do not let the uniform fool you. He is a political activist in uniform.'”

Blackburn then spoke out against Vindman to Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle”:

“You look at what his commanders, Vindman’s commanders, have said, and he has a problem with judgment,” Blackburn told host Laura Ingraham this week. “That had been pointed out. He had one commander that said he is a political activist in uniform. He has had problems with going outside of his chain of command, which is exactly what he did here.

“And I talk to a lot of military members on a regular basis. They have a real problem with some of the things and the manner in which he conducted himself in this matter.”

(Read more at NewsMax)

Just as the court marshal of Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller demonstrates vindictive authoritarianism, the letting off of Lt. Col. Vindman demonstrates a lack of the same

The fact that Vindman was not retaliated against (but Scheller was) proves the type of government in place.

This is what autocracy looks like: Biden rules through the bully pulpit and threatened mandates

28 Days Later, the Biden regime still has not released an OSHA employer vaccine mandate

Reason points out that it has almost been a month since Dementia Joe issued his vaccine mandate speech. However, nothing else has materialized.

On September 9, President Biden called on OSHA to implement a vaccine mandate for employers. In the ensuing days, I wrote several blog posts that parsed a non-existent rule (123, and 4). I fully expected the rule to be issued imminently, which would trigger a mad dash to the courts. Yet, 28 days later, we still do not have a proposed rule. What is going on? Where is the urgency?

I have a few tentative thoughts. First, OSHA planned to adopt an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). This fast-track process bypasses the usual notice-and-comment process. Perhaps the agency determined that it needs more time to make its rule iron-clad. Admittedly, this process is very complicated. And the need for deliberation counsels in favor of seeking public comments, not rushing through the policy unilaterally. Ultimately, this delay undermines the case for emergency action.

Second, thankfully, COVID numbers have declined precipitously over the past month, as the Delta surge has peaked. And vaccine rates have increased in the absence of a federal mandate. The longer this process takes, the less essential a federal mandate becomes.

Third, the mere announcement of the rule is having its intended effect. Employers nationwide are adopting vaccine mandates to get ahead of an actual rule. As more employees get the jab–in the absence of a federal mandate–resistance to the inevitable rule declines.

(Read more at Reason)

In contrast, Christian leaders present a united front in writing against the nebulous mandate

The Christian Broadcasting Network reports that 101 Ohio pastors pushed back against Biden’s announce (but not delivered) COVID-mandate.

The debate over President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate continues to be a matter of contention among federal workers, contractors, and the private sector as his administration attempts to crack down on unvaccinated Americans.

Some say the mandate violates an individual’s personal and religious freedom while others argue that it ignores the natural immunity of millions of Americans because they have fully recovered after coming down with COVID-19.

A group of Ohio clergy representing more than 100 congregations across the state signed a letter Monday that was addressed to President Biden, detailing why they strongly disapprove of his directive, according to Front Lines Ohio.

“As clergymen from one hundred and one (101) diverse congregations across North Central Ohio, we would like to note that this unnecessary mandate by your office is in sharp contrast to the statement you made as President-elect on December 4th, 2020 when you stated you would not impose a national vaccine mandate,” the letter reads.

It also points out that on Oct. 7, 2020, Vice President Kamala Harris stated she “would not take a COVID-19 vaccine if ordered by the President of the United States.”  

The pastors draw attention to the virus’ high survival rate which has raised issues over why the Biden administration is mandating that people receive the vaccine. 

“To combat a virus with an overall 99.74% survival rate, the federal government should not impose its will on persons by mandating COVID-19 experimental vaccines and removing other alternative treatments. The people should have the ability to make their own health decisions,” the letter read. 

“This unilateral and divisive order is unethical and tantamount to what a totalitarian king would dictate,” the missive continued. “Furthermore Mr. President, with respect to your vaccine mandate, we respond by saying ‘We have no king but King Jesus.'” 

Pastor J.C. Church, one of the clergymen who signed the letter, said Biden is trying to scare the public rather than truly protect them.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

 

On CRT, the education bureaucracy, and the FBI

Featured

First, a definition

A lesson on critical race theory

The Heritage Foundation details how critical race theory has become the new intolerance and must not be allowed to increase its grip on America.

(For the abbreviated version, read the red text below. For the “War and Peace” version, read to the next Heading 2. For the extreme intellectual masochists, comment below and maybe I can have a buddy quote some Tolstoy in Russian.)

Critical Race Theory (CRT) makes race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life—and do so with a degree of persistence that has helped CRT impact all of American life. CRT underpins identity politics, an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation riven by groups, each with specific claims on victimization. In entertainment, as well as the education and workforce sectors of society, CRT is well-established, driving decision-making according to skin color—not individual value and talent. As Critical Theory ideas become more familiar to the viewing public in everyday life, CRT’s intolerance becomes “normalized,” along with the idea of systemic racism for Americans, weakening public and private bonds that create trust and allow for civic engagement.

As its name should make abundantly clear, Critical Race Theory (CRT) is the child of Critical Theory (CT), or, to be more precise, its grandchild. Critical Theory is the immediate forebearer of Critical Legal Theory (CLT), and CLT begat CRT. As we discuss in this Backgrounder, however, there are strong thematic components linking CT, CLT, and CRT. Among these are:

  • The Marxist analysis of society made up of categories of oppressors and oppressed;
  • An unhealthy dollop of Nietzschean relativism, which means that language does not accord to an objective reality, but is the mere instrument of power dynamics;
  • The idea that the oppressed impede revolution when they adhere to the cultural beliefs of their oppressors—and must be put through re-education sessions;
  • The concomitant need to dismantle all societal norms through relentless criticism; and
  • The replacement of all systems of power and even the descriptions of those systems with a worldview that describes only oppressors and the oppressed.

Far from being merely esoteric academic exercises, these philosophies have real-life consequences.

CRT scholars likely cite CLT, not CT, as their genesis: “Critical race theory builds on the insights of two previous movements, critical legal studies and radical feminism,” wrote one of architects of CRT, Richard Delgado, with his wife, Jean Stefancic, in perhaps the most widely read primer on CRT, Critical Race Theory, An Introduction.1

Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2017), p. 5.

 Angela P. Harris—also a major early figure of CRT—agrees, though she attributes co-parentage to a different source. She said:

For me, Critical Race Theory (CRT) began in July of 1989, at the First Annual Workshop of Critical Race Theory at St. Benedict’s Center, Madison, Wisconsin. CRT looked like a promise: a theory that would link the methods of Critical Legal Studies [CLS] with the political commitments of “traditional civil rights scholarship” in a way that would revitalize scholarship on race and correct the deconstructive excesses of CLS.2

Angela P. Harris, “Foreword: The Jurisprudence of Reconstruction,” California Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 4. (July 1994), p. 741, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3480931?seq=1 (accessed December 3, 2020).

This strong political commitment is at the core of CRT. Americans should defend civil rights, and we should actively work to eliminate racism in the U.S. and anywhere it exists—but as we document in this Backgrounder, these noble aims are not the stated intentions of CRT’s founders. Harvard academic Derrick A. Bell, the recognized godfather of the CRT movement, does not mince words in one of the essays laying out the radical aims of the theory: “As I see it, critical race theory recognizes that revolutionizing a culture begins with the radical assessment of it.”3

Derrick A. Bell, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 1995, No. 4 (1995), p. 893, https://sph.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/Bell_Whos%20Afraid%20of%20CRT_1995UIllLRev893.pdf (accessed December 3, 2020).

Critical Race Theory shares these goals with both Critical Theory and Critical Legal Theory (or Critical Legal Studies).

This report offers the following:

  1. Gives a synopsis of these three related disciplines. This includes an explanation of how CRT specifically affects Americans today and a discussion of how CRT’s ideas support the concept of identity politics and blend the ideas of victimization, group identity, and political action together, leading to a divisive civic and political culture.
  2. Explains how the Black Lives Matter organizations built an aggressive political movement on CRT’s racially focused ideas—ideas apologists can use to justify violent riots.
  3. Discusses ways policymakers and educators are integrating CRT into K–12 instruction.
  4. Traces the roots of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in 2018 to a school policy dealing with student discipline that is being used by CRT advocates and researchers.
  5. Explains that the free speech crisis on college campuses today is the application of CRT’s and CT’s core tenets.
  6. Discusses CRT’s impact on the workplace and diversity trainings, some of which pressure employees to become activists or to discuss controversial topics in the workplace.
  7. Offers examples of how entertainers—actors, critics, and others—are using CRT’s ideas to influence decision-making in Hollywood.
  8. Provides policy recommendations that are aimed at restoring the concepts of judging people not by the color of their skin but by their conduct and the need to protect liberty so that everyone, regardless of ethnicity or background, has the opportunity to pursue the American Dream.

Critical Theory

The origins of Critical Theory can be traced to the 1937 manifesto of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, colloquially known as the Frankfurt School. One of the first examples of what has come to be called the Western Marxist schools of thought, the Institute modeled itself on the Moscow-based Marx-Engels Institute. Originally, the school’s official name was going to be the Institut fur Marxismus (Institute for Marxism), but, ever desirous of downplaying their Marxist roots, its founders thought it prudent to adopt a less provocative title, according to one of the best histories of the school’s work and of Critical Theory itself, The Dialectical Imagination, by Martin Jay.4

Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination (New York and Toronto: Little, Brown & Company, 1977), p. 20.

Critical Theory was, from the start, an unremitting attack on Western institutions and norms in order to tear them down. This attack was aimed only at the West. Even though the manifesto, titled Traditional and Critical Theory, was written at the height of Joseph Stalin’s purges, show trials, and famines, the school “maintained an almost complete official silence about events in the USSR,” according to Jay.5

Ibid.

The manifesto, written by the school’s second director, Max Horkheimer, claimed that traditional theory fetishized knowledge, seeing truth as empirical and universal. Critical theory, on the other hand, “held that man could not be objective and that there are no universal truths.”6

Mike Gonzalez, The Plot to Change America (New York: Encounter Books, 2020), p. 129.

This relativism was inherited from Friedrich Nietzsche and filtered through the dialectics of Georg Friedrich Hegel and his best-known disciple, Karl Marx. The Frankfurt School philosophers believed that “a true epistemology must end the fetish of knowledge as such, which as Nietzsche demonstrated, leads to abstract systematizing,” wrote Jay.7

Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, p. 69.

As for their Marxism, three years earlier, Horkheimer had let his true feelings for the Soviet state be known in a collection of short essays known as Dammerung (in German, both “dawn” and “twilight”). “He who has eyes for the meaningless injustice of the imperialist world, which in no way is to be explained by technical impotence, will regard the events in Russia as the progressive, painful attempt to overcome this injustice,” he wrote.8

Ibid., p. 19.

Critical Theory, and the Frankfurt School in general, were thus a renaissance of Hegelian thought and of the revolutions that had taken place as a result in 1848—repackaged for a now-industrialized Germany. “To trace the origins of Critical Theory to their true source would require an extensive analysis of the intellectual ferment of the 1840s, perhaps the most extraordinary decade in 19th century German intellectual history,” wrote Jay.9

Ibid., p. 41.

He adds, “It can be argued that the Frankfurt School was returning to the concerns of the Left Hegelians of the 1840s. Like that first generation of critical theorists, its members were interested in the integration of philosophy and social analysis.”10

Ibid., p. 42.

