Here's a video from Ed of The Outerlight, about fifteen minutes or so into the video he goes through a collage of social media post of people who have died after taking the vaccine, there are a lot of them.
https://rumble.com/vfgtup-supporter-video-msm-and-social-media-posts-of-people-who-took-the-vaccine.html
The FBI views the January 6 Capitol Hill protest as “domestic terrorism,” to quote director Christopher Wray. The bureau will work nonstop to bring those responsible to a police-state version of justice.
This included arresting Christopher Kuehne, a Missouri man who appears on security footage doing dangerous stuff like staying inside the velvet ropes and picking up garbage left by other protestors. Kuehne is a retired Marine with two Iraq deployments and a purple heart. The FBI charged him with carrying a deadly weapon, though he had none. The media falsely reported he was a member of the Proud Boys, though he is not. It appears he is being held in solitary confinement 23 hours a day without bail. His wife was kept waiting in freezing weather for hours while an FBI forensics team ransacked their home looking for “evidence.” She was pregnant and has suffered a miscarriage. That story has been effectively deleted from the internet and you won’t find it easily with a search on Google.
The FBI isn’t alone in claiming the January 6 Capitol protest was the worst thing to happen to America since 9/11. A substantial share of nominally Republican politicians has joined that chorus. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) went so far as to say that Donald Trump will have “a place in history” for the Capitol riot: “They could have blown the building up. They could have killed us all.”
When Graham says this, he knows perfectly well that he is lying. Trump asked the hundreds of thousands of Americans who came to show their support to walk with him peacefully to the Capitol. He made “peaceful” explicit. Nonetheless, every corrupt politician and newscaster in America has been able to find the violent subtext buried somewhere in Trump’s speech.
Well, try this on for size: Suppose if, instead of saying “let’s walk to the Capitol peacefully,” Trump instead had said what everyone accuses him of saying. Suppose he’d said, “The election is being stolen from us and I’m not giving up power.” (Remember how the Left fantasized Trump would have to be removed from the Oval Office by force?) Suppose Trump continued: “I am calling on my supporters to defend my presidency with violence. Come to Washington. Bring your guns! Bring every weapon you can lay your hands on. Don’t let anyone stop you. No justice, no peace!”
What do you suppose would have happened then? Do you think that the only person to be shot that day would have been an unarmed protester? If Trump had one ounce of the autocratic, dictatorial tendencies the press accuse him of having, he need only have asked his supporters to defend him with force. They would have.
It’s hard to say what would have followed, but it would not have been pretty. If Trump had actually encouraged violence, the “Capitol Riot” would have been a bona fide riot. We wouldn’t be able to count the death toll on a single hand. It would take hundreds, or thousands, of hands. If Americans had come to Washington actually seeking to “kill them all,” as Graham so despicably insists, you can bet that they would have succeeded in killing at least some.
By some estimates, 1.5 million Americans showed up on January 6 to protest the theft of their right to vote. They were angry as hell, but overwhelmingly peaceful. Even with the FBI in maximum repression mode, there has been a grand total of 127 arrests. No one burned cars or besieged police stations. What, in contrast, would a million-and-a-half Antifa have done to Washington, D.C.?
It is impossible to imagine Trump asking for heads on pikes. (The Left may say they can imagine it, but they are, as usual, lying.) If Trump had asked for heads, he could have gotten them. And this is not a power he has lost, because it had nothing to do with any official button he could push or lever he could pull as president. He simply has a faithful following numbering in the tens of millions who trust he has their best interests at heart, who feel abused by the political machine, and who regard him as America’s legitimate leader.
Hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans would have answered a call to arms from President Trump. That he never made such a call is patently obvious, most of all to the liars and blackguards who make these accusations. They feel safe to say whatever they want because they know that Trump is a vastly better man than they: Trump believes honestly (and in my view correctly) that he won reelection. He believes the most powerful office in the world was stolen from him. Yet he loves America far too much to bring it to violence on his account. His accusers know this, or else they wouldn’t dare utter a peep—because it would actually be dangerous for them.
