Sunday, July 18, 2021

Why ‘Aw, Shucks Conservatism’ Utterly Disqualifies Any GOP Politician


 

 Many Americans still have not had close enough experiences with the radical left to have gained this deep understanding that their goal is the end of the American way of life.

 

Article by Joy Pullman in The Federalist


Why ‘Aw, Shucks Conservatism’ Utterly Disqualifies Any GOP Politician

Too many Republicans still won't understand the nature of the opposition. They are culture war Neville Chamberlains, feeding Americans to the Minotaur one generation at a time.
 

In a recent article critiquing the political right from a fair outsider’s perspective, Abigail Shrier discusses what she calls “Aw Shucks Conservatism.” Shrier writes this disposition’s core mistake

is that it treats Leftist ideologues like quirky out-of-town guests arriving for brunch. It assumes we all want the same things and are equally devoted to the perpetuation of bedrock American commitments: free speech, free exercise of faith, equal protection, rule of law.

But the Woke are not zany guests. They are home-invasion robbers. The structure they intend to leave behind will contain but a handful of the cultural artifacts they encountered. Bringing down statues of Abe Lincoln, books by Dr. Seuss and schools named for the country’s founders? That’s just their casing the joint. The large-scale heist hasn’t even started.

To some, this might sound like hyperbole. It is in fact a nearly identical description to that the New Left themselves use to describe their goals. One example of many is “antiracist” grifter Ibram X. Kendi’s proposed “Department of Antiracism” and accompanying constitutional amendment that would subject every U.S. law, including the Constitution, to utterly unaccountable far-left bureaucrats. Here’s another.

“Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law,” explains a 2012 college-level textbook on the ideology from New York University Press.

That textbook includes a foreword by key critical race architect Angela Harris, who also admits, “Critical race theory takes the position that racism pervades our institutions, our beliefs and our everyday practices.”

Every day, more people discover the New Left’s goal is to end the historic American birthright to government-secured natural rights. That is part of the reason the critical race theory debate has gone viral and put the left on defense.

They will admit they believe this stuff, but scaring too many people with the truth is counterproductive. They’d prefer to teach it to children while the parents still trust them enough to keep their kids in their schools. One key question for our nation’s future, as well as those who hope to lead it, is whether trusting your children to institutions that countenance critical race theory makes any sense at all.  Many of those institutions  — such as universities — are overseen by Republicans who refuse to lift a finger to demand accountability for billions of public dollars.

Unlike such so-called representatives, Shrier has awakened to the true nature of the political left, in large part by personal experience. So have people like Brett Kavanaugh, and many who watched his confirmation horror show. But many Americans still have not had close enough experiences with the radical left to have gained this deep understanding that their goal is the end of the American way of life.

That includes far too many Republican Party officeholders. Those are the kind of people who proudly make infrastructure deals with the Biden administration for the hollow sake of “bipartisanship” and then get rolled without exacting a price for it (“My starting offer on infrastructure is now the devolution of OSHA to the states, the privatization and localization of the TSA, the end of mask mandates in airports, block grants for states to control highway funds, and the non-negotiable inclusion of serious energy infrastructure like nuclear power plants.”) Shrier gives the example of Sen. James Lankford’s inability to critique the Biden administration replacing the word “mother” with “birthing person,” which enables abominations like this.

Republicans do this because too many still do not understand — or refuse to understand — the nature of the opposition. They are culture war Neville Chamberlains, feeding Americans to the Minotaur one generation at a time while believing it’s a bargain, because, after all, the Minotaur isn’t eating everyone, and they’ll certainly die before it’s their turn to meet him.

A display of this kind of mental and moral cowardice is utterly disqualifying from anyone who wants to hold office as a Republican going forward. That’s because only fools make deals with barbarians expecting them to keep it. People who can’t tell a citizen from a barbarian aren’t fit to lead.

A key component of this cowardice is the refusal to fight for sexual sanity, Shrier’s top issue right now. No society can exist without protecting families. Republicans have whiffed on this at least since Roe v. Wade. Republican headliners like Mike Pence and Kristi Noem, for example, love to go around talking about how much they love God and liberty, but when things came down to the wire under their governorships, both quickly let the barbarians advance.

Recall that Pence was a key initial cause of the rise in cancel culture when he became the test case for the LGBT left’s new strategy of attacking through the marketplace. In 2015, the left went nuts on Indiana over its attempt to protect Christians from harassment based on their beliefs, and Pence folded so fast the tactic immediately moved to the center of the left’s arsenal.

Noem pulled a similar trick earlier this year on a bill to protect girls from being forced to compete against males in school sports, and she’s still going around sucking her thumb about it, making her decision worse by piling on lies and accusations in an attempt to cover up her capitulation.