Critical Theory and Its Early Applications

In the context of the era, Critical Theory’s demolition of Western traditions and norms was nothing less than a tool to implement the counter-hegemony called for in the Theory of Cultural Hegemony enunciated in the first decades of the 20th Century by Antonio Gramsci. Marx and Friedrich Engels had promised constant revolution by the workers of the world, but by the early 1930s, few had succeeded. The founder of the Italian Communist Party, Gramsci had come to believe that the workers were not revolting and overthrowing the bourgeoisie because they had bought into the belief system of the ruling class—family, nation-state, the capitalist system, and God. What was needed was struggle sessions in which the revolutionary vanguard would teach the workers how to think. But first the norms needed to be torn down. That is where Critical Theory—and, as we will see, all its offshoots—come in.

Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt scholars left Germany to escape the Third Reich, fleeing first to Geneva, then to New York, where Columbia University allowed them to set up camp in 1935 at Teachers’ College. In the United States they developed the same disdain for the American worker that Gramsci had felt for his Italian counterpart. “They insist unwaveringly on the ideology by which they are enslaved,” Horkheimer wrote with another Frankfurt School scholar, Theodor Adorno, about the American worker.11

Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, Gunzelin Schmid Noerr, ed., Edmund Jephcott, trans. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), p. 106.

After the defeat of the Nazi regime, Horkheimer, Adorno, and the others were able to return to Germany. But they left behind Horkheimer’s assistant, Herbert Marcuse, who became one of the leading spokesmen of the New Left.

A witness to the upheavals caused by the riots and violence associated with the Civil Rights era and the anti–Vietnam War Movement, Marcuse discovered in them a new agent of change: minorities, of which more categories would need to be created. “Underneath the conservative popular base is the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other races and other colors,” Marcuse wrote. They would still need to be led ideologically—“their opposition is revolutionary even if their consciousness is not”—but the potential to stoke grievances among them was there in a way that did not exist with workers as a category.12

Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (Boston: Beacon Press, 1991), pp. 256–257.

Critical Legal Theory

It is at this point that Critical Legal Theory takes over. Its scholars self-consciously acknowledge their debt to Critical Theory and other Marxist movements that came before the Frankfurt School. “Although CLS has been largely contained within the United States, it was influenced to a great extent by European philosophers, such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, Max Horkheimer, Antonio Gramsci, and Michel Foucault,” reads the entry for CLT in the Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.13

Cornell Law School, “Critical Legal Theory,” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/critical_legal_theory (accessed December 3, 2020).

The Cornell entry for Critical Legal Studies explains:

Critical legal studies (CLS) is a theory which states that the law is necessarily intertwined with social issues, particularly stating that the law has inherent social biases. Proponents of CLS believe that the law supports the interests of those who create the law. As such, CLS states that the law supports a power dynamic which favors the historically privileged and disadvantages the historically underprivileged. CLS finds that the wealthy and the powerful use the law as an instrument for oppression in order to maintain their place in hierarchy.14

Ibid.

Then comes the kicker: “Many in the CLS movement want to overturn the hierarchical structures of modern society[,] and they focus on the law as a tool in achieving this goal.”

Just as with Critical Theory, Critical Legal Theory is, then, an instrument to overturn society for those who follow its tenets, this time from a legal perspective. The law, they argue, is simply the cultural hegemony codified in statutes and defended by a jurisprudence that aims to support the powerful against the claims of the marginalized. CLT proponents trace their founding to the first Conference on Critical Legal Studies, held at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1977. Among its main theorists figure Duncan Kennedy, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, and Robert W. Gordon.15

Duncan Kennedy and Karl E. Klare, “A Bibliography of Critical Legal Studies,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 94, No. 461 (1984), http://www.duncankennedy.net/documents/Photo%20articles/A%20Bibliography%20of%20cls.pdf (accessed December 3, 2020).

In a 2002 essay, Kennedy acknowledges the debt Critical Legal Theory owes to both Marxism and post-modernism (championed by a mostly Parisian set of intellectuals who preached that texts could be “deconstructed” by the reader, a complicated philosophical concept that involves reinterpreting words to replace ideas based on objective physical existence), two separate critiques of bourgeois reality that nevertheless can rub uneasily against each other. “Critical legal studies,” he writes, “operates [sic] at the uneasy juncture of two distinct, sometimes complementary and sometimes conflicting enterprises, which I will call the left and the modernist/postmodernist projects.”16

Duncan Kennedy, excerpt of Left Legalism/Left Critique (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), http://www.duncankennedy.net/documents/The%20Critique%20of%20Rights%20in%20cls.pdf (accessed December 3, 2020).

“Leftism aims to transform existing social structures on the basis of a critique of their injustice, and, specifically, at the injustices of racist, capitalist patriarchy. The goal is to replace the system, piece by piece or in medium- or large-sized blocs, with a better system,” writes Kennedy.17

Ibid.

Post-modernism is a much more complex phenomenon, but it aims at the same destruction of society as the Marxist project, starting with the use of reason itself. We can gain a sense of such complexity in Kennedy’s own abstruse writing on Modernism/Postmodernism (or MPM). He explains:

[MPM] is a critique of the characteristic forms of rightness of this same culture and aims at liberation from inner and outer experiences of constraint by reason, in the name, not of justice and a new system, but of the dialectic of system and anti-system, mediated by transgressive artifacts that paradoxically reaffirm the “higher” forms of the values they seem to traduce.18

Ibid.

Just as with Critical Theory, post-modernism borrows heavily from the Nietzschean attack on objectivity. Writes Kennedy:

For the [MPM] project, the demand for agreement and commitment on the basis of representation with the pretension to objectivity is an enemy. The specific enemies have been the central ethical/theoretical concepts of bourgeois culture, including God, the autonomous individual choosing self, conventional morality, the family, manhood and womanhood, the nation state, humanity.19

Ibid.

CLT scholars also display an awareness of the rising identity groups that Marcuse identified as the new revolutionary base. Kennedy quotes approvingly his fellow university professor Cornell West as asserting the existence of an

inchoate, scattered yet gathering progressive movement that is emerging across the American landscape. This gathering now lacks both the vital moral vocabulary and the focused leadership that can constitute and sustain it. Yet it will be rooted ultimately in current activities by people of color, by labor and ecological groups, by women, by homosexuals.20

Ibid.

Kennedy adds that “in the United States, by the end of the 1970s, with the rise of identity politics, left discourse merged with liberal discourse, and the two ideas of the rights of the oppressed and the constitutional validity of their legal claims superseded all earlier versions of rightness.”21

Ibid.

Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center’s entry on Critical Legal Theory neatly teases out the link between the legal analysis of power relations with the emerging identity-based politics. It writes that CLT scholars:

focused from the start on the ways that law contributed to illegitimate social hierarchies, producing domination of women by men, nonwhites by whites, and the poor by the wealthy. They claim that apparently neutral language and institutions, operated through law, mask relationships of power and control. The emphasis on individualism within the law similarly hides patterns of power relationships while making it more difficult to summon up a sense of community and human interconnection.”22

“Critical Legal Studies Movement,” https://cyber.harvard.edu/bridge/CriticalTheory/critical2.htm (accessed December 3, 2020).

Critical Race Theory

From there it is a short step to Critical Race Theory. Unsurprisingly, given its name, CRT makes everything about race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life—and do so with a degree of persistence that has helped CRT impact all aspects of American life.

Derrick Bell, referenced above, the widely-acknowledged “godfather” of CRT, explains in the essay cited earlier that the work of CRT authors “is often disruptive because its commitment to anti-racism goes well beyond civil rights, integration, affirmative action, and other liberal measures.”23

Bell, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” p. 899.

 Bell quotes Angela P. Harris as explaining that CRT inherits from its Critical Legal Theory ancestor the commitment to dismantle all aspects of society through unremitting criticism—and at the same time eschews the wooly deconstructionist excesses of the postmodernists and adopts the practicality of the Civil Rights movement. Bell points to theorist and professor Charles Lawrence and says he “speaks for many critical race theory adherents when he disagrees with the notion that laws are or can be written from a neutral perspective.”24

Ibid.

 Because the law “systematically privileges subjects who are white,” CRT calls for a “transformative resistance strategy.”25

Ibid, p. 901–902.

CRT’s Theoretical Applications. Because CRT is so intent on real-life transformation, some aspects of post-modernism and its deconstructionism had to be jettisoned, or at least sidelined. Kimberle Crenshaw, the CRT scholar who first came up with the CRT term “intersectionality,” put the need to abandon the Parisian post-modernism best when she wrote:

While the descriptive project of postmodernism of questioning the ways in which meaning is socially constructed is generally sound, this critique sometimes misreads the meaning of social construction and distorts its political relevance…. But to say that a category such as race or gender is socially constructed is not to say that that category has no significance in our world. On the contrary, a large and continuing project for subordinated people—and indeed, one of the projects for which postmodern theories have been very helpful in thinking about—is the way power has clustered around certain categories and is exercised against others.26/p>

Kimberle Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review, Vol 43. No. 6 (July 1991), p. 1296, https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2017/SPR470/um/68138626/Crenshaw_1991.txt (accessed December 3, 2020).

In the end, the identity politics that CRT exists to implement was more important than salon revelries. Adherents can apply intersectionality, for example: Someone can claim to be oppressed in more than one way by citing association with more than one social group, or “axis.”27

Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Cynical Theories (London: Swift Press, 2020), p. 127.

 CRT writers Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge explain that with intersectionality, “people’s lives and the organization of power in a given society are better understood as being shaped not by a single axis of social division, be it race or gender or class, but by many axes that work together and influence each other.”28

Ibid., p. 127, and Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge, Intersectionality (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2018).

 In this way, write Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, CRT results in people looking for “power imbalances, bigotry, and biases that it assumes must be present,” which reduces everything to prejudice, “as understood under the power dynamics asserted by Theory.”29

Pluckrose and Lindsay, Cynical Theories, p. 128.

Of the three critical schools of thought analyzed here,30

There are others, such as “Lat-Crit” for Latinos, “Critical Pedagogy” for teachers, etc.

CRT is the least intellectually ethereal and the most explicitly political. Its use of story-telling—easy to understand fictional vignettes that seek to portray in every-day life terms the “systemic racism” that CRT scholars insist exists in America—is but one of the ways that CRT scholars seek to effect change.31

We discuss the use of such narratives in the section on K–12 schools infra.

 Abstraction is to be avoided because it “smuggles the privileged choice of the privileged to depersonify [sic] their claims and then pass them off as the universal authority and the universal good.”32

Bell, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” p. 901.

It is perhaps for this reason that CRT hardly ever identifies the Frankfurt School or its Critical Theory predecessor as an influence, only acknowledging a debt to Critical Legal Theory.33

Delgado mentions only Gramsci as a source that CRT draws from, and Gramsci was not a formal member of the school.

 CRT’s ceaseless assault on all American institutions and norms is pure Critical Theory, however. This assault includes the liberal order—in the classical sense, referring to Enlightenment ideas and political arrangements in which law protects individuals pursuing their own interests—something CRT scholars openly admit.

CRT and Classical Liberal Ideas

CRT’s proponents, writes Bell, “are highly suspicious of the liberal agenda, distrust its method, and want to retain what they see as a valuable strain of egalitarianism which may exist despite, and not because of, liberalism.”34

Ibid., p. 899.

