Joe Biden’s Latest Ad Is Ridiculous, But It May Be More Effective Than We Want to Admit

Article by Bonchie in "RedState":

Joe Biden is out with a new ad, and it’s as creepy and ridiculous as you’d expect it to be. After all, this is a guy famous for sniffing the hair of random children.

In the ad is a series of shots of people being firefighters, nurses, etc. intertwined with shots of kids being taken care of. The thrust of the presentation is summarized by a promise from Biden.

Here’s my promise to you: If I have the honor of being elected president, I will take care of your family like I would my own.

Joe Biden

@JoeBiden

Here's my promise to you: If I have the honor of being elected president, I will take care of your family like I would my own.

My first reaction was the reaction of most conservatives, i.e. a desire make fun of it. I mean, Biden didn’t do so hot with his son Hunter so this might not be the best take from him.

Besides, who elects a President because they want him to be some faux father like figure? Who wants to give government the power to “take care of” your family when that power is so easily abused? On the surface, this ad is an affront to everything America has stood for. Individualism, hard work, and a belief in a society that won’t produce perfectly equitable outcomes, but that gives everyone a chance to get ahead is cast aside so Biden can frame you as his child. It’s just weird on so many levels.

Yet, I’m not sure it’s ineffective.

One of the great failures of conservatism in the last 20 years is the mistaken belief that everyone either thinks like us or will eventually come around to thinking like us. We’ve largely ignored the transformation of the school system, for example, while clinging to the idea that everyone who grows old gets more conservative. We assume agreeing with our ideals, which are ultimately American ideals, is just part of the natural progression. Sure, Johnny Boy may be a communist right now, but eventually he’ll get into the real world and figure it out. But will he?

The more I look at the current political and cultural landscape, the less convinced I am that an ad like this from Biden doesn’t actually speak to a sizable amount of the country. A lot of people want to be “taken care of” because conservatives have completely failed to deliver a counter message to that desire. We’ve gotten pummeled in the culture wars, and this is ultimately a cultural issue, largely because the movement has refused to even engage.

I’ll give you an example from this morning. Trump went on Twitter and said this about the radical leftward politics being pushed in the university system.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education. Therefore, I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status...

 

What was the “conservative” response? It wasn’t to focus on the cardinal issue, i.e. that universities are turning kids into left-wing revolutionaries that want to destroy the country. Instead, many conservatives rushed to bash Trump for daring to even suggest something be done about it. As a practical matter, being tax-exempt in this case is legally reliant on these organizations remaining political neutral, just as churches are required to be. Yet, these universities clearly aren’t, and in many cases are openly hostile to Republican viewpoints, both in what they allow to be done to conservative students and via their on campus policies.

Regardless, I’m not bringing this up to argue the issue to whatever solution might be settled on. You can think that Trump’s suggestion goes too far (but you better have a better plan). Rather, I’m pointing out the predictable reflex by conservatives to not even engage in cultural battles like this out of some misguided illusion of principle. Instead, they’d rather virtue signal about how much they respect the supposed non-political nature of the IRS. It’s so on brand that it’s scary, and that brand is failing.

That reflex I mentioned is why the society is where it is right now. It’s why rioting and destruction of our history are not only being tolerated, but encouraged. Conservative chose not to fight and now they are living with the results of the occupation.

A desire for basic America ideals has been overwhelmed with the kind of daddy-government socialism being constantly promoted by the left today, and conservatives have failed miserably to combat it. So while I’d love to just laugh at Biden’s latest ad, I’m fearful it may be more effective than we want to admit.


https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/07/10/joe-bidens-latest-ad-is-ridiculous-but-it-may-be-more-effective-we-want-to-admit/

NYPD Places Limits on Retirements After 'Troubling' 400 Percent Surge

 

Article by Rick Moran in "PJMedia":

New York City police officers are feeling abandoned by their department and by city leaders and are showing their displeasure and hopelessness by filing for retirement.

The Hill:

In the last week alone, 179 NYPD officers have filed for retirement compared to 35 in 2019, the department told The Hill.
Since May 25 — the day that George Floyd died while in Minneapolis police custody — 503 NYPD officers have filed for retirement, compared to 287 who filed for retirement during the same period last year.

It’s gotten so bad that the department is now limiting the number of officers who can file for retirement. The pension office has been so overwhelmed that they are only accepting 40 applications a day.

Independent:

One officer told the Post that they have had so many applications that the pension office has had to limit the number of appointments to around 40 a day.
“Apparently, the pension section is only taking a certain amount of people per day and I think they are backed up till late July, early August,” one officer said. “That’s why you don’t see like 100 a day, because they are only doing like 35 to 40 a day, by appointment.”

Well, Mr. Mayor, that’s one way to “defund the police.”

It appears that most of the officers retiring are among the most experienced on the force.

CNN:

The increase in retirements is a loss to New Yorkers, according to Paul DiGiacomo, president of the Detectives’ Endowment Association.
“The increase in detectives and other cops filing for retirement comes as no shock,” DiGiacomo said. “No one wants to come to work every day and be demoralized and vilified as they risk their lives to protect people.”
“New Yorkers are losing their most experienced crime fighters because of continued violence in the city and the apathy of misguided elected officials,” DiGiacomo said.