Her cover-up attempt is a top reason Noem should be a total non-starter nationally. Same for Pence. They have proven they cannot be trusted under fire to defend the American way of life. That’s the whole game right there, folks — not corporate tax rates and child credits.

The consensus politics era is over, at least for now. Consensus and good-faith negotiation require shared assumptions. The lack of shared assumptions is exactly what the culture war is about. And the culture war is not a sideshow, it is about the very definition of reality, the entire basis upon which we can have any discussions or make any political decisions whatsoever.

If you say a man is a man and I say a man is a woman, we can’t get anywhere until that is sorted out. Likewise, the insistence that the United States is fundamentally good — not perfect, but good — is wholly incompatible with the new left’s insistence that it is fundamentally evil. You can’t live in a house with a person who wants to burn it down.

There is a philosophical component to this, but it is also attitudinal. This culture war is both mental and emotional. It’s about logic and about love: Loving your country, as well as knowing exactly why. And people can know why in their bones without being able to articulate it, just like a man who loves his wife may not know what to say when she asks him why. To him, it is obvious, and needs no explanation. It is a fact too deep for words.

The tens of millions of additional voters who came out for Donald Trump in 2020 were mostly people like this. In the face of unprecedented smears and electoral chaos, they came out for a guy who for once seemed to be trying to play for keeps instead of telling his voters to get excited about the scraps. The slogan “But he fights!” means, “He fights like he loves her” — her being America. Would anyone really say that of any current Republican officeholders?

Of course it matters to get the issues right. There’s no sense in shooting fiercely in the wrong direction, something Trump did often. But he hit targets a lot more than pretty much anyone else. It’s been six years, and it’s still true. That’s a serious indictment.

Now is the time for champions to arise, to stop feeding the beasts, and start fighting them. Ask yourself, “What would it mean for me to do that where I am?” And then start doing it. Because nobody else is going to do it for us. And the field is obviously wide open.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/15/why-aw-shucks-conservatism-utterly-disqualifies-any-gop-politician/ 


 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Garland’s Partisan War on Civil Liberties

Did the government lie in order to spy on confidential,
 privileged information to which it otherwise had no right, 
all to protect the Biden family?


With approximately every third breath he takes, Attorney General Merrick Garland tells us he cares, really cares, about civil liberties. But this professedly staunch defender of the Constitution has blown a very big hole in its protections for anyone within several degrees of separation from a certain former president. 

Garland’s latest depredation is his approval of unethical searches of respected, reputable, and experienced D.C. criminal defense lawyer Victoria Toensing. Toensing is a 79-year-old former federal prosecutor, whose law partner and husband is Joseph diGenova, the D.C. United States Attorney under Ronald Reagan. The two have represented an enviable client list of D.C.’s most prominent political and public figures. 

Due to their sterling reputations, President Trump was set to hire them for his “Russiagate” defense, but Mueller’s weak assertion of a “conflict” led them to go overboard to hew to ethics, even those tenuously claimed. Toensing, in short, has never been close to unethical. 

She has won professional accolades too numerous to mention, along with a reputation and prosperity she would not risk. She has never been sanctioned or disciplined in her long, successful, highly ethical career. Yet Garland, through his aggressive Southern District of New York U.S. attorney, has treated her in a manner befitting a criminal enemy terrorist. 

No one has accused her of a crime, but she did have confidential talks about representing certain Ukrainian citizens, who, it may be inferred, had information about Biden-centric Ukrainian corruption. Garland’s motive? He hopes to nail Rudy Giuliani on a tendentious charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act before Giuliani and allies nail a Biden. 

To understand how Garland is not just chilling, but freezing, Toensing’s and her clients’ civil liberties in the process, let us provide background. 

The Justice Department is investigating Giuliani for the vague, ethereal crime of violating FARA, even though he represented no foreign government or official. Rather, he learned from Ukraine prosecutors about a partisan, perhaps ethically compromised, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

Before Trump was elected in 2016, Ukraine “point man” Vice President Biden recommended Yovanovitch for the Ukraine post, with strong support from Democratic moneyman George Soros. Hunter Biden’s corrupt client Igor Kolomoisky was fleeing the country in 2016 after fleecing foreign aid, which had been backed by the elder Biden, for around $5.6 billion, and, amazingly, left unprosecuted for years prior to Trump’s election. 

Yovanovitch had protected $4.4 million in foreign aid that was diverted from the prosecutor general’s office to a private “anti-corruption” organization, AntAc, supported by Soros, a heavy investor in Ukraine. Then she issued an oral “do not prosecute” list which included officials of AntAc and Burisma, Hunter Biden’s corrupt oligarchic client. She then refused visas to the present and former Prosecutors General to travel to the United States to complain of Biden-centric corruption.