 This is an important departure from the original goals of the Civil Rights movement, which sought to redeem America’s promise by calling for color-blind equality. “Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law,” acknowledges Delgado.35

Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, p. 3.

The radical egalitarianism obviously clashes with strong protections of property rights and any notion of equal protection under the law. These are not the only liberal rights to be thrown overboard. Freedom of speech is also in CRT’s sights. “Being committed to ‘free speech’ may seem like a neutral principle, but it is not. Thus, proclaiming that ‘I am committed equally to allowing free speech for the KKK and 2LiveCrew’ is a non-neutral value judgment, one that asserts that the freedom to say hateful things is more important than the freedom to be free from the victimization, stigma, and humiliation that free speech entails.”36

Bell, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” p. 902.

 Thus we arrive at today’s cancel culture.37

For more on this topic, see the section discussing free speech on campus infra.

Even the idea of rights itself—the very concept upon which this country was founded—is a target of CRT. “Crits are suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely, rights,” observes Delgado, using the informal abbreviation CRT writers sometimes employ to describe themselves. The “more radical CRT scholars with roots in racial realism and an economic view of history believe that moral and legal rights are apt to do the right holder much less good than we like to think…. Think how that system applauds affording everyone equality of opportunity but resists programs that assure equality of results.” Rights are “alienating. They separate people from each other—‘stay away, I’ve got my rights’—rather than encouraging to form close, respectful communities.”38

Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, pp. 28–29.

 The liberal principle that we universally derive these rights from a common humanity and human faculties we all share equally comes under the gun. Classical liberalism is “overly caught up in the search for universals,” writes Delgado. What CRT proponents want is “individualized treatment—‘context’—that pays attention to minorities’ lives.”39

Ibid., p. 65.

 “The concepts of rights is indeterminate, vague and disutile,” in Bell’s words.40

Bell, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” p. 900.

Legal and administrative neutrality, too, is an enemy because it gets in the way of uplifting such minority voices. Also—and this is a recurring theme with all critical schools, starting with Horkheimer, if not Nietzsche—neutrality is impossible to attain. On this point, Bell cites Lawrence again:

Charles Lawrence [a law professor] speaks for many critical race theory adherents when he disagrees with the notion that laws are or can be written from a neutral perspective. Lawrence asserts that such a neutral perspective does not, and cannot, exist—that we all speak from a particular point of view, from what he calls a ‘positioned perspective.’ The problem is that not all positioned perspectives are equally valued, equally heard, or equally included. From the perspective of critical race theory, some positions have historically been oppressed, distorted, ignored, silenced, destroyed, appropriated, commodified, and marginalized—and all of this, not accidentally.41

Ibid., p. 901.

CRT is purposely political and dispenses with the idea of rights because it blames all inequalities of outcome on what its adherents say is pervasive racism in the United States. “White supremacy,” a term that comes up repeatedly in CRT discourse and continues to be heavily used today by leaders of the Black Lives Matter organizations, must be smashed. White supremacy does not mean an actual belief in the superiority of white people, however. It can mean anything from classical philosophers to Enlightenment thinkers to the Industrial Revolution.

One of the most famous practitioners of CRT today, Robin DiAngelo, writes in her book, White Fragility:

White supremacy is a descriptive and useful term to capture the all-encompassing centrality and assumed superiority of people defined and perceived as white and the practices based on this assumption. White supremacy in this context does not refer to individual white people and their individual intentions or actions but to an overarching political, economic, and social system of domination. Again, racism is a structure, not an event. While hate groups that openly proclaim white superiority do exist and this term refers to them also, the popular consciousness solely associates white supremacy with these radical groups. This reductive definition obscures the reality of the larger system at work and prevents us from addressing this system.42

Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility (Boston: Beacon Press, 2018), p. 28.

“I hope to have made clear that white supremacy is something much more pervasive and subtle than the actions of explicit white nationalists. White supremacy describes the culture we live in,” DiAngelo writes.43

Ibid., pp. 28, 33.

 Its use is a very successful example of the Left’s use of strategic ambiguity in the pursuit of a rather large and ambitious goal. The target is a free-market system that rewards hard work, ability, and other virtuous traits. Other CRT terms that have specific and unique meanings when used by its practitioners are “equity,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “people of color.”44

See glossary infra.

 CRT speakers have also developed peculiar turns of phrase that are specific to the group; supporters are said to be “in allyship” or “in relationship.” The U.S. is said to be a “carceral state.”45

See, for example, “Angela Davis and BLM Co-Founder Alicia Garza in Conversation Across Generations,” Youtube, January 23, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gqGVni8Oec (accessed December 3, 2020). The exchange on “Democracy Now” was between Black Lives Matter leader Alicia Garza and former Communist Party USA member Angela Davis.

How Does Critical Race Theory Affect You?

Because of their strong political commitment to transforming the United States, CRT writers make clear that they do not intend for what happens on college campuses to stay on campus. “It is our hope that scholarly resistance will lay the groundwork for wide-scale resistance. We believe that standards and institutions created by and fortifying white power ought to be resisted,” writes Bell.46

Ibid.

On that score, we must pronounce CRT to have been a resounding success. CRT has broken out of the classroom and become the philosophy of wide-scale resistance. It is useful to identify a few of the ways with which it impacts the daily lives of Americans.

Identity Politics. CRT has become the academic body of work that underpins identity politics, an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation not of individuals and local communities united under common purposes, but as one riven by groups based on sex, race, national origin, or gender—each with specific claims on victimization. These identity categories correspond to Marcuse’s new revolutionary base (“the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other races and other colors”).47

Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society.

The identities are often artificial ones manufactured by government itself, examples being the Hispanic and Asian-American pan-ethnicities contrived in 1977 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or the 31 genders approved by the New York City Commission on Human Rights.48

Office of Management and Budget, “Directive No. 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Reporting Statistics and Administrative Reporting,” 1977, https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/populations/bridged-race/directive15.html#:~:text=This%20Directive%20provides%20standard%20classifications,administrative%20reporting%20and%20statistical%20activities (accessed December 3, 2020). See also New York City Commission on Human Rights, “Gender: Identity, Expression,” https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/GenderID_Card2015.pdf (accessed December 3, 2020).

 Under identity politics, America is no longer a country where the individual is the central agent in society, who, because of his very existence possesses individual rights. Instead, membership in the official categories becomes the identity that matters when it comes to rights (mostly positive rights, not natural ones), responsibilities, and everything else. Identity politics has become the new paradigm under which many Americans now operate. Victimhood is what commands attention, respect, and entitlements, seen as compensatory justice.

CRT emerged contemporaneously with the proliferation of these identity categories in America and became the philosophical tool to implement identity politics and the attempt to transform the United States. Race, Racism and American Law by Derrick Bell includes toward the end a chapter for “Racism and Other Nonwhites,” among whom he names for the United States the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Mexicans.49

Derrick Bell, Race, Racism and American Law (Philadelphia, PA: Aspen, 1972).

It was published in 1972, two years before the Census Bureau bureaucrats, under pressure from leftist activists, opened the first national racial and ethnic advisory committee.50

Mike Gonzalez, “The Divisive Consequences of the Census Bureau’s Advisory Committee on Race,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, August 16, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/commentary/the-divisive-consequences-the-census-bureaus-committee-race.

 Just three years later, these activists convinced the OMB to create the pan-ethnic categories.

The simultaneity was hardly coincidental: The activists who forced the bureaucracy to confect the identities also drank deeply from the well of European philosophies brought over after World War II. “The language of ‘dominant’ and ‘subservient,’ or ‘subordinate,’ groups, integral to Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School” pervaded the work of Julian Samora, the first founder of a Hispanic studies department at a major university, the first leader of La Raza [“The Race”] and a member of the Census Bureau’s first national advisory committee on race. Samora’s 1953 dissertation, titled “Minority Leadership in a Bi-Cultural Community,” quotes the German-born American social psychologist Kurt Lewin, who was associated with the Frankfurt School.51

Mike Gonzalez, The Plot to Change America (New York, NY: Encounter Books, 2020), p. 29.

CRT reshaped the identitarians’ thinking in new ways still and gave them newer terms to express these thoughts. Soon CRT was spawning Critical Latin Theory and other spinoffs that were identical in their approach—save for the “marginalized” subjects to be emphasized. Identity politics is difficult to challenge because it presents itself as a just demand for formerly marginalized people to claim attention and reward, but it seeks to collectivize American society; it is divisive, flouts constitutional equal protection, and represents a direct threat to republican self-rule. In all this it has found a handmaiden in CRT.

(Read about The Black Lives Matter Insurgency and more at The Heritage Foundation)

Critical Race Theory stands as the complete opposite of Martin Luther King Junior’s dream

Whereas Martin Luther King Junior had a dream of a nation where his children would be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, critical race theory depends solely on a person’s race to determine their worth and how laws should apply to that person.

While MLK’s dream requires the development of the better angels within people of society, while critical race theory depends on the enslaving influences of socialism.

If you don’t accept paying for it and having your kids force-fed it, the left will criminalize you

Tucker Carlson: The left will now use armed agents to enforce their radical ideology

Tucker Carlson of Fox News comments on how the left has recruited law enforcement and the FBI to enforce its radical agenda.

Remember when political debates were the highlight of the political year, like boxing matches, everyone would watch them. It doesn’t happen anymore. The ratings for the last presidential debates were terrible, and there’s a reason for that. They’re boring. Everything is scripted. You know what they’re going to say before they say it. But if you keep watching the lower tier, the debates lower on the fight card, sometimes you see something interesting and happens invariably by accident. But it reveals a lot about the country and the people who are trying to lead it. 

That just happened last month in Virginia during a governor’s debate. Terry McAuliffe was the governor of Virginia. He gravely damaged the state. He’s the career Clinton operative who you may remember from his many brushes with apparent indictment. The Washington Post is always telling you he was about to get indicted. He never was. Instead, he ran in Virginia, and he ran it into the ground, and now he wants to hurt it even more so he wants to be reelected. 

And at the debate last month, Terry McAuliffe announced what just kind of welled up within him, and he told us that parents no longer have a say in their own children’s education. The one that they pay for. Instead, Terry McAuliffe informed the state of Virginia, the government is in charge of your child, period. 

TERRY MCAULIFFE: I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach. I get really tired of everybody running down teachers. I love our teachers and what they’ve done through COVID, these are real heroes who deserve our respect.

He’s a hack, a liar and a demagogue, but ignore the second part of the sentence. “I don’t think parents have any right telling teachers what to teach.” Really? So parents don’t control their own kids. Do you have a right to tell the pediatrician what kind of medical treatment your kids should get? No. This is the new rule. The government makes all key decisions about your children. That’s not just true in the state of Virginia. It is now orthodoxy throughout the entire Democratic Party. And as of yesterday, this idea, unprecedented in the history of America, has the full backing of the Biden administration, in other words, of the entire federal government.

And if you disagree with that, if you’re one of those troglodytes who think you should have some say in what your children are taught in the schools that you pay for, you should know the Biden administration now views you as a domestic terrorist, and they are fully willing to used armed agents of the state to compel you to shut up. Joe Biden’s Justice Department has made that very, very clear. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland, remember, the moderate, soft-spoken, one to turn out to be not moderate at all, but a wild-eyed, radical crazy person – He’s now the attorney general. He issued a memorandum yesterday calling on the FBI to crack down on parents who complain about their school board. 

