Cruz Introduces Legislation to Block Federal Funding for 'Inherently Bigoted' Critical Race Theory

n the fight against Critical Race Theory (CRT) being implemented in schools and government entities, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is taking action at the federal level. The Texas Republican introduced legislation to prohibit federal funding for CRT for agencies and workplace training programs.

"The federal government has no right to force a political agenda onto Americans, especially one that aims to tear down our institutions and divide us based on race. Critical Race Theory originated out of the critical race studies movement. It is a Marxist ideology that sees the world as a battle, not between the classes - as classical Marxism does - but between the races. This is inherently bigoted,” Cruz said of CRT. 

The bill mandates that federal agencies obey former President Donald Trump’s executive order that was signed into law in September of 2020 that bans government agencies from implementing CRT and other divisive teachings.  On President Joe Biden’s first day in office, the order was rescinded, as Cruz noted.

"On President Biden's first day in office, he rescinded the Trump administration's commonsense executive order ensuring no government funding goes to anti-American or racist and sexist training, like CRT, in the workplace. President Biden's decision was unsurprising but shows the Democratic Party will stop at nothing to indoctrinate Americans,” he added. “I am proud to introduce this bill to block federal funding for CRT and ensure the U.S. government doesn't contribute to this radical ideology."

 

Don’t Stop at Juneteenth!

 

Happy Juneteenth! I hope you all had a lovely week celebrating the nation’s newest federal holiday, which commemorates the end of slavery throughout the Confederacy.

How could you not? The media was chock-a-block with commentators telling us what a fantastic, transformative event for our nation this was. But the media ignored the best part of all!

What Juneteenth commemorates is not technically the abolition of slavery, but the notification thereof to a particular group of slaves.

Although President Lincoln officially ended slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, it wasn’t until two years later, on June 19, 1865, that the slaves of Galveston, Texas, got the news, when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger rode into town and issued a series of proclamations announcing that the hideous institution had been abolished and, henceforth, slaves would be considered hired labor.

This takes Juneteenth to a whole new level. Think of all the new federal holidays we could create using Juneteenth as our template! (Anyone who’s dealt with the federal government knows that those workers well deserve another paid day off.) We just need horsemen to ride around the country, correcting the errors of those who falsely believe something bad about America.

Thus, for example, next month we should have some bright young fellow gallop up to a BLM rally, Gen. Granger-style, dismount and announce:

I come with good news! Systemic racism no longer exists! It was done away with by the 1964 Civil Rights Act and parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act! Any victims of racism today can demand remedies in federal court!

And with a hardy “Hi-De-Ho,” our hero would ride off to the next BLM rally, as the march participants disband and hold a celebratory brunch. The date would be remembered each year as the Julyteenth holiday.

Then in August, we’ll send men on horseback to MSNBC with this proclamation:

Trump isn’t going to run for president again! Republicans aren’t afraid of him! They don’t kiss his ring half as much as Democrats kiss Al Sharpton’s ring and parts posterior. As soon as you guys denounce Sharpton, they’ll denounce Trump. Please calm down.

It’s not the fault of MSNBC that they operate on this glaring misconception. Not unlike the slaves, they’ve been kept in the dark, fed lies by people in whom they placed their trust: reporters. The day they learn the truth should live forever in history as Augusteenth — and, of course, federal workers would get that day off, too.

Next, we’ll need some volunteers to saddle up and head over to The New York Times building to proclaim:

Good news, New York Times! Your repeated claim that 1 in 5 women will be the victim of rape is FALSE!

First, my friends, all “in their lifetimes” statistics are a scam. They make any crime sound rampant. More than 8 out of 10 Americans will be the victim of a violent crime “in their lifetimes,” and 9.9 of 10 will be a victim of personal theft “in their lifetimes.”

Second: Even by this ridiculous measure, it’s not “1 in 5.” According to an extensive study by Obama’s Department of Justice examining 18 years of data, 1 in 10 women will be raped “in their lifetimes.” About 2 in 10 will be robbed and 4 in 10 will be injured during a robbery.

Third: The annual rate of rape victimization isn’t close to “1 in 5.” Instead, it’s 1.75 per thousand raped each year.

Fourth: This is including rapes that never happened, but are threatened or attempted.

Isn’t that terrific news, New York Times? Instead of 1 in 5 women succumbing to the awful crime of rape this year, fewer than 1.75 per thousand will be!

Let’s call this holiday Septemberteenth, to commemorate the joyful day Times reporters realized they are not living in a dystopian world of sexual predators. Cheers will erupt! (Some from federal workers.)

In October, our ersatz Gen. Granger and his trusty steed will ride south to the Capitol and proclaim:

I come bearing good news: No one’s vote is being “suppressed”! It’s a bait and switch! Last year’s preposterous voting rules were instituted because of COVID-19! Remember? They told us: IT’S A WORLDWIDE PANDEMIC! WE MUST ALLOW UNIVERSAL EARLY VOTING, NO IDENTIFICATION AND MAIL-IN BALLOTS! DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DIE? We can go back to pre-pandemic voting rules without fear of returning to the dark days of Jim Crow! Now, if some of you would be kind enough to give my trusty steed some water?

The late-breaking discovery that Republicans aren’t “suppressing the vote” might be called Octoberteenth.

The slaves of Galveston were understandably ecstatic to be freed of the yoke of slavery — as no doubt will be the misinformed BLM protesters, New York Times reporters and other recipients of our horsemen’s good news. Think of their unbridled joy to be free of these false notions about America! They will shout to the heavens, giving thanks to the bounty of this land, their joy surpassed only by that of federal workers.

Critical Race Theory Isn’t the Biggest Threat

 

Critical race theory isn’t real! At least that’s what Democrats would have you believe. They scream it from the mountain tops, yell it on the streets, chant it wherever masses of unwashed leftists get together to share their ideas and scabies with each other. But if it isn’t real, it makes you wonder why they’re so upset at the prospect of its use being banned from public schools, doesn’t it?

If someone introduced a bill making it illegal to bring a unicorn on public transportation, I would think there was something wrong with that person, something seriously wrong. What I wouldn’t do is dedicate the majority of my waking hours trying to prevent that bill from becoming law. Even if it were law, what difference would it make? There’s no such thing as unicorns, so banning them from anywhere, or even everywhere, won’t make a single bit of difference in the world. If the punishment for bringing a unicorn on a plane were death by torture, it still wouldn’t matter – there’s no such thing as unicorns.

But to our leftist friends who insist critical race theory is some boogeyman conservatives made up, that this racist belief system is not being taught in schools anywhere, they can’t stop fighting for the right to bring that unicorn on a plane. 

Let me offer a point of clarification, so there isn’t any hat hanging on technicalities. Saying critical race theory is being taught in schools is a bit misleading – it’s not being taught, it’s being employed. Young kids aren’t being indoctrinated on the nuts of CRT, CRT methods and beliefs are being used to indoctrinate kids. There’s a difference that allows leftists to squirm out of an honest discussion.

And, of course, that’s where the damage to children lies. 

For generations, Democrats have been insisting to minority children that they can’t get ahead, that “the system” is so rigged against them that they might as well not even bother trying. That works on some, but far too many people were not giving up hope and surrendering themselves and their fates to Democrats, so they had to go bigger. 

The ultimate goal for Democrats has been to “fundamentally transform” the country, not reform it, not tweak it around the edges, but to remove what is and replace it with their perverted view of how the world should be. If you believe something is fundamentally flawed, you can’t “fix” it; you can’t even alter it – it must be completely wiped out so you can start over from scratch. That’s what Democrats are employing critical race theory to bring about.

If they have to ruin some people’s lives along the way, so be it. Progressives have never been interested in the rights or lives of individuals, aside from their own. The history of the progressive movement is one of treating individuals as disposable.

In the dawn of the progressive movement, progressives were openly racist, called for (and, in some cases managed to do it) the forced sterilization of people they deemed unworthy of reproduction either through mental illness, low IQ, or skin color, and firmly believed in their own moral and intellectual superiority. They believed that superiority should have them ruling over everyone else. It’s hidden now, but the Nazis were progressives just as much as communists and socialists were. The only reason they opposed each other was a power struggle to lead the left, not deep-rooted difference of beliefs. 

I’ve never quite understood why progressives started using the name again, they used to just be liberals. “Progressive” has a horrible history of racism and discrimination, why not pick something else? No one would accept “the new Klan” that isn’t into racism. Then again, a lot of KKK members were progressives too…

As these school board meetings devolve into shouting matches where elected officials try to silence parents while insisting what they’re doing isn’t what they’re really doing, remember this one important fact: people voted for this.

I know it sounds cynical to say, but people went to the polls and elected these critical race theory fascists who are more interested in children being able to list 100 different “genders” by the time they graduate than if they can add 10 to 90 and get 100. In other words, these outraged communities did it to themselves, either through ignorance or apathy. 

“What difference does it make who’s on the school board?” many thought, “they’re all interested in teaching kids.” A huge difference, it turns out. Critical race theory is a problem, but it isn’t the biggest threat schools face, it’s apathy from citizens who only get involved when it’s nearly too late to stop the liberal agenda. Let’s just hope that lesson was learned in time.

New Polling Shows Majority of Americans Know Exactly Why Inflation Is Rising

 

BREAKING! US Headline #Inflation rose to 5.0% in May, beating expectations. Core #CPI up to a whopping 3.8%, highest since 1992! pic.twitter.com/CNBQQkupJq— jeroen blokland (@jsblokland) June 10, 2021

People are most likely to say the price of gas and groceries is going up the most. These are the things people notice everyday.

This isn’t your father’s spending debate, with academic complaints about long-term deficits and debts.

This is hitting people in their pocketbooks. pic.twitter.com/9QZHiceBo6— Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) June 24, 2021

Now, new polling from Echelon Insights shows the federal government is being held responsible for the problem as politicians in Washington, D.C., keep printing money for excessive spending. 

?? NEW POLL: Voters blame government spending for rising prices.

65% said increased government spending contributes to rising prices, more than any other factor.

Nearly 8 in 10 consider rising prices a big problem. https://t.co/147xpBvckS pic.twitter.com/4hJPj01rMH— Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) June 24, 2021

The rising cost of living and inflation are now squarely on the radar as a top economic issue. 78% say rising prices is a big problem, 71% inflation & more in lower income groups.

And people are blaming runaway DC spending for it. pic.twitter.com/EiS6qrqBQS— Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) June 24, 2021

Inflation is on the run at rates the United States hasn’t seen since 1992, and consumer prices in May 2021 were up five percent over May 2020. Americans are paying attention as they experience price surges on basic and es

The Case for Compensatory Damages From Big Tech’s Partisan Censorship

fter serving in the U.S. Army for more than a decade, I started a media company from my truck with a cell phone. What started as flippant rants I would post on social media turned into a media enterprise that has raked up more than 1 billion views across platforms and has allowed me to become a successful American small business and job creator. Sadly, Big Tech’s partisan censorship is jeopardizing my business and has robbed me of income. I am not the only one, and Big Tech should now be held accountable.

In today’s hyper-partisan political environment, companies like Facebook and Google have stepped in as the self-appointed arbiters of truth and fact. However, in doing so, they have infringed on the First Amendment and cheated American entrepreneurs out of millions—maybe billions.

Media businesses like mine produce content, mostly in the form of videos and podcasts. We generate income from platforms like Facebook and Google (YouTube) who sell advertisers' ad placement on our content. Before or during one of my rants on Facebook or podcasts on YouTube you may be served an advertisement.

These ads sometimes come in the form of a banner ad and sometimes in the form of a video. This is one way how Big Tech makes money and it is also how content creators like myself make a living.

Sadly, for those of us who are right-of-center, we don’t just have to compete with other creators who are going after the same viewers, we must navigate around Silicon Valley’s secret arbiters of permissible truth.

We do not know much—if anything—about these people, but they get to decide what is “true.” They also have the power to decide what violates their ever-shifting Community Guidelines by applying labels like, “Misleading,” “Missing Context,” and “False.”

If creators are flagged too many times as failing to meet Community Guidelines, they are demonetized. That means they are prevented from making money from their content. The platforms’ algorithms then kick in to suppress the reach of their message. The result: fewer “Likes” and fewer “Shares.” 

So, creators don’t just suffer monetarily, but their First Amendment Rights are stifled. It is as if you’re standing in the middle of a public square, in front of an audience that you have attracted. When Big Tech decides to pull the plug, the majority of the people who were there can no longer hear you, and you can no longer reach them. You may still be standing, but you cannot be heard.

Now, some may say, “Good! There is enough fake information and scams going around the internet, it shouldn’t be encouraged.”

However, what we are talking about is not like the email scams from a Nigerian Prince promising you a billion dollar inheritance or the “copy and paste this message to stop the world from ending.” Instead, we are talking about debatable topics that benefit from open, honest dialogue.

Over the course of the 2020 election, Big Tech’s partisan censorship resulted in an estimated $200,000-$300,000 in lost revenue for my company due to suspensions and demonetizations. Again, I wasn’t peddling conspiracies, though that’s what they wanted you to think—I was merely asking the questions that the media wouldn’t.

For example, I had the audacity to question the origins of COVID-19. 

While the mainstream media was carrying the water for the World Health Organization and the Chinese Communist Party, I believed it was worth questioning that this emerging strain of the coronavirus, a known infectious disease, could have escaped from the Wuhan Center for Emerging Infectious Disease—especially given its first reported cases were in Wuhan. Most Americans recognized this as reasonable, and that’s why it had so much social engagement—but not Big Tech.

Big Tech labeled it as false disinformation, likely because the propagandists at the WHO and CCP deemed it as so. My account was censored. Now, more than a year later, Big Tech is allowing those same questions. Why? Because they have been exposed as legitimate.

I also questioned the effectiveness of masks—not because I hate masks, but because there was legitimate research arguing they weren’t effective. I also doubted Anthony Fauci and, like President Trump, believed there was evidence to support the benefits of Zinc and Hydroxychloroquine as treatments to the disease.

We now know from released emails that Fauci was regularly lying from the podium, masks weren’t as effective as government bureaucrats suggested, and Zinc and Hydroxychloroquine are proving to be extremely effective in the treatment of COVID-19.

I never suggested I was an expert, but I did find it valuable to explore the research and science put forth by scientists and experts that ran contrary to the mainstream narratives. For this, like many others, I was punished and censored.

It wasn’t just me who suffered, it was my family, my editors, and my social media managers who also relied on this income. But more important even than money, was the infringement of our Freedom of Speech. 

Big Tech’s censorship and its prohibition on certain thoughts made our communities less safe, it made America and the world less safe, and it compromised the very foundation of this free Republic.

The damages suffered by content creators and everyday Americans are real and Big Tech companies deserve to be held responsible. I plan on doing just that, whether it be in the courtroom or on the floor of the United State House of Representatives.

 

How the European Union Could Soon Force America into the ‘Great Reset’ Trap

 

In June 2020, the World Economic Forum — working alongside officials from large corporations, banks, financial institutions and activist groups — launched a far-reaching initiative that aims to push the “reset” button on the global economy. They ominously called it the “Great Reset,” and since its creation, it has received a massive amount of support from leaders of the ruling class, both here in the United States and around the world.

The Great Reset has two primary components. The first is an expansion of government programs, taxes and regulations, which together affect virtually every industry in the world, from oil and gas to health care and technology.

The second, arguably much more important part of the Reset is the complete alteration of the way most of the world’s largest businesses are evaluated.

In a free-market economy, or even one that heavily relies on markets, businesses are subject to supply and consumer demand. The companies with the best goods and services rise to the top and expand. Poorly run companies eventually contract or even close altogether, freeing up capital and investment for new companies.

Of course, anyone who has been paying attention to public policy and economic developments over the past 50 years knows that a truly free-market system does not exist in America, or most other places. Cronyism, corruption and government manipulation are rampant throughout the U.S. economy, routinely distorting markets and allowing some to unfairly get rich at the expense of others.

Rather than try to improve markets by ridding them of corruption, Great Reset supporters want to double down on cronyism by giving the ruling class — including central banks, academics, government officials, union leaders and corporate titans — greater control over markets.

The way they plan to do this is through something called environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards, which are also sometimes referred to as “sustainable investment,” “inclusive capitalism” or “stakeholder capitalism.”

Under an ESG system, corporations are given scores based on dozens of metrics that go far beyond the quality of a company’s goods and services, its profits and other factors investors and consumers normally consider. With ESG measures in place, businesses are evaluated based on the racial and gender composition of their staff, their carbon footprint, the size of their buildings, how committed they are to fighting climate change and a bunch of other social justice concerns.

After being evaluated, companies are then given (or they self-report) ESG scores that are meant to help investors, regulators and governments have a better understanding of who the “bad” and “good” companies are.

You might be surprised to learn that over the past several years, thousands of companies around the world, including many of the most famous American corporations, have voluntarily adopted ESG scores. One study indicates about 82 percent of all large businesses in the United States already have ESG scores in place.

There are many reasons why businesses have been willing to build substantial ESG systems within their own companies, but the two biggest are money and fear of future government action. Tens of trillions of dollars have already been committed or allocated toward funding ESG businesses and other forms of “sustainable investment,” and investors and financial institutions have repeatedly said in recent months that they will phase out their business relationships with those who don’t support some or all ESG goals.

ESG systems are incredibly worrisome, because those with the power to alter them have the ability to control, or at least significantly influence, society.

When this concern has been brought up in the past, supporters of the Great Reset have said that there is nothing to worry about, because ESG systems are not mandated. Companies and banks are freely choosing to adopt them.

However, the truth is, companies have not embraced ESG systems because they support ESG causes, but rather because they have been coerced to do so, and, even more importantly, because they have known for at least the past year that ESG government mandates were just around the corner. Recent developments in Europe prove these fears were not unfounded.

In March, the Parliament of the European Union passed a resolution that seeks to require nearly all of the EU’s largest companies — and many smaller businesses, too — to adopt and prioritize ESG metrics. And especially important for U.S. businesses and consumers, the resolution would further require that EU companies only work with those who share the European Union’s environmental, social and governance standards.

As the Shearman and Sterling law firm noted in a report about the resolution, “If adopted, all EU Member States will be required to implement the Directive into their national laws. This will result in substantive due diligence requirements being imposed on companies, whether based in the EU or selling their products and services into the EU, across their entire value chain, with potential sanctions for non-compliance.”

It is vital to take note of the term “value chain.” In the resolution, it is defined as “all activities, operations, business relationships and investment chains of an undertaking and includes entities with which the undertaking has a direct or indirect business relationship, upstream and downstream, and which either: (a) supply products, parts of products or services that contribute to the undertaking’s own products or services, or (b) receive products or services from the undertaking.”

This provision would apply to virtually every U.S. business that works in the European Union or has a business relationship with an EU company, giving substantial influence over American society to EU officials.

Although the EU resolution has already been approved in the European Union’s Parliament, it is not yet binding. It first must be formally introduced by the European Commission and the final version approved by representatives of the EU’s member states. However, the support for the resolution in the EU Parliament is a strong indicator that ESG systems could soon become mandated throughout Europe.

This move is straight out of the Great Reset playbook, and, if completely put into place, has the potential to fundamentally transform the world — a stated goal of the highest-profile members of the Reset movement.

This is an important and potentially catastrophic moment for the pro-liberty movement. If Americans and their elected representatives do not push back against the European Union soon, as well as stop efforts to impose ESG systems within America, there will be no way to prevent the Great Reset from becoming a reality.

Hillary Clinton Makes the Case for Why Biden Shouldn't Meet with Putin

 

On the same day that President Joe Biden met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton weighed in. In a Wednesday morning interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” the twice-failed presidential candidate wasted no time in calling out Putin and former President Donald Trump, while she spoke more favorably of Biden’s approach to Russia.

Clinton has a long and contentious history with Putin, going back to her support of Russia’s 2011 pro-democracy protests. She characterized the Russian leader as “the great disrupter” of democracy for his alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election, despite the 2019 Mueller Report finding no sufficient evidence of collusion between Putin and the Trump campaign.

Clinton’s comments on Trump, which included calling him a “spokesman for Putin," suggest that she is not over her 2016 loss. In a tone mimicking Biden’s, she emphasized the need to “reset” United States-Russia relations after the “disaster” of Trump’s presidency.

“The problem is that Trump has elevated [Putin]. Trump, from the very beginning, even when he was running in 2016, lifted up Russia. … I never thought I would see some of what we saw during the four years of the Trump administration," Clinton said on Wednesday.

Of Biden, Clinton praised his decision to meet Putin one-on-one in Geneva without a joint press conference. She said Biden is a president who “will stand up and defend American interests,” and she called upon Biden to set clearer cybersecurity standards with the Kremlin.

“We’ve got to have some kind of process about cybercrimes and cyberattacks. I thought a number of commentators have made an excellent suggestion — that we look for a Geneva Convention, if you will. Bring the world around what we're gonna do to protect ourselves and to draw some lines about what's acceptable when it comes to the use of cyberweapons," Clinton said on Wednesday.

However, Clinton should recognize that the Biden administration has already missed several opportunities to take a stand against Russian cyberattacks.

On May 7, the Houston-based Colonial Pipeline fell victim to a ransomware attack in which DarkSide, a cybercriminal organization linked to Russia, is believed to be responsible. Biden responded three days after the attack, vaguely stating that the “Russian authorities have some responsibility to deal with this,” when mounting evidence suggests that the Kremlin perpetrated the attack and has no interest in “dealing with” its consequences.

In another win for Putin last month, Biden declined to impose sanctions on Gazprom, the Moscow-based gas company working to construct Nord Stream 2. The controversial pipeline will give Western Europe access to Russian natural gas reserves while providing Russia with greater access to European markets in exchange. Biden has long been opposed to Russia constructing the pipeline, but he indicated on May 25 that imposing sanctions would be counterproductive to America’s interests in Europe.

It’s not like the Biden administration has much of a plan to deal with the cyberattacks in the first place. Earlier this month, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm admitted that America’s adversaries are enemies capable of cyberattacks at any moment.

“I think that there are very malign actors who are trying even as we speak. There are thousands of attacks on all aspects of the energy sector and the private sector generally. The [JBS] meat plant, for example. It's happening all the time," Granholm said earlier this month.

With the Geneva Summit over, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden can talk a big game about “defending American interests.” But getting Vladimir Putin to commit, and keeping him committed in any meaningful way, to the reduction of cybercrime is a task easier said than done.

Notice Something Odd About the NYPD’s Presser on Asian Hate Crimes…Like How It Shreds the Left’s Narrative

 

There’s been a lot of chatter about the spike in anti-Asian hate crimes. Asian-Americans are being targeted, yes—but the narrative may not be reflective of what liberal media outlets are disseminating. They want us to believe that white supremacy and Donald Trump are to blame. Calling COVID the ‘Wuhan coronavirus’ is what led to this recent spate of attacks. No, the virus came from China. That is a fact. You see the ‘my ethnicity is not a virus’ signs, though that sentiment seems to stop within lefty circles when they want to bash white people. There’s always a boomerang, folks. Whatever liberals dole out, eventually it will come back to split their lip open like a fool with a boomerang. Always. These people have no principles, only feelings that can land you in a lot of trouble. 

The recent NYPD presser on anti-Asian hate crimes shows pictures of the suspects who look rather…nonwhite. I mean when that slide of those who were arrested was shown, there was not a white face on that screen. 

These people of color are reprehensible examples of white nationalism https://t.co/5s2p1nS4sA

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 25, 2021

At the NYPD press conference on anti-Asian hate crimes today, they show booking photos of suspects apprehended & those they're continuing to search for. The hate crime suspects appear to all be people of color. #StopAsianHate pic.twitter.com/rZSwlkagAA

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) March 25, 2021

This all stems from the horrific mass shooting in Atlanta where Robert Aaron Long shot and killed eight people, many of them Asian women. Cue the white supremacy and hate crime talk, though we don’t know yet why he did this. That’s what Andrew Sullivan noted in his piece on Substack, which relates to the NYPD presser here. We once again see the woke narrative replacing what’s factual. He goes long into the recent spa shootings committed by Long, the infusion of ‘critical race theory,’ which is worth a read, but he also notes that a good chunk of hate crimes committed against Asians in New York City were done by nonwhites. That shreds the white supremacy angle. He does say that Trump’s “China virus” rhetoric fanned the flames. I disagree, but here’s a key passage:

This isn’t in any way to deny increasing bias against Asian-Americans. It’s real and it’s awful. Asians are targeted by elite leftists, who actively discriminate against them in higher education, and attempt to dismantle the merit-based schools where Asian-American students succeed — precisely and only because too many Asians are attending. And Asian-Americans are also often targeted by envious or opportunistic criminal non-whites in their neighborhoods. For Trump to give these forces a top-spin with the “China virus” made things even worse, of course. For a firsthand account of a Chinese family’s experience of violence and harassment, check out this piece.

The more Asian-Americans succeed, the deeper the envy and hostility that can be directed toward them. The National Crime Victimization Survey notes that “the rate of violent crime committed against Asians increased from 8.2 to 16.2 per 1000 persons age 12 or older from 2015 to 2018.” Hate crimes? “Hate crime incidents against Asian Americans had an annual rate of increase of approximately 12% from 2012 to 2014. Although there was a temporary decrease from 2014 to 2015, anti-Asian bias crimes had increased again from 2015 to 2018.” 

Asians are different from other groups in this respect. “Comparing with Black and Hispanic victims, Asian Americans have relatively higher chance to be victimized by non-White offenders (25.5% vs. 1.0% for African Americans and 18.9% for Hispanics). … Asian Americans have higher risk to be persecuted by strangers … are less likely to be offended in their residence … and are more likely to be targeted at school/college.” Of those committing violence against Asians, you discover that 24 percent such attacks are committed by whites; 24 percent are committed by fellow Asians; 7 percent by Hispanics; and 27.5 percent by African-Americans. Do the Kendi math, and you can see why Kendi’s “White Supremacist domestic terror” is not that useful a term for describing anti-Asian violence.

But what about hate crimes specifically? In general, the group disproportionately most likely to commit hate crimes in the US are African-Americans. At 13 percent of the population, African Americans commit 23.9 percent of hate crimes. But hate specifically against Asian-Americans in the era of Trump and Covid? Solid numbers are not yet available for 2020, which is the year that matters here. There’s data, from 1994 to 2014, that finds little racial skew among those committing anti-Asian hate crimes. Hostility comes from every other community pretty equally.

The best data I’ve found for 2020, the salient period for this discussion, are provisional data on complaints and arrests for hate crimes against Asians in New York City, one of two cities which seem to have been most affected. They record 20 such arrests in 2020. Of those 20 offenders, 11 were African-American, two Black-Hispanic, two white, and five white Hispanics. Of the black offenders, a majority were women. The bulk happened last March, and they petered out soon after. If you drill down on some recent incidents in the news in California, and get past the media gloss to the actual mugshots, you also find as many black as white offenders.

This doesn’t prove much either, of course. Anti-Asian bias, like all biases, can infect anyone of any race, and the sample size is small and in one place. But it sure complicates the “white supremacy” case that the mainstream media simply assert as fact.

And that NYPD presser complicated that narrative pretty well.

Black on Asian crime: NBC News Fails Miserably in Getting 'It's the Whites Beating Asians' Narrative Going Again

 

‘Stop Asian hate’ tried to get resurrected by NBC News. After weeks of dying due to not fitting the narrative, there’s some brand-new study saying that most perpetrators of anti-Asian violence are white. The headline itself is a doozy and the data is even shoddier (via NBC News):

Janelle Wong, a professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, released analysis last week that drew on previously published studies on anti-Asian bias. She found official crime statistics and other studies revealed more than three-quarters of offenders of anti-Asian hate crimes and incidents, from both before and during the pandemic, have been white, contrary to many of the images circulating online.

Wong told NBC Asian America that such dangerous misconceptions about who perpetrates anti-Asian hate incidents can have "long-term consequences for racial solidarity."

"The way that the media is covering and the way that people are understanding anti-Asian hate at this moment, in some ways, draws attention to these long-standing anti-Asian biases in U.S. society," Wong said. "But the racist kind of tropes that come along with it — especially that it's predominantly Black people attacking Asian Americans who are elderly — there's not really an empirical basis in that."

[…]

Other studies confirm the findings, Wong wrote. She pointed to separate research from the University of Michigan Virulent Hate Project, which examined media reports about anti-Asian incidents last year and found that upward of 75 percent of news stories identified perpetrators as male and white in instances of physical or verbal assault and harassment when the race of the perpetrator was confirmed. Wong said the numbers could even be an underestimate.

Wait, what?! First, this joke of a story says that we’re not really seeing black people physically assault Asians. There’s no “empirical basis,” and now the reason for this shoddy narrative revival exercise is because…the media says the perpetrators are white. The same media that’s been wrong about everything for years? Also, did you catch the real meaning behind this article? If we don’t do anything, racial solidarity could be at risk. So, lie your ass off about who’s committing Asian hate crimes so we can manufacture a false reality to make us feel better about race in America. That’s not healthy. 

White committing most of the Asian hate crimes is not true. Not even close. Therefore, this narrative died weeks ago, as did the virtue signaling. The Left tried to blame white supremacy and Trump for the spike in Asian hate crimes. And then the people who were caught committing these crimes all turned out to be mostly nonwhite. In fact, the face of white supremacy regarding Asian hate crimes is quite black—literally. How many videos do we have to see, and the suspect not be a white person? It’s a pattern for a reason. It’s why CNN’s control room was puzzled at how to help Black Lives Matter because so many of the suspects of these Asian hate crimes were black. 

It’s all a lie. Those people are really white or something. What a joke.

Govs. Greg Abbott and Doug Ducey Plead with Other States to Help Them Address the Border Crisis

 

Governors Greg Abbott (R-TX) and Doug Ducey (R-AZ) sent a letter to governors all across the country to send any available law enforcement resources to their states to help with the ongoing border crisis.  

Their calls for help come as apprehensions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection along the U.S.-Mexico border have reached record highs, along with illegal immigrants having an easier time avoiding apprehensions. Abbott launched Operation Lone Star in March, sending Texas state troopers and National Guardsmen south and Ducey also deploying the state's National Guard to the southern border.

Dangerous substances and firearms are being smuggled across our border. Children are being trafficked. This poses a serious threat to border communities, and all communities across the nation. 2/

— Doug Ducey (@dougducey) June 10, 2021

"Securing our border with Mexico is the federal government's responsibility. But the Biden Administration has proven unwilling or unable to do the job. This failure to enforce federal immigration laws causes banns that spill over into every State," they wrote. "The cartels will see to it that their deadly fentanyl and human-trafficking victims far and wide."

Abbott and Ducey noted that since Texas and Arizona are "ground zero" for the current crisis, they are bearing the brunt and have spent a lot of money to address the issue. With other states sending additional manpower south, the two governors wrote they hope they can apprehend more illegal immigrants "before they can cause problems" in other parts of the United States.

"Texas and Arizona have stepped up to secure the border in the federal government's absence, and now the Emergency Management Assistance Compact gives your State a chance to stand strong with us," they concluded.

The Myth of Republican Obstructionism

The political media have spent the entire Joe Biden presidency up to this point pressuring holdout moderate Democrats to join the left's efforts to destroy the legislative filibuster. One way they do this is by cobbling together (Leninist) revisionist histories that cast Republicans as uniquely obstructionist and undemocratic.

CNN's White House correspondent John Harwood lays out that history in broad strokes: "for Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan: 0 Republican votes for Obama's 2010 national health care plan: 0 Republican votes for Biden's 2021 covid-relief plan: 0 Republican votes the modern GOP response to Democratic governance is total resistance."

What he fails to mention is that after President Bill Clinton's "deficit-reduction" bill, the GOP, often in significant numbers, voted for a slew of big policy reforms: 16 Senate Republicans voted for the Family and Medical Leave Act; a telecommunications reform passed 81-18, with only one Republican voting nay; the welfare-reform compromise bill passed 78-21; the Brady Act gun-control bill only passed because of Republican support; the North American Free Trade Agreement passed 73-26; Biden's crime bill passed 95-4; just to mention a few.

Of course, in those days, parties would bend over backward to compromise when writing wide-ranging bills so they could claim bipartisan support. This was often the case during the George W. Bush years as well. The Patriot Act was a bipartisan bill. No Child Left Behind, co-written by liberal "lion" Sen. Ted Kennedy, passed 87-10 in the Senate.

It was the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 that frayed the political order in ways from which we haven't recovered. For the first time in contemporary history, a political party unilaterally crammed through a national reform without any buy-in from half the nation. So, while it's true that not a single Republican supported President Barack Obama's 2010 "national health care plan," it's also true that not a single Democrat has voted for any of the dozens of bills to repeal "Obamacare."

 

 Democrat Party's statue in seattle

Harwood is also right that Biden's 2021 "covid-relief plan" garnered zero Republican votes. Yet, the CNN correspondent again seems to have forgotten that Democrats filibustered and blocked Republican coronavirus-relief bills dozens of times. You know how many Democrats voted for President Donald Trump's tax-reform bill? Zero. Democrats filibustered Sen. Tim Scott's criminal-justice reform bill. They used the filibuster to block funding of Trump's border wall. They blocked Sen. Ben Sasse's Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act -- a bill that did not restrict abortion but merely compelled doctors to try to save babies who survived them.

Perhaps Harwood is unaware that Trump faced more procedural delays in his four years in office than any president in history -- actually, more than all other presidents in history combined. According to a Politico analysis, Bill Clinton faced a total of 15 filibusters by the Senate in his two terms. Obama faced 175 in eight years. Trump faced over 300 in only four.

I've noticed that many liberals attempt to circumvent this prickly reality by pre-writing history: "Is there any doubt that the GOP would end the filibuster for good -- in a heartbeat -- if it served their purposes?" asked ABC News senior national correspondent Terry Moran, rhetorically. Indeed, there is great doubt, considering that Trump had publicly pressed Sen. Mitch McConnell to blow up the legislative filibuster on numerous occasions, and the Senate leader refused.

Let's not forget either that Democrats blew up the judicial filibuster. And when it backfired, and Republicans followed the new rules Sen. Harry Reid had instituted, Democrats tried to redefine judicial confirmations as "packing the Court." There is a perpetually evolving set of rules, and the constant is that these rules must benefit Democrats.

It was also Democrats, led by Biden, who blew up the norms of decorum and bipartisanship in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings when they politicized the nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Only three Democrats voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch. Only one Democrat -- Sen. Joe Manchin -- voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh after Democrats smeared him with their unsubstantiated charges. And not one Democrat voted for Amy Coney Barrett. Five Republicans voted to confirm Elena Kagan, and nine voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor before Mitch McConnell followed the "Biden rule" on Merrick Garland.

There's really nothing wrong with inaction in Congress if the country is fundamentally at odds over policy -- which is clearly the case these days. The system is built -- and political parties exist -- to stop each other's excesses. In that regard, the filibuster has been one of the most effective tools in preserving some semblance of proper constitutional governance.

Now, political parties might be right or wrong, but only one clamors to blow up the rules every time it doesn't get its way. And just because Harwood seems to be under the impression that the only vote that matters in Washington is one that propels liberal initiatives doesn't entitle him to rewrite history.

 

Who Is Really Killing American Democracy?

 

By a vote of 415-14 in the House, with unanimous support in the Senate, Juneteenth, June 19, which commemorates the day in 1865 when news of Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation reached Texas, has been declared a federal holiday.

It is to be called Juneteenth Independence Day.

Prediction: This will become yet another source of societal division as many Black folks celebrate their special Independence Day, and the rest of America continues to celebrate July 4 as Independence Day two weeks later.

Why the pessimism? Consider.

Days before Congress acted, the Randolph, New Jersey, board of education voted to change Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day. A backlash ensued, and the board quickly voted to rescind its decision.

Still under fire, the board voted to drop all designated holidays from the school calendar and replace them with the simple notation "Day Off."

The school board had surrendered, punted, given up on trying to find holidays that the citizens of Randolph might celebrate together.

But the "day off" mandate created another firestorm, and the board is now restoring all the previous holidays, including that of Columbus.

The point: If we Americans cannot even agree on which heroes and holidays are to be celebrated together, does that not tell us something about whether we are really, any longer, one country and one people?

Do we still meet in any way the designation and description of us as the "one united people" that John Jay rendered in The Federalist Papers:

"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs."

Does that depiction remotely resemble America in 2021?

Today, we don't even agree on whether Providence exists.

We hear constant worries these days about a clear and present danger to "our democracy" itself. And if democracy requires, as a precondition, a community, a commonality, of religious, cultural, social and moral beliefs, we have to ask whether these necessary ingredients of a democracy still exist in 21st-century America.

Consider what has happened to the holidays that united Americans of the Greatest and Silent Generations.

Christmas and Easter, the great Christian Holy Days and holidays of that era, were expunged a half-century ago from the public schools and the public square -- replaced by winter break and spring break.

The Bible, the cross and the Ten Commandments were all expelled as contradicting the secularist commands of our Constitution.

Traditional Christian teachings about homosexuality and abortion, reflected in public law, are now regarded as hallmarks of homophobia, bigotry, sexism and misogyny -- i.e., of moral and mental sickness.

Not only do Americans' views on religion and morality collide, but we also seem ever more rancorously divided now on matters of history and race.

Was Christopher Columbus a heroic navigator and explorer who "discovered" America -- or a genocidal racist? Was the colonization of America a great leap forward for civilization and mankind, or the monstrous crime of technically superior European peoples who came to brutally impose their religion, race and rule upon indigenous peoples?

Three of the six Founding Fathers and most of the presidents of the first 60 years of our republic were slave owners: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James Polk and Zachary Taylor, as well as the legendary senators Henry Clay and John Calhoun.

A number of Americans now believe that Washington and Jefferson should be dynamited off Mount Rushmore at the same time the visages of the three great Confederates -- Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Stonewall Jackson and Confederate President Jefferson Davis -- are dynamited off Stone Mountain, Georgia.

From all this comes a fundamental question.

Is the left itself -- as its cultural and racial revolution dethrones the icons of America's past, who are still cherished by a majority -- irreparably fracturing that national community upon which depends the survival of the democracy they profess to cherish?

Are they themselves imperiling the political system at whose altar they worship?

The country is not the polity. The nation is not the state. Force Americans to choose between the claims of God, faith, family, tribe and country -- and the demands of democracy -- and you may not like the outcome.

A question needs to be put to the left in America.

If your adversaries in politics are indeed fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes and bigots, as you describe them, why would, or should, such people accept and embrace your rule over them -- simply because you managed to rack up a plurality of ballots in an election?

Free elections to decide who governs are, it is said, the central sacrament of democracy. But why should people who are described with every synonym for "deplorable" not reject the politics of compromise and instead work constantly to overthrow the rule of people who so detest them?

Winston Churchill called democracy "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried"

Are both sides sticking with democracy -- for lack of an alternative?

Mike Pompeo Fires Back Against Charge Trump Administration Didn't Do Enough to Press China Over Coronavirus

 

It's hard to imagine anyone tougher on China, specifically when it comes to the origins of the Wuhan coronavirus, than the Trump administration. Yet, while on "Fox News Sunday," former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was asked by host Chris Wallace to defend the administration he worked under. 

Fortunately, the former secretary was up to the task. "Chris, the predicate of your question is all wrong," he told Wallace. The host had charged: 

You also criticized President Biden for not pushing hard enough on China to learn the origins of the coronavirus. But I want to again go back to your administration and the record there. President Trump and his team, including you, had almost a year after COVID-19 first came on the scene, to really press Beijing on what the origins were, when the evidence was much fresher. 

Now, there's no question that the president pulled back from the WHO, the World Health Organization. 

But what did President Trump and his administration, including the secretary of state, do to press China harder to get the evidence on where the COVID-19 virus came from? Because we still don't know.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate for Wallace to ask some of his colleagues in the media that question. For when Donald Trump, both during and after his time in office, attempted to sound the alarm of the likelihood that the Wuhan virus originated from a leak at the Wuhan lab, he was resoundingly dismissed. 

Members of Congress strove to raise awareness as well, including Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI). 

The Chinese Communist Party covered up the spread of the Wuhan virus.

RETWEET if you want to see this administration DEMAND ANSWERS.

— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) June 11, 2021

Further, the Trump administration, under Sec. Pompeo, had been conducting an investigation into the Wuhan lab, but it was stopped by the Biden administration. Meanwhile, the current administration still thinks that the WHO can actually be trusted, even when there are mountains of evidence in plain sight showing how compromised it is.

As Sec. Pompeo offered when sticking up for himself and the Trump administration: 

POMPEO:  Chris, the predicate of your question is all wrong. We have a  really good idea of what happened here. There's an enormous amount of  evidence that there was a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

There's a -- there's a pile of evidence hundred feet high. I have -- I have high confidence that that's the case. 

We pressed the Chinese Communist Party really hard, not just the State Department, but our CDC and others, too. We withdrew from the WHO, which had become politicized. 

This administration chose to get back in that. I don't know what tools they think they are going to use.

But we were serious in this endeavor. We made clear that there would be real cost of the Chinese Communist Party. 

We built that Operation Warp Speed. I was thrilled to hear they are going to distribute these vaccines around the world to countries that need it. 

They couldn't do that but for the work that happened on the Project Warp Speed. It was remarkable and historic work. 

We put real pressure on the Chinese Communist Party and we got very close to being able to make a lay down case for what actually happened and how this virus came to kill millions of people around the world and destroy billions of dollars in wealth. 

We know enough now. The cover-up continues. And it's time for accountability.

When Wallace followed up by asking, "Do you believe that the virus came from a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute?" Pompeo answered, "I do." 

Wallace did not have any other kind of a response to that topic, as he moved on to immigration. But we do know how members of the media reacted. 

David Edwards, in covering the exchange for Raw Story, claimed Pompeo "refused to answer the question."

Olivia Reingold writing for POLITICO reported that Pompeo gave his answer that the virus came from the lab leak "without offering specifics."

Reingold actually cited the WHO in her reporting, though she made no mention of how untrustworthy the body is: 

The former Trump administration official is one of the foremost proponents of the lab leak theory, which posits that the coronavirus emerged from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology. In March, the World Health Organization called that position "extremely unlikely" in its report on the origin of the virus. But the theory has gained bipartisan support after The Wall Street Journal reported that three scientists at the Wuhan lab experienced coronavirus symptoms in November 2019.

The WHO is questionable at best, in part because one of its lead investigators into the theory of origins of the virus is Peter Daszak, whose EcoAlliance provided a grant to fund research at the Wuhan lab, which Townhall has consistently reported on. To quote Rep. Gallagher, Daszak has "corrupted" the WHO investigation. 

Justin Baragona, writing for the Daily Beast, said that Pompeo "attempted to dismiss the question" and "basically tried to brush off Wallace." 

"Meanwhile, Pompeo's claim that the new administration was letting China off the hook was disproven almost exactly as he spoke," Baragona wrote. "On Sunday, Biden convinced G7 leaders to call on Beijing for a transparent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19," he closed with. 

As Katie reported, though, members at the G7 summit and current Secretary of State Antony Blinken still somehow think we can depend on the WHO to figure all of this out. "Did G7 Leaders Just Ensure We Will Never Know How Wuhan Coronavirus Really Started?" Katie aptly asked in her headline.

Ransomware Attacks Are Inevitable. Banning Bitcoin Solves Nothing.

Criminals know how to pick a victim, and COVID-19 provided hackers with the perfect opportunity to ramp up ransomware attacks. As this Government Technology report outlines, hackers began unleashing viruses around the same time Mother Nature (or a lab in Wuhan) began unleashing “her” own virus on the world. With the world knocked off balance, people and businesses left dizzy and disoriented, cybercriminals got to work. Last year, the U.S. saw a 300-percent increase in cybercriminal activity. This year, things have only gotten worse. According to recent research, five ransomware attacks occur with each passing minute.

Evolution is a natural part of existence, especially within the world of crime. Cybercriminals are becoming more capable of extorting sizable sums of money from major companies. In October of last year, Software AG paid more than $20 million in ransom fees. The recent JBS and Colonial attacks were a little different, however. The cybercriminals demanded bitcoin from their victims. Ask and you shall receive, and they most certainly received.

Who, or more specifically, what is to blame for the rise in cybercrimes, including ransomware attacks? Bitcoin, naturally. Although bitcoin is indeed an attractive payment option for criminals, it’s also an attractive option for non-criminal actors, more than100 million of them worldwide. Should we blame ice-cream and chips for the obesity crisis plaguing the world, or should we perhaps focus on the people consuming the food?

Humans are both the cause and the solution for almost every problem occurring on the planet, and this includes acts of crime. Pointing the figure at bitcoin makes no sense. Why do criminals demand to be paid in cryptocurrency? Because it is attractive and easy to send. These are not bad characteristics. They only become problematic when problematic people get involved.

As Elizabeth Warren’s misinformed comments show, when it comes to narratives of good and evil, a bad guy is always needed. In the case of bitcoin, more specifically, a scapegoat. The attacks on bitcoin are reminiscent of Nancy Reagan's views on pot. Nuance simply cannot compete with nonsense.

The narrative being shaped around cryptocurrencies, especially bitcoin, is a highly divisive one. On one side, you have the idealists and reformers who see bitcoin as a key that can unlock a better, fairer future. On the other side, you have people, many of whom are misinformed, calling bitcoin every epithet imaginable. Warren Buffet famously called it “rat poison.” However, the whole bitcoin bad narrative doesn’t actually carry any water.

After all, a bread knife can be used to slice a lovely loaf; in the hands of a manic murderer, however, it can be used to inflict unimaginable levels of pain on another human. What bitcoin needs is proper regulation. In the United States alone, 46 million people own bitcoin. That’s almost 1 in 7 people. Bitcoin is a movement, an idea, a powerful one that resonates around the world.

Calls to ban it are as idiotic as they are unfeasible. In the U.S., with or without bitcoin in circulation, ransomware attacks will continue to occur. Instead of scapegoating an exciting new technology, how about focusing on improving cyber defense technologies?

A ban, not that it’s really possible, is like taking antidepressants to fight the depression caused by your marriage, yet still remaining married to the very person causing the depression. Do you really think that a ban on bitcoin will bring an end to ransomware attacks? These styles of attacks have been around for almost 30 years. Today, they are just more sophisticated in nature, as are the ways in which payments are made. Bitcoin is a sign of technological progress. Just because bad actors happen to like it doesn’t take anything away from its potential. 

Ban bitcoin and hackers will simply demand to be paid in a different cryptocurrency. Ok, so ban cryptocurrencies. Again, with more than 10,000 in existence, good luck with that. Even with no cryptocurrencies in circulation, demands from criminals will always exist. Instead of taking antidepressants, how about ending the marriage?

Instead of focusing on fighting the wars of yesteryears, by investing heavily in fighter jets and tanks, how about putting more money into the development of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which receives paltry sums when compared with the United States’ military branch.

Members of the Biden administration fail to acknowledge one simple fact: 

The battlefields of tomorrow will be located in cyberspace, not in the Middle East. Bitcoin is not to blame for the ransomware attacks, myopic mindsets and a lack of foresight are. While the likes of Elizabeth Warren and her colleagues are busy pointing fingers in the wrong direction, cybercriminals are planning the next big attack. Is the U.S. prepared?

The Supreme Court’s Failures to Act Are Putting America on a Path Toward Tyranny

 

Rarely does the generation experiencing the actual events and decisions that lead to their nation’s demise fully appreciate the calamitous enormity of their oversight until sometime after their culture’s destruction has been rendered incurable. Largely it is not due so much to their negligence as it is to most of them being too preoccupied with simply living and making a living for them to fully appreciate the significance of the events that are leading them into a slow descent toward eventual totalitarianism. 