Being vilified and abandoned by the public is one thing. But if the department and the city’s political leaders had their backs, most police officers would be able to cope with the public’s hate.

But in New York and elsewhere, radical politicians like Mayor de Blasio and spineless department leaders have left their officers hanging out to dry, too frightened of the mob to stand up for them, calculating the political cost of supporting them.

Adding to the cops’ woes is the “bail reform” that releases most suspects immediately after they’re caught.

New York Post:

A Manhattan detective also noted the impact of controversial criminal justice and bail reform laws.
“It is frustrating — you work on a case and then the suspect is let go,” the 25-year veteran said.
“Why put your job on the line, when no one appreciates you or has your back?”

The leader of the police union was even blunter.

In a prepared statement, the head of the Police Benevolent Association blamed lawmakers for having “completely dismantled our justice system” and called the rash of retirement applications “one answer to the question on every police officer’s mind: How are we supposed to do our job in this environment?”
“And now that crime is out of control, they want to blame us for that, too,” PBA president Pat Lynch said.

Eventually, the stupidity of the “defund the police” movement will be exposed and the backlash will once again favor the cop on the beat. With murders and other violent crime spiraling out of control in major cities, it’s only a matter of time before even black communities will be calling for more police.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/07/10/nypd-retirements-up-400-percent-in-troubling-surge-n629057

Trump: Defund ‘Radical Left’ Universities; Orders Review of Tax-exempt Status

Article by Joel B. Pollack in "Breitbart":

President Donald Trump tweeted Friday that he had told the U.S. Treasury to review the tax-exempt status of schools and universities that had become vehicles for left-wing indoctrination.

“Too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education,” Trump wrote. “Therefore, I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status … and/or Funding, which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues. Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated!”

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education. Therefore, I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status...

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Replying to @realDonaldTrump

... and/or Funding, which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues. Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated!

Conservatives have long observed that American higher education has become increasingly left-wing. Data from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education documents that conservative speakers are targeted for “dis-invitation” from campus far more often than liberal ones. College curricula also emphasize and reward left-wing ideas, and faculty members are overwhelmingly left-wing and liberal.

The results of that education, conservative critics say, is evident in the recent Black Lives Matter protests, where graduates of elite universities have been among the rioters attacking police and tearing down statues.

Last month, two lawyers, one with a degree from Princeton, were arrested for throwing Molotov cocktails into police cars in New York.

Last March, President Trump signed an executive order that threatened colleges and universities with the withdrawal of federal research funding if they did not respect First Amendment rights to free speech.

https://www.breitbart.com/education/2020/07/10/trump-defund-radical-left-universities-orders-review-of-tax-exempt-status/

President Trump Phone Interview With Sean Hannity

President Trump calls-in to Sean Hannity to discuss the latest headline news. Topics include Democrats’ plans to defund the police, Joe Biden’s bid for the presidency, coronavirus, the economy, and much more.

3 States Account for...

Fee.org

3 States Account for 

42 Percent of All COVID-19 Deaths in America. Why?

Despite the recent coronavirus surge in southern states, three states—New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts—account for about 42 percent of COVID-19 deaths in America. Why?

Jon Miltimore

Thursday, July 9, 2020

In a recent article in The Atlantic, Thomas Chatterton Williams decried America’s handling of the coronavirus.

The words “utter disaster” are used, and Williams, an expatriate, contrasts America’s response to that of France, where he currently lives.

“As Donald Trump’s America continues to shatter records for daily infections, France, like most other developed nations and even some undeveloped ones, seems to have beat back the virus,” Williams writes.

To be sure, the US response to the coronavirus was far from perfect (more on that later). But the article shows one of the challenges with this pandemic: even as more data is acquired, the picture doesn’t always get clearer.

In some ways, COVID-19 data are like a Rorschach blot from which writers, politicians, and experts can glean whatever conclusions they wish to find. Take Sweden, where daily COVID-19 deaths recently reached zero.

According to Newsweek editorial director Hank Gilman, Sweden’s “lighter touch” approach was a failure because seven times as many people died there than in neighboring Scandnavian countries such as Finland and Norway. He is not alone in the assessment.

On the other hand, Sweden suffered far fewer deaths per capita than several European neighbors that instituted strict lockdowns—including Belgium, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom—and has avoided some of the economic fallout other nations have endured. Unlike other countries, its currency is growing stronger.

Indeed, Sweden’s death rate is remarkably close to that of France, which Williams praised as a model in contrast to the “utter disaster” in the US. However, the US actually has a lower per capita death rate than both Sweden and France—at least for now. (While it’s true COVID cases are on the rise again in the US, deaths recently reached three-month lows.)

This raises questions about how we measure success in the age of COVID-19. While most attention is being paid to rising case numbers, death tolls would seem to be the most important metric. While US deaths per capita (401/1M) put the country among the ten highest in the world—ahead of France and Sweden, but just below the Netherlands—those numbers also don’t tell the entire story.