Now, keep in mind at this exact moment that Garland wrote that, we learned that murders in the United States since the advent of Black Lives Matter have gone up 30%. So that’s thousands more dead people. This is the attorney general, our chief law enforcement officer. He did not issue a memo about that. He issued instead a memo about people who are committing wrongthink. Garland directed, “federal, state, tribal, territorial and local law enforcement leaders to discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend.” This disturbing trend being parents complaining. 

“In the coming days,” Garland wrote, “The department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.” 

Criminal conduct. What does that consist of? Bombings, assaults? No, complaining. It is now criminal to disagree with your kid’s school. What have we learned from this? Well, among other things, we’ve learned the Biden administration no longer believes in the most basic precepts of liberal democracy. Among them, your freedom of speech should never be abridged, The government must convince you, not compel you almost always, and you and not the government is in charge of your children. 

(Read more at Fox News)


Never mind that the left has been letting real felons onto the streets for years

Never mind that a majority of violent, career criminals in Harris County get off with deferred adjudication or low-bail or no-bail bonds offered by either Democrat District Attorney Kim Ogg or allowed by a number Democrat social justice judges.

Regarding what the FBI will and will not address

FBI admits it doesn’t track leftist violence

Townhall notes in a 4 October 2021 article that the FBI recently admitted it does not track the Left-wing violence of BLM or Antifa.

During the misnamed “Summer of Love,” riots, looting, vandalism, and political violence was carried out by radical leftists under the (often literal) Antifa and Black Lives Matter banners. The violent leftists besieged federal property, private businesses, law enforcement, and private citizens with costly, deadly, and devastating outcomes.

Joe Biden and other Democrats turned a blind eye to the violence for political reasons in a stunning show of hypocritical double standards. In too many cases, Democrats even encouraged more leftist violence. As it turns out, the Federal Bureau of Investigation turned a blind eye to those carrying out the riots and looting too.

In a congressional hearing last week titled “Confronting Violent White Supremacy (Part VI): Examining the Biden Administration’s Counterterrorism Strategy,” FBI Assistant Director of Counterterrorism Timothy Langan said that the Bureau doesn’t consider Antifa to be an “organization,” and as such does not have specific information on the group’s activities. 

In response to a question about how much violence or domestic terrorism Antifa committed in recent years from Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), Langan had nothing to offer. 

“Under the anti-government category or subcategory of domestic terrorism — would that include groups like Antifa or Black Lives Matter, folks who commit violence or acts of domestic terrorism?” Mace asked.

“Well, we don’t identify groups but individuals’ actions,” Langan responded. “So if individuals are committing actions that would be in furtherance of anti-government or anarchist ideals then they would fall into that category.”

“So would you quantify Antifa as an anarchist group under then that subcategory?” Mace pressed. “I mean, it’s an anarchist group, right?”

“The director has previously described them as a ‘movement’ and there have been individuals that have associated or identified with Antifa that have conducted violent acts that we would categorize as anarchist,” was all that Langan could offer of the mere “movement” of Antifa. 

Mace continued, asking “how many acts of violence or domestic terrorism has Antifa committed over the last two years?”

Again, Langan has nothing to offer. “Since we don’t categorize Antifa, nor do we calculate or collate information regarding Antifa, that movement, we don’t have that,” said the senior FBI counterterrorism official. “But we can provide you information on anarchist threats and cases in general.”

(Read more at Townhall)

When you have a blind authoritarianism that would mandate shots (where those who refuse get fired) and then act surprised when job numbers suck, those in authority cannot see the common man

Joe Biden seems only to see the immediate effects of his last disaster. Therefore, he:

The crazy thing is that (while the press will not focus on it due to his Democrat party card) Joe seems to have manufactured each of these as a distraction from a previous failure. He opened the border only because of his incomplete campaign against Bernie and Trump. Every time a new crisis came up, he came up with a new topic to toss (which became its own crisis). This guy can’t get out of his own way.

FBI won’t condemn cop killers, but goes after parents

The Daily Wire reports on the words of Ted Cruz as he points out the FBI will not address cop killers and firebombers of cities while condemning concerned parents speaking before teachers and school boards.

On Wednesday, Texas GOP Senator Ted Cruz grilled Deputy Attorney General Kristen Clarke over the Biden Justice Department ordering the FBI to investigate alleged “threats” against school board members and teachers, a move that comes as parents have been voicing opposition to Critical Race Theory and mask mandates. At one point, Cruz bluntly asked, “Do you believe parents objecting to the teaching of Critical Race Theory have civil rights in the democratic process?” Clarke answered, “Uh, I don’t follow the question, senator.”

Later, Cruz asked if Clarke believed parents objecting at school boards were “domestic terrorists.” He then asked if she believed Antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters “who burned shops, who firebombed police cars, who murdered police officers” were domestic terrorists.

When Clarke evaded answering the question, Cruz fired, “Ms. Clarke, it is amazing that you are not willing to condemn people who are murdering police officers and firebombing cities because your politics aligns with them, but at the same time when it comes to parents at school boards, you’re perfectly comfortable with calling a mom at a PTA meeting a ‘domestic terrorist.’”

A memo issued by Attorney General Merrick Garland on Monday reads in part:

In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools. While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, the protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views. Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values. Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety.

Cruz began his questioning by remarking, “Ms. Clarke, when you testified before this committee and when Attorney General Garland testified before this committee, you both promised to be non-partisan and impartial. I’m sorry to say that I think neither of you has lived up to that promise.”

After citing the Biden administration’s dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit against Yale University, Cruz continued:

Just this week, after you were there, after Merrick Garland was there, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum to the FBI instructing them to mobilize against parents across the country. Parents of school kids who have the temerity to show up at school boards and express their opposition to the teaching of Critical Race Theory, a pernicious theory that divides us on racial lines, that tells children the lie that America is fundamentally racist, that America is irredeemably racist, that all white people are racist. It spreads racial division; many parents are, understandably, quite dismayed at schools that are teaching this to their children, sometimes as young as five. And yet the Department of Justice looked at that issue and decided to label the parents objecting to this teaching as domestic terrorists. Did you participate in discussions about the memo before it was issued?

“Senator, I can’t talk about internal deliberations inside the department,” Clarke replied.

“You can’t talk about whether you participated in discussions about the memo?” Cruz asked.

“No,” Clarke answered. “But what I can tell you is that the Civil Rights Division will play a role going forward. The Attorney General has asked the Department to undertake a review and the Division will participate in that review to determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute crimes.”

Then Cruz got down to brass tacks: “Do you believe parents objecting to the teaching of Critical Race Theory have civil rights in the democratic process?”

Clarke: “Uh, I don’t follow the question, senator.”

Cruz: “You don’t understand the question whether parents objecting to Critical Race Theory have civil rights?”

“The First Amendment is a core value in our democracy,” Clarke replied.

Cruz pointed out, “I didn’t say free speech; I said civil rights. School board meetings are democratic. They are petitioning your local government. Do they have civil rights that the Voting Rights gives a damn about?”

Clarke: “They have the right to express their view, to challenge the school boards, to ask —”

Cruz: “And is it beneficial for the Attorney General to label them as ‘domestic terrorists’ and direct the FBI to target them?”

Clarke: “The Attorney General’s memo deals with threats against public servants and says that threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values.”

Cruz: “Do you believe parents objecting at school boards are ‘domestic terrorists’?”

Clarke: “I don’t, senator.”

Cruz: “Do you believe Antifa are domestic terrorists?”

Clarke: “I don’t have a view about Antifa.”

Cruz: “Do you believe the Black Lives Matter protesters who burned shops, who firebombed police cars, who murdered police officers, do you believe they’re domestic terrorists?”

Clarke: “Senator, I believe we believe we live in a society where people espouse different views, but what we don’t want are threats of violence.”

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

Square for me the last statement by Cruz with the last statement of Clarke

If Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will not condemn Antifa or BLM for firebombing shops and courts in Seattle, then why will they have Merrick Garland charge people under the Patriot Act for getting possibly verbally abusive at school board meetings?

Biden appoints avowed CRT supporter to Department of Education

The Daily Wire shows us how Biden’s appointment to head the Department of Education has always been an avowed supporter of Critical Race Theory.

President Biden has appointed an avowed Critical Race Theory supporter to the Department of Education.

Biden appointed Precious McKesson, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party’s Black Caucus, as a Special Assistant in the DOE’s office of Communications and Outreach.

After Nebraska Board of Regents board member Jim Pillen introduced a resolution to bar CRT from the University of Nebraska education system, McKesson co-authored an August op-ed in which it stated:

Pillen and other Republicans, including Gov. Pete Ricketts, have made CRT a political boogeyman without actually knowing what it is. Simply put, CRT examines social, cultural and legal issues as they relate to race and racism. Students would be taught about the systemic racism that still exists today and permeates our society.

Further, CRT is a 40-year-old academic framework, so one has to wonder why the Republican Party is now trying to frame all educational experiences that discuss diversity and equity with a negative partisan lens. From our collective experiences, the only answer is to create a wedge between white communities and communities of color, making us the villain rather than having Nebraskans see us as their neighbors and co-workers.

… Ricketts and Pillen are also trying to dictate how a person can attain knowledge, information and engage in intellectual activity, which violates more than academic freedom. It is a direct assault upon the sovereignty of one’s soul, mind and body.

McKesson cast the only Biden-Harris vote out of Nebraska’s five electoral college ballots in 2020.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

Why is Biden attacking our First Amendment Right for the sake of government?

According to the American form of government, our government is supposed to be limited and our speech is supposed to be free. I hate to put things at a first-grade level, but there is a reason that the First Amendment covers the freedoms of speech, journalism (if they so choose), and religion.

Garland has conflict of interest with Facebook and critical race theory

The New York Post reports on a the conflicts of interest Merrick Garland has with Facebook and Critical Race Theory.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is under scrutiny after a parents group revealed that his daughter is married to the co-founder of an education company funded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that allegedly employs critical race theory in its work, according to a report.

The disclosure comes as the attorney general announced on Monday that the FBI will help investigate increasing accounts of alleged threats against teachers and school board members in response to critical race theory being taught in schools — an action that critics slammed as a “declaration of war” on parents and intimidation of political opponents. 

His daughter, Rebecca Garland, is married to Xan Tanner, the co-founder of Boston-based Panorama Education, a company that collects social and emotional data from students in grades K to 12, Fox News reported on Wednesday. 

Asra Nomani, the vice president of investigations and strategy of Parents Defending Education, which opposes the Justice Department’s enforcement actions, tweeted about the connection.

“Merrick Garland has declared a war on parents,” Nomani posted on Tuesday. “His daughter is married to the cofounder of @PanoramaEd which is under fire for its multimillion contracts with school boards. At @DefendingEd, parents sent us tips. We raised the alarm. Now Garland is trying to silence parents.”

“Panorama Education will profit from Garland’s outrageous silencing of parents who are challenging its data mining of K-12 students,” she wrote on the group’s website.

Nomani linked to a New York Times report from 2018 about the marriage of Garland’s daughter and Tanner.

She and her group argue that the Justice Department is likening parents who oppose such “woke” policies as critical race theory and mandatory mask wearing to “domestic terrorism.”