After Giuliani uncovered all of this as he defended the president on Russiagate, Trump removed Yovanovitch as ambassador. That is Giuliani’s supposed FARA crime, suggesting an action primarily to help America, not to lobby for Ukraine citizens who may want the same action.

By way of comparison, James Comey earlier had gained information from foreign officials, including five Russian intelligence agents or Kremlin higher-ups, as well as an ex-British spy, whose patron was a Russian oligarch, in order to destroy his boss, President Trump. It would seem that Giuliani’s helping Trump through his foreign contacts, unlike Comey’s spying and sabotage through his, would not be a crime. But not according to Garland.

Now to Toensing. With several Ukrainians seeking her services to report corruption to the Justice Department, the Biden officials likely wanted confidential, privileged information she had gained, hopefully to use against Giuliani. 

The problem for Garland was that most, or perhaps all, of what Toensing would have learned would be likely privileged. Communications with potential clients, their agents, and parties with joint legal interests are all privileged, precisely why Garland did not follow the written Justice Department guidelines which he is in charge of enforcing. If he were ethical, he would have received none of the privileged information Toensing had received from prosecutors with whom she had been conferring to represent.

The Justice Department’s Justice Manual Sec. 9-13.420 (A) recognizes the civil liberties encroachment when information is sought from a lawyer, and therefore requires that the “least intrusive” method be used. This means prosecutors should seek the information from “other sources,” or “through the issuance of a subpoena” encouraging “the participation of the attorney-subject” in the “document review process,” when an attorney-client privilege is raised. See Sec. 9-13.420 (F). But Garland ignored his own guidelines and approved a search warrant, raided her home, took her iPhone and downloaded all of it. 

The government obtained this information without her prior review for potentially privileged information, instead using its own prosecutors without knowledge of who was a client, to review the documents for privilege. Yes, the wolf was assigned to guard the henhouse. It did not seem to bother Garland that the Southern District had already abusively obtained much privileged communication from 2019 covert searches of Toensing’s Google and Apple iCloud information, without her knowledge or opportunity to review, even after seizure.

The normal and ethical process would have been to subpoena Toensing, listing the categories of documents sought, then allowing Toensing to object to irrelevant requests, to provide a log of privileged communications (“privilege log”), and to produce what she believes to have been relevant, non-privileged materials. Then a special master or judge would examine any disputed communications in camera and rule as to whether Toensing had validly claimed a privilege. This is the Justice Department’s required, ethical, and Constitutional procedure, designed to protect the rights of clients to privileged communications with counsel, a basic civil liberty. 

The government of course did not do that. Instead, it obtained search warrants based on a still-sealed affidavit Toensing has not been allowed to see, gaining information before she had a chance to object. In order to get such warrants, the government customarily must prove that a non-target like Toensing is likely to tamper with evidence or manipulate witnesses, or is a flight risk likely to flee the country. 

It therefore must be inferred that in its covert affidavits, the government averred through someone testifying under penalty of perjury, that Toensing was a “flight risk” and would be inclined to “tamper” with evidence or “manipulate” witnesses. Without these averments under penalty of perjury, no court would have approved these covert search warrants. 

Of course, there is not the slightest hint that Toensing is a flight risk. She is 79, not 29, and she has a husband in D.C., not a boyfriend in Belarus. She has a home in D.C. and a vacation home in Maryland, and is unlikely to abandon those to the government in order to illegally help a potential client who never retained her. 

Is there any slight indication that this highly ethical lawyer would “tamper” with evidence? Perhaps an unethical prosecutor might consider asserting attorney-client privilege to be “tampering,” but honest prosecutors do not. Moreover, such an objection does not destroy evidence, but merely maintains it for the court to review. 

The warrant affidavits remain covert, but other government filings suggest that both of these averments—tampering or manipulation and “flight risk”—were actually made. Any of these assertions would be what ordinary people without law degrees would call “a lie.” So in seeking a fictitious FARA violation on Giuliani, did the government lie in order to spy on Toensing’s confidential, privileged information to which it otherwise had no right?

We do not know for certain. But if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and flies like a duck, just maybe it’s a duck. And just maybe the attorney general and his partisan prosecutors are violating Toensing’s and her clients’ constitutional rights—all, of course, to deny Giuliani his.

Yes, American citizens should rest assured that Merrick Garland, who approved all of this, will protect their civil liberties. So long, of course, as they have nothing to do with investigating Biden corruption in Ukraine.


DOJ's Handling of Evidence In January 6 Prosecutions Called Into Question By District Judge

Chief Judge rules private company cannot 
be given access to Grand Jury materials.



My next story at Human Events is going to take a more in-depth look at how the Biden DOJ is denying January 6th defendants their rights to due process and a speedy trial by not being able to provide access to the “discovery” — evidence possessed by the government relevant to the case against them — and then using that as an excuse to not set trial dates while some defendants remain in custody pending trial.