Few may have noticed that 42 percent of all COVID deaths in the US come from just three states—New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. These three states account for nearly 56,000 of the nearly 133,000 deaths in the US, even though they represent just 10 percent of the population. If these three states are excluded, the US suddenly finds itself somewhere in between nations such as Luxembourg (176/1M) and Macedonia (166/1M), where some of the better fatality numbers in Europe are found.

Why have New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts suffered so much more than other US states? We don’t yet know the answer to that question, but evidence suggests it could be policy related.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo earlier this year received a great deal of criticism when the state’s policy of prohibiting nursing homes from screening residents for COVID-19 came to light. Cuomo eventually reversed that decision under intense criticism from public health experts and trade group leaders.

This week, the New York State Department of Health issued a report that concluded 6,326 COVID-positive residents were admitted to nursing homes between March 25 and May 8 as a result of the order.

”The data shows that the nursing home residents got COVID from the staff, and presumably, also from those who visited them. Unfortunately, we did not understand the disease early on, we did not realize how widespread it was within our community, and therefore, it was able to be introduced into a vulnerable population,” said New York Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker.

The report, however, also claimed that “most patients admitted to nursing homes from hospitals were no longer contagious when admitted and therefore were not a source of infection … [and] … nursing home quality was not a factor in nursing home fatalities.”

The report cites the high nursing home fatality rates of Massachusetts and New Jersey as additional evidence that New York was not an outlier in nursing home deaths.

“...an examination of fatalities in our neighboring states—despite having populations much smaller than New York’s—illustrates fatalities at these facilities were not a New York-specific phenomenon: Connecticut reports 3,124 deaths in these facilities, New Jersey reports 6,617, and Massachusetts reports 5,115, to New York’s 6,432 fatalities.”

However, it’s worth noting that both New Jersey and Massachusetts had similar policies in place, according to the AARP and other news stories. Moreover, the actual number of nursing home deaths in New York is difficult to know, since New York changed its reporting so that nursing home residents who die of COVID-19 are not counted as a nursing home death if they die at a hospital.

The context of the US numbers matters for several reasons. For one, understanding why New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have suffered so much more from the coronavirus may hold keys to combating the virus.

Secondly, there is currently a great deal of scrutiny on states such as Florida, Texas, and Arizona, which have seen case numbers increase in recent weeks, a spike that began in mid-June after states reopened their economies. The implication is that these states dropped the ball by reopening too soon.

None of these states, however, has a per capita fatality rate that even approaches New Jersey, Massachusetts, or New York. Below are the figures as of July 7.

Deaths per million:

• New Jersey: 1,728.7
• New York: 1,660
• Massachusetts: 1,189
• Arizona: 265
• Florida: 179
• Texas: 94
• 
  

Considering these numbers, one would not expect to see a governor from New Jersey, New York, or Massachusetts lecture these other states on their handling of the coronavirus. But that’s exactly what Gov. Cuomo did, claiming his state-ordered lockdown “saved lives” and chastening governors who opened their economies.

“I say to them all look at the numbers,” Cuomo said, referring to leaders in the states seeing rises in COVID-19 cases. “You played politics with this virus, and you lost. You told the people of this state, you told the people of this country, the White House, ‘Don’t worry about it. Go about your business.’”

Cuomo makes no mention of the social costs of the economic lockdowns—mass unemployment, widespread bankruptcy, and surging mental healthdeterioration, drug abuse, and global poverty. Nor does he mention his state’s catastrophically high COVID death toll.

The extent to which policy decisions are linked to the high fatality rates in these states is still unknown. We’re in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic and still learning about the virus. But that is precisely why lawmakers should exercise caution in their policy prescriptions.

In his 1974 Nobel Prize speech, the economist F.A. Hayek warned against the temptation to use collective action with incomplete knowledge, saying such action would likely cause more harm than good.

“To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm,” Hayek stated. “The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”

Hayek saw a world that increasingly seemed to believe central planners could solve any and all social problems. Such a worldview carried the seed of great harm, he believed.

We don’t yet know how this pandemic or economic collapse will end, but some have predicted it shaping up to be a blunder of historic proportions.

“The first half of 2020 will go down in history as the largest nationwide public policy failure since the Great Depression,” the economic historian Phil Magness recently observed. “A part of that failure derives from the largest wide-scale suppression of economic and social liberties in most of our lifetimes, all executed to negligible effect at solving the problem it intended to target.”

If Magness is correct, the crisis, though tragic, may also offer a healthy dose of an elixir Hayek would say humans desperately need: humility.

“The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society,” Hayek concluded in his address.

The lockdowns and the nursing home tragedies show just how destructive and fatal such striving to control society can be.

The Progressive Left Is Becoming Blatantly Racist

posted by David Marcus at The Federalist

By and large, conservatives have taken a nuanced approach to the progressive attempt to redefine racism. This new definition crafted over the past few decades, mainly in the academy, states that racism is not a question of animosity or feelings of superiority towards a racial group but rather a matter of privilege and systems. Under this rubric racism is not about individual actions, but rather support for “systems of oppression.”