It also comes as a whistleblower, Frances Haugen, testified to a Senate committee on Tuesday about how Facebook routinely scoops up people’s information and then uses it to keep them engaged on platforms it owns. 

(Read additional details at the New York Post)

If Merrick Garland had any honor, he would recuse himself from this case

What’s more, if Merrick Garland had any honor, he would recuse himself before this information became public knowledge. He should not wait to be found out. However, since he remains in place despite this conflict, obviously he has no honor or credibility.

Thank God he did not get appointed to the Supreme Court.

Parents refuse to be intimidated by Biden’s Attorney General labeling them domestic terrorists

The Federalist pulls together an article on how parents have refused to allow Biden and Merrick Garland to intimidate them.

Local mother Stacy Langton stood before the Fairfax County School Board in a suburb of the nation’s capital two weeks ago, boldly exposing explicit examples of child porn and pedophilia in library books in area schools, available to children as young as 12 years old.

Langton’s witness ended in mayhem because the school board failed to do something very simple: listen to the stakeholders — and taxpayers — who are parents. Board members rudely interrupted Langton during her two minutes of allotted speaking time and called a hasty recess, a board member later incorrectly claiming that he faced two “exorcisms” by parents praying during the meeting.

“Shame! Shame! Shame!” shouted parents, horrified at the cowardice of the board members.

Now, however, instead of recognizing Langton for the hero that she is for protecting children, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has issued a declaration of war on America’s parents.

“I am directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to … [address] threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,” he wrote in a memo to FBI Director Christopher Wray and the U.S. attorneys generals on Monday night.

Langton, of course, didn’t threaten anyone. But in this war, facts don’t matter.

In just five days, Garland issued that response to a September 29 letter by the National School Boards Association alleging, incredulously: “As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

Neither the school board association nor Garland mentioned the word “parents,” as if to acknowledge us, even in an attack, is to validate us. But we know. It’s now the United States vs. America’s parents.

(Read more at the Federalist)

Doocy Presses Psaki On Whether Biden Considers School Board Protesters ‘Domestic Terrorists’

George W. Bush’s Patriot Act being used against concerned parents

Tweets on the AP Fact Check on Domestic Terrorism




Liberals were losing the argument over critical race theory in schools — time to call in the FBI

The New York Post comments on how the calls to the FBI only occurred after the liberals started losing the argument over Critical Race Theory.

In an official memo, Attorney General Merrick Garland has pledged to mobilize the FBI against parents protesting critical race theory in public schools, citing unspecified “threats of violence” against school officials.

Garland’s memo follows a National School Boards Association request that the Biden administration investigate threats to school board members and classify sometimes heated parent protests as “domestic terrorism.”

The NSBA suggested that some of these parents should be prosecuted under the PATRIOT Act and federal hate crimes legislation.

But the school board association letter is riddled with falsehoods, errors, and exaggerations. It begins with the claim that “critical race theory is not taught in public schools,” despite a vast body of evidence showing that CRT is widespread in public schools. Even the national teachers’ union has admitted as much, and called for its implementation in all 50 states.

The NSBA deliberately misrepresents debates at school board meetings as “threats” and sometimes vociferous and angry speech as “violence.” The letter refers to dozens of news stories alluding to “disruptions,” “shouts,” “arguments,” and “mobs” but, contrary to its core claim, cites only a single example of actual violence against a school official: a case of aggravated battery in Illinois, which is obviously condemnable, but hardly the justification for a national “domestic terrorism” investigation.

The association even fabricated entire storylines to support its political objectives. For example, the NSBA claims that a Tennessee school board official named Jon White resigned due to “threats and acts of violence”; but the linked source reports that White resigned for “concerns about too much time away from his family,” with no mention of threats or violence. (In another local report, White complains about parents calling him a “child abuser” and other epithets, which, while harsh, are hardly an “act of violence.”)

Still, despite the school board association’s flimsy pretext, the Biden Administration appears to be doing its bidding. Garland’s memo instructs the FBI to coordinate with “federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement” to develop plans to “discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate.” NSBA director Chip Slaven and national teachers’ union president Randi Weingarten immediately praised Garland’s aggressive actions.

This is a deeply politicized and dangerous escalation in the debate about critical race theory in public schools. For months, critical race theory proponents, including teachers’ unions, have struggled to respond to critics, and new survey data now show that strong majorities of all racial categories oppose CRT in public school. But as their standing in the polls has collapsed, the education establishment has turned to more heavy-handed tactics.

The purpose of mobilizing the FBI is not only to monitor dissent but to subdue it. The suggestion that parents might be engaging in “domestic terrorism” is designed to suppress speech and assembly and to justify the further federalization of education policy.

In congressional testimony last week, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona refused to say that parents are the “primary stakeholders” in their children’s education; this week, Attorney General Garland is attempting to drive an even bigger wedge between parents and public schools.

Parents should not let this overreach deter them from speaking out against critical race theory in their schools. The Biden administration has raised the stakes, so that this fight is no longer only about CRT; it is about protecting the basic rights of speech, assembly, and voter control over the country’s public institutions.

(Read more at the New York Post)

Only to Biden and other totalitarians is a parent defending a child a terrorist

For four years, Democrats claimed Trump to be a fascist. However, Biden now holds the record for the number of executive orders issued within the first month, six months, and (soon) nine months. Biden is the one who has issued a vaccine mandate for American citizens (while allowing illegal aliens to choose whether or not to take the jab).

Sen. Rand Paul Rips Biden, DOJ: ‘Moms’ Aren’t ‘Terrorists’

The Daily Wire lets Senator Rand Paul point out the obvious: “Moms” aren’t “terrorists.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) says Americans should “be afraid of your government” following an announcement from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that the FBI would begin to investigate alleged “threats” against school officials, a move that comes as parents have been voicing opposition to Critical Race Theory and mask mandates.

“Moms at school boards are being told that they’re criminals, potential domestic terrorists, for the crime of dissent, and I think criminalizing dissent is something that we should all be appalled with,” Paul said Wednesday on Fox News.

Host Ben Domenech asked the senator what he would say to Americans worried that “if they go to their local school board and say the wrong thing, that they’re going to end up on some list that Merrick Garland goes after.”

“I would say be afraid. Be afraid of your government,” Paul said.

“That’s a sad thing from someone in the government to say, but the thing is, is those lists already exist. For example, people in northern Virginia that have gone to [protests], have been then sought out by the school council, by the members of the school board and retaliated [against] in a sort of legalistic way to try to put them on some sort of list and chill their speech by letting them know there’ll be a penalty for showing up and protesting,” Paul said.

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s announcement on Monday came after the National School Boards Association (NSBA) sent President Joe Biden a letter claiming “America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat.” The NSBA asked the White House to consider investigating attendees of school board meetings and even using the 9/11-era Patriot Act to do so.

“I think the problem is it’s become so normalized to use government to search out and seek out your opponents,” said Paul.

The senator cited the FBI case of former Donald Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, whose communications were monitored by the agency after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued warrants.

“There are people I know on the left who should have stepped forward and should have said how wrong it is to use this foreign intelligence court – that uses a standard lower than the Constitution – to go after a political campaign,” Paul said. “Yet, the Left — once it became about Trump, their hatred of Trump trumped everything else, and I have a feeling and a fear that the Left has become more authoritarian than we can really even imagine.”

“Look, there are all kinds of laws about decorum, and there ought to be,” Paul said. “The idiot woman that goes in the bathroom, filming Senator [Kyrsten] Sinema [D-AZ] in a bathroom, that is illegal according to every local ordinance and you should punish that person.”

“If you go to a school board meeting and you’re disruptive and you don’t obey the rules of the school board meeting, then there will be local punishment,” Paul said. “But that has nothing to do with the federal law, it has nothing to do with the Department of Justice. What Merrick Garland did is, he’s attempting to stifle dissent, …”

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

 

These Biden-budget-enabling Republicans need not run again

Featured

Senate votes to raise debt limit after 11 Republicans join Democrats to break filibuster

ABC News reports that eleven Republicans joined Democrats to raise the debt ceiling and save Joe Biden.

After weeks of brinkmanship, the Senate voted Thursday night to temporarily raise the debt limit by $480 billion until Dec. 3.

The procedural move to break the GOP filibuster, which required 60 votes, was the first hurdle cleared, with a final count of 61-38. At least 10 Republicans needed to side with all Democrats to clear the hurdle to move forward to a final vote; 11 ultimately voted to advance the vote.

Democrats then raised the debt limit with a simple majority — 50-48. No Republican voted with Democrats to raise the debt ceiling.

Before the debt hike hits President Joe Biden’s desk, it also needs to pass the House.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hinted in a letter Thursday night that the House may have to return early from recess to vote on the debt ceiling legislation. The House was expected to return Oct. 19 — one day after Yellen warned lawmakers the U.S. would default — so it’s likely they will have to come back sometime next week.

Republican leaders initially struggled to find 10 GOP votes to break the filibuster following weeks of messaging to members that Democrats should go it alone.

(Read more liberal drivel and hear their tripe at ABC News)

If the Democrats had been forced to break the filibuster, then it could be used against them

TraitorMitchJust like the nuclear option on Supreme Court and judicial nominations was a tool that was used against the Democrats for first using it, this could have been used against them. 

So here are the eleven RINOs who must never receive another vote:

  1. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,
  2. Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby,
  3. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski,
  4. Maine Sen. Susan Collins,
  5. Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt,
  6. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman,
  7. South Dakota Sen. John Thune,
  8. South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds,
  9. Texas Sen. John Cornyn,
  10. West Virginia Sen. Shelly Moore Capito and
  11. Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso

 

Facebook, Google, Twitter, and the White House

Featured

Do you:

  • Remember how Facebook censored critical information about Biden’s crooked dealings in Ukraine and China
  • Remember how Mark Zuckerberg flooded Democrat districts with Zucker bucks (hidden as COVID relief)
  • Remember how Biden’s transition team was full of Facebook, Google, and Twitter moguls
  • Remember how Biden admitted to coordinating with Facebook to suppress “misinformation”
  • Know that the “whistleblower” helped hide the Hunter Biden story on Facebook
  • Know what two Democrat powerhouses represent this supposed “whistleblower”
  • Really believe this isn’t a plant to get conservatives to destroy themselves on social media?

Breitbart exposes five of Big Tech’s most serious acts of censorship

Breitbart exposes five of Big Tech’s most serious acts of censorship in a 10 May 2021 article. Here are the first two points.

Mark-ZuckerbergOver the past year, Big Tech has greatly increased the rate of censorship online. Breitbart News has reported on these efforts extensively, here are five of the most serious acts of censorship by the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe.

The Masters of the Universe have made a number of attempts to take further control of speech on the internet. Whether that means blacklisting public figures that they dislike or cracking down on the types of content considered acceptable to discuss online, tech giants have worked hard to further limit open discussion online.

Here are five examples of recent censorship attempts by the self-appointed Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe:

1: All Major Social Media Platform Blacklist Former President Trump

In January 2021, following riots at Capitol Hill, a number of social media firms took action against then-President Trump alleging that his rhetoric contributed to the Capitol hill events. In response, Facebook permanently suspended President Trump, as did Twitter.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated at the time:

The shocking events of the last 24 hours clearly demonstrate that President Donald Trump intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor, Joe Biden.