Envy is the root of all evil, and the root of everything the Left says and does. The people who have lied and who continue to lie about January 6 can do so only because they secretly understand that Trump is a genuinely great man. He is a man who had the power to do what they can only dream of doing—and what the Bill Ayers Left does dream of doing. He had the power to inaugurate a civil war. And he still has it. He won’t use it. Everyone knows that, but almost no one is honest enough to acknowledge it. History offers few examples of men who had such power, such an inducement to act, and yet who showed such restraint.
The current administration takes a cynical view of January 6: It is their Reichstag fire. It is their Beslan school siege. They’re not actually worried about Trump supporters—Trump supporters make lousy rioters. They know that Trump supporters don’t even produce as much violence as Antifa manages on any given afternoon in Portland or Seattle. And while some politicians might have been genuinely worried for a few hours on January 6 when they evacuated the Capitol and before the facts became clear, the genuine panic is long since gone. All that remains is simulated outrage, and phony pathos.
January 6 is nothing but an excuse to attack, intimidate, and even imprison political enemies.
Which makes the Left’s attitude towards Trump supporters much like China’s attitude toward America: They believe that they can continue to push with no real consequences. It’s easy to push good people as long as you do it a little at a time. The only danger is accidentally pushing too far at once, what you might call the “Pearl Harbor mistake.” The Chinese are strategically smart enough to avoid doing that. But our politicians, the media, the unelected bureaucrats, do not necessarily understand that about Trump and his supporters. They cry wolf over “domestic terrorism” without understanding that, in a real confrontation, theirs is the losing hand. So it might be instructive for them to take a quiet moment to imagine what January 6 would have looked like if it had actually happened.
As a candidate, Joe Biden promised amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the United States and expanded asylum for those on the way. Now that he’s become president, Biden formally lifted his predecessor’s pandemic-based prohibition on border crossings for minors from Northern Triangle countries, ostensibly turning away all other would-be immigrants.
In February, 59 percent of families encountered on the border nevertheless were granted entry into the United States. Yet the secretary of Homeland Security recently declared the border “closed.”
Biden promised a kinder, more humane immigration system. Two months in, thousands of children in border intake facilities are sleeping on floors and denied showers.
Then there was Biden’s recent delegation of the border “situation” to Vice President Kamala Harris, swiftly followed by her spokeswoman’s clarification that she “is not doing the border.” Instead, Harris is addressing the so-called “root causes” of migration from the Northern Triangle countries, distancing herself from the epicenter of the crisis.
An expansive effort to address the core, interrelated causes of mass migration from that region — government corruption, lack of security, and underdeveloped economies — is a worthwhile and necessary part of any long-term solution. But an approach prioritizing the socioeconomic plight of three countries more than 1,500 miles away, while minimizing the dangerous interplay of hostile foreign states and criminal organizations capitalizing on the current border chaos, comes at America’s peril.
The same Mexican transnational criminal organizations that control each land port between the United States and Mexico operate globally, coordinating with communist regimes and terrorist organizations throughout the world. They traffic everything from firearms and advanced weaponry to stolen petroleum and illegal migrants. They also traffic deadly opioids.
Before the Mexican criminal organizations trafficked opioids, they trafficked cocaine. Before they trafficked cocaine, they mastered the production and transportation of marijuana and opium into the United States.
Back in the 1980s, the first generation of South American cocaine producers found themselves with a distribution problem. The demand for their cocaine was skyrocketing throughout the United States. Unlike South American agricultural exports like coffee or chocolate, however, cocaine was illegal in the United States, and Drug Enforcement Administration counter-drug efforts disrupted Caribbean-based cocaine supply lines.
Enter Mexico. Colombian cocaine traffickers negotiated with Mexican marijuana and opium transporters for the use of their routes in moving cocaine to the United States. As such, Mexican drug traffickers soon realized that coordination among their geographically dispersed transportation organizations — the cartelization of drug trafficking — would shift market power from the Colombians to the Mexicans.
