Source: A group of conservatives and Trump administration officials quietly met in Las Vegas over the weekend to discuss issues including ‘woke tech’, ‘restoring law’, and the ‘new slave power,’ according to a report by Protocol.
The event, known as the ‘Digital Statecraft Summit,’ was hosted by the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank.
A copy of the event’s agenda obtained by Protocol reportedly listed high-profile speakers including United States Chief Technology Officer Michael Kratsios, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, former deputy national security adviser for President Trump, Michael Anton, and the current acting head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Adam Candeub.
A source familiar with Kratsios’ planned remarks told Protocol he intended to speak about artificial intelligence and China.
Anton, who served as deputy national security adviser under Trump from February 2017 to April 2018, was slated to be on ‘The New Slave Power’ panel. Anton recently wrote an essay entitled ‘Blue America Needs Red America’ for Claremont’s American Mind publication, in which he suggested that Democrats were ‘openly talking about staging a coup’ in an effort to ‘command and oppress’ Republicans. Also on the panel with Anton was conservative blogger Curtis Yarvin, also known as Mencius Moldbug, who once wrote in a blog post: “although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff.”
While it was unclear what Candeub was scheduled to speak about, Mother Jones reported that he is known to have ties to white nationalists, including writing four Wall Street Journal op-eds with Marcus Epstein and representing Jared Taylor in a lawsuit against Twitter in 2018.
It was also unclear what Paxton was slated to speak about. Paxton is leading a multi-state antitrust action against Google and was part of an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election based on unfounded claims of election fraud in four states that voted for President-elect Joe Biden. The FBI is currently investigating claims that Paxton abused his power to benefit a wealthy donor. A representative for Paxton did not immediately return FOX Business’ request for comment.
In addition, Chapman University professor and conservative legal scholar John Eastman, who helped to rally Trump supporters outside the White House before the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6 which left five people dead, was reportedly slated to speak.
Also listed on the agenda was newly confirmed FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington, but he told Protocol he did not end up attending.
“Despite initial plans to do so, I did not attend or otherwise participate in the Claremont event this weekend, and I did not prepare or submit remarks,” Simington said.
An attendee told Protocol that the tone of the event was expected to be “very critical of tech, very pro some type of intervention.”
‘There’s going to be some discrepancy and debate around what intervention looks like,’ the individual said.
The attendee added that the Claremont Institute appeared to keep information about the summit ‘under wraps’, noting that no information was provided on who would be speaking just hours before the event was set to kick-off and that the organization did not appear to be promoting the event on social media Saturday as the first panels began.
Protocol reported that the event also took place amid a spike in COVID cases in the Las Vegas area and that Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams declined to answer the outlet’s questions about “the new slave power” panel and what COVID-19 safety protocols were being implemented.
“The Claremont Institute has been a leading voice against political censorship by the Big Tech oligarchs, and we have no interest in commenting on an obvious hatchet job by a publication so clearly beholden to the pieties of Silicon Valley,” Williams said in an email to Protocol. “Your questions are riddled with false premises, but we welcome the fire.”
The Claremont Institute did not immediately return FOX Business’ request for comment.
The meeting comes as conservatives have argued that they are being unfairly targeted by tech giants like Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon.
Facebook and Twitter suspended President Trump earlier this month, citing a ‘risk of further incitement of violence’ after deeming a series of posts related to the violence at the Capitol as inflammatory.
Meanwhile, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R.-Ga., regained access to her Twitter account after it was temporarily locked on Sunday over “multiple violations” on the social media platform related to claims of election fraud in the presidential and Senate runoff elections.
“Dear @Twitter, Contrary to how highly you think of yourself and your moral platitude, you are not the judge of humanity. God is,” Greene wrote, adding that Twitter is “becoming boring” since President Trump was permanently banned after the Capitol riot.
In addition, alternative social media platform Parler is suing Amazon Web Services for a breach of contract and antitrust violation, alleging it acted with “political animus” after severing ties with the company for failure to moderate “egregious content’ related to the riot.
Parler’s lawyer, David Groesbeck, argued during a hearing last week that the company would suffer irreparable harm if it was forced to permanently close and that it is in the public interest to restore the platform’s service. The platform’s chief executive officer, John Matze, said the platform would return to users soon in a status update on Sunday evening.
WASHINGTON – State attorneys general are planning a third lawsuit against Alphabet Inc’s Google, this one focused on the search and advertising giant’s Play Store for Android phones, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
The lawsuit is expected to be filed in February or March, the sources said, and it would follow complaints about Google’s management of its Play Store even though the company was originally seen as more open about its app store than Apple.
Including a Justice Department lawsuit filed against Google in October, the possible new action would be the fourth government lawsuit brought against the Silicon Valley company since late 2020. All allege that Google abused its dominance of the internet search business or otherwise broke antitrust law.
Google bans apps with objectionable content from its store and further requires that some apps use the company’s payment tools and pay Google as much as 30 percent of their revenue.
Those and related policies prompted criticism from app developers, particularly when Google said last year it would ramp up enforcement. Google’s Play Store is far more widely used than similar products from Amazon, Samsung, Huawei, and others.
The probe will be headed by the attorneys general of New York, Utah, and North Carolina, and other states are also expected to join, one of the sources said.
Asked to comment on the possible new legal action, Google said in a statement that its Android mobile operating system has allowed users access to multiple app stores, which means that developers have options.
“Most Android devices ship with at least two app stores preinstalled, and consumers are able to install additional app stores,” Sameer Samat, vice president of Android and Google Play, said in a statement.
“This openness means that even if a developer and Google do not agree on business terms the developer can still distribute on the Android platform,” he said.
Video game maker Epic Games sued Google and Apple separately in US district court in August, accusing the companies of using their dominance to charge app developers an “exorbitant” fee of 30 percent on sales and of imposing other restrictions.
Apple, whose app store does not directly compete with Google’s because it is not compatible with Android devices, is under Justice Department investigation for its policies.
After more than a year of investigations into the four major tech platforms, including Facebook, Amazon, and Apple, the Justice Department was first out of the gate with a lawsuit against Google focused on its search business and search advertising.
In addition, two groups of state attorneys general filed lawsuits last year, one led by Texas and focused on advertising. The other targeted Google’s alleged efforts to extend its dominance in search to newer markets, like voice assistants.
There are 20 counties in California that are sanctuaries for illegal aliens.
Lawmakers passed SB10 abolishing cash bail, and then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into law in August 2018. It was supposed to take effect in October 2019, but a challenge from the bail industry blocked it pending the results of Proposition 25, a referendum to uphold the new law. The measure failed.