Perhaps that would explain why, in just the first four months of 2021, the Supreme Court issued four decisions—or, perhaps better viewed as non-decisions—that should have caused all legitimately patriotic Americans to be alarmed and called to action … but did not seem to.

Only a few weeks ago, without offering any substantive explanation, the Court summarily refused to even look at—much less, seriously consider—any of the evidence of the 2020 election irregularities offered by attorney Sidney Powell and others. Evidently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America was not interested in doing what it could—and should—to let America know decisively whether or not its presidential election had been shamelessly stolen by those now in power. 

Why would they not do this? 

Perhaps the answer is best revealed by the fact that, at the same time, the Court was also apparently too busy to halt a New York prosecutor from obtaining former President Trump’s tax returns. The practical effect of which was for SCOTUS to give that prosecutor an assist with his unconstitutional effort to search for any crime that might make President Trump’s ouster from office permanent. 

Clearly, these two SCOTUS decisions alone evidence the fact that the agenda of the Justices have become politically driven. 

But it doesn’t end there.

Two weeks later, the Supreme Court—again without explanation—summarily refused to reverse the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial of Judicial Watch’s request that it be allowed to take the deposition of a member of this country’s ruling political elite—Hillary Rodham Clinton. At the end of the day, Judicial Watch was only asking the Supreme Court to uphold the Rule of Law by finding that all Americans—including elites like Hillary Clinton—are to be treated equally under the law. Instead, however, the Supreme Court, unfortunately—and inexplicably—declined the opportunity to do even this. 

Then this week, SCOTUS put the final nail in the coffin containing the GOP’s 2020 election disputes with its denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari in Bognet v. Dagraffenreid. Again, it refused to rule on whether a state’s courts are qualified or not under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution to modify that state’s presidential election laws. In short, whether Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution by usurping the state legislature’s authority to extend the time allowed for counting mail-in ballots is apparently not an issue worthy of this SCOTUS’s time. 

From such glaring displays of indefensible Supreme Court inaction, the following incontrovertible truths have been set out in plain view before the nation’s very eyes: 

1. The Supreme Court today is thoroughly politicized … and thus, corrupt; 

2. In America, the Rule of Law … is now dead; and

3. Worse yet, by these decisions, America’s Supreme Court has put on open display its utter disregard—and absolute contempt—for whatever the American people may think about the future unavailability of equal justice in a nation that once promised that such justice would be available to all.  

Such truths should be cause for greater alarm for the American people than even the now almost Orwellian silence of John Durham. Consider the following recent words of attorney Sidney Powell: 

“The Supreme Court’s failure to date to address the massive election fraud and multiple constitutional violations that wrought a coup of the presidency of the greatest country in world history completes the implosion of each of our three branches of government into the rubble of a sinkhole of corruption. It is an absolute tragedy for the Rule of Law, the future of the Republic, and all freedom-loving people around the world.”

She is not overstating the matter in the least. An American government unleashed from the constraints set in place by the Rule of Law can only be headed in one direction: toward some form of centralized dictatorship that is limited only by the whims of those in power—i.e. a tyranny. That place where corrupted institutions of government exist to serve only the purposes of those in power, who, in turn, are free to use their power unfettered by the Rule of Law to command the masses they rule to submit completely to the diktats of the state. 

For instance, a state that would order its people to accommodate its importation of a new class of indentured slaves is encouraging to enter across the borders of this country that it has opened at the same time that state is endeavoring to seize the weapons of anybody already here—i.e. patriotic citizens—who might object. And all while the state uses an imagined pretense—e.g., a fraudulently hyped pandemic—to terminate the rights of those patriotic Americans to engage in commerce, speak freely, and even freely assemble to either peacefully protest or even worship. A place where unquestioned obedience is expected and dissent from any of the state’s propaganda narratives can expect to be silenced, censored, shadow-banned and de-platformed. 

Sound familiar? 

It should.

It is where America is today.

A place where all of us—both conservatives and liberals— would do well to take off their government-mandated masks long enough to read out loud and seriously reflect upon the following words of a woman—Ayn Rand—who knew more than just a little about how to identify a tyranny: 

“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them but protect them against you—When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—You may know that your society is doomed.”

Leaving America to ask: does America still have the option of reversing course, or in its march toward some form of tyranny, has it already put the Rubicon in its rear-view mirror? 

After all, how is a nation supposed to lawfully remedy the corrupt silence of a politicized Supreme Court from which there are NO readily apparent peaceful means for appeal?

The Constitutional Crisis Deciding the Fate of America’s Liberty is NOW

 

Imagine if a cadre of very clever and industrious thieves formed a grand conspiracy to rob some place, like say … Fort Knox. Then, when the time was right, they were finally able to pull it off in the dark of night and get away with all the gold … for a while.   

What would you as an American expect to happen if they were eventually caught?   

Should it matter if, by that time, they were already ensconced in mansions, dressing well, driving expensive cars, mingling with high society and otherwise enjoying the good life in every imaginable way?     

Would you ever consider just telling them that, if they promise never to do it again, we’ll simply agree to let them get away with it … but just this once?  

Or, would you be one of those old-fashioned deplorable types who would be more inclined to demand justice now? You know, like, want to put them in prison, get as much of the gold back as possible and then look forward to seeing the movie about it when it comes out?   

How a majority of Americans would answer this question may afford some clarity to the fork in the road our society is approaching right now … and, with lightning speed.   

If state forensic audits are ultimately allowed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the outcome of the 2020 election was fraudulently stolen, America will be confronted with having to deal with the incredulous discovery of the largest successful criminal conspiracy the world has ever witnessed—a coup d’état that enabled criminals operating in the dark of night to unlawfully seize complete control of the government of the United States of America … together with all the power that comes with it.   CARTOONS | Steve Kelley View Cartoon

If that becomes an unavoidable truth, it will present America with a constitutional crisis unlike any it has ever dealt with, and that, in turn, will put before it a question it will not be able to avoid answering.   

What to do?   

Will our society have the metal to defend its liberty by upholding the Rule of Law and insisting on justice now—i.e. by holding the criminals responsible for the fraud accountable and retrieving that which was stolen—i.e. the outcome of the election?   

Or not … as the Supreme Court, a majority in Congress and those presently in control of the Executive Branch obviously seem to prefer.  

Which of these two paths America will choose is the moral crucible now forming in this already divided nation where the ethics, character, integrity and intestinal fortitude of this generation of Americans could soon be put to the test.   

Ultimately, it is a test that will require America to determine whether its liberty will survive or be forfeited to those who made a mockery of our last election.  

And I, for one, have my doubts about the outcome.    

Just this past Friday, Attorney General Garland strongly suggested that, in light of the recent audit activity, the full weight of the Justice Department has been ordered to investigate any and all violations of law that may have been committed … not by those who may have committed election fraud … but, by those even thinking about conducting audits that might uncover the crimes.    

Imagine that!   

Apparently, we now live in an America where it is going to be made a crime to investigate a crime.    

So might speak the thief emboldened by his recently acquired illicit wealth who would attempt to intimidate those who would even think about wanting to look inside Fort Knox to see if any gold had been stolen in the first place.  

At minimum, it is a strategy born of evil … but, also one that could be very effective.     

Meanwhile, I recently attended two different meetings where patriotic conservative Americans gathered to discuss strategies for retaking our country in the aftermath of the 2020 elections. One presenter advocated a convention of states pursuant to the 5^th Amendment, and the other encouraged like-minded people to run for all local and state offices in future elections.   

That’s all well and good, so far as such strategies may help at some point in the future … but not very much help for dealing with what’s coming at us right now.   

Thus, at both meetings I posed a single question to each speaker: What responsive strategy has their group developed to respond right now, if it is discovered that the 2020 election was actually stolen? In both cases, their response was the same as all who were in attendance. A prolonged silence coupled with looks that put me in mind of deer in the headlights.  

To his credit, President Trump recently asked Newt Gingrich, Mark Meadows and Lindsay Graham to help deal with this problem by drafting a modernized version of Newt’s earlier Contract with America. Presumably, it is to help unify his patriotic supporters across the country around a core platform of shared ideas and ideals.   

They agreed to do it, but said it would take some time.   

The problem, however, is that time is something we don’t have a lot of, in light of the fact that Arizona’s audit is expected to wrap up this week and others, if they occur, possibly by the end of summer. Waiting for Newt’s crew or the mid-term elections of 2022 to come up with a unifying platform is a luxury we can’t afford. And, might even be a waste of time, in light of the fact that such platforms of patriotic ideas have already been presented in writings such as The Declaration of Liberty,which President 45 would do well to read soon, I don’t mind saying. That is …before the current powers that be are able to de-platform it.    

Given the thinly veiled message Garland effectively delivered to America Friday, if we don’t speak—and act—in defense of our liberty right NOW, it is now beyond denial that people like the Attorney General fully intend to use the color of the authority of their office—even if that authority was unlawfully obtained by theft—to compel all Americans to hold their peace … forever.  

So, will the American people have what it takes to put in play an effective strategy to hold seditionist criminals who stole that election accountable, retrieve and restore that which was stolen, and thereby protect their liberty … or will they choose to surrender their liberty to tyranny?   

We’ll know the answer to this question very soon. 

Major League Baseball Strikes Out Again on Black America

By moving the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver because Georgia is protecting peoples’ votes, Major League Baseball is hypocritical in its rationale.

MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred stated that the “best way to demonstrate our values as a sport” would be to move the upcoming All-Star Game and its Entry Level Draft out of Georgia. The decision came after the state’s legislature passed and Governor Brian Kemp subsequently signed the “Election Integrity Act of 2021” into law. Opponents of the new law decried it as racist, oppressive and disenfranchising. 

This voter integrity measure has been attacked for allegedly denying persons of color the ability to vote. It’s claimed it will punish those who simply want to offer comforts such as food or water to voters standing in line or those without identification. But these premises are based on the bigotry to low expectations that blacks cannot obtain identification or get to the polls without the aid and protection of government.

MLB nonetheless abandoned Atlanta, becoming the third league to move an event to exert political pressure. The NFL moved the 1993 Super Bowl from Arizona to Los Angeles after Arizona voters rejected Martin Luther King Day as a state holiday, and the NBA moved its All-Star Game out of Charlotte in 2017 after the North Carolina legislature passed a law requiring transgender persons to use public restrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate.CARTOONS | AF Branco View Cartoon

While the governing bodies of a professional sport are well within their rights to put their events anywhere they want, doing so under the premise of being socially responsible is flawed at best and inherently wrong at worst. It is hypocrisy more often than not, and it usually affects the same groups of people it purports to respect and want to protect. 

That’s why the All-Star Game moving to Denver has led to a lawsuit on behalf of local Atlanta businesses.

Atlanta and its metro area will no longer have the anticipated major economic infusion that they bid for and had been awarded long ago. Cobb County Georgia officials are now speculating a loss of nearly $100 million in potential revenue.

There are far-reaching implications for the decision beyond the virtue-signaling affirmation for Manfred and his colleagues that will soon be forgotten by the rest of America. Keep in mind that nearly a third of all businesses in Atlanta are owned by black Americans. Nearly 8,000 hotel rooms in the metro area had been on standby for the League, its fans and the media who would have been there to cover everything surrounding the event.

And some of that revenue would have been used to repay the financing of Truist Park, which benefitted from nearly $400 million in public funding for its construction. Cobb County and its taxpayers are on the hook annually for nearly $23 million to retire that debt. 

That’s why the Job Creators Network (JCN) sued MLB  – albeit unsuccessfully – for $100 million in economic damages to Atlanta businesses and a $1 billion punitive fine. “MLB robbed the small businesses of Atlanta,” said JCN CEO and president Alfredo Ortiz, “many of them minority-owned… we want the game back where it belongs.”

Think about it. If the rationale for moving the All-Star Game out of Atlanta is to protect the integrity of the game and stand in support of “disenfranchised” and “suppressed” – meaning black – voters, then why is MLB now rewarding Denver with all of the economic benefits of hosting the game…which is nearly 76 percent white.

Hypocrisy much?

 

Are We Really That Much Better Than Countries with State-Controlled Media?

 

I’m deeply thankful that I live here in America rather than a country like North Korea, and I truly appreciate the freedom of the press that we enjoy. At the same time, when the mainstream media outlets can collude so powerfully in disseminating lies and withholding truths, are we that much better than countries with state-controlled media?

Again, it’s absolutely true that, here in America, every narrative put forth by media outlet A can be challenged by media outlet B. At the same time, if the dominant media outlets only report one narrative, suppressing or censoring or dismissing out of hand all counter-narratives, isn’t the brainwashing effect all the same for those who rely on those dominant outlets? 

This, then, is reinforced when the dominant media outlets effectively demonize other news outlets. As a result, those who follow the dominant media will never even think of checking out the other news outlets. Talk about an effective propaganda campaign.

Taking this one step further, if the social media and search engine giants further collude in advancing one narrative while suppressing or removing other narratives, the cycle of brainwashing is now virtually complete.

Worse still, by the time the lies and misinformation get exposed, it’s already too late, since the misinformation has now taken hold in the conscience of the nation. And popular myths do not die easily. (Just think of “Hands up, don’t shoot!” as one example of many.)

It is now well-documented (actually, proudly-documented) that a veritable cabal of media, social media, business leaders, and other left-wing activists colluded to stop Trump from being elected. (This is completely unrelated to the question of election fraud.)

We also know all too well that certain stories were ignored or suppressed (such as Hunter Biden’s laptop) while others were peddled ad infinitum (think “Russia collusion”). And let’s not even mention the question of fairness, as in the leftwing media’s constant reporting on Trump’s mental health (it’s amazing he’s still walking and talking, based on what we were told to expect) vs. their reporting on Biden’s mental health (he might run again in 2024!).

Now, thanks to an independent report from the inspector general, another Trump-damning myth has been revealed. As noted by Greg Gutfeld:

So here’s a question: how many media screw-ups do you need to hear before you realize it’s deliberate. How many times does Wolf Blitzer get to cry ‘wolf’?

Every week an explosive story we are told was true turns out to be as false as Julie’s eyelashes. Today’s big lie – The story of how President Donald Trump ordered Lafayette Square cleared ‘with tear gas’ to vacate ‘peaceful protesters’ for a callous ‘photo-op’. The press covered it with a cicada-like fervor.

Specifically, “the inspector general’s report on the matter concluded: ‘We found that the USPP had the authority and discretion to clear Lafayette Park and the surrounding areas on June 1. The evidence we obtained did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park to allow the president to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church. Instead, the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the antiscale fencing….”

Not only so, but the protests were hardly all peaceful. As noted by the Wall Street Journal, “The inspector general report said 49 Park Police officers were injured while policing the Lafayette Square protests, which while mostly peaceful during the day turned violent at night. Park Police ‘did not know about the President’s potential movement until mid- to late afternoon on June 1—hours after it had begun developing its operational plan and the fencing contractor had arrived in the park,’ according to the report.”

But will these facts undo the damage that the false reports already did, especially if they contributed to Trump losing the elections? And, while fully acknowledging Trump’s many failings, including his poor judgment in holding up a Bible in front of the damaged church building, did these false reports further demonize the man?

Perhaps, even worse than this is the collusion of the leftwing media and internet giants in deciding what we can and cannot be told about the origins of COVID-19 or about the efficacy, necessity, or safety of the vaccines.

In this case, we’re not just talking about misinformation that might affect our political or cultural points of view. We’re talking about life and death issues, issues of health and safety and even freedom.

For good reason, we should be very concerned about all this.

Unfortunately, this rightful suspicion of the fairness and honesty of the dominant media outlets has, in turn, produced a “fake news” frenzy where we now reject as false any narrative that we don’t like. This, in turn, leads to the embracing of every kind of wacky conspiracy theory, especially on the right.

The solution, then, is to verify the stories we are following across numerous platforms, to challenge dominant narratives will well-researched, carefully-documented dissents, and to see what is being reported (and not being reported) on news sites we differ with.

Then, we can make informed decisions. Otherwise, if we are not diligent, we might find ourselves brainwashed, all while thinking we are enlightened, broadminded, and well-informed. Careful!