The Colombians controlled the production of the commodity, but the Mexicans controlled its distribution channels. Well before Jeff Bezos and Amazon, there was the first generation of Mexican drug lords. They transported anything and everything profitable, with illegal drugs long holding the largest profit margins.
The U.S. government took a while to catch on. Plan Colombia, an early 1990s U.S. initiative to combat cocaine cartels in that country, has largely been regarded as a success. Yet its Mexican counterpart, the Merida Initiative, was not conceived until 2008 and has been an unmitigated $3 billion failure. Unfortunately, the United States has consistently underestimated and under-addressed the threat posed by the transnational criminal organizations to its south.
The cartelized Mexican transportation organizations of the 1980s became known as the “Mexican trampoline,” bouncing the multi-billion-dollar cocaine industry from South America to the United States. With the waves of north-bound Central American migrants in recent years, the same organizations have become a part of the “Mexican bridge.”
As with cocaine, Mexico’s complex transnational criminal organizations are not involved in the “supply” of migrants headed north. Instead, smaller, less organized human trafficking and smuggling organizations and gangs like MS-13 and 18th Street are largely responsible for organizing caravans and motivating migration.
Now, the Mexican organizations controlling plazas along the trafficking routes have again asserted their control over distribution lines, while their product is tragically dehumanized and treated as chattel. Many of the women and girls coming from the Northern Triangle — escaping rampant crime and extreme poverty in the hope for a new life in America — are raped and abused along the way.
Years ago, the world’s second-largest economy took note of the world’s largest, most ruthless criminal organizations. China has long been the chief supplier of the primary ingredient in methamphetamine synthesis — pseudoephedrine — and methamphetamine production has been dominated by the Mexican criminal organizations for over a decade.
More recently, Mexican organizations have replaced opium, the primary ingredient in heroin, with the deadly and China-supplied opioid fentanyl. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans have since died of fentanyl-related overdoses.
The Chinese also readily provide Mexican criminal organizations with financial institutions and businesses to facilitate money laundering, a method of “moving” drug-related proceeds from the United States to Mexico that is extremely difficult for U.S. law enforcement to stop. Yet China should not be regarded as the only hostile nation at the southern border.
Leftist Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador declared in 2019 that Mexico would withdraw from the Merida Initiative and its focus on combating Mexican organized crime to seek an agreement addressing the root causes of migration from the Northern Triangle — a refrain strikingly similar to today’s Biden administration messaging. Under Obrador, Mexico has also repeatedly violated its extradition treaty with the United States and, most recently, has handcuffed Drug Enforcement Administration operations within Mexico.
Mexico has chosen a side in the effort to fight Mexican organized crime, and it’s not that of the United States. Obrador ignores that the same root causes of migration from the Northern Triangle — corruption, insecurity, and economic underdevelopment — are endemic to his country as well. Indeed, the Mexican political establishment, which has profited for decades from the cartelization of its drug trafficking organizations, is perfectly happy to see the Biden administration focused on the countries to its south.
As the Mexican criminal underworld grows stronger, the corrupt Mexican political establishment grows wealthier, and the United States plays along. The present border crisis is not only an immigration issue involving Central American migrants. It’s a national security issue involving enemy states immediately to our south.
On Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas announced that the Supreme Court soon will have to put an end to big tech tyranny. He cited the "glaring" problem of social media platforms like Facebook and Google wielding unlimited power to censor users whose views they don't like. These tech giants, he argued, ought to be regulated like "common carriers," which are legally required to serve all customers. AT&T can't refuse to open a phone account for you or limit your conversations. Amtrak cannot pick and choose who rides its trains.
Thomas's opinion offers hope at a time when Democrats controlling Congress are demanding tech giants do more censoring, not less. On March 25, Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered tech CEOs clamp down on "disinformation" and silence views that "undermine social justice movements." Spoken like true totalitarians.