Many cases have now been pending for more than six months since the government made the decision to seek indictments and arrest many of those who had attended the January 6th protests and gone inside the Capitol. Problems persist across all the filed cases with the government’s inability to deliver to the defendants the evidence in the government’s possession — most notably video evidence — that might be relevant and material to their cases.

The decision to move forward with a massive undertaking all on one time was a volitional choice made by the Justice Department — it was not compelled to do so. Even now, the government could move to dismiss charges without prejudice while it continues to process evidence and organize the cases it has already filed. The charges could be refiled at any point in time in the future prior to the statute of limitations expiring.

In an effort to obtain assistance from a contractor with the type of experience needed to manage massive amounts of customer data — manage it in a way that allowed easy search and access regarding individual cases — the DOJ signed a multi-million dollar contract with the international accounting firm Deloitte Financial Management.

The database that Deloitte was to create would have stored all the documentary, physical, and video evidence accumulated by the FBI, Capitol Police, and other federal agencies during the course of the investigation. From this database, the evidence regarding individual cases could be accessed and provided to charged defendants as required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

But one particular such rule, Rule 6(e), prohibits the disclosure of “grand jury” material outside the Department of Justice or the Court without prior authorization. The Justice Department filed a motion with the District Court seeking such permission to provide access to Deloitte employees. On Friday, Judge Howell ruled that the motion did not sufficiently justify the request made and prohibited DOJ from giving the Deloitte employees access to the material from the January 6 investigations for the purpose of creating the database.

This leaves DOJ in the position it currently finds itself in having collected a massive volume of evidence on hundreds of persons already charged with crimes. It cannot sort through and produce the evidence for individual cases in a manner that complies with its obligations under the rules of procedure and its constitutional obligation to afford the defendants the “due process” to which they are entitled.

I’m going to return to this topic in several ways in the coming days, both here and at Human Events and American Free News Network. Dealing with all the implications of this Order on the ability of the government to move forward with the cases is a project much larger than what I want to tackle in this one piece.

The government is the architect of its own problems here. Nothing compelled the government to begin its nationwide dragnet to arrest anyone and everyone it could identify as having entered the Capitol on January 6. Nothing compelled the government to move forward with grand jury presentations and obtain indictments against every person arrested on a criminal complaint.

No one forced the Biden Justice Department to “swallow an elephant in one bite.” It would have been in line with normal Justice Department processes to start with the most serious cases — those which were of the highest priority in view of the FBI and DOJ — and hold off on initiating lower priority cases until the highest priorities were underway and all difficulties with evidence were resolved.

Nothing prevented the government — as is consistent with DOJ policy — from WAITING to seek indictments until it had all evidence for individual defendants segregated in a fashion that would make it easy to produce that evidence to the defense as required by the discovery rules.

There has been little — if any — legitimate justification for the urgency displayed by the DOJ in terms of its rush to arrest and charge before the cases are prepared.

The rule of thumb in DOJ used to be that a prosecutor should be ready to go to trial on the day the indictment is returned by the grand jury. All the evidence should be already gathered and organized in a fashion that makes production to the defendant simple. The only thing that should need to be done between indictment and trial is for the defense to prepare.

The time between indictment and trial is NOT supposed to be a period for the prosecutors to get their act together.

The Biden Regime Has Made Us All Enemies of the State

 


Enemies of the State since forever

 

Article by J.B. Shurk in The American Thinker


The Biden Regime Has Made Us All Enemies of the State

How can you tell we're slipping under the yoke of totalitarianism?  The New York Times has declared that the word "freedom" is merely an "anti-government slogan," and the Biden regime refuses to condemn Cuba's communist police state, even as it "disappears" Cuban dissidents during live video feeds.  I don't know how much clearer the State and its "news" propagandists can be.  If "freedom" is a dirty little word as meaningless as "hope and change," then everything upon which the United States of America has been built is dead, and if the Obama-Biden cabal running the White House find common cause with the same Castro-Guevara mass murderers who have tortured and summarily executed innocent Cubans in the name of "revolution" for sixty years, then the federal government cannot be trusted.  

This isn't a surprise to anyone paying attention.  Two months ago, the U.S. State Department draped embassies around the world with Black Lives Matter flags, and today BLM has pledged its allegiance to the communist Cuban regime while blaming the U.S. for Cuba's island prison of poverty, violence, and repression.  There has never been any doubt that BLM is a Marxist organization intent on destroying American freedoms, yet Democrats, corporate boards, and even Mitt Romney have sung its praises for years.  Hanging those insidious BLM flags on American consulates overseas was tantamount to hanging the hammer and sickle over the stars and stripes.  Their meaning was self-evident: the U.S. is under new Marxist management.  Still, too many corporate sellouts and political backstabbers honored BLM as some sort of paragon for civil rights, even as its members routinely engage in arson, larceny, intimidation, and murder.  