But there is a key difference in the way that the left and the right have engaged in this dialogue. Progressives have no trouble at all saying that people who reject their newspeak version of racism are in fact racist. Up until now conservatives have largely resisted reaching the logical conclusion of their definition of racism, which is essentially discrimination based on skin color. That has to change now. The blatant racial bigotry of the left must be called out. It is no longer an esoteric academic debate; it is a crisis that threatens to tear the country apart.

Take this tweet from Farnaz Fassihi, a journalist at the New York Times, in reaction to a letter calling for an end to cancel culture.

"The Letter" was shaped/spearheaded from conversations by
four privileged white men. Apparently they felt entitled to really weigh in on racism, diversity & inclusion.
That says it all.https://t.co/gGxdq5kmyN

— Farnaz Fassihi (@farnazfassihi) July 8, 2020

Allow me to be blunt. This tweet is patently, obviously and indisputably racist. The content of the letter is irrelevant to Fassihi. All she needs to know is the color of the skin of the people who spearheaded it to know that she not only disagrees with it, but must call it out. Refusing to engage with someone’s ideas because of their skin color is racist. All the post-modern and critical race theory mumbo jumbo in the world cannot change that basic fact.

The only way one could look approvingly at this tweet that boldly states that Fassihi chooses to ignore ideas from people based on their skin color is if one believes, as many progressives do, that racism against white people is impossible. This proposition is an absolute absurdity. Under this premise it is not racist to say, “I hate all white people and wish them harm.” If that statement isn’t racist then what it is exactly?

This pernicious excusing of blatant racism is no longer simply a controversial trend in academia. Our children, as young as grade school, are being taught to judge others and themselves based on skin color. That is nothing short of an abomination. Anybody who believes in equality and justice must completely reject this system that values or devalues individuals on the basis of race. Its frankly incredible and alarming that we even have to discuss that.

Someone who will look you in the eye and say “I am not a racist, I just value your opinion less because of your skin color,” is not only engaged in enormous self-deception. They are engaged in a project to exchange the very concept of “meaning” for power. The reason that George Orwell’s newspeak maxims like “war is peace” are paradoxes of ideas opposed to each other is that all words must be redefined so that it is only possible to say what the Party accepts.

I have spent several years attempting to engage the left in a conversation about racism and how we understand, tackle and defeat it. I have come to the conclusion that most of them have absolutely no interest in having this conversation and are much more comfortable just pointing fingers and screaming racism to gain power.

So let me make my position perfectly clear. If you value someone or their ideas more or less because of their skin color you are a racist. That is what the word means. That is what the word has always meant. If we reach the point where words have no meaning as Orwell predicted, then we cannot be free, freedom is predicated upon a mutual understanding of reality. Today’s left is destroying that understanding and it needs to be challenged. It needs to be challenged aggressively and it needs to be challenged now.

Why Do So Many White Women Hate Themselves?

Amid societal unrest, woke white women are proving to be a brainwashed force to be reckoned with.

by Stella Morabito for The Federalist

Some might find it odd that so many seemingly middle-class, young, white women are taking up street theater with a vengeance. We’ve seen the woke white woman spitting harangues into the faces of police officers, including black officers, trying to lecture and shame them into obedience.

We saw many of them acting up in the “autonomous zone” of CHAZ or CHOP in Seattle, condescendingly guarding a “blacks only” area. We’ve also seen these women physically attacking those they deem the enemy, including a Democrat state legislator in Wisconsin. A 29-year-old white woman was arrested for setting fire to the Wendy’s restaurant in Atlanta after the police altercation and shooting there last month. Another was filmed setting fire to police cars. The list goes on.

Some observers see all of this as a contradiction. Since the “woke white woman” tends to be college-educated, many think she must be smart. Since she comes from a middle- or even upper-class suburban background, people assume she must be emotionally stable. Because she is socially aware, she must be interested in trying to understand people as individual human beings. How is it that such a woman can so easily become an arsonist, a terrorist, a mobster, and a taunter of black police officers?

She shows none of the positive traits expected of her. Her commitment to identity politics demands she reject people as unique human beings. Since she insists racism is “systemic,” she is forever guilty and therefore cannot be emotionally stable. In her obedience to the coercive thought reform of the education establishment, she has surrendered the right to think independently.

Other observers don’t see contradictions, but a catty and spoiled girl whose main pursuit is the collection of status points — of which the latest method is to pose as an ally of the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement. She could be the one giving you the finger as she cuts you off in her Mercedes, and her natural habitat is the public middle school where she is forever stuck scanning the landscape for winners and losers.

The woke white woman seems to come from the ranks of both the conflicted and the narcissistic. Even a woman without these problems, however, can be seduced into the wokeness cult mindset.

The Product of a Cult Initiation

What caused the woke white woman to break onto the scene? For the sake of illustration, let’s revisit an extreme case of initiation, the case of Patty Hearst. Aside from being a newspaper heiress, Hearst was an average 19-year-old college undergrad looking forward to marrying her boyfriend. Within a couple months, however, she took part in a bank robbery while wielding an assault rifle. What happened in the interim?

Hearst was kidnapped by terrorists of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) in February 1974. They isolated her in a closet and put her through Maoist-style indoctrination sessions, schooling her in “white privilege” and “systemic racism” even though those terms were not yet in wide circulation. They explained to her that “Amerikkka” was a racist and evil society. Day after day, they called her a privileged “bourgeoise bitch” and her father a “pig of the corporate fascist state.” She duly memorized the propaganda they assigned her, and though she was harassed and even raped, she was also fed and sheltered.

Isolation and predatory alienation were key to Hearst’s transformation. Separated from any familiar influences, she became totally dependent on her captors and bonded with them. Once cemented, that Stockholm Syndromebond is not easily broken. When Hearst agreed to join the SLA after six weeks in captivity, she emerged with the new identity “Tania” and publicly disavowed her family.

After most of the active SLA members were killed weeks later in a shootoutwith police, Hearst had countless opportunities to simply walk away. Instead, she remained a fugitive with a small SLA remnant for the next 16 months. She later said her brainwashing was so thorough that she had no free will, no sense of self, and couldn’t think her own thoughts.

The Art of Grooming the Woke White Woman

Granted, the typical woke white woman today is not Patty Hearst. But we ought to ask about similar forms of persuasion that are common in the constant propaganda that grooms her in K-12 and higher education, and from media and celebrities. After years of constant messaging — particularly with the vilification of the enemy “other” — certain psychological patterns and scripts are bound to sink in.

We should be able to discern several parallels between the indoctrination of Hearst and today’s woke white woman. For example, although not literally locked in a closet, the woke white woman is exposed to various types of diversity training and white privilege workshops. Similar gaslighting and guilt-mongering are common elements of struggle sessions, and themes such as “racist!” and “America is evil!” are common. Stark accusations against self and homeland are psychologically manipulative and destabilizing to one’s sense of identity.

Hearst’s experience included memorization and other indoctrination exercises typical of Chinese brainwashing of American prisoners during the Korean War. The “White Fragility” craze constantly imposes such exercises in academia, the media, and pop culture. The woke white woman even experiences a similar sense of isolation because exploring any different viewpoint could get her shunned and smeared. As with Hearst, the woke white woman is more likely to disown any friends and family who don’t get with the program.

Finally, she becomes a deployable agent for the cause, willing to engage in out-of-character activities once she crosses the Rubicon and joins up with the Marxist Black Lives Matter cult.

She cannot seem to find any outlets that allow any alternative view. Big Tech and media propaganda constantly threaten her with social isolation and guilt by association if she dares go off script. Cultural trash such as Teen Voguetells her exactly what she must say, think, and do to qualify as an “ally,” her only hope for social acceptance.

She must endlessly address “systemic racism” and identify as socialist to be woke. Her emotional to-do list seems as endless and exhausting as the to-do list for the residents of Jonestown.

Creatures of the Zeitgeist

The woke white woman is a chameleon when facing the threat of social rejection. This sensitivity, as well as her newfound social consciousness, positions her as an effective influencer. Out she goes to engage in mayhem and commit emotional blackmail on behalf of the wokeness cult.

There’s nothing new about emotional blackmail, but there is something new in how it is being used so blatantly to force people to support the Marxist Black Lives Matter chaos. Many are cutting off friends and family if they don’t agree that racism is systemic (and therefore unsolvable). The woke daughter of a candidate for office in Michigan recently tweeted, “[D]o not vote for my dad,” and collected many “you go, girl” status points in response.

As such women sniff the wind for signs of wokeness, they compromise all principles of objective morality. Not too long ago, these same women may well have shuddered at the prospect of injecting their children with puberty blockers, but now that transgenderism is de rigueur in K-12 and pop culture, these same women will pat themselves on the back as they march their kids into gender clinics and surgeries.

The problem with following the zeitgeist winds is that they can blow in horrific directions. The psychological mechanism that drives the woke white woman of 2020 into Black Lives Matter obedience is the same mechanism that would have driven her into the National Socialist Women’s League of Nazi Germany in 1941. It might sound weird, but both appeal to the same forces: craving for status, the need for belonging, obedience to overwhelming propaganda, hatred of a common perceived enemy, terror of being lumped in with the “unfit,” fear of shunning by the in-group, and rejection of objective morality.

A final critical question is an unsettling one: Where does the woke white woman draw the line? If she can be an arsonist, a provocateur of black police officers, and an easy fit for a mob, then what else would she do? Would she be a kindred spirit with Charles Dickens’ character Madame Defarge and support mass executions of her perceived enemies? If executions turn out to be the woke thing, widely propagandized as the only solution for systemic racism, should we be the least bit surprised if she were?

Many more of us must challenge the menace of this psychological weaponry embedded in today’s turmoil. If we don’t, the agitprop machine of Big Tech, the education system, and the media will continue to manufacture these manipulations in an endless feedback loop, with ever more catastrophic consequences.

Before Y’all Sign On to...

by Lloyd Marcus The Unhyphenated American

Black America: 

Before Y'all Sign On to BLM...

During the opening monologue of his show, Arsenio Hall included a running gag titled, “Things that make you say hmmm.” To my fellow blacks, here are things that should make you say “hmmm” about Black Lives Matter.

BLM's mission statement says they want to destroy the nuclear family. Rejecting BLM's war on the family, black former NFL star Marcellus Wiley offered these stats. “Children from single-parent homes verses two-parent homes. Children from single-parent homes are 5 times more likely to commit suicide -- 6 times more likely to be in poverty -- 9 times more likely to drop out of school – 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances – 14 times more likely to commit rape – 20 times more likely to end up in prison and 32 times more likely to run away from home.” 

BLM's founders admit they are “trained Marxists.” These disciples of Karl Marx have launched a revolution against capitalism to implement socialism which will morph into communism. Communism means elites dictate every aspect of your life. They sucker you in by promising everything for free. Their promise always falls short because someone has to work to produce goods and services. When government confiscates the majority of what you earn to redistribute equally to people who do nothing, human nature asks why should you bust your butt? Communist dictators live high on the hog while the people live on the crumbs that fall from their table. Do you see anything related to George Floyd or empowering blacks in BLM's Marxist agenda?

To please BLM, Democrat city councils, mayors, and governors have begun disbanding, defunding, and ordering their police to stand down. Mainstream media (fake news media) won't tell y'all this, but when the police go away, black folks suffer most. Consequently, in six weeks there have been six hundred murders, mostly blacks killing blacks, in Democrat-controlled cities; New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, and Baltimore. 

For years, black-on-black homicides continue to reach record-breaking numbers in Democrat cities. Why isn't BLM dealing with this real issue costing black lives? How come black lives only matter when they are killed by a rare white person?

This will come as a shock, but rock-solid data confirms that police have been the greatest defenders of black lives for several years. Fake news media and Democrats lie about everything; using y'all as useful idiots. They have manufactured extreme racial unrest hoping blacks will blame Trump and vote for Biden.

Systemic racism is a lie. Blacks are only 13% of the population. Therefore, white America voted for the first black president two times. Oprah is worth $2.6 billion. Can we please stop the systemic racism nonsense?

Before the COVID hysteria, Trump had blacks experiencing unprecedented prosperity and historic low unemployment. Why did Democrats and BLM worked so hard to destroy Trump's booming economy? Answer: BLM said their top priority is to force Trump to resign. Screw black jobs and prosperity. BLM burned down black businesses, chased businesses from black areas; suicides, domestic violence, and black suffering has skyrocketed due to BLM's and Democrats' joint efforts to crush the economy to get Trump out of office.

Sacrificing babies in worship to a false god, BLM and Democrats strongly support and defend Planned Parenthood. Do y'all know PP was founded by racist Margaret Sanger? Sanger thought blacks were inferior and must be exterminated. In a 1939 letter Sanger wrote, “We don't want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population...”

Still today, 70% of PP dead-baby chop-shops (they illegally sell the parts for profit) are located in black neighborhoods.  Black women are only 14% of the child-birthing population and yet 36% of all U.S. abortions are black babies.  Blacks are engaged in their own genocide via abortion. Why do those black lives not matter?

It truly amazes me that so many corporations, Democrat politicians, fake news media, and Christians have no problem with the glaring reverse racism demanded by BLM. BLM is a cult whose zealots demand that whites actually kneel in worship and beg forgiveness for being white. Is this what Jesus wants?

BLM operatives have white middle school students hating themselves, taught that they were born racist. Does Jesus want people (kids) hating themselves? BLM had a sportscaster fired for daring to say, “all lives matter.” Jesus sacrificed his life on the cross because all lives matter. If you support BLM's racist mandates and agenda, the love of Christ is not in you. Your Christianity emits a putrid odor.

So there you have it. I have given you several easy to confirm truths to consider before signing on or joining the cheering team of BLM. Some will still rather believe the 24/7 deceptions, distortions, and lies of fake news media. I believe there is an evil spiritual component attached to such willingness to be deceived. The Bible speaks of those who prefer to believe a lie over the truth. “Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail.” (Jeremiah 7:8)

But then, why should you believe me? I am nothing more than a self-hating, Uncle Tom, black Republican, Conservative, Christian, stupid n*****, and a traitor to my race; seated firmly aboard Trump Train 2020. 

Turkey’s Erdogan says Hagia Sophia becomes mosque after court ruling

July 10, 2020
By Daren Butler and Ece Toksabay
ISTANBUL (Reuters) – President Tayyip Erdogan declared Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia open to Muslim prayer as a mosque on Friday after a top court ruled that the building’s conversion to a museum by modern Turkey’s founding statesman was illegal.
Erdogan made his announcement just an hour after the court ruling was revealed, brushing aside international warnings not to change the status of the nearly 1,500-year-old monument that is revered by Christians and Muslims alike.


The United States and church leaders were among those to express concern about changing the status of the UNESCO World Heritage Site, a focal point of both the Christian Byzantine and Muslim Ottoman empires and now one of the most visited monuments in Turkey.
Greece’s culture ministry described the court decision as an “open provocation” to the civilized world.
But Erdogan has sought to shift Islam into the mainstream of Turkish politics in his 17 years at the helm. He has long proposed restoring the mosque status of the huge sixth-century building, which was converted into a museum in the early days of the modern secular Turkish state under Mustafa Kemah Ataturk.
“The decision was taken to hand over the management of the Ayasofya Mosque. ..to the Religious Affairs Directorate and open it for worship,” the decision signed by Erdogan said.
The Council of State, Turkey’s top administrative court, said in its ruling: “It was concluded that the settlement deed allocated it as a mosque and its use outside this character is not possible legally.
“The cabinet decision in 1934 that ended its use as a mosque and defined it as a museum did not comply with laws,” it said, referring to an edict signed by Ataturk.


APPLAUSE
The association which brought the court case, the latest in a 16-year legal battle, said Hagia Sophia was the property of the Ottoman leader who captured the city in 1453 and turned the already 900-year-old Greek Orthodox cathedral into a mosque.
Erdogan, a pious Muslim, threw his weight behind the campaign before local elections last year which dealt a painful blow to his ruling Islamist-rooted AK Party. He was due to speak shortly before 9 p.m. (1800 GMT), his head of communications said.
In parliament in Ankara, AK Party members stood and applauded after Erdogan’s decree was read aloud.
The Ottomans built minarets alongside the vast domed structure, while inside they added huge calligraphic panels bearing the Arabic names of the early Muslim caliphs alongside the monument’s ancient Christian iconography.
The Russian Orthodox Church said it regretted that the court did not take its concerns into account when making its ruling and said the decision could lead to even greater divisions, the TASS news agency reported.
Previously, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual head of some 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide and based in Istanbul, said converting it into a mosque would disappoint Christians and would “fracture” East and West.



U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pomp had also urged Turkey to maintain the building as a museum.
But Turkish groups have long campaigned for Hagia Sophia’s conversion, saying it would better reflect Turkey’s status as an overwhelmingly Muslim country.

https://www.oann.com/turkish-court-paves-way-to-turn-hagia-sophia-into-a-mosque/

On Live TV, Joe Biden Can’t Figure Out How To Say ‘Woke’

Elle Reynolds reporting for The Federalist

On Live TV, Joe Biden Can’t
Figure Out How To Say ‘Woke’

July 9, 2020 By Elle Reynolds

In the latest of constant gaffes, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden apparently doesn’t understand his party’s new watchword: woke.

verybody’s been woked,” Biden said on ABC News on Wednesday. He seemed to equivocate the term with the word “awakened,” adding, “Well, guess what? The rest of the working-class people in America have been awakened.” Biden then went on to discuss how Americans had been awakened to, apparently, the injustices of non-compete agreements at fast-food restaurants.

In its presently popular usage, woke is not a verb but an adjective, describing someone who rabidly pursues the use of race, sex, sexuality, and ideology to assign social benefits. Used by a leftist, it’s a compliment. Conservatives more often use it to describe corporations or armchair activists who do things like cover for mass-murdering communist China while accusing the freest country in the world of systemic racism.

Listen to Biden try, and fail, to use the term here:

Biden Uses the Word Woke Incorrectly, Says Everybody’s Been ‘Woked’ pic.twitter.com/D3FpzdY6C8

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) July 8, 2020

The Democratic nominee’s latest gaffe is far from his worst. The Federalist has compiled his slip-ups into a long list.

There was the time he confused his wife and his sister onstage, the time he forgot what the Declaration of Independence was, the time during his presidential campaign that he announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and the time he thought Bolivia and Venezuela share a border instead of being on opposite sides of South America.

He’s also forgotten what state he was in (confusing Iowa for Ohio), claimed to have attended a historically black college (he didn’t), forgotten the name of a man his administration nominated to the Supreme Court (Merrick Garland), and confused Iraq and Afghanistan while discussing the Obama administration’s policy in the Middle East.

Biden’s slip-ups aren’t always simple gaffes, either. He infamously said “poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids” to the Asian and Latino Caucus, and called Barack Obama “the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean.” More recently, he told black voters that “if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re voting for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

Why Did The DOJ Release Senator Mark Warner’s Texts?

Never Relent – Why Did The DOJ Release SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner’s Text Messages on February 9, 2018?

sundance at cth

Everything is disconnected until somebody connects it.

On February 9, 2018, the DOJ released a batch of captured text messages between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and the lawyer for Christopher Steele, Adam Waldman.

At the time the texts were released the media narrative surrounded the top-line story that Senator Warner was having back channel discussions to communicate with the author of the now famous Trump dossier, Chris Steele. However, no-one seemed to wonder why these messages were captured, and even more curiously why they were released.

Immediately following the release, SSCI member Marco Rubio, the current acting chairman of the same committee, rushed to defend the covert communication of Vice-Chair Warner.  According to Rubio the vice-chair did previously inform the committee of his intent to contact Steele.  The media quickly used Rubio’s defense to dismiss the controversy.  Nothing to see here… nothing to see here… and that was that.

Except it wasn’t.

Not even close.

While the issue may have quickly been downplayed by a water-carrying media, the looming question sat in the corner of the room like an unattended 800lb gorilla.

Why were Senator Warner’s text messages even captured in the first place?

Who captured them?

… and then, lastly, if there really was no ‘there‘ there, and everything was appropriate; and given the nature of this being sold as merely private nothing-burger communication valid for the purposes of SSCI investigative inquiry; well, then why were they released?

The answers to those questions took a long time to solve, but they are solved; and while it is prudent to withhold some of the granular aspects behind the puzzle solving, you deserve to know the answers.

The FBI captured the text messages when Senator Mark Warner was under investigation.

[The content of the Mark Warner text messages is a whole ‘nuther kettle-o-fish, which is not pertinent to our understanding of this specific aspect: what was going on at the time.]

To begin lets just focus on a sequence of events and then fill in the back-story.

First, the mysterious Mark Warner texts were released on February 9, 2018.

Exactly, four days later there was something else released from the DOJ that directly ties to the Warner capture.

On February 13, 2018, the DOJ sent a letter to journalist Ms. Ali Watkins, now working at the New York Times, providing a statutory notification that the content of her electronic communication, emails and cell phone records -including text messages and images- were captured as part of an ongoing FBI investigation. [Source Link]

That FBI investigation surrounded leaks from within the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).  Notice the date for the search warrant February 1, 2017, to July 31, 2017. Notice also this is the same time-frame of Senator Warner’s text message capture.

The SSCI leaks were eventually tracked to Security Director James Wolfe who was leaking classified intelligence to journalist Ali Watkins and others.  Wolfe leaked the FISA application to Ali Watkins on March 17, 2017.

What we discover from the DOJ indictment of Security Director Wolfe, which was unsealed on June 8, 2018, is that the grand jury was seated on May 3rd.

This timeline means prior to May, 2018,  the FBI investigators transferred their investigative files over to Main Justice.

From there DOJ lawyers would initiate grand jury proceedings based on that evidence.

The transfer of the investigative file included the intercepted Wolfe text messages, the intercepted incoming messages from Ms. Watkins phones; and the investigative file also included the Mark Warner text messages.

That’s the how and why the Warner texts were captured.

But why were the Senator Warner messages released?

The answer to that question goes back to the same reason the DOJ released the Carter Page FISA application in July 21, 2018.  The special counsel crew initiated the Warner release through Rod Rosenstein (same as the FISA application, different auspices).  Rosenstein then transferred the Warner texts to the House intel committee; and they were made public.

There was not classification issue.  Any release was going to be a public release. The resistance priority was diluting any damage from the discovery of their capture; and it worked, no-one stopped to question the foundational issue: why were they captured?

The text messages were released and Ms. Ali Watkins was simultaneously notified because the special counsel resistance unit inside Main Justice became aware of the evidence.  It was not until the FBI evidence was transferred from FBI to DOJ when the resistance unit could do anything about it. 

Remember, the special counsel was protecting and defending the FISA application.  The FISA was released under the guise of FOIA fulfillment (NYT and Judicial Watch); the Warner texts were released under the guise of fulfillment to congress; both releases purposeful and strategic.

The FBI finalized most of their investigation of the Wolfe leak, which included information related to Mark Warner’s involvement, and sent the evidence to main justice in/around February.  

February of 2018 is when the Mueller special counsel resistance unit started informing their outside allies how to prepare.  The Warner text release was preemptive, and it was done before the grand jury was seated in May 2018 to hear and see that evidence. 

The resistance unit within Mueller’s special counsel was essentially notifying their allies what to prepare for; how to prepare for it; and simultaneously dilute the severely damaging information that was discovered and prop up the narrative behind the FISA.

Ultimately they succeeded.  The resistance unit was able to block the biggest story of political corruption in recent history.

The vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, an intelligence community gang of eight oversight member, instructed the SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the Top Secret Carter Page FISA application on March 17, 2017.  {Go Deep}

When Ali Watkins was notified of the search warrant in February 2018, she was then working for the New York Times.

Ms. Watkins gained the job at the New York Times by possessing the top secret FISA application.  Text messages between Watkins and Wolfe contain Wolfe noting his important role in advancing Ms. Watkin’s career.

The New York Times received and began exploiting the FISA application in March 2017 while simultaneously writing articles that President Trump, nor any member of his campaign, was never under surveillance.  They lied.

After receiving the leak the Times then sent a FOIA request for a legal copy of the FISA application which they already possessed unlawfully.  This was an attempt to diffuse their illegal possession of the same, albeit unredacted, document.

Everything is disconnected, until someone connects it.

Adam Waldman (left), Oleg Deripaska (right)