Thomas' groundbreaking announcement was made in the context of a case involving Donald Trump. As president, he blocked critics from commenting on his tweets or retweeting them. Critics sued, claiming the president's Twitter account is a public forum. The high court ruled the case is now moot because Trump is out of office. Thomas concurred, and agreed with a lower court ruling that Trump violated his critics' First Amendment right to be heard.
But Thomas said "the more glaring concern" is not what Trump did to a few critics. It's the power of tech giants to censor or ban users entirely, even a president. Thomas expressed astonishment that Facebook and Google are permitted to remove an account "at any time for any or no reason." He wrote "one person controls Facebook ... and just two control Google." They decide what viewpoints billions of people can express or hear.
That power, said Thomas, must be reined in when a future controversy reaches the high court.
Big tech's defenders argue that because they're private companies, they're free to censor. The First Amendment was written to prohibit only government from silencing viewpoints. But Thomas says it's past time for the Court to get tech savvy. These companies are more like common carriers or public utilities than private companies. They must be open to all the public.
Thomas also likened them to "public accommodations" like hotels and baseball stadiums, which are legally required to serve everyone and not discriminate.
Thomas doesn't see big tech tyranny being solved by competition, as newer companies emerge. He points to the "substantial barriers to entry." The fate of Parler proves the point. When Parler offered a censorship-free platform, big tech united to crush it.
Some hailed Thomas's opinion as "an invitation to Congress to declare Twitter, Facebook, and similar companies common carriers." But the truth is that Democrats have no interest in the free exchange of ideas. They'd rather deputize Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to censor competitors.
And don't count on President Biden. A staggering 14 of his picks to serve during the transition or in his new government are Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon recruits, according to a Daily Caller tally.
Biden probably owes his presidency, in part, to big tech. When the New York Post published a story documenting a Chinese company's dealings with the Biden family, including candidate Joe Biden, Silicon Valley tagged it as "disinformation." Facebook buried it, and Twitter locked the Post's account entirely. In the weeks before the election, voters were denied information that could have influenced their choice.
Now, with Democrats in power, there's no chance lawmakers will classify tech companies as common carriers. But Thomas says the Court can apply that reasoning any way, without waiting for Congress.
Until then, the public will hear only what the Silicon Valley wants. Last week, Lara Trump posted an interview with the former president on Facebook. Immediately, Facebook took it down, explaining, "further content posted in the voice of Donald Trump will be removed."
Only the high court will restore uncensored political discourse, an American ideal. Thomas's opinion illuminates the way.
https://townhall.com/columnists/betsymccaughey/2021/04/07/ending-big-tech-tyranny-n2587545
MENLO PARK, CA—According to reports, personal data from over 500 million Facebook users has been stolen and posted to a hacking website. Facebook quickly issued an apology that the data ended up in hackers' hands for free before they had the chance to sell it.
"Darn, that's a lot of your data we just gave away for free," said Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone. "You people are worth more than that--we're so sorry. Please think about it from our perspective though-- we just lost a ton of potential revenue and political leverage in this hack. Try to have a little sympathy for us too, at least."
Cybersecurity experts say that over 33 million Americans on Facebook now have their personal data available for free on a website where it is easily accessible to identity thieves.
"Even though hackers got your data for nothing, we find all of you users to be valuable and special!" said Stone. "We'll be sure not to give away your data for free next time."
Turmoil seems to be the daily goal of certain persons in the political class and much of the media. We have for a while been jolted from one alleged existential crisis to the next. Apparently on purpose, we are triggered by partial explanations and depictions to feel something as an emotion they have predetermined on our behalf, not provided information for thoughtful consideration of complicated issues. Cui bono? Who benefits from triggering pre-selected emotional and not rational thought?
On a now daily basis, all manner of people pour over our southern border and are then exported throughout the country. There are people understandably seeking to improve their life experience, children and women being smuggled for exploitation, a flood of unaccompanied minors, illegal drugs, and all manner of illegal and illicit activities transferred into the country daily. Who benefits from this border chaos?
What becomes of the point-of-origin countries' social order when it is hollowed out through mass migration? Who teaches, and who learns? Who provides goods and services, and for whom? Who grows the food, stocks the shelves, cares for the indigent and elderly, pays and collects taxes, operates the sewage treatment and fresh water supply plants, ad infinitum? Who benefits from draining these migrant origin countries?
Human-smugglers, coyotes, facilitate the movement of people across the border for profit, paid by the traveler or his family, or by those desiring to transfer their human commodity for exploitation. The desert landscape through many of the coyote corridors of travel are littered with the remains of certain unfortunate of their clientele. The cross-border flood of opioids, fentanyl, and the like produce drug-addled or dead throughout the country from Butte, Montana to Huntington, West Virginia. Who benefits from his fellow man's suffering and the destruction of the human spirit?
Certain politicians, educators, media elite, business leaders, and their enablers in the communication industry daily inform the citizenry and the rest of the world of the racist beginning, middle, and now end of the United States — illogically, at the very time all manner of minorities flock to our southern border to gain access to our alleged racist country. Every color, creed, religion, sex, and race are present throughout the social order of our communities. Nobody would allege a perfect society, but it's arguably a good one. As a general rule, everyone can drive on the roadways, fly on an airplane, shop at any grocery store, drink from any drinking fountain, vote, mail a letter, send his children to public school, live in any community he can afford. Who benefits from the allegation of an irredeemably racist country of daily group conflict?
A policeman interacts with a criminal whose cardio-respiratory health is already severely impaired and who had topped off his diminished health conditions by ingesting a life-threatening level of illegal drugs. The Reader's Digest version of the end of this interaction is unsettling to anybody who viewed this snippet of video, but this small slice of the entire episode does not depict the entire situation. "I can't breathe" started long before being removed from the police car and placed on the ground at his own request to await an ambulance. Regardless of the outcome, the full situation needed to be thoughtfully considered; it was factually not simply black and white. The emotional trigger of racism cannot be pulled as a part of the trial facts. Racism has been and will only be alleged to trigger a desired emotional response outside the legal proceedings. Who benefits from pulling the race trigger and creating social chaos from this complicated interaction?
Perhaps the real question in these situations is not cui bono, but instead, why, as decent people, do we choose inaction or tolerance for those who do benefit?
Reviewing FEC reports for Nikki Haley’s Political Action Committee (PAC), Stand For America, reflects the professional DeceptiCon is in the money gathering phase with no expenditures. [LINK] This is predictable in the extreme and CTH again issues a warning: Beware Nikki Haley folks.
After staying silent on critical issues until after the polling is complete, Nikki Haley now rises to give her opinion on all things currently political. Suddenly Haley is against the corporations that are boycotting Georgia; she is aghast at the border crisis created by Joe Biden, and she supports the efforts of President Trump to fight back against the leftist horde.
Funny that, because only a few weeks ago she said:
“I don’t think [Trump’s] going to be in the picture,” she said, matter-of-factly. “I don’t think he can. He’s fallen so far.” […] “We need to acknowledge he let us down,” she said. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.” (link)
CTH cannot warn strongly enough of the predictable situation we will soon face. The entire DeceptiCon wing of the professional political class is going to come out advancing the case for Nikki Haley to be the standard-bearer of the GOP. Haley is the Mitt Romney of John McCains. Haley’s PAC now has their own Youtube channel.
Stanley Kurtz noted that part of Biden’s alleged “infrastructure” bill continues the left’s war on the suburbs. Even though affluent suburbs are increasingly filled with Democrat voters (college grads who passed through the propaganda mill), the administration wants to make them more densely urban because that ensures reliable Dem voting. However, if Republicans can get the word out about this feature in the bill, they might get an unexpected ally: Soccer moms.
First, let me share some of Kurtz’s analysis with you, although I urge you to read the whole thing:
How, exactly, does Biden plan to end single-family zoning? According to the fact sheet released by the White House, “Biden is calling on Congress to enact an innovative new competitive grant program that awards flexible and attractive funding to jurisdictions that take concrete steps to eliminate [‘exclusionary zoning’].” In other words, Biden wants to use a big pot of federal grant money as bait. If a county or municipality agrees to weaken or eliminate its single-family zoning, it gets the federal bucks.
The wildly overreaching Obama-Biden era Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation — which Biden has pledged to revive — works in a similar fashion. The difference is that by adding another gigantic pot of federal money to the Community Development Block Grants that are the lure of AFFH, Biden makes it that much harder for suburbs to resist applying — and that much more punishing to jurisdictions that forgo a share of the federal taxes they’ve already paid so as to protect their right to self-rule.
The practical effect of ending single-family zoning means that you just bought a lovely 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom home for your growing family, on a quiet street with large lots, each boasting a big garden. It’s the perfect place to play. However, when your neighbors move out, a developer buys his property, razes it, and builds a Section H multifamily unit on it. When this happens a few more times, you just overpaid for a large home on a busy street, complete with Section H housing – and the drugs and crime that inevitably follow when Section H comes to your neighborhood.
What Biden’s handlers might not realize is that suburban moms, the ones who worked hard and delayed childbearing so that they could raise their children in a safe, healthy environment, don’t like plans to turn their green retreats into copies of the same busy cities they left. And it’s not just Republican suburban moms who don’t like this idea; it’s Democrat suburban moms too.
I raised my children in a lovely suburban enclave. All my neighbors, and all the people that I met through schools, were couples who had met as young urban professionals working in cities. They got married, had children, and discovered that the city was a mixed blessing as a parent.
Sure, the city offered wonderful cultural opportunities, but kids under five aren’t fans of ballet, fine art, and opera, and you can’t take them to woke, edgy shows. What you really want to do with the young set is take them to a safe park and let them run. And when they’re older, you want them to bike or walk to their nice, clean, new schools that have big playgrounds and good academic ratings.
My particular city was already bad when my older child was born. Small apartments were expensive, traffic was awful, parking was minimal, public transportation was dirty and unreliable, and public schools were appalling. By moving just 15 miles away from the city, we got a large house with a big garden, no traffic, easy access by car to every amenity from groceries to pediatricians, and top-rated public schools. The last were still lousy because of the state curriculum, but that’s another story.
Since then, all those urban woes have gotten worse. Even before COVID, homelessness had turned my old city into a filthy dystopian nightmare.
When the Democrats’ plan to urbanize came to my suburb a decade ago, Democrat moms – all of whom had followed the same trajectory as I did – were up in arms. Having slaved and saved to move into the suburbs, they became instant NIMBYs. Compassion for the poor, downtrodden, and differently colored did not extend to multifamily homes in their neighborhoods. Nor were they in favor of a massive decline in property value after spending a fortune on their homes.
Conservatives must get the word out about what the AFFH plan means – and that taking any money from HUD means that the federal government owns their neighborhoods forever. If they can be brought to understand this fact, they will object – loudly and with passion.
For years, we’ve heard that a growing share of Americans don’t identify with any religion. But the past year has witnessed a remarkable religious revival in a nation that was supposed to be fast-secularizing. Only, the religion in question is grim, hopeless, more akin to a cult than true faith — and decidedly imposed from on high.
We’re speaking, of course, of the Cult of COVID, the fastest-growing religion in the United States and across much of the developed world, a religion whose spread has been made possible by an alarmingly powerful public-health establishment and large corporations.
The Cult of COVID has its own clerical elite, its own commandments and even modesty norms. And like any cult, its fanatic adherents shame and silence heretics for defying the public orthodoxy.
The faith’s First Commandment: Thou shalt stay locked down. For the first time in history, healthy, asymptomatic people of all ages were “quarantined” and placed under virtual house arrest for long stretches.
It’s hard to remember now, since they’ve become a part of our lives, but lockdowns and “reopenings” are an unprecedented imposition on our fundamental rights to work, study, do business, freely associate and worship (God, not the COVID deities).
It’s equally hard to remember, but the COVID clerisy told us the lockdowns would last a few weeks at most, until we “flatten the curves”; we did that, months ago, yet the liturgy of lockdowns goes on.
Then there’s the faith’s Second Commandment: Thou shalt wear a mask. So essential is this modesty norm that even those who are fully vaccinated continue to wear surgical masks whose effectiveness is questionable at best. We are told that the vaccines are overwhelmingly effective — yet not effective enough, apparently, to disrupt the liturgy of lockdowns or to obviate the mask requirement.
Next commandment: Thy children must suffer. Like most barbarous cults, the Cult of COVID demands child sacrifice, albeit less overtly bloody than the ancient pagan variety. Pagans practiced child sacrifice in order to appease supernatural beings. Likewise, under the Cult of COVID, the educational development and physical and mental health of our children have been sacrificed on the altar of Absolute Safety, one of the cult’s most capricious and hard-to-appease deities.
The priestly class of epidemiologists, school officials and union leaders — the latter are especially important in the cult’s hierarchy — are tasked with carrying out this dark liturgy. The media supply the chorus with predictions of imminent doom if children and their parents don’t continue to sacrifice their freedom and social and academic development.
The children of the poor suffer especially for lack of access to affordable, healthy food. All children pay the price by being deprived of real learning and physical activity.
The disregard for kids’ wellbeing may seem callous, but such is the Cult of COVID: Even and especially the president of the United States must pay obeisance to the cult’s supreme hierarchs, teachers-union bosses.
Which brings us to one of the cult’s most central teachings: that you and your family aren’t individuals with rights and liberties. Instead, you are germ factories, whose movement and social interaction must be severely limited. The media lionize the experts who have imprisoned us. Politicians claim to “follow the science,” when, in reality, they are really following the cult’s edicts, which are impervious to reason and evidence — for example, evidence that children transmit the virus at a much lower rate than do adults, or that outdoor transmission is so negligible as to render wearing masks in the open downright ridiculous.
If you don’t remember choosing to join an irrational cult, well, nor do we. And nor do millions of people across the West now called to participate in its bizarre, cruel and never-ending liturgies. Whatever your religious beliefs, this was one religious revival America didn’t need.
There is no reasonable doubt illegal alien children are being transported across the southern border to engage in the illegal act of child sex trafficking. We saw the same issues in 2014 during the previous Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) influx. The massive surge of child trafficking in the past three months is directly the result of Joe Biden facilitating the transport of children by Mexican cartels. This is a big business.
In a replay of the same 2014 situation, we now hear of Joe Biden detention facilities where children are being raped and sexually assaulted while in the care and custody of Homeland Security officials. The children are then transported to custodial HHS “contractors” who, by the changed standards of the Biden administration, do not have to undergo FBI background checks.
Today Texas Governor Greg Abbott demanded Joe Biden close the Freeman Coliseum in San Antonio where 1,300 children are being housed, and numerous reports of sexual assault are ongoing. In addition Governor Abbott has instructed the Texas Rangers to immediately begin an investigation of the facility and the claims of child sexploitation amid the vulnerable minors. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did not immediately respond to questions after Abbott’s announcement.
Old habits die hard, and now it’s time for the GOP’s habitual support of big business to die, and to die hard.
Look around – the corporations have decided it’s a great time to use their power against us. There used to be a kind of gentleman’s agreement – they stay out of our business and we stay out of theirs. But they broke that agreement. They decided to go all in. And it’s no coincidence that the political positions they have taken conform exactly to those of the Democrat Party. So, the hell with them.
This change has been coming for a while. We need to understand the nature of the old Republican/big business relationship to see what happened. The companies were never with us culturally – they wanted fewer regs, lower taxes, open borders, and docile workers. They didn’t care about social issues. They stayed out of it. But a few decades ago, when those icky evangelicals and others who actually worshipped something besides the almighty dollar showed up, the corporate types got restless. After all, it made for awkward convos at the country club when you were allied with the Jesus gun people from out there in Americaland. So, today, they have intervened in favor of our enemies, but they expect us to sit back and pretend it’s 1987.
Why did they go with the liberal establishment? Because that’s who the multinational bigwigs are, and always have been. It’s always about class, and the class these robber barons circulated within looks down on regular Americans. Hence the current virtue signaling, where you have airlines and shaving cream companies telling us we’re racist. It’s all about the execs making sure everyone knows whose side they are on, so the message to their brethren and sisteren and otherkin is, “Hey, we’re not like those people. Not at all.”
But what’s hilarious is how they still expect us to go to bat for them against the left, just like before. It doesn’t work that way. Relationships are about give and take, and we’ve given our support to the big companies when it comes to taxes, regulations, and the like. But what have we taken? A lot of crap from woke jerks.
It’s not even just the lectures about how we are all the -ists and all the -phobes. The corporations have fought for open borders. They have sent our jobs overseas and killed small businesses at home by leveraging the government to favor the Walmarts and Costcos over the mom and pops. Why do you think your little shop (not to mention your church) had to close because of Covid, but the big boxes were wide open and packed?
They are not our friends. They are not even our allies. They are the enemy, and until now they have successfully used the GOP as their defense against the Democrats even as they clink Chardonnay glasses with the libs on Park Avenue.
Time to rethink our coalition.
Time to think about our coalition without the huge anchor of the big corporations weighing us down.
And they do weigh us down. It’s not just that we get a big, fat nothing from our relationship. It’s that we end up buying all their corporate depredations. How many times have we had to take the hit for the damage the giant companies have done? The Democrats use it to pummel us every election cycle, alienating natural allies of every race and ethnicity in return for…what?
What, exactly, do we get out of the big companies?
Donations? Take a look at the numbers, because those fat checks are heading left. Big business not only funds the Democrats. It funds their commie outside agitators, like BLM. Even the Chamber of Commerce went full on liberal last time, firing the last Republicans left on its staff.
Oh, now the Chamber of Communism is making little whiny noises about the huge taxes the Democrats are planning. And big business is going to turn to us to once again help it stop the bloodbath.
It needs to be greeted with a middle finger.
They want to play politics? Well, dudes, here’s politics. Good and hard.
Raise the corporate rates, but only for companies of over $250 million.
Tax them on worldwide income, not US net, to ensure they can’t off-shore their gains or pay zero taxes.
Don’t raise the minimum wage though – big companies will absorb that and laugh as little companies die. Small business will be starved of workers. Instead, stop the Walmarts and the rest of the big companies from sticking us taxpayers with the living wage bill by directly taxing the ones grossing over $250 million in income per each employee to pay for the Section 8, Medicare, and food stamps their workers need and that Uncle Sucker provides.
And end all the sweetheart tax breaks. Bye-bye carried interest deduction – guess you hedge fund creeps shouldn’t have carried so much water for the Dems.
We know the upside of breaking up with big business – we get more tax money, we lose the corporate stooge albatross, and we punish our enemies. But what’s the downside? People who treat us like garbage don’t get us doing their dirty work? Not much of a downside.
Now, this is where the “principles” thing comes up. Apparently, some alleged principle out there requires us, as true conservatives, to be corporate shills with no ROI for all eternity. We could do that, or we could not get shafted by ingrates who hate us.
I like the principle of not getting shafted by ingrates who hate us better.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: There is no valid conservative principle that requires you to be less free. But trashing our rights is what woke corporations using their power against us as Democrat catspaws do. It’s unclear why they are morally free to exercise their political will indirectly as liberal cut-outs, yet we can’t exercise ours directly through our elected officials.
But, the Fredocons will whine, what about the corporations’ rights?
Well, here’s my deal, take it or leave it, no negotiation, final, best offer: I will care about their property rights exactly as much as they care about our civil rights. And that should scare the hell out of them.