Now that BLM has made its allegiance to America's communist enemies abundantly clear, will any of those corporate or political invertebrates walk back their support for BLM's pro-Castro movement?  Surely not.  They've chosen a side; they're totalitarian appeasers now, giving aid and comfort to those who wish America harm.  Is that too harsh?  Is it unfair to accuse American companies and politicians of casting their lot with the intellectual heirs of Stalin and Mao?  A man should be judged by his deeds, not his words, but as far as I can see, none of these pro-BLM sycophants has done or said anything while the Biden administration embraces Cuba's police state tactics here at home.  Their inaction speaks volumes.  

We are now living in a land where the government uses corporate monopolies to restrict political speech it dislikes, abuses the criminal justice system to protect Antifa criminals doing its bidding on the streets, holds political prisoners in solitary confinement for over six months under spurious chargesspies on citizens' private text messages in the name of safety, and designates its political adversaries as "domestic extremists" and "terrorists."  At the same time as the Cuban regime has shut down the Internet to hinder a popular revolt against communism, the Biden regime has admitted to actively censoring Americans on social media and on cellular networks for spreading "disinformation."  (There's a distinction without a difference!)  And as demonstrable evidence of provable fraud in both Georgia and Arizona increasingly renders the whole 2020 presidential election illegitimate, the beneficiary of that election fraud has mobilized the federal government to vilify the truth-tellers as enemies of the state.  If American companies and politicians can sit silently while such unprecedented attacks on civil liberties take place, then either they grotesquely fail to see the parallels between what is going on in America today and what took place in Germany during the 1930s, or they are blind to nothing and like what they see.  Certainly, when they decide to take a righteous stand against voter identification and against secure elections but choose to demonize white Americans for the color of their skin, they are a far cry from any noble tradition we would ascribe to defenders of American freedom.

Tell me how the U.S. military's purge of Trump voters or the FBI's insistence that citizens narc on their friends and family for wrongthink is distinguishable from the communism of Cuba or China or any of the great totalitarian regimes of the last century.  Tell me how indoctrinating young children to hate themselves for their "whiteness" is fundamentally different from Hitler Youth being taught that their Jewish neighbors were rats.  Oh, because nobody's been lined up against a brick wall with his family and gunned down, as Che Guevara and his "social justice" hit-squads enjoyed doing?  Or because no one's yet been forced to relocate to concentration camps for failing to abide by the State's experimental vaccine mandates?  Give it time.  There's no way to go halfsies on totalitarianism.  Once the government decides it may declare who has rights and who has none, it is a short walk for the government to decide who has life and who has none.  Over 63 million babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade, after all, and once you teach a population that a baby is only as alive as a woman chooses, it's not difficult to teach those same people that political opponents are not worthy of life at all.  When individual liberty and private ownership are ridiculed in the name of the "common good," taking life for the "greater good" is never far behind.

Isn't that what we're already seeing with the federal government's "planned resettlement" of foreign nationals illegally crossing into the United States?  The same U.S. military that could not be bothered to help secure the southern border while President Trump was in office out of fear that any actions it took would damage the perceived political neutrality of the armed forces is now engaged in the secret and illegal transportation of non-citizens in the dead of night to undisclosed communities around the country (a recognized form of hybrid warfare in other nations).  While the CDC and the White House use the pretext of the China Virus pandemic to arbitrarily close businesses, churches, and civic events of every kind (except those perpetrated by regime-enforcing Antifa and BLM Marxists, of course), other federal agencies have taken advantage of the nation's unenforced borders to send unvaccinated illegal aliens into unsuspecting communities.  Either the severity of the virus is not nearly as lethal as the Washington woke pretend it to be, or else the federal government cares so little about the health and survival of its citizens that it is willing to put lives at risk when doing so can help turn "red" districts "blue."  That might not be quite as shocking as the sight of regime paramilitaries summarily executing dissidents, but it's certainly a step in the same direction.  And if "red state" voters happen to die from the China Virus while the federal government takes over state elections so newly settled foreign nationals can illegally vote with ease, who could blame the totalitarians in charge for needing just a little more lebensraum for achieving their objectives?  

There's nothing moral or right about what the federal government is up to these days, and there is no excuse for those people in positions of power who continue to remain silent about what is happening.  This is the "speak now or forever hold your peace" moment in American history, and it's all-hands-on-deck for anyone not willing to let American freedom slip away.  This is the right time to think earnestly and pray, but as the old saw goes, "If you're going to pray for potatoes, you'd better grab a hoe."

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/07/the_biden_regime_has_made_us_all_enemies_of_the_state.html





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Cable News Runs The Country


 

Article by Derek Hunter in Townhall


Cable News Runs The Country

It’s a horrifying thought, but it’s true: cable news is in control of both political parties, and therefore the whole country. 