California’s high-speed rail is bankrupt and it is years away from completion. ($9.98 Billion)
California paid inmates $1 Billion in fraudulent unemployment claims.
California bans gas-powered passenger cars and trucks beginning in 2035. Now Massachusetts is doing the same.
There is a severe lack of housing options throughout the state. Of course, there is a major homeless epidemic. We cannot begin to understand the full consequences of the fires much less the fact that there are brownouts and scheduled blackouts. Pacific Gas and Electric is bankrupt.
Did we mention water shortages? Oh, there is the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) which is faced with a $100 billion shortfall.
See where this is going? Now with the Biden/Harris administration….the predictions are there as spelled out the a recent LA Times op-ed.
California is emerging as the de facto policy think tank of the Biden-Harris administration and of a Congress soon to be under Democratic control. That’s rekindling past cliches about the state — incubator of innovation, premier laboratory of democracy, land of big ideas — even as it struggles with surging COVID-19 infections, a safety net frayed by the pandemic’s toll, crushing housing costs and wildfires, all fueling an exodus of residents.
There is no place the incoming administration is leaning on more heavily for inspiration in setting a progressive policy agenda.
The revival in Washington of the California model of governance was cemented by Democrats’ recent recapture of the Senate majority, and comes after a Trump-era hiatus during which the state was road-testing ambitious new policies. Another factor: California Sen. Kamala Harris is about to become vice president.
“California has never had a Democrat on a national ticket, much less a ticket that won,” said former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. “Kamala Harris will be in all the meetings and have the last word with the president after they are over. She’ll be sharing ideas, innovations and breakthroughs from California that might help solve problems on the national level.”
Other Californians will be doing the same from Biden’s Cabinet. Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra is nominated to run the massive Health and Human Services Department. The nominee for Treasury secretary, former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, is a professor at UC Berkeley, as is the nominee for Energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm. Longtime California resident Alejandro Mayorkas is the nominee to run the Department of Homeland Security.
And in Congress, of course, San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi will be running point on the California agenda as House speaker.
Not that Biden needs the nudge. He’s been pushing to nationalize some of the state’s pioneering efforts on climate action, workers’ rights, law enforcement and criminal justice, healthcare and economic empowerment since he was vice president in the Obama era. He continued to champion the cause while he and Harris were still rivals in the 2020 presidential race.
The incoming administration is embracing some of California’s most pioneering initiatives, such as programs for rapidly decarbonizing the electricity grid and tuition-free college, as well as more obscure, incremental policies. Also on the new White House agenda will be measures to ban mandatory arbitration clauses in employee contracts and a revival of a “Cash for Clunkers” program aimed at providing incentives to get polluting cars off the road — signature California policies.
Even some ideas that haven’t worked out so well in California are on the national agenda now. Biden is a fierce proponent of high-speed rail, as well as new protections for gig economy workers that California voters diluted in November.
“California has this mantle of leadership, but along with that can come the stumbles of being the first adopter,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael). “It’s an innovative and imaginative place that tends to set trends and blaze trails. It’s too big and too influential not to inform our country’s policy direction going forward.”
California’s influence will be felt in how Americans power their homes and cars, and even in how they save for retirement.
“California is not just about pushing the envelope, it is about tearing it apart,” said former state Senate leader Kevin de León, who helped the state implement some of the innovative ideas the incoming administration wants to pursue. “The state is full of disruptors and malcontents who are impatient and have no problem challenging the status quo.”
De León worked for years to enroll all California workers in an “auto-IRA” program that would automatically direct a small share of their earnings to a 401(k)-style savings account. He was motivated by the experience of his aunt, a housekeeper and one of the millions of Californians who was toiling in a low-wage job without any retirement safety net beyond Social Security.
“This was a woman, salt of the earth, who always worked fingers to bone,” De León said. “Yet I am her IRA, I am her pension plan. Her story is not unique. You have millions of Californians and tens of millions of Americans who are retiring into poverty.” The CalSavers program that De León was able to help create in California is a template for Biden’s agenda on retirement security.
California’s plan to remove carbon-emitting power sources from its electricity grid entirely by 2045 also inspired the incoming administration. Biden is proposing an even more aggressive timeline, looking to move the grid to zero emissions nationwide by 2035.
The state’s plan was the most ambitious of its kind when it was approved in 2018, a snub at Trump’s unrelenting push to revive demand for fossil fuels. It moved several other states to push up their decarbonization timelines. “My thinking was we had to be a beacon of hope and opportunity while Trump was trying to undo all of our policies at the national level,” De León said.
When Trump moved to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, California committed to meeting its objectives regardless, and launched a successful crusade to persuade 23 other states to do the same. Biden is now preparing to reenter the accord. California’s landmark tailpipe emissions standards that the Trump administration worked furiously to erode are again central to that effort, helping to push the nation’s vehicle fleet toward electrification.
An environmental task force set up last year with members across the Democratic Party’s spectrum — co-chaired by former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, since appointed to Biden’s Cabinet as climate envoy — urged the incoming administration to seek counsel from California. “Immediately convene California, due to its unique authority, and other states with labor, auto industry, and environmental leaders to inform ambitious actions,” the group’s report advised.
Biden’s agenda will also be informed by California’s setbacks.
The rolling blackouts the state recently endured pointed to the need for more innovation, public investment and oversight to keep pace with green-energy goals. The state’s cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gases fell short in curbing pollution in marginalized communities, triggering protests that may have cost California’s chief air regulator a post in Biden’s Cabinet as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Likewise, the disastrous delays in delivering unemployment relief checks during the pandemic, and associated rampant levels of fraud, scuttled the Cabinet prospects of California’s labor secretary. (Biden did pick an official from the state government, Isabel Guzman, to run the Small Business Administration.)
The national movement to protect gig economy workers was dealt a damaging blow when California voters in November sided with ride-hailing companies and other technology firms, which were eager to carve big loopholes into the state’s landmark law meant to protect those workers.
Supporters of the policies say the setbacks in California are part of the road-testing. They signal to federal leaders what tweaks are needed before a national rollout.
One California policy Biden promises to replicate aims to reduce the high rate of Black women who die while giving birth or within a year of it. Though the program helped the state make significant progress driving down the overall maternal mortality rate, it didn’t narrow the racial gap. Black women still account for 40% of deaths. The Biden camp says it will propose additional actions to confront racial inequities in healthcare.