His decision to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters at the Capitol building has rightly disturbed people in the US and around the world. We removed these statements yesterday because we judged that their effect — and likely their intent — would be to provoke further violence.

Following the certification of the election results by Congress, the priority for the whole country must now be to ensure that the remaining 13 days and the days after inauguration pass peacefully and in accordance with established democratic norms.

Over the last several years, we have allowed President Trump to use our platform consistent with our own rules, at times removing content or labeling his posts when they violate our policies. We did this because we believe that the public has a right to the broadest possible access to political speech, even controversial speech. But the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.

We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.

Twitter similarly banned Trump, stating: “After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”


Politicians and commentators from across the political spectrum, including former Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, liberal journalist Glenn Greenwald, and countless conservative lawmakers warned that this is a threat to freedom of speech and democracy.

It was reported a few days after Trump’s ban that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was also worried by the suspension of Trump from the platforms, stating that the bannings were “problematic” and she did not believe that social media management should be able to interfere with the right of freedom of expression.

Facebook has since referred its decision to ban Trump to the Facebook Oversight Board which has the ability to overrule Facebook’s decision. The board operates independently from Facebook – but every member of it receives a salary from Facebook.

The board recently voted to temporarily uphold the ban on former President Trump’s accounts on the platform. The board has reportedly told Facebook that it has six months to announce an end date to the former President’s suspension or permanently delete his pages.

The board stated that Facebook cannot “make up the rules as it goes along,” by banning some users for a set amount of time and others indefinitely. Read more at Breitbart News here.

2: Facebook, Twitter Heavily Suppress New York Post‘s Hunter Biden Bombshell

In October of last year, Facebook and Twitter simultaneously worked to suppress a bombshell news article from the New York Post that indicated contrary to his previous denials that Joe Biden met with an adviser to the board of Burisma while he was vice president, arranged by his son Hunter, who was then working as a lobbyist for the company.

Facebook massively reduced the distribution of the article on its platform, shortly afterward Twitter marked links to the story as “unsafe,” and eventually locked the official New York Post Twitter account.

Breitbart News reported at the time:

The story made the front page of the Post, which also reveals that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is investigating emails provided to it by a whistleblower, allegedly between Hunter Biden and executives at Burisma.

His father has previously said, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”

But according to emails obtained by the Post, Hunter introduced his father to a Burisma executive less than a year before the then-vice president pressured the Ukrainian government into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company.

Facebook spokesman and former Democrat staffer Andy Stone announced the decision on Twitter, and also practically invited Facebook’s supposedly neutral fact-checkers to challenge the story.

Significantly, the social network took the rare step of acting in advance of a decision by its “third-party fact-checkers,” on which it usually relies on to defer responsibility for censoring news publishers.

That move is practically unprecedented, arguably protecting the former vice president from a major political scandal at a critical time in the 2020 election.

“While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners,” said Stone. “In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.”

On October 30, 2020, Breitbart News reported that the New York Post’s official Twitter account had been unlocked. Twitter explained its reasoning in a series of tweets, writing:


Read the rest on the Twitter censorship at Breitbart News here.

(Read the other three points at Breitbart)

What amazes me is that, with all of this censorship of conservatives, Zuckerberg still felt a need to flood Democrat areas with Zucker bucks

What gets me is the way that Zuckerberg augmented his censorship of conservatives with a funding of efforts across Democrat areas in all 50 states (often masquerading as coronavirus relief).

Facebook and Twitter censor Biden bombshells weeks after execs join his transition team

In a 15 October 2020 Breitbart article, we find that Facebook and Twitter executives censored information on Hunter Biden emails shortly after those executives joined the Biden transition team.

Following the publication of the New York Post‘s bombshell story about the Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine, Facebook and Twitter worked hard to suppress the story across their platforms. The censorship comes just weeks after executives from both firms joined the Biden transition team.

Breitbart News recently reported on the New York Post’s bombshell story that indicated that Joe Biden may have met with an adviser to the board of Burisma while he was Vice President, arranged by his son Hunter, who was working as a lobbyist for the company at the time. Joe Biden has previously said, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”

But, the leaked emails allegedly show that Hunter introduced his father to a Bursima executive less than a year before Biden, acting as Vice President, pressured the Ukrainian government into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company. Shortly after the story broke, many found themselves having trouble sharing it across social media. This censorship comes just weeks after executives from both Facebook and Twitter joined the Biden transition team.

Breitbart News reported in September that Twitter Public Policy Director Carlos Monje left the social media company to join the transition team for Joe Biden. Monje’s specific role on the team has not been made clear and Biden’s transition team reportedly declined to comment on the situation.

Despite a specific role not being named, Monje will reportedly be serving as co-chair of Biden’s infrastructure policy committee and has already helped to host a fundraiser for Biden this week, according to an invitation sent to Politico.

Monje has worked in the world of presidential transition politics in the past, previously serving as the director of agency review on the team that prepared for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s administration, which failed to take flight. Monje also worked on the Obama administration team’s 2008 national security working group according to his LinkedIn profile.

Monje also acted as deputy policy director during Obama’s first run for office and subsequently served as a senior policy advisor and special assistant to the president on the Domestic Policy Council. Monje’s final years in the administration were spent in the Transporation Department before he departed for Twitter.

In October, Breitbart News further reported that Biden’s transition team had hired top Facebook executive Jessica Hertz to its general counsel to oversee ethical issues. The move reportedly came as the campaign struggles with Facebook to have posts by President Trump censored on the platform. This is the second Big Tech executive to join Biden’s campaign. Hertz will reportedly be responsible for “enforcement, oversight, and compliance” of the ethics plan that Biden’s team unveiled this week.

New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari was one of the first to note that Twitter was blocking him from posting a link to the Biden-Ukraine story, claiming that the link was “potentially harmful.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

Here we have proof of a propaganda system denying news that hurts Biden and promoting news that hurts Trump

With Facebook and Twitter blocking stories about the Biden emails, a good portion of the nation has not heard of Hunter and Joe Biden’s misdeeds. With Reddit’s initial blocking of the story, numbers who will visit the polls today may remain uninformed.

And the left calls Trump’s followers the next generation of Hitler. They have truly earned the title of Goebbels’ protégés.

Biden regime admits it tells Facebook what to censor

LifeSiteNews comments on the time the Biden regime admitted to telling Facebook what to censor.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted Thursday that the Biden administration has been telling Facebook what posts it wants taken down, inadvertently giving potentially significant ammunition to a legal recourse for online censorship that conservatives only recently began exploring.

The Daily Caller reports that during Thursday’s press conference Psaki called on Facebook to release “data on the reach of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation,” to “create a robust enforcement strategy that bridges their properties and provides transparency about the rules,” take “faster action against harmful posts,” and promote “quality information sources in their feed algorithm.”

But the most eyebrow-raising portion of her remarks was her confirmation that “we’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.” Facebook declined the Caller’s request for comment on the revelation.

(Read more at LifeSiteNews)

From the beginning of Facebook, there has been much censorship of the Right mixed with some tolerance of the Right (but only enough to get our money)

Somehow, I can imagine that the Lefties at Facebook think themselves very tolerant (since they do not banish every dissenting illiberal thought). However, the liberal platform finds every way to block:

Facebook “whistleblower” was part of team that censored Hunter Biden laptop story

We find through the PostMillenial that the “whistleblower” participated in censoring the Hunter Biden story.

The Facebook civic integrity team that leftist activist whistleblower Frances Haugen was a member of, worked to counter misinformation about the 2020 election.

Which in October of last year meant making the decision to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story and the New York Post’s reporting on it.

Project Veritas whistleblowers haven’t gotten the same mainstream media attention and praise as Frances Haugen has, after coming out publicly to 60 Minutes earlier this week.

(Read more at PostMillenial)

I have to admit that I was drawn in by the “whistleblower” stance and the tales of harm to girls

Initially, it was tempting to be pulled in by the tale of having a “whistleblower” attack a company on the left. Additionally, my parental instincts came into play when I heard of the ways children were knowingly being harmed by Facebook (and I am sure that they are).

However, this is all too convenient. It folds too quickly into the hands of the left and becomes a well-fashioned weapon to strike down the smaller right-leaning platforms (Parler, FrankSpeech, Rumble, and others) that have started to provide competition to Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

Further, this movement will likely end with pushing conservative speech completely off of the liberal platforms (Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and others). They will deem conservatives “too dangerous to be heard.”

Facebook whistleblower is leftist activist represented by lawyer for “whistleblower” behind Trump impeachment

The Daily Wire reports that the Facebook “whistleblower” is a plant who is represented by the law firm of Eric Ciaramelli and the PR firm of Jen Psaki.

The Facebook whistleblower, Frances Haugen, has a record of donations to far-left Democrats and a history of raising issues about purported bias while at previous employers, a Daily Wire review found. She is working with Democrat operatives to roll out her complaint and has the same lawyers as the anonymous Ukraine “whistleblower” whose allegations led to Donald Trump’s impeachment, but who reportedly turned out to be then-Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisor on the country.

In a previous role at Pinterest, Frances Haugen was behind a “recent change to give users the option to filter searches to specific skin tones.” At Gigster, she gave a talk on how “if we don’t build with an eye towards inclusion, we can end up enshrining bias.”

In 2015, she complained that Google was not inclusive enough of women, saying: “I didn’t realize the way I had been worn down by being a woman in tech… the last team I was on at Google, it had a transsexual Eng[ineering] director, and as a result we had more transsexual women than cis women on our team, which also says something sad about the number of women in tech.”

“You don’t see them in major tech companies and when you do see them in major tech companies you see them in places that are in support roles like marketing or perhaps sales. I think that’s a problem,” she said.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

This requires a hat tip to Bunkerville.

Jack Posobiec proves his point through sarcasm

At this point, I would like to point out that WordPress really lacks a lot when it comes to internal links within articles. It should be able to use the “id” feature of headings. It cannot.

 

Predictions from the former Pentagon chief of staff, cases of Democrat civil war, Manchin puts a pro-life condition on accepting the Biden bill, and the Latino vote moves right

Featured

Patel predicts Durham probe will lead to indictments ‘at the top’ in coming months

On a recent airing of Maria Bartiromo, former Pentagon chief of staff Kash Patel discussed the Durham investigation and suggested that indictments might surround Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, and possibly even Director Wray.

Like Mr. Patel says, it took him upwards of five years to go after one case. Contrary to what Mr. Patel says, it may take Durham longer.

If the indicators are there for someone who is an expert in the business, then I am glad to hear that. However, as Mr. Patel alludes, this is a game of chess (not Candy Crush Saga or whatever game you pop up on your phone for a quick 10-second game).

Democrat civil war erupts with name-calling and leaks

The Daily Caller points out how civil war has broken out on the Democrat side with name calling and leaks.

Chaos has erupted within the Democratic Party after a member of Congress leaked the contents of a caucus meeting Friday as moderate and left-wing members work toward passing an infrastructure bill and a social spending package.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi initially promised a group of moderates, led by New Jersey Rep. Josh Gottheimer, that she would hold a vote for the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) on Thursday. However, Pelosi delayed the vote after failing to reach an agreement with left-wing members of her party, who will not vote for the package unless the Senate passes the as-yet unwritten Build Back Better Act through the reconciliation process.