Think about it – how many people running for office right now are products of cable news, meaning they are people who, were it not for their appearances on whatever cable network corresponds with their political ideology, you likely never would have heard of? I’m betting it’s a lot of them, if not all. 

I want to be delicate here. I know everyone has their favorite networks and shows, but do you really want a country ruled by people chosen by the people who book those shows? 

Would anyone outside of Florida know who Nikki Fried is were it not for MSNBC propping her up as some sort of serious challenge to Governor Ron DeSantis? She’s the Agriculture Commissioner, for crying out loud. Unless you were farming in Florida, you might have heard of her…and then only maybe. Yet, she’s a contender for Governor of Florida next year, at least as far as the Democratic Party’s nomination race goes. 

There are Republican examples too. I assume there are other people running for Senate in Ohio than best-selling author JD Vance, but you’d never know it by watching Fox. Nothing against Vance, or Fox, I just think candidates should be chosen by party members, not media members. It is a wild advantage to have a half dozen to a dozen appearances per week in front of millions of people; helps a lot with fundraising.

Ultimately, a candidate has to win the race, but the benefit of exposure can’t be overstated.

More than these networks anointing candidates, they are now dictating who and what is acceptable beliefs in each party. You won’t find more than one or two Democrats in all of Washington, DC, who are even remotely pro-life, or are at least willing to say as much publicly. If any were “too vocal” about it, one monologue from a Maddow or Lemon would destroy them. 

Cable networks will make you as a candidate, as an author, as a pundit, as a conservative or a liberal. Conversely, and worse, they can break you too. Or never give you the chance to be any of those things.

In the last few years, cable networks have become more partisan and more powerful than ever in party politics. Rather than report or comment on the news, hosts dictate what is and isn’t news.

Rachel Maddow can literally unleash an army of flying monkeys on Congress through an off-handed comment. It would be wildly untrue or exaggerated beyond any recognizable version of reality, but it would be effective. And Democrats are terrified at the idea of facing her ire. Conservatives are no different. That kind of pressure coming from one entity bastardizes everything. Political movements de-couple from grassroots organizers and become dependent upon bookers in New York or producers in Atlanta. It works, but not for the people.

Politicians who answer to cable networks and not the people are the makings of ratings, not principled victories and certainly not wins for the Constitution. Jeff Zucker has Jeff Zucker’s best interests in his mind, not the nation’s. And if you think Fox is overloaded with conservatives behind the scenes or in management, you have not had conversations with the current and former long-term employees I know. 

Cable networks are ostensibly in the “news” business, but they’re really just in the “business” business. There’s nothing wrong with that. Getting and maintaining an audience is their job, period. You just shouldn’t call it news. They don’t talk to newsmakers, they no longer seek out people directly involved in the events of the day. They now just have the same 12 people on every day to discuss things that happened that week and, more often than not lately, what their counterparts on another network said about the events of the week. Yes, a giant percentage of what “news” channels now talk about is the stupid things employees of other “news” networks said.

It’s entertaining, I watch it, but it’s hardly anything that constitutes “news.” And it’s problematic when the people charged with commenting on or reporting the news morph into manufacturing news or becoming the story themselves. If you really want to know when the country started to seriously go to hell, look back to when news reporting was replaced with commentary and everyone else pretended it wasn’t. Every outlet did the same, and nothing has been the same since. 

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2021/07/18/cable-news-runs-the-country-n2592688 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


One Father’s Fight Against Critical Race Theory

John Spiropoulos continues his work assisting with information for parents fighting the Marxist indoctrination in schools. [Rumble Link]

Meet Kory Yeshua, father of three, and vocal opponent of Critical Race Theory. From young hip-hop and rap artist to fervent servant of God, Kory is a passionate patriot and a believer in the America dream. In this profile report, you’ll learn about his journey and what happened when his first grade daughter came home from school one day and asked, “Daddy, why weren’t the black kids allowed to play with the white kids.””


Dan Bongino Lays Down the Truth About Biden's Attack on Free Speech


 

Article by Jeff Charles in RedState


Dan Bongino Lays Down the Truth About Biden's Attack on Free Speech

The Biden administration has been the subject of criticism this week due to its questionable approach to addressing supposed “misinformation” about the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccine. During a tense back-and-forth between White House press secretary Jen Psaki and Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy, she seemed to admit that the administration is keeping track of people whom they believe are spreading false information about the pandemic on social media.

Political commentator and host of Fox News’ “Unfiltered” Dan Bongino addressed the issue on Friday, cautioning that the First Amendment is being targeted by the Democrats. He indicated that the federal government is keeping a list of people who post opinions and information on COVID-19 that it deems false. He also pointed out that the administration seeks to “deputize” social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to filter out perspectives with which it does not agree.