In the case of the gig worker rules California created — and which Biden favors — activists in the state are looking to the president-elect to revive protections like those undermined by Proposition 22. Robert Reich, Labor secretary in the Clinton administration, said in an email that Biden could potentially preempt California’s industry-backed initiative with federal action, a move he said would be “vitally important.”
Whether Biden will go that far is unknown. Either way, the incoming administration has made clear it is looking to California as it moves to overhaul labor rules. The state has “the nation’s foremost set of laws to protect workers,” Reich wrote. Those laws, he said, give employees more rights than anywhere else in the country on issues that include overtime, employer retaliation, wage theft, discrimination and protection from sexual harassment.
“We’ve shown you can have progressive policies and enjoy economic growth,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from Silicon Valley.
Khanna recently touted those policies on a podcast hosted by progressive filmmaker Michael Moore. The title of the episode was notable considering that Moore savaged the Bay Area in his 1989 film “Roger and Me” as a hornet’s nest of self-indulgent liberals.
For more than a year, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has systematically prevented a transparent and thorough investigation of the COVID-19 pandemic’s origin, choosing instead to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation. Nearly two million people have died. Their families deserve to know the truth. Only through transparency can we learn what caused this pandemic and how to prevent the next one.
The U.S. government does not know exactly where, when, or how the COVID-19 virus—known as SARS-CoV-2—was transmitted initially to humans. We have not determined whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
The virus could have emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals, spreading in a pattern consistent with a natural epidemic. Alternatively, a laboratory accident could resemble a natural outbreak if the initial exposure included only a few individuals and was compounded by an asymptomatic infection. Scientists in China have researched animal-derived coronaviruses under conditions that increased the risk for accidental and potentially unwitting exposure.
Related reading: SHANGHAI—A new coronavirus identified by Chinese scientists is the putative cause of an outbreak of unusual pneumonia in the central city of Wuhan, according to Chinese news reports yesterday. In an interview today with Science, Xu Jianguo, head of an evaluation committee advising the Chinese government, confirmed that scientists have a complete sequence of the novel virus’s genome.
The World Health Organization on 9 January requested sequence data, a spokesperson in Geneva says, and many scientists urge the country to make the sequence public quickly, but the decision is up to the top leadership of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, says Xu, who is director of the Beijing-based State Key Laboratory for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, part of China CDC. (The center’s head, George Gao, did not respond to emails from Science seeking comment.)
Xu says the investigation is being led by China CDC but numerous groups in other government agencies are involved. “Plenty of people are working on the outbreak,” he says. The role of the evaluation committee Xu leads is to review all the findings and make recommendations to the National Health Commission. Xu also said the novel coronavirus resembles known bat viruses, but not the coronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).
The CCP’s deadly obsession with secrecy and control comes at the expense of public health in China and around the world. The previously undisclosed information in this fact sheet, combined with open-source reporting, highlights three elements about COVID-19’s origin that deserve greater scrutiny:
1. Illnesses inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV):
The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli’s public claim that there was “zero infection” among the WIV’s staff and students of SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses.
Accidental infections in labs have caused several previous virus outbreaks in China and elsewhere, including a 2004 SARS outbreak in Beijing that infected nine people, killing one.
The CCP has prevented independent journalists, investigators, and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the WIV, including those who were ill in the fall of 2019. Any credible inquiry into the origin of the virus must include interviews with these researchers and a full accounting of their previously unreported illness.
2. Research at the WIV:
Starting in at least 2016 – and with no indication of a stop prior to the COVID-19 outbreak – WIV researchers conducted experiments involving RaTG13, the bat coronavirus identified by the WIV in January 2020 as its closest sample to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% similar). The WIV became a focal point for international coronavirus research after the 2003 SARS outbreak and has since studied animals including mice, bats, and pangolins.
The WIV has a published record of conducting “gain-of-function” research to engineer chimeric viruses. But the WIV has not been transparent or consistent about its record of studying viruses most similar to the COVID-19 virus, including “RaTG13,” which is sampled from a cave in Yunnan Province in 2013 after several miners died of SARS-like illness.
WHO investigators must have access to the records of the WIV’s work on bat and other coronaviruses before the COVID-19 outbreak. As part of a thorough inquiry, they must have a full accounting of why the WIV altered and then removed online records of its work with RaTG13 and other viruses.
3. Secret military activity at the WIV:
Secrecy and non-disclosure are standard practice for Beijing. For many years the United States has publicly raised concerns about China’s past biological weapons work, which Beijing has neither documented nor demonstrably eliminated, despite its clear obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.
Despite the WIV presenting itself as a civilian institution, the United States has determined that the WIV has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military. The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.
The United States and other donors who funded or collaborated on civilian research at the WIV have a right and obligation to determine whether any of our research funding was diverted to secret Chinese military projects at the WIV.
Today’s revelations just scratch the surface of what is still hidden about COVID-19’s origin in China. Any credible investigation into the origin of COVID-19 demands complete, transparent access to the research labs in Wuhan, including their facilities, samples, personnel, and records.
As the world continues to battle this pandemic – and as WHO investigators begin their work, after more than a year of delays – the virus’s origin remains uncertain. The United States will continue to do everything it can to support a credible and thorough investigation, including by continuing to demand transparency on the part of Chinese authorities.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Background. In Executive Order 13934 of July 3, 2020 (Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes), I made it the policy of the United States to establish a statuary park named the National Garden of American Heroes (National Garden). To begin the process of building this new monument to our country’s greatness, I established the Interagency Task Force for Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes (Task Force) and directed its members to plan for construction of the National Garden. The Task Force has advised me it has completed the first phase of its work and is prepared to move forward. This order revises Executive Order 13934 and provides additional direction for the Task Force.
Sec. 2. Purpose. The chronicles of our history show that America is a land of heroes. As I announced during my address at Mount Rushmore, the gates of a beautiful new garden will soon open to the public where the legends of America’s past will be remembered.
The National Garden will be built to reflect the awesome splendor of our country’s timeless exceptionalism. It will be a place where citizens, young and old, can renew their vision of greatness and take up the challenge that I gave every American in my first address to Congress, to “[b]elieve in yourselves, believe in your future, and believe, once more, in America.”
Across this Nation, belief in the greatness and goodness of America has come under attack in recent months and years by a dangerous anti-American extremism that seeks to dismantle our country’s history, institutions, and very identity. The heroes of 1776 have been desecrated, with statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin vandalized and toppled. The dead who gave their lives to end slavery and save the Union during the Civil War have been dishonored, with monuments to Abraham Lincoln, Hans Christian Heg, and the courageous 54th Regiment left damaged and disfigured. The brave warriors who saved freedom from Nazi fascism have been disgraced with a memorial to World War II veterans defaced with the hammer and sickle of Soviet communism.