House Democratic leaders will confiscate cell phones from members ahead of a Friday afternoon full caucus meeting with President Joe Biden, after one member leaked the entire contents of Friday morning’s full caucus meeting to Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman.


(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Hopefully, the Democrats are starting to see the stupidity of spending trillions to get tens back

Hopefully, the Democrats have had it dawn on them that they can no longer play the Ponzi schemes that have characterized their programs so far. No more luring the masses in with promises of a future payout. No more dipping into the till. 

Manchin says reconciliation bill must include Hyde Amendment

The Hill reports on a demand of Joe Manchin regarding the Biden budget that has the Left in a tizzy: the bill must include the Hyde Amendment.

JoeManchinSen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said late Wednesday that an expansion of Medicaid that Democrats are seeking to pass as part of their massive reconciliation bill must include the Hyde Amendment to get his support.

“Yeah, we’re not taking the Hyde Amendment off. Hyde’s going to be on,” Manchin told National Review when asked about a proposed Medicaid-like program in the reconciliation bill.

“It has to be. It has to be. That’s dead on arrival if that’s gone,” Manchin, who has described himself as “pro-life, and proud of it,” added.

Under the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid and other federal programs are prohibited from covering abortion expenses. Government spending bills have included the stipulation since 1976. 

Some Democrats are pushing to include a Medicaid-like program in the reconciliation package in which the federal government would step in and provide coverage in the 12 GOP-led states that have so far declined to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.  

The Democrats’ proposal does not include language reflecting the Hyde Amendment. 

Democrats are trying to move a massive spending package that could include the Medicaid language through a process known as budget reconciliation, which prevents it from being filibustered. This means they could move the package through the Senate with no GOP votes, but they cannot afford a single Democratic defection. 

Bills have been routinely passed with Hyde Amendment language for years, but doing so has grown much more controversial among Democrats, and the new debate would come as many Democrats worry over access to abortion rights given state laws limiting the practice.

(Read more at The Hill)

The Hyde Amendment was passed in 1978 and enforced in 1980

Therefore, under every president since Reagan and before Biden, the Hyde Amendment kept American tax dollars from being applied to abortions. Not so under “devoutly Catholic” Joe Biden.

If Senator Manchin can pull this off, this will be a pro-life victory against the most pro-abortion regime on record.

Why Democrats’ climate goals may test their Latino appeal

According to the Associated Press, the climate change goals of the Democrat party seem to be pulling them away from a constituency that focuses on jobs.

Pro-AmericanLatinaAt a recent house party near the U.S.-Mexico border, the conversation with Democratic congressional candidate Rochelle Garza flowed from schools and taxes to immigration and efforts to convert an old railway line into a hiking trail.

One thing that didn’t come up that Friday night over Corona beers and Domino’s deep dish pizza: the effort by Democrats in Washington to use a massive federal spending package to beat back climate change.

“It’s not that the district is more moderate or moderately more conservative,” said Garza, 36, an immigration lawyer running for the House seat held by retiring centrist Democrat Filemon Vela. “Talking about how you’re going to meaningfully impact families, and make healthier families and healthier communities, I think that matters to people a lot more than some of these hot button issues.”

Democrats nationally are poised to go bigger than ever on the environment as part of the sweeping spending package they are trying to muscle through Congress. President Joe Biden has traveled the country sounding the alarm, blaming a warming planet for devastation from wildfire-ravaged California to hurricane-battered New York and warning of a “code red for humanity.”

But that focus could create political problems in energy rich areas. That includes South Texas, where many Latino voters turned against Democrats during last year’s presidential election and winning them back could prove critical to the party’s hopes of retaining control of Congress during the 2022 midterms.

“They’re really making it easy on us,” said Mayra Flores, a 35-year-old respiratory care practitioner and organizer for Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign. Flores is also running for Vela’s seat and argues that Democrats are forcing Texans to choose between their energy sector jobs and curbing climate change.

Trump won 38% of the national Latino vote last year, 10 percentage points more from in 2016, according to the Pew Research Center. Some of his most dramatic gains came in heavily Hispanic areas that produce large amounts of oil and gas, including the district Garza and Flores want to represent.

It stretches from Brownsville, where there are proposals to build liquified natural gas terminals for export, more than 150 miles (240 kilometers) north to sparsely populated portions of the hydraulic fracturing-dependent Eagle Ford Shale.

Last year, Biden won Cameron County, which encompasses Brownsville and is about 90% Hispanic. But Trump’s margin of the vote increased there by 20 percentage points over 2016. Farther north, Trump flipped oil- and gas-producing, but still heavily Hispanic, Jim Wells and Kleberg counties.

“We are very dependent on oil and gas. That’s the reason you saw those numbers,” said Flores, who was born in Mexico, came to the United State at age 6 and picked cotton every summer growing up after age 12. “That’s what people do. That’s where they work.”

Biden has signed an executive order halting new oil and gas leases in federal territory, though it was blocked by a court order this summer.

The spending package being debate in Congress seeks to push efforts to fight climate change into overdrive, however. It includes language on instituting high fees for polluters and tax incentives for clean energy and electric cars, while introducing new requirements that the nation’s power grid rely more heavily on renewable energy sources.

Rolando Lozano, a 62-year-old manager at an electric utility, was one of 200-plus people who recently filled a community center in the border town of Harlingen, west of Brownsville, to see Flores and other Latino Republican candidates. He said Democrats have moved so far to the left that “it looks anti-American.”

(Read more at the Associated Press)

If it looks anti-American, tastes anti-American, smells anti-American, and feels anti-American — it’s likely anti-American

Trust your senses, America. If Democrats seem like socialists, it may be for good reason.

 

Democrat bias in court, Democrat unemployment, Democrats cheating at campaign finance, and more

Featured

Judge contends Democrat DOJ holds a bias against the 6 January protesters

One America News Network reports how federal Judge Trevor McFadden has pointed to the obvious bias in the Department of Justice against those who protested on 6 January 2021.

FreeJan6ProtestersA federal judge suggested the Department of Justice has been biased in its sentencing of January 6 protesters. During the sentencing of accused protester Danielle Doyle on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden suggested rioters in Washington D.C. and elsewhere during 2020’s civil unrest were given lesser sentences than those who participated in the incident at the Capitol.

McFadden added the Justice Department would “have more credibility if it was even-handed in its concern about riots and mobs in the city.” He also questioned why more protesters throughout the 2020 riots weren’t brought to court.

(Read about Doyle’s comments about America during time before the judge at OANN)

For years, I have blogged about a Harris County District Attorney who lets felons out on no-bond or low-bond bails

In recent years, well over 200 innocent victims have fallen to felons who District Attorney Kim Ogg and her social justice Democrat judges released on no-bond or low-bond bails. The most recent felon released was one who killed a mother of five.

Still, that does not keep Kim Ogg from trying to tie misdemeanor bond reform to her disaterous program of releasing violent felons on the streets. We so need to vote this woman (and lying, lockdown Lina Hidalgo) out of office.

Furthermore, we need to restore balance to the courts. There needs to be justice — where those who violently attack people get put in jail or otherwise punished (whether the violence comes out of the motive of promoting Antifa, BLM, or greed).

US unemployment claims rise for 3rd straight week

Houston Fox affiliate KRIV wants blame a spread of the Delta variant for a third week in rise of unemployment claims (although Delta has been dropping for a week).

The number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits rose for the third straight week, a sign that the highly contagious delta variant may be slowing a recovery in the job market.

Claims rose unexpectedly by 11,000 last week to 362,000, the Labor Department said Thursday, though economists had been expecting claims to go in the opposite direction. The four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out week-to-week ups and downs, rose for the first time in seven weeks to 340,000.

Since topping 900,000 in early January, applications had fallen fairly steadily as the economy bounced back from last year’s shutdowns. But they’ve been rising along with coronavirus infections.

The applications, which are a proxy for layoffs, remain elevated: Before the pandemic hit the United States hard in March 2020, they were typically coming in at around 220,000 a week.

America’s employers have rapidly increased their hiring since they slashed 22 million jobs in March and April 2020 as the coronavirus outbreak — and the shutdowns meant to contain it — brought economic activity to a near-standstill. Since then, the economy has recovered about 17 million jobs as businesses to open or expand hours and Americans to return to bars, restaurants and hotels.

(Read more liberal drivel at KRIV)

A more accurate headline might be “US unemployment claims rise for 3rd straight week with continued unemployment benefits”

What do you get when you pay people to stay home? People stay home.

Alternatively, it could be titled “US unemployment claims rise as illegals stream over our Southern border.” What do you get when you allow 2.5 million illegal aliens to turn themselves in at the border without being vaccinated or screened for diseases? You get at least that number of illegal aliens (if not double or triple the number of “no-catch-aliens”) that got through without being vaccinated or screened for diseases. Furthermore, you get that many more people looking for work (and the ones that came illegally might be willing to be paid “under the table.”)

Now tell me how Democrats like Dementia Joe and Horizontal Harris are devoted to the health of Americans. Please. Tell me in detail. Also detail how this works with our economic health. I really want to hear that liberal logic.

Tucker Carlson shows how a Hunter Biden laptop email from a CNBC executive indicates how campaign finance law was skirted

The Washington Examiner comments on revelations by Tucker Carlson on Fox News regarding how a CNBC executive may have skirted the law.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson reported on the contents of emails found in the laptop believed to have belonged to Hunter Biden, raising questions about whether a former top CNBC executive improperly directed his wife to make donations to political organizations.

The report focuses on Brian Steel, the former senior vice president of communications at CNBC, and an email sent in Sept. 2016 to the son of President Joe Biden.

“Emails came to us from a source with access to Hunter Biden’s laptop. The one he left at the repair shop, supposedly. Not sure we believe that story. But the laptop itself is absolutely real ,” Carlson said on his show Friday. “These documents show that a CNBC executive used his wife to dodge company rules that barred financial contributions to political campaigns.”

“In 2015, Breitbart first reported the wife of a man called Brian Steel who, until recently, was an executive vice president at CNBC, was a Hillary Clinton donor. A big Hillary Clinton donor,” Carlson said. “That report came to light after a CNBC Republican debate that featured several biased questions favoring Democrats. It was pretty over the top, actually. It’s on YouTube. Treat yourself some time.”

“The emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop showed that Brian Steel’s wife was spending that money and his direction, which we think is illegal actually, we’ll leave that to the lawyers to determine. But here are the facts,” Carlson continued. “In September of 2016, Hunter Biden emailed Steel to invite him to a fundraiser for a former Biden aide who was running for Congress in South Carolina. The candidate was called Francis — ‘Fran Person.'”

Fran Person, a former University of South Carolina football player and former aide to Joe Biden when he was a U.S. senator from Delaware and vice president, ran as a Democrat in a 2016 bid to unseat then-Rep. Mick Mulvaney to represent the 5th Congressional District of South Carolina. Mulvaney won that contest and went on to become a top aide to Trump in his administration.

Carlson shared the contents of an email from Steel that said: “‘I’d love to support [congressional candidate] fran [person] but unfortunately as the evp of cnbc I’m not allowed to donate to political campaigns. In years past I would get around that by having my wife donate but after cnbc hosted a controversial/aggressive republican primary debate earlier this year, breitbart and rush limbaugh outed me as the husband of a ‘max’ hillary donor so I can’t even have eileen donate any more.'”

“Explicit, anyone?” Carlson said after a big laugh.

“Steel was at CNBC from 2007 to just recently, a month or so ago 2021, during that time, his wife donated $16,000 to Democrats. How much of that money was given at his direction? We reached out to Steel and to CNBC for comment, and neither one has gotten back to us. Not surprisingly,” he concluded.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Good thing we have Big Brother Big Tech firms like YouTube, Google, Facebook, and Twitter

We certainly don’t need to get confused with facts from the New York Post, Brietbart, or doctors who advocate for ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, and other pharmaceuticals as treatment for COVID-19.

Democrat Laredo Mayor Pete Saenz says that the border security was “working under Trump”

The Daily Caller points out how the Democrat mayor of Laredo laments about the “good old days” of the Trump administration.

pete-saenzA democratic Texas mayor said Thursday that the southern border was secure under former President Donald Trump, according to the Washington Free Beacon. He added that it’s time for President Joe Biden to get things under control.

Laredo Mayor Pete Saenz told the outlet that the city’s resources have been strained over recent months as the city provides migrants with aid, medical service and transport. As concerns about the threat of COVID-19 ramp up, Saenz admitted the border was secure and Laredo residents were safe when Trump was in office.

“We need to truly secure the border,” Saenz told the Washington Free Beacon. “It was working under Trump, call it whatever you want to call it, but it was working.”

Saenz appeared to suggest Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy was working and needs to be reinstated to curb the flow of illegal immigration.

“The key, ultimately, is removing the incentive to come to the border and file for asylum. I believe in the asylum process. It needs to be followed or changed. If we don’t like the way people are attempting to come, we can have them apply remotely or from either the country of origin or some other place that is close to the country of origin,” Saenz said.

Biden tried to end the policy, but the Supreme Court later denied a request from the administration to temporarily block an earlier ruling ordering the policy be reinstated.

Politico reported the administration is looking to revamp the policy to provide migrants in Mexico with attorneys and better living conditions.

While Saenz was once opposed to a physical wall along the border, he told the Washington Free Beacon that Laredo residents are fed up with the crisis and may soon opt for a physical barrier if the Biden Administration doesn’t address the crisis.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

In similar news, Hidalgo County commissioners are suing Biden

The county at the bullseye of the Del Rio catastrophe has chosen to sue the Biden regime and the US Congress for failing to control the border.

Also, until Biden, these border counties didn’t vote Republican. Now Republican is trending there.

 

A series of stories that tell a lot about how Democrats have pushed America to this point

Featured

Texas lawmakers learn that the heartbeat bill hysteria is not all hyperbole

American Family News points to the convoluted situation flowing from the heart of a person who treasures killing people and wants to make a point with the lawmakers who protected some babies.

MerrickGarlandJoeBidenAmerican Family News has reported that passage of the Heartbeat Act went mostly unnoticed by the public in May until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Sept. 2 it would not hear an appeal seeking to stop the law. That announcement set abortion supporters on fire: Texas lawmakers were compared to the Taliban, and software company SalesForce announced it would relocate workers from the state if they felt unsafe.

The abortion-supporting U.S. Justice Dept. also filed suit for what it called the “open defiance of the Constitution, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced the court for a “cowardly, dark-of-night decision.”

And those were some of the milder reactions.

According to LifeNews.com, authorities in Payne County, Oklahoma have arrested Austin Wendell Lund, 20. He allegedly made direct threats to Texas lawmakers by name on Reddit, where he threatened to “end each one of you.”

The state lawmakers were first alerted to the threat by the Texas Dept. of Public Safety.

Authorities rightly flagged this as dangerous and pursued the individual,” says Schwartz, whose own pro-life group has been harassed and threatened, too, after the court ruling angered abortion supporters.

According to the pro-life activist, the other side is filled with angry, hurting people whose feelings are demonstrated in their threats and comments.

(Read more at American Family News)

As Tony Perkins can attest, liberal violence is nothing new

Liberals (like the Southern Poverty Law Center) have a history of enraging their lunatic base. In fact, some nine years after an attack on the Family Research Council by a gay man who had become enraged by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s description of the FRC as “anti-gay,” the SPLC kept their listing of the FRC on its “hate map.”

Additionally, it seems that liberals still find that allowing reporting on this event to be threatening to their cause. YouTube has restricted all videos showing the SPLC-supporting gay man entering the offices of the FRC. It seems that gun violence perpetrated by liberals cannot be memorialized.

Treasury Secretary Yellen says debt ceiling should be permanently abolished

The Washington Post reports on Secretary Yellen’s inane idea that the debt ceiling should be eliminated.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Thursday said lawmakers should abolish the legal limit on how much treasury can borrow to meet the federal government’s payment obligations, pushing lawmakers to eliminate the potential threat of a U.S. default.

Speaking to the House Financial Services Committee, Yellen said the current debt ceiling law can prove “very destructive” by creating a legal debt limit that has to be raised separate from what Congress has already ordered the federal government to spend. Treasury is currently running out of “emergency measures” to pay its obligations after the most recent suspension of the debt ceiling lapsed in August.

Congressional Republicans have refused to help Democrats raise or suspend the borrowing limit even though they supported lifting the borrowing cap during the Trump administration.

“When Congress legislates expenditures and puts in place tax policy that determines taxes, those are the crucial decisions Congress is making,” Yellen told Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). “If to finance those spending and tax decisions, it’s necessary to issue additional debt, I believe it’s very destructive to put the president and myself — the treasury secretary — in a situation where we might not be able to pay the bills that result from those past decisions.”

Yellen’s new statements about abolishing the debt limit come as Treasury officials have instructed federal agencies to review their spending estimates for October, two administration officials familiar with the matter said, as the U.S. government is increasingly at risk of running out of cash to meet its payment obligations. Officials in Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service have told federal agencies to scrutinize their estimates for outgoing expenditures and incoming revenue to ensure they are as precise as possible for October, the officials said. Should Congress fail to raise or suspend the debt ceiling, Yellen has said that the U.S. will by Oct. 18 run out of flexibility to ensure it meets all of its payments.

(Read more at the Washington Post)

Not only no, but “No, never, not in my lifetime”

If the people don’t have this whip to crack over the heads of both sides of the aisle, the only thing that will happen in Congress is a group of people being made fat and slothful (and those people will not roam outside of the Capitol).

Why is Washington so dysfunctional?

The Washington Post then asks the question that should not need to be asked: “Why is Washington so dysfunctional?”

We are a day away from the possibility of a third government shutdown in as many years. To which you are justified in asking: What is up with Washington? Why can’t lawmakers get their act together and do their most basic jobs, like funding the government?

I called up some people who think deeply on this topic: Washington Post senior congressional correspondent Paul Kane, former Republican congressman Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania and former Democratic congresswoman Elizabeth Esty of Connecticut.

Their takeaways: Congress is struggling and there are lots of reasons — gerrymandering; liberals moving into cities while conservatives move rural; social media cheering on the polarization; and the demise of incentives for compromise, like earmarks. These very smart people are pessimistic that Congress can become an equal, functioning branch of government anytime soon.

Here are excerpts from our interviews, which have been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Dent: Well, Congress is certainly struggling and under tremendous pressure. I believe its Article I powers have been weakened, relative to the executive and the courts. So I think it’s a weaker branch of government than it once was.

Esty: It is very badly broken. I had hoped and continue to hope that the events of Jan. 6 would strike the fear of God into enough people to realize that if the legislative branch does not function, we rely way too heavily on the presidency, and that is a very dangerous place for a democracy to be in.

Kane: It’s been pretty damaged, from basically the 2008 Wall Street meltdown, and it has spun at various degrees of speed downward every since. There have been some big things they got done — the Affordable Care Act of 2010; Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms of 2010; the Budget Control Act of 2011, which put parameters on government spending, producing savings; and Republicans did a big tax cut in 2017. And last year, in the face of an absolute economic and health crisis from the coronavirus, Congress did come together and approve trillions in spending. But beyond that, we have reached a point where issues that have 70 percent, 80 percent, sometimes 90 percent of support from the public just can’t pass. They probably can’t even get a vote these days.

(This question produced long, thoughtful answers from our interviewees. Kane has written about this extensively .Here are some highlights.)

Kane: By the time 2013 rolled around and you have divided government — a Democratic president in [Barack] Obama, Republicans controlling the House, Democrats controlling the Senate — you basically have a system of government where nobody has any skin in the game anymore. They used to let members do earmarks, these narrow projects you could get for your district without a lot of scrutiny. It led to some serious corruption for a few members of Congress. That was a bad, bad system. But there were ways to create a better, cleaner system that would get members to have some real skin in these bills, and that’s never been dealt with. For 10 years, they were without earmarks altogether, and Congress was on the brink of shutdowns all the time.

Esty: The rise of social media. It’s a technology that has crated enormous incentives to be intransigent, outraged and outrageous. Social media is wildly disruptive, and it has been no place more disruptive than in the political realm. You get likes, you get attention, you get on TV, you get money, you get power by not playing ball, by going straight to social media. You can be a brand new member of Congress — you can be Marjorie Taylor Greene, you can be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — and everybody knows their names and they raise a ton of money and they get on TV and are talked about all the time. And people who play by the rules, do their work in committee, get amendments done here and there, they get none of that. The first Democratic bill signed by Donald Trump was mine. So I was good at getting the legislation done, but it doesn’t get covered at all by the media. People don’t believe it’s happening anyway, and the narrative that it’s a train wreck in Congress is a pretty easy story to tell.

Dent: I think in America today, many politicians view their political safety [as reliant on] tacking hard to their bases. Fewer members of Congress tack to the center, because they don’t see a reward for compromise and consensus. I certainly learned this during my service. After the tea party wave of 2010, it became difficult just to perform the most basic operations and fund the government. I found I was in the minority often within my own party voting for these things. I remember when Obama was president, and we were the majority in the House, and I was one of 29 members to vote [to raise] the debt ceiling. Republican leadership was begging us to vote for it, and I said I’d be happy to do it, but let’s get me more company, to make it a little less painful for us. Now leadership is saying don’t vote for the debt ceiling. When [Donald] Trump was president, many Republicans voted against the debt ceiling. Now he’s not president, leadership are whipping against it.

(Read more at the Washington Post)

It’s not that Republicans wanted to push the debt into the billions and now the Democrats want to push it into the trillions

The issue is that significant portions of both parties have decided to ignore the will of the people. When large groups band together and still get no response from government, that signals the existence of a problem.

When an independent audit finds some 57,000 votes in question and government-lead audits remain mired in Democrat/RINO-supported bickering, there has to be some acknowledgement of a problem (at least as soon as it effects the outcome of a Democrat’s race or hits the pocket of a Democrat business).

And now the graphic comics (as opposed to the ones that stroll the Capitol)

A blonde refugee in Biden’s regime?

A_Blonde_Refugee

At least Milley got a sash

AtLeastMilleyGotASash

Biden 2024 campaign announcement

Biden2024CampaignAnnouncement

Biden getting back at law enforcement

BidenMakingLawEnforcement Pay

Biden versus Washington

BidenVsWashington

Cannot deport illegals, but …

CannotDeportIllegals

Milley’s logic

MilleysLogic

Picture taken just before Porkulus crushed Pelosi

PictureTakenJustBeforePorkulusCrushedPelosi

They folded the wrong fingers

TheyFoldedTheWrongFinger

Whiffleball

Whiffleball