Bongino responded to the confrontation between Psaki and Doocy, arguing that it demonstrates that the situation with the First Amendment is “deadly serious.”

“There is no secret list. I will tell you these are people who are sharing information on public platforms on Facebook,” Psaki said during the exchange.

“So there is a list,” host Pete Hegseth said.

Bongino responded, stating that “we have crossed a red line here” and that “the Bill of Rights tells you what the government can’t do to you.”

He continued:

“So what the government can’t do is infringe on your free speech except in very limited circumstances. Pete, what they also can’t do is, if they want to crush your free speech because they don’t like your opinion on the vaccine or your opinion on COVID lockdowns, is they can’t deputize another one and say go forth to love and serve and do can’t do (sic).”

The host and former Secret Service agent asserted that there are “no assurances” that the budding collaboration between the Biden administration and social media companies won’t escalate further as the upcoming midterm elections grow closer. Even further, Bongino insisted that this issue is more critical than other issues like government spending or tax reform:

“This is the single most important political issue of our time: Literally the ability to speak in the public square. What’s the point of arguing tax rates if you can’t argue because you have been banned from the new public square social media? If you are not running on this, 2022 election and 2024 as your number one issue, please exit stage left.”

Bongino is assessing the situation accurately. President Joe Biden and his merry band of Democrats in Congress are taking aim at free speech online. While Big Tech has already shown they are willing to suppress conservative perspectives, it appears their censorship practices are not censorious enough for the Democrats’ liking.

Psaki already let the proverbial cat out of the bag when she admitted the Biden administration is “in regular touch with the social media platforms” about supposed “misinformation” being proliferated online. Combine this with the revelation that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is planning to pressure certain companies to censor text messages containing inaccurate information about the coronavirus, and it is easy to see that the left has no problem with threatening free speech.

Bongino’s contention that this issue is far more important than the others that the nation is facing is also apt, given the fact that the left is engaged in a concerted effort to make it more difficult for conservatives to effectively communicate their opinions and ideas. We have already seen the leftists who run companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and others throttle right-leaning messages on their platforms.

But with the government pushing these companies to take censorship further, the situation has become more dire. If conservatives don’t hone in on this issue with laser-like focus, they risk having their free speech curtailed more than it already is.

 

https://redstate.com/jeffc/2021/07/17/dan-bongino-lays-down-the-truth-about-bidens-attack-on-free-speech-n412310






Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Jen Psaki Banned From Social Media For Spreading Misinformation



WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Biden administration has decided to crack down hard on those who spread covid misinformation on social media. Because of this, Press Secretary Jen Psaki has been promptly and permanently removed from all social media platforms.

“We take this ban very seriously,” a Biden official said. “Ol' Jen had an enormous reach online, and our system received so many notifications of misinformation by her that she was automatically removed.”

Psaki now has a lifetime ban on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TiKTok, and even lower traffic sites such as AOL Instant Messenger.  The social media ban is as thorough as it is severe in hopes of teaching others a lesson about spreading misinformation. 

Many people were surprised to see the government ban the press secretary, but it seems that even they were fooled by the onslaught of misinformation. They just regret that they didn’t see it and ban her sooner. 

"Our algorithms confirmed that Jen Psaki spreads more misinformation in one press conference than most other people do in their entire lives," said Mark Zuckerberg after he confirmed Facebook would permanently be removing her from the social network. "We expected it to just get far-right QAnon crazies, but the algorithm doesn't lie. All hail the algorithm!"

"All hail the algorithm!" chanted his army of Facebook interns standing dutifully nearby.


It’s High Time GOP Congressional Leaders Rejected Big Tech Dollars

 


Article by Evita Duffy in The Federalist


If Congressional Republicans want to fight Big Tech, they need to stop taking money from Big Tech.
 

Facebook censorship board member Helle Thorning-Schmidt claimed on Thursday that free speech is not a human right. On the same day, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted the Biden administration is colluding with corrupt Big Tech companies to silence anything they deem “problematic” on social media.

There’s no denying Big Tech is the biggest threat to free expression in the United States and the most blatant violators of antitrust efforts. They silence conservatives, including a former US president and a member of Congress; participate in Orwellian reeducation initiatives; interfere in our elections; suppress anything deemed “offensive” or “disinformation”; help build China’s oppressive surveillance state; and obliterate alternative platforms by robbing them of digital infrastructure.

The only way to protect the First Amendment and make the digital sphere open to competition is for Congress to step in and upend Big Tech’s complete immunity from liability under Section 230 and break up the monopolies.

But how can Republican congressmen and women fight the tech oligarchs if they are simultaneously receiving tens of thousands of dollars from them? While Big Tech contributes significantly more money to Democrats, Republicans still receive a substantial amount of political donations.