Another part is: In short, each individual has been chosen for embodying the American spirit of daring and defiance, excellence and adventure, courage and confidence, loyalty and love. Astounding the world by the sheer power of their example, each one of them has contributed indispensably to America’s noble history, the best chapters of which are still to come.
(b) Section 3(c)(i) of Executive Order 13934 is amended to read as follows: “The National Garden should be composed of statues, including statues of Ansel Adams, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Muhammad Ali, Luis Walter Alvarez, Susan B. Anthony, Hannah Arendt, Louis Armstrong, Neil Armstrong, Crispus Attucks, John James Audubon, Lauren Bacall, Clara Barton, Todd Beamer, Alexander Graham Bell, Roy Benavidez, Ingrid Bergman, Irving Berlin, Humphrey Bogart, Daniel Boone, Norman Borlaug, William Bradford, Herb Brooks, Kobe Bryant, William F. Buckley, Jr., Sitting Bull, Frank Capra, Andrew Carnegie, Charles Carroll, John Carroll, George Washington Carver, Johnny Cash, Joshua Chamberlain, Whittaker Chambers, Johnny “Appleseed” Chapman, Ray Charles, Julia Child, Gordon Chung-Hoon, William Clark, Henry Clay, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), Roberto Clemente, Grover Cleveland, Red Cloud, William F. “Buffalo Bill” Cody, Nat King Cole, Samuel Colt, Christopher Columbus, Calvin Coolidge, James Fenimore Cooper, Davy Crockett, Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., Miles Davis, Dorothy Day, Joseph H. De Castro, Emily Dickinson, Walt Disney, William “Wild Bill” Donovan, Jimmy Doolittle, Desmond Doss, Frederick Douglass, Herbert Henry Dow, Katharine Drexel, Peter Drucker, Amelia Earhart, Thomas Edison, Jonathan Edwards, Albert Einstein, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Duke Ellington, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Medgar Evers, David Farragut, the Marquis de La Fayette, Mary Fields, Henry Ford, George Fox, Aretha Franklin, Benjamin Franklin, Milton Friedman, Robert Frost, Gabby Gabreski, Bernardo de Gálvez, Lou Gehrig, Theodor Seuss Geisel, Cass Gilbert, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Glenn, Barry Goldwater, Samuel Gompers, Alexander Goode, Carl Gorman, Billy Graham, Ulysses S. Grant, Nellie Gray, Nathanael Greene, Woody Guthrie, Nathan Hale, William Frederick “Bull” Halsey, Jr., Alexander Hamilton, Ira Hayes, Hans Christian Heg, Ernest Hemingway, Patrick Henry, Charlton Heston, Alfred Hitchcock, Billie Holiday, Bob Hope, Johns Hopkins, Grace Hopper, Sam Houston, Whitney Houston, Julia Ward Howe, Edwin Hubble, Daniel Inouye, Andrew Jackson, Robert H. Jackson, Mary Jackson, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Steve Jobs, Katherine Johnson, Barbara Jordan, Chief Joseph, Elia Kazan, Helen Keller, John F. Kennedy, Francis Scott Key, Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King, Jr., Russell Kirk, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Henry Knox, Tadeusz Kościuszko, Harper Lee, Pierre Charles L’Enfant, Meriwether Lewis, Abraham Lincoln, Vince Lombardi, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Clare Boothe Luce, Douglas MacArthur, Dolley Madison, James Madison, George Marshall, Thurgood Marshall, William Mayo, Christa McAuliffe, William McKinley, Louise McManus, Herman Melville, Thomas Merton, George P. Mitchell, Maria Mitchell, William “Billy” Mitchell, Samuel Morse, Lucretia Mott, John Muir, Audie Murphy, Edward Murrow, John Neumann, Annie Oakley, Jesse Owens, Rosa Parks, George S. Patton, Jr., Charles Willson Peale, William Penn, Oliver Hazard Perry, John J. Pershing, Edgar Allan Poe, Clark Poling, John Russell Pope, Elvis Presley, Jeannette Rankin, Ronald Reagan, Walter Reed, William Rehnquist, Paul Revere, Henry Hobson Richardson, Hyman Rickover, Sally Ride, Matthew Ridgway, Jackie Robinson, Norman Rockwell, Caesar Rodney, Eleanor Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Betsy Ross, Babe Ruth, Sacagawea, Jonas Salk, John Singer Sargent, Antonin Scalia, Norman Schwarzkopf, Junípero Serra, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Robert Gould Shaw, Fulton Sheen, Alan Shepard, Frank Sinatra, Margaret Chase Smith, Bessie Smith, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Jimmy Stewart, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Gilbert Stuart, Anne Sullivan, William Howard Taft, Maria Tallchief, Maxwell Taylor, Tecumseh, Kateri Tekakwitha, Shirley Temple, Nikola Tesla, Jefferson Thomas, Henry David Thoreau, Jim Thorpe, Augustus Tolton, Alex Trebek, Harry S. Truman, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Dorothy Vaughan, C. T. Vivian, John von Neumann, Thomas Ustick Walter, Sam Walton, Booker T. Washington, George Washington, John Washington, John Wayne, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Phillis Wheatley, Walt Whitman, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Roger Williams, John Winthrop, Frank Lloyd Wright, Orville Wright, Wilbur Wright, Alvin C. York, Cy Young, and Lorenzo de Zavala.”
Sec. 5. Funding. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall provide funding, as appropriate and consistent with available appropriations and applicable law, for the establishment and maintenance of the National Garden.
(b) The Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities, in consultation with the National Council on the Arts and the National Council on the Humanities, respectively, and the Task Force, should target spending one-twelfth of the discretionary funds available to their agencies on commissioning statues of individuals set forth in section 3(c)(i) of Executive Order 13934, as amended by section 3(b) of this order, for placement in the National Garden, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
We cannot forget that President Trump created the 1776 Commission, a presidential advisory group made of 18 political and thought leaders. This commission is to teach America’s youth about America’s founding. Promise made, promise kept.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to better enable a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776, and, through this, form a more perfect Union, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section1. Purpose. The American founding envisioned a political order in harmony with the design of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” seeing the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as embodied in and sanctioned by natural law and its traditions.
The formation of a republic around these principles marked a clear departure from previous forms of government, securing rights through a form of government that derives its legitimate power from the consent of the governed. Throughout its national life, our Republic’s exploration of the full meaning of these principles has led it through the ratification of a Constitution, civil war, the abolition of slavery, Reconstruction, and a series of domestic crises and world conflicts. Those events establish a clear historical record of an exceptional Nation dedicated to the ideas and ideals of its founding.
Quite frankly, this project should go way beyond America’s youth, there are adults across the nation that should subscribe as well and especially the media.
Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, because if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world. Daniel Webster
Appendix III of the document includes in part the following:
Created Equal or Identity Politics? Americans are deeply committed to the principle of equality enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, that all are created equal and equally endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This creed, as Abraham Lincoln once noted, is “the electric cord” that “links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving” people everywhere, no matter their race or country of origin. The task of American civic education is to transmit this creed from one generation of Americans to the next. In recent times, however, a new creed has arisen challenging the original one enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
This new creed, loosely defined as identity politics, has three key features. First, the creed of identity politics defines and divides Americans in terms of collective social identities. According to this new creed, our racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as individuals equally endowed with fundamental rights. Second, the creed of identity politics ranks these different racial and social groups in terms of privilege and power, with disproportionate moral worth allotted to each.
It divides Americans into two groups: oppressors and victims. The more a group is considered oppressed, the more its members have a moral claim upon the rest of society. As for their supposed oppressors, they must atone and even be punished in perpetuity for their sins and those of their ancestors. Third, the creed of identity politics teaches that America itself is to blame for oppression. America’s “electric cord” is not the creed of liberty and equality that connects citizens today to each other and to every generation of Americans past, present, and future.
Rather, America’s “electric cord” is a heritage of oppression that the majority racial group inflicts upon minority groups, and identity politics is about assigning and absolving guilt for that oppression. According to this new creed, Americans are not a people defined by their dedication to human equality, but a people defined by their perpetuation of racial and sexual oppression.
This is a rather long article but for your benefit and that of our nation.
For decades, slicing away at human rights and the protections of the Bill of Rights have been not only been happening but in recent years it has moved into a faster forward gear. The right to self-protection is often bundled in the 2nd Amendment but consider self-protection is also protected in the 1st Amendment and that means protecting ourselves with speech, rallies, and peaceful protests.
Big media and big tech are grouping people that are for law and order, that are conservatives, and are loyal Trump supporters because of his doctrine are under assault which is beyond dispute. Big media and big tech are on overt missions to terminate Fox News, NewsMax, OANN, and even social media platforms such as Parler. Just turn on CNN and MSNBC for an hour if you can stand it and the proof is there.
All for the greater good… yeah sure…
Understand that the template for a national lock-down during the beginning of the pandemic, we behaved. We stayed home, we detached ourselves from society, we could not go to church, we could not go to doctor appointments, we could not go to the gym to maintain physical fitness. Dr. Fauci was the expert and we were told to trust the science of the virus. That science changed countless times. Since then, many mayors and governors have mandated closures and sequestration applying slippery facts and slanted science.
Thought, conversation, and dissent is a human right, a civil right. Free movement is as well, a long look back at unalienable rights is your duty. This report from the U.S. State Department summarizes it well.
David Atkins, who wrote in his campaign for the DNC, “I currently serve as the Region 10 Director for the California Democratic Party,” tweeted on Wednesday a message reminiscent of the repressive Communist states around the world: “No seriously…how *do* you deprogram 75 million people? Where do you start? Fox? Facebook? We have to start thinking in terms of post-WWII Germany or Japan. Or the failures of Reconstruction in the South.” Read more here from the DailyWire.
But there is yet another nefarious global policy that is taking hold and you must beware. It is called The Great Reset. It is applying the same template that was used in 2020-21. Your behavior has already been altered, so it stands to reason the global elites and the Biden administration will push that action on all of America.
Biden’s Build back better is a World Economic Forumplan to “reinvent capitalism” so that companies are more focused on the greater good, not profits, according to the WEF‘s own statements. How to accomplish that? By the “great reset.” Again, that’s according to the WEF‘s own words.
Here is a summary for your use by Stacey Rubin, a lawyer, and a former litigator: (I interviewed her on my radio show.)
At any anti-lockdown protest, you will see signs that say “Stop the Great Reset.” The New York Timescalls this phrase “a baseless conspiracy theory.” Here is the problem. None of this is secret. There are books you can read about it and detailed websites describing it. Time Magazine even did a cover story. It’s the title of World Economic Forum head Klaus Schwab’s book on the lockdowns and the future. It was published July 9, 2020, and now has nearly 900 reviews on Amazon.
Proponents of “The Great Reset” argue that the pandemic proves our former society “doesn’t work,” so we need a tech-focused, “sustainable” future to reduce emissions and thereby “save the planet.” The Great Reset is a rebranded, tightened-up version of the UN’s decades-old “Sustainable Development” agenda (“Agenda 21”). The same policies and ideas are contained in “The Green New Deal,” which was defeated in 2019 in the US Congress.
It bears repeating: six months before “SARS-CoV-2” was discovered by China, the UN and the WEF signed a “Strategic Partnership” specifically to advance the “Sustainable Development” agenda, now known as “The Great Reset.” You can read all about this partnership online.
Schwab has been openly “fighting” (to use his own word) against Milton Friedman-style economics for decades, ever since Friedman published his famous 1970 essay: “The Social Responsibility Of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” Schwab now predicts that the “COVID19 pandemic” — which he says will last at least until 2022 — will mark the final death-knell of “neo-liberalism,” which he defines as “a corpus of ideas and policies . . . favoring competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention and economic growth over social welfare.”
Others would describe neoliberalism as “decentralized power and smaller government,” and Schwab’s preferred system as “China under Xi Jinping.”
How long has Schwab known that a pandemic could be used to advance his ideals? A while, if his publications and planning exercises are any indication. His book, COVID-19: The Great Reset contains a lengthy discourse on how pandemics are known agents for major societal shifts. He asks, “Why should COVID-19 be any different?”
This extraordinarily fortuitously-timed pandemic planning exercise makes Schwab look like something of an oracle. Indeed, he openly brags about his foresight:
“For years, international organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), institutions like the World Economic Forum and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI — launched at the Annual Meeting 2017 in Davos), and individuals like Bill Gates have been warning us about the next pandemic risk, even specifying that it: 1) would emerge in a highly populated place where economic development forces people and wildlife together; 2) would spread quickly and silently by exploiting networks of human travel and trade, and 3) would reach multiple countries by thwarting containment.”
In 2017, Anthony Fauci made a similar prediction, declaring that “there is no doubt” that Donald J. Trump “will be confronted with a pandemic” before the end of his term. Like Schwab, Fauci actively promotes lockdowns. Like Schwab, he declares that we can never again return to normal — if we do, we should expect diseases to constantly jump from animals to humans (because pandemics never happened until 2020, when the world grew “too industrialized”). To save ourselves, we must redesign society “in harmony with nature.”
Both Fauci and Schwab’s prose is littered with terms like “sustainability,” “inclusiveness,” “green,” “nature,” and “harmony.” Terms that are hard to disagree with, although the behaviors supposedly promoting them are a harder sell. Schwab reveals in his “Great Reset” book that our new germ-avoidant behaviors are seen as optimal to “the environment:”
During lockdowns, many consumers previously reluctant to rely too heavily on digital applications and services were forced to change their habits almost overnight . . . many of the tech behaviors that we were forced to adopt during confinement will through familiarity become more natural. If health [read: fear of germs] considerations become paramount, we may decide, for example, that a cycling class in front of a screen at home . . . is safer (and cheaper!).
The same reasoning applies to many different domains like flying to a meeting (Zoom is safer, cheaper, greener, and much more convenient), driving to a distant family gathering for the weekend (the WhatsApp family group is not as fun but, again, safer, cheaper and greener) or even attending an academic course (not as fulfilling, but cheaper and more convenient).
Spelling this out for those too stunned to take it in: this is an open admission that it benefits Schwab and Fauci’s political agenda to continue lockdowns as long as possible. The same people who sell interminable lockdowns — by ignoring great science on pre-existing immunity, lack of asymptomatic spread, and flawed PCR tests — believe the lockdowns are the perfect agent to usher in the changes they desire. Will they succeed? Is their behavior remotely justified? Does the pandemic really prove our society is fatally flawed? Why can’t they use the political system to gain majority votes if their agenda is so good?
Covid-19 is the first major pandemic in six decades. Worse pandemics occurred in 1918, 1957, and 1968, when the population was exponentially smaller (1.8 billion; 2.8 billion; and 3.6 billion, respectively) and carbon emissions were not even on anyone’s radar. Because pandemics have always occurred, there is no logical basis — not even a flimsy one — to infer that “population growth,” “climate change” or “industrialization” caused this one.
People may or may not agree with Schwab that Zoom meetings are preferable to in-person work, that sitting in the same house every day of the week is preferable to commuting to an office, that local entertainment is better than international travel, that exercise classes are just as good over the computer screen as they are in a studio. But there is one thing most people agree with: being told that “germs” threaten your existence when they really do not is abusive.
Scaring people into their homes, making them fear their own family and friends, preying on their vulnerabilities, shattering their social existences— especially when you knowingly do this in hopes of making it permanent — is just about as bad as human behavior gets.
Just as bad, Schwab et al. know the lockdowns are “taking out” certain industries while sparing others: in a nutshell, the powerful survive. Anyone who has both this knowledge and the ability to influence lockdown duration has an unthinkable level of power and an unlimited ability to amass more of it by manipulating pretty much the entire global financial system. All of this is eminently predictable by the people encouraging, supporting, and imposing the restrictive orders.
“The [restaurant] sector of activity has been hit by the pandemic [lockdown] to such a dramatic extent that it . . . may never come back. In France and the U.K., several industry voices estimate that up to 75% of independent restaurants might not survive the lockdowns and subsequent social distancing measures. The large chains and fast-food giants will. This in turn suggests that big business will get bigger while the smallest shrink or disappear. A large restaurant chain, for example, has a better chance of staying operational as it benefits from more resources and, ultimately, less competition in the wake of bankruptcies among smaller outfits.”
Knowingly taking out small businesses — one of the last bastions of free speech and independence, distinguishable from the tightly-controlled corporate world — is evil. It is hard to believe anyone would do it, if they could avoid it. However, it is equally hard to ignore the fact that Florida, Georgia, South Dakota, Texas, and Sweden (among many others) have fully open economies and average mortality to show for it.
Both public health ethics and the Siracusa Principles dictate that the “least restrictive means” must be used when “public health” is given as a justification for restricting basic human rights, such as the right to earn a living. Yet Schwab and Fauci both ignore Sweden and Florida and claim that Covid-19 lockdown restrictions must continue until 2022 (or longer). How on earth do they justify it?
They seem to be telling themselves — and may even truly believe — that they are “saving the planet,” so the ends justify the means. In his book, Schwab poses the rhetorical question, “Is it okay to lie to the public for some greater good?” “Well,” I would respond, “who should we trust to decide what is the greater good?” There will never be a unified agreement on which system achieves this end. Some will vote Milton Friedman, some Klaus Schwab. Most everyone, however, would agree that tricks like exploiting pandemics should not be used, even by “one’s own” side.
Reasonable people may well believe in the merit of Schwab’s “stakeholder economy.” But they undoubtedly expect to be persuaded of its merit, not to have the system foisted on them by a ruse. The democratic process exists so ideas can be openly hashed out, debated, and settled by the public, each person allotted one vote. Schwab quite openly admits that he would like to dispense with this process — it is not producing the result he desires. Far from it: recent populist movements in the US (“Make America Great Again”) and UK (“Brexit”) have specifically rejected his collectivist ideals:
“Without greater collaboration, we will be unable to address the global challenges that we collectively face. Put in the simplest possible terms: if, as human beings, we do not collaborate to confront our existential challenges (the environment and the global governance free fall, among others), we are doomed.”
In his “Great Reset” marketing book, Schwab threatens that this rising tide of nationalism will prove “incompatible” with the United States dollar’s “status as a global reserve currency.” He suggests that an alternative currency will be needed, that a global digital currency is eventually going to arrive, and that China is “years ahead of the rest of the world” in developing one.
Although he doesn’t say so directly, Schwab et al. undoubtedly dislike what Trump has been doing to defend the dollar. Schwab quotes Barry Eichengreen and European Central Bank representatives as follows: “The security premium enjoyed by the U.S. dollar could diminish” because “the U.S. is disengaging from global geopolitics in favor of more stand-alone, inward-looking policies.”
Predictably, Schwab makes the argument that these same nationalist policies proved disastrous during “the pandemic.” Echoing the WHO’s praise of China’s collectivist action in Wuhan — which Xi Jinping proudly declares “eradicated the virus” from the entire nation of China — Schwab writes that countries fared better during the pandemic when they share “a real sense of solidarity, favoring the common good over individual aspirations and needs.”
“Favorable societal characteristics [include] core values of inclusivity, solidarity, and trust [which] are strong determining elements and important contributors to success in containing an epidemic.”
Support for these concepts is not a new feeling for Schwab. This did not spring organically out of the pandemic for him, like an epiphany. Rather, this is his long-held vision of utopia and his life’s work. He’s been talking about it for decades:
Earlier this year, Schwab told the Financial Times that his aim has been to beat back Friedman. “What was for me always disturbing was that Milton Friedman gave moral reasoning to shareholder capitalism — [he argued] the role of business was to make the business earn as much as possible and then the money would flow back from the company to the government in the form of taxes. I had to fight against the wave.”
In short, Schwab et al. are on a mission. The mission is to change society. They admire China’s and New Zealand’s governance. They practiced for a pandemic. Science has been thrown to the wind for months, censorship is rampant, Sweden and Florida are ignored, the rule of law is suspended, and certain governors seem determined never to release us from their declared “state of emergency.”
These circumstances are favorable to Schwab and his powerful allies, including technology companies, billionaires, the media, China, the UN, and others. They are detrimental to billions of less powerful, less organized people and small businesses. There is a lot we don’t know because we aren’t being told.
Schwab and his ideologically-aligned allies think they are saving the world. It is not a conspiracy theory to read their own books and listen to their own words, which target fundamental liberties and rights that the West has long taken for granted. At some point, it’s not unreasonable to observe that this is no longer about public health. It’s about a new political vision, one hatched by a private few in order to rule over the many. It is unlikely to be shared by most people, thus setting up what is likely to be an epic battle in 2021.
Former Trump United Nations envoy and former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has noted the obvious, that as Democrats try to weaponize political speeches such as President Trump’s January 6th address to followers, they need to be held accountable for their own rhetoric in a year of Antifa and BLM-led riots, riots which they supported, cheered on, even aided and abetted financially, starting with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. In a tweet Grenell noted:
If @KamalaHarris supported domestic terrorists during the 2020 election then she must be impeached when she takes office.
We must not have someone in office who actively promoted the financing of domestic terror.
Indeed, we must not. “Peacefully and patriotically,” as President Trump urged his supporters to act are not words you heard when progressives like Kamala Harris formed their “resistance” against Trump or as our cities burned in Antifa and BLM-led riots. The George Floyd/BLM protests cost 1-2 billion dollars in damage. They protested in over 140 Cities. Dozens of people died and over 14,000 were arrested, a federal courthouse in Portland was burned, as well as a historic church in Washington, D.C. but only the Capitol Hill protestors threatened our democracy. And Kamala Harris was cheering them on and helping to bail them out of jail.
President Trump gave a fiery political speech on Jan. 6th, but he has done so at scores of political rallies to over a million supporters, none of whom afterward stormed government buildings, assaulted elected officials and cops, damaged, and burned down businesses. No one died at or after any of Trump’s campaign rallies.
A new report claims that the Federal Bureau of Investigation knew one day prior that extremists were planning to infiltrate the Jan. 6 protests in Washington, D.C., that ended in rioting at the U.S. Capitol.
According to The Washington Post, a report from the FBI office in Norfolk, Virginia, contradicts claims that there had been no warnings of the violence that seemed to take Capitol police by surprise.
The FBI warning was reportedly contained in an “internal document” that was issued out the day before the Capitol incursion.
“As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to ‘unlawful lockdowns’ to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington, D.C.,” the document allegedly said.
The New York Times compiled video footage with timestamps to document nearly every moment of the Jan. 6th siege of the Capitol building in Washington D.C.:
The timeline shows that the violence at the Capitol building began 20 minutes before Trump finished his speech that Wednesday afternoon.
The vital events of that day took place in an approximately two hour period from roughly 1 pm to after 3 pm.
The President delivered a speech to his supporters at a rally dubbed the “Save America March,” from the ellipse in front of the White House. The speech lasted about an hour.
Roughly 20 minutes before the end of his speech is when scuffles began to break out between protesters and police on Capitol Hill, according to the NYT’s timeline.
Police could be seen about 1 pm holding off groups of violent protesters pushing up against the thin police line in front of the Capitol steps. This was when the first police barriers were reportedly breached by the mob.
Kamala Harris looked at the year-long 2020 carnage, the attacks on federal buildings, and the riotous anarchy approvingly and noted they would and should continue. As PJ Media reported:
In June 2020, in the aftermath of the nationwide rioting following the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer, Kamala Harris even gleefully predicted that the protests, during which rioting and looting occurred, wouldn’t end, telling Stephen Colbert, host of The Late Show, that they shouldn’t end.
“They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop,” she told him. “This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop. And everyone beware because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that. They’re not gonna let up and they should not.”
That, ladies and gentlemen, the only two genders there are, is what you call an incitement to riot As I’ve written previously, legal scholar and former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who defended Trump during his first impeachment, says there is a big and constitutionally protected difference between advocacy and incitement to riot and that Trump did no such thing.. He would defend Trump again, said Dershowitz:
“It would be my honor if asked to defend the constitution once again against unconstitutional attempts to weaponize impeachment for partisan purposes,” Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz said that what Trump said during the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol was protected by the First Amendment and is, therefore, not an impeachable offense.
“Everything he said was fully protected by the First Amendment and cannot be deemed an impeachable offense,” he said. “To impeach him for a protected speech would violate both the First Amendment and the impeachment clause.”
President Donald J. Trump, as PJMedia points out, never called in his Jan. 6th address to some of his 75 million supporters for “unrest in the streets” as “Squad” member Ayanna Pressley, for example, did earlier in cheering on the “resistance” to the Trump administration :
Do you still need more proof that Democrats have been advocates of political violence for some time?
In August of last year, Squad member Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), said there should be “unrest in the streets” over President Trump and the GOP for turning a “deaf ear” to Americans’ concerns.
“This is as much about public outcry, organizing and mobilizing and applying pressure so that this GOP-led Senate and these governors that continue to carry water for this administration, putting American people in harm’s way, turning a deaf ear to the needs of our families and our communities – hold them accountable,” she said.
“Make the phone calls, send the emails, show up,” she continued. “You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives.”
Also encouraging mob violence and in-your-face aggressive confrontation was none other than Rep. Maxine Waters. Early on Rep. Maxine Waters has embraced the civilized concept of mob rule:
On Saturday night, California Congresswoman Maxine Waters encouraged the type of recent protests against President Trump as seen in several Washington, DC, and Virginia area restaurants, saying that she has “no sympathy” for those who serve in the administration and that the public should “turn on them” and “absolutely harass” White House officials while they are doing normal everyday activities. …
Rep. Waters then went further, adding that members of the Trump administration who continue to serve and defend the president should be harangued at gas stations, restaurants, and while shopping at department stores. “They know what they are doing is wrong,” said Rep. Waters. And for that, the public should ridicule and protest them every chance they get, according to the California congresswoman.
Donald Trump did not call for unending unrest in the streets but the likes of Ayanna Presley, Kamala Harris, and a score of other Democrats did. Harris did more than urge unrest in the streets. She urged supporters to contribute financially to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to keep these murderous rioters on the streets by bailing them out of jail if they were somehow arrested by reluctant Democratic mayors: As The Federalist reports:
Yes, that’s right, the Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate was a huckster for a bail fund that sought to free violent criminals who were rioting on the streets of Minneapolis, and she was very effective at it. In the wake of deadly fires and looting, Harris asked her five million-plus Twitter followers to donate money to bail out the “protesters” arrested in the riots. Let’s meet a few of the beneficiaries of her largesse, shall we? Fox 9 News in Minneapolis did the research for us. Here are a few of the criminals they found Harris did a solid for. Among those bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) is a suspect who shot at police, a woman accused of killing a friend, and a twice-convicted sex offender, according to court records reviewed by the FOX 9 Investigators.
According to attempted murder charges, Jaleel Stallings shot at members of a SWAT Team during the riots in May. Police recovered a modified pistol that looks like an AK-47. MFF paid $75,000 in cash to get Stallings out of jail.
Darnika Floyd is charged with second-degree murder, for stabbing a friend to death. MFF paid $100,000 cash for her release.
Christopher Boswell, a twice-convicted rapist, is currently charged with kidnapping, assault, and sexual assault in two separate cases. MFF paid $350,00 [sic] in cash for his release.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if they all got to vote by absentee ballot without any signature verification? These are the violent criminal predators that Kamala Harris bailed out and urged on and that Joe Biden, the author of the 1994 crime bill that unfairly incarcerated a generation of young black males, refused to condemn.
Hypocritical Kamala Harris has supported domestic terrorism. Impeach her.
*Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.
Corey Lewandowski, the senior adviser to President Trump, is being quoted as saying there will be a “big backlash” to Democratic control of both Congress and the White House in the midterm elections in 2022. Referring to the 2022 midterms, Rush Limbaugh told his audience. “…it is still the only avenue you have.” But columnist Vic Biorseth of Catholic American Thinker responds, “I have my doubts about that. All the fraudulent business is still in place.” He’s referring to the election fraud machinery.
That was demonstrated in the Georgia special Senate elections. John Gizzi, a veteran political reporter now with Newsmax, cites two reasons for the GOP defeats. First, Georgia’s Republican establishment, led by Gov. Brian Kemp, didn’t fight for President Donald Trump in his recount efforts. Regarding the Senate races, Gizzi notes, Kemp refused to call a special session to tighten voter identification rules, require signature verification, and stop drop boxes. And second, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, was clearly aligned with the Democrats to thwart Trump.
Citing these and other reasons, Gizzi says enthusiasm for the Republican candidates in runoffs on the part of “Trump conservatives” was clearly depressed.
“The failure of the majority leader [Mitch McConnell] to back up any of the president’s claims about vote-stealing in Georgia and his early congratulations of Joe Biden as president-elect fueled Trump supporters’ animosity toward him,” he added.
With a Republican establishment at odds with the president and unwilling to clean up the system and restore election integrity, the political environment was open to a Democratic Party takeover of the Senate and the creation of a one-party state.
In addition to failing to expose and stop fraudulent elections, the Republicans have been ineffective in stopping Big Tech censorship, now accelerating as the Democrats implement one-party control of the government. My own group America’s Survival has been prohibited by Weebly, our website provider, from even sending emails from a service that we paid for. We were told their “policy” was the reason. Weebly is owned by Square, run by Jack Dorsey of Twitter. Several different email services are banning conservatives.
You can be sure that modern-day Marxists applied communist Jan Kozak’s lessons to America.
In How Parliament Can Play a Revolutionary Part in Transition to Socialism, he described the communist takeover of Czechoslovakia and declared:
The new conditions which are the consequence of the profound objective and subjective changes in the world create also new opportunities and prospects for the socialist revolution, new avenues as far as the forms of transition to socialism are concerned. In a number of countries which are particularly weakened by the conflicts within the capitalist order, the opportunity has arisen for the workers’ class to place itself firmly at the head of great popular movements for national independence, democracy, peace, and socialism, to defeat the reactionary anti-people forces striving for the maintenance, and aggravation of national oppression and exploitation, to win a decisive majority in Parliament and to change it from all organ of the bourgeois democracy into an organ of power for the democracy of working people, into a direct instrument of power for the peaceful development of the socialist revolution.
Also, our experience provides notable and practical proof that it is possible to transform parliament from an instrument of the bourgeoisie into an instrument of the revolutionary democratic will of the people and into an instrument for the development of the socialist revolution.
Of course, as Trump had consistently warned, the Covid-19 pandemic provided another excuse for the Democrats to rig the system.
Good conservatives are proposing packages of legislative election reforms, such as requiring IDs and proof of citizenship to vote, drastically limiting mail-in ballots, banning electronic ballots, and so forth. Such efforts on the state level might be a good organizing tool.
Others are saying that conservatives must get on the ground floor of a third-party movement. One predicts the Rockefeller branch of the two-party system, also known as the Republican Party, will go the way of the Whigs.
Consider that only eight Senators — Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Rick Scott (R-FL), Roger Marshall (R-KS), John Kennedy (R-LA), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) — followed through with objections to fraudulent vote counts. This seems to reflect the fact that the Republican Party did not want to fight for electoral integrity.
History shows that the Republican Party was created as the Whig Party had become a carbon copy of the pro-plantation-slavery Democrat Party. Pundits at the time said the new Republican Party was going to fizzle and flop but just six years later elected Abraham Lincoln as President.
The lead proponent of the Recall Gavin Newsom effort in California discusses the massive positive public response to the drive to evict the governor from office. Orrin Heatlie describes the damage done to California by Newsom’s far-left policies and says their successful campaign could spark similar efforts in other states. Go to www.recallgavin2020.com.
Donate to NoisyRoom.net
Support American Values...