Indeed, over 200 Republican members of Congress in the House and Senate received campaign contributions in 2020 from Political Action Committees (PACs) affiliated with Amazon, Google (which also owns Nest and Waze), and Facebook (which owns Instagram and WhatsApp). Twitter, Apple, and Snapchat do not appear to make PAC contributions to candidates.

In April, seven House Republicans vowed to reject any campaign contributions from Big Tech companies. Those Republicans include Reps. Ken Buck (Colo.), Chip Roy (Texas), Greg Steube (Fla.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Dan Bishop (N.C.), Burgess Owens (Utah) and Andy Biggs (Ariz.).

Why didn’t House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy join them? Would that not have been a powerful statement? It’s probably because the biggest receivers of Big Tech donations aren’t the seven men who vowed to reject them, but members in GOP leadership and those who have significant influence in powerful committees like Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Financial Services, and Appropriations.

Following the certification of the 2020 presidential election, corporate America (including Big Tech) punished members of Congress who refused to certify the election by announcing a pause on donations for those who did not vote to certify. Their public announcement was a statement to America: Big Tech has power over Republican members of Congress.

This was all the more reason for Republicans, whether they voted to certify or not, to band together and tell Big Tech “we don’t need your money and we don’t want your money.” But — seven men excepted — they didn’t.

This election cycle is the year members of Congress must sever ties with Big Tech. They should not even take meetings with these companies, so long as they are actively building unethical Chinese spyware, annihilating American’s first amendment rights, and actively destroying any semblance of free and fair elections.

Here are 20 GOP Congressional leaders who took the most campaign contributions from Big Tech in 2020 and should take zero dollars in 2021, beginning with House leadership:

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Republican Minority Leader

Google: $10,000

Amazon: $10,000

Facebook: $5,000

Total: $25,000

Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), Republican Conference Chairwoman and Member of Education and Labor, Armed Services, and Intelligence Committees

Google: $10,000

Amazon: : $10,000

Facebook: $1,500

Total: $21,500

Rep. Steve Scalise (La.), Republican Whip and Member of Energy and Commerce Committee

Google: $10,000

Amazon: $0

Facebook: $8,000

Total: $18,000

Rep. Drew Ferguson (Ga.), Chief Deputy Whip and Member of Ways and Means Committee

Google: $10,000

Amazon: $1,000

Facebook: $5,000

Total: $16,000

Other representatives and senators who should stop accepting money from Big Tech include, in order of total donation amount from Google, Amazon, and Facebook:

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

Google: $10,000

Amazon: $10,000

Facebook: $6,000

Total: $26,000

Rep. Patrick McHenry (N.C.), Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee

Google: $10,000

Amazon: $5,000

Facebook: $9,000

Total: $24,000

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee

Google: $10,0000

Amazon: $8,000

Facebook: $4,500

Total: $22,500

Rep. Darin LaHood (Ill.), Member of the House Ways and Means Committee

Google: $10,000

Amazon: $10,000

Facebook: $2,000

Total: $22,000

Sen. Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee

Google: $9,000

Amazon: $6,000

Facebook: $6,000

Total: $21,000

Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas), Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee

Google: $10,000

Amazon: $7,500

Facebook: $2,500

Total: $20,000

Rep. Robert Latta (Ohio), Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

Google: $7,500

Amazon: $7,500

Facebook: $5,000

Total: $20,000

Rep. Rodney Davis (Ill.), Ranking Member of the House Administration Committee

Google: $10,000

Amazon: $9,500

Facebook: $0

Total: $19,500

Rep. Kay Granger (Texas), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee

Google: $9,500

Amazon: $10,000

Facebook: $0

Total: $19,500

Rep. Brett Guthrie (Ky.), Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittees on Health and Oversight and Investigations

Google: $7,500

Amazon: $7,500

Facebook: $4,000

Total: $19,000

Rep. Jeff Duncan (S.C.), Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

Google: $10,000

Amazon: $3,500

Facebook: $4,500

Total: $18,000

Rep. Michael Burgess (Texas), Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Ranking Member of the House Rules Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process

Google: $7,500

Amazon: $5,000

Facebook: $5,000

Total: $17,500

Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.), Ranking Member of the House Education and Labor Committee

Google: $7,500

Amazon: $10,000

Facebook: $0

Total: $17,500

Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Member of the Senate Small Business Committee

Google: $9,000

Amazon: $7,500

Facebook: $0

Total: $16,500 

Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.), Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property

Google: $4,000

Amazon: $7,500

Facebook: $5,000

Total: $16,500

Sen. Mike Rounds (S.D.), Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Armed Services Committee

Google: $8,000

Amazon: $5,000

Facebook: $3,500

Total: $16,500

 

 https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/17/its-high-time-gop-congressional-leaders-rejected-big-tech-dollars/


 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage