How the East and West will Part Ways on the Great Reset

posted by Robert A. Taft at American Thinker

The East and the West are both collaborating in an effort to impose the Great Reset -- but each side’s different interpretation of the Great Reset and their incompatibility eventually will tear them apart.

These differences fall into four categories: (1) environment, (2) food production and delivery, (3) global currency, and (4) global governance. 

The Environment

The West’s vision is wrapped in the Green New Deal (GND). The GND is intended not to protect the earth, but is key to reduce global population and to pay off President Biden's debt to China. China, which will be the source for electric vehicle batteries and windmills, will receive some Western reparations for environment damage. While the U.S. and the EU will make costly adjustments under the Paris Climate Accord, China will not. Meanwhile, locked in by contracts across the globe, China controls most of the worlds' rare minerals  and is the largest manufacturer of windmills.

The East, especially China and Russia, do not care about the environment. China will continue to be the world's largest manufacturer run by carbon-based fossil fuels far into the future. China emits 27% of the world's carbon emissions, more than Japan, the EU and the U.S. combined. While the West obsesses about the environment, China and Russia have consolidated global oil producers and sellers -- Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela -- against the energy buyers, Western countries -- and at $100 a barrel are reaping massive profits at the West's expense.

Top Articles By American Thinker

Read More

We’re So Far Downstream from Culture that We’re in Hell

Food Production and Delivery

As for the West, both Schwab at Bali and Biden in his new biotechnology Executive Order call for building “sustainable, healthier, more equitable food systems.” But is that their intent? Since the environmental crisis has replaced COVID, Western globalists are trying to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere and eliminate nitrogen and fertilizers; all of which stunt plant growth to lead to the development of synthetic foods. Bill Gates is pushing fungus and crickets over methane-producing cattle. Globalists are tampering with plant food resulting in threats to agro-ecological systems also leading to the creation of synthetic foods. High-tech crop technologies and food distribution, moreover, favor major food processors while excluding smaller stores and producers as well as rural access to food.

Large Western corporations like Bayer are teaming with Big Tech companies like Microsoft to gain detailed digital overviews of entire land, water, and food flows through artificial intelligence. Digital farming would be a boon for these companies and their investors and would leave smaller producers in the dust. With this alliance between huge food processors and Big Tech, the West believes farmers across the globe will be forced to share “real-time data about local agricultural conditions and farmer behaviour.” Gathering this data on a global scale will allow Big Tech to digitalize and control of global food systems.

But the East may not be so obliging. In developing countries, farming is a staple industry and their agricultural acumen is improving each year. Intrusion by Western behemoths will not be welcome, since China will be the leader in digital food and biotechnology. China has been gobbling up American farmland at a record pace since 2010, but also has invested in synthetic food production and is already far ahead of the West. As the West moves closer to synthetic foods, China sees another opportunity to lead in this area and reap millions in selling products to the West.

Digital Global Currency

The West wants the G-20 to control international finance. They envision a global digital currency replacing cash in a system where the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and central banks -- all controlled by the West -- would manage both the flow and supply of money.

The East also wants a global currency, but not the petrodollar or any currency the West might develop. As financial misery in the West over the GND increases, China will continue its manufacturing dominance and control of international finances by selling oil and gas. They believe this move will give the East great leverage over the West, resulting in the digital yuan becoming the new global currency.

To ensure currency dominance, Russia and China formed BRICS, an acronym for an association of five major economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Each country is large and is situated in different regions of the world where, because of their individual size, they can influence their respective neighbors to form additional alliances with them.

All five are G-20 members. Collectively they represent 40% of the world’s population, a quarter of global land area and a third of global GDP. More importantly they trade in their own currencies. All of them want to shed their dependence on the U.S. dollar and restructure both the international financial system and current geopolitical alignment.

Global Governance

The West believes that the G-20 is sufficiently manageable to serve as the basis for global government as long as the international banking cartel controls global finance.

The East distrusts and hates the West. The WEF vision of the Great Reset has a strong Western bias. The East, however, emboldened by its added leverage of carbon fuel and nation size membership, wants to run the Great Reset on its own terms.

The West, moreover, has based its Great Reset vision on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other technology. China's Made in 2025 Program, however, aims to be the technological leader in 10 critical high-tech areas, including Artificial Intelligence. Its universities have received more funds for AI research than schools in any other countries while obtuse American Big Tech companies like Google are even supporting China's effort.           

The Result: Cooperation or Conflict

So consider the East's edge over the West:

• In the most recent Military Index, China and Russia have militaries superior to that of the United States. Forget NATO country’s “militaries.”
• China leads in manufacturing, mineral deposits, pharmaceutical ingredients, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence.
• China wants to be the leader in 10 critical technologies by 2025.
• Russia leads the new cabal of oil and gas producers/sellers and the West, as energy buyers, is at their mercy. 

China and Russia know their advantages but will play along with the WEF as long as it is in their interest to do so. As for the West, they have completely ignored both China and Russia's vulnerabilities. Opening up U.S. oil and gas would again reduce the price of oil from over $100 a barrel to $40, crushing Russia's mainstay. China has severe population and banking problems. The Chinese people can't get access to their money and property is being confiscated rapidly. Because they eliminated girls at birth years ago, the male-female ratio is incredibly unbalanced.

Nonetheless, the West insists on kowtowing to the East, financing their comparative advantages and thus preparing for its own demise.          

The West and East share essentially the same vision, but their differences mean the race is on. If China-Russia win the race, Western globalists will be the first to go. Why? Because Western elites will seek power, which would be a real threat to the East.

Klaus Schwab should remember his history. His Great Reset has been tried before by his comrades China and Russia. Mao's "The Great Leap Forward" saw millions murdered, as did Lenin's Bolshevik Revolution.

X22 and On the Fringe, - December 3rd

 

I'm so glad this stupid week is finally over! Here's tonight's news:

Revenge of the Neocons?

Neoconservatives are trying to make a comeback with DeSantis.

by Paul du Quenoy for American Greatness

Few factions of American political life have suffered a fall as lamentable as the neoconservatives, a group of Reaganite intellectuals who held sway in Republican politics from the mid-1990s until the advent of Donald J. Trump. Idealists who pushed a globally managed new world order after the Cold War, they advocated failed nation-building around the world, compromised domestically with tax-and-spend neoliberals, contentedly ceded control of cultural politics to the Left, and ended up a dainty, bow-tied coterie of controlled opposition subsumed by Washington’s ossified elite.

Feckless, out of touch, out of power, and often quite happy to be that way in exchange for comfortable lives of blue-state social acceptability, neocons today are a preening remnant huddled in the capital’s vast pastureland of worthless think tanks, meaningless advisory boards, and distrusted legacy media. A vital part of what has derisively become known as “Conservatism, Inc.,” one rarely finds them outside the Washington suburbs, though some have retreated to heartland places to look authentic, reduce expenses, or avoid the real-life consequences of their many failed policies.

A decidedly baby-boomer movement, barely any are under 65, and those who are usually look and act twice that age. They have virtually no achievements of which to be proud, no mentorship networks to nurture, no winning personal qualities about which to boast, and no natural means to pass down their discredited ideas to a new generation. They have no acolytes, no protégés, no disciples, and therefore no successors. Younger conservatives think of them as sell-outs, hypocrites, and phonies, and easily ignore them. Older paleoconservatives who still care usually gesture toward them with well-deserved smirks that signal, “See, I told you so.”

Perceptions aside, more than a few neocons have become Democrats, or publicly endorse and vote for Democratic candidates, ironically because they object to the idea that without them, the Republican Party sometimes has the effrontery to represent the interests and values of its voters. Unappreciated by anyone but themselves, and conditioned by bitter experience to accept losing as a default position, many now reject the “neoconservative” label altogether. Some can even be found in the Biden Administration, perhaps compliantly announcing their pronouns when prompted by Kamala Harris.

In 2016, the neocons’ dominant national security wing committed a bizarre act of professional harakiri  by declaring that they would never work for a Trump Administration. Most were likely grandstanding because they did not expect Trump to win the Republican nomination or that year’s presidential election, but all deluded themselves into believing that the voting public would admire their “virtue” as they dutifully cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton. A few especially unprincipled neocons managed to crawl back to serve Trump in peripheral posts, but if most had simply vanished when he entered office, the only noticeable result would have been the Democrats losing another few thousand votes in Northern Virginia.

The flagship neocon publication, the Weekly Standard, crashed and burned in 2018 when its publisher withdrew financing following a precipitous drop in subscriptions largely caused by the magazine’s obsessively anti-Trump editorial line. Successor publications such as The Bulwark and The Dispatchare largely produced by neocons, for neocons and hardly travel outside their limited bubble of cocktail party fondue except to solicit funding from leftist patrons. Neoconservatism was never a populist movement, and its late-hour attempts at public outreach predictably went nowhere. The most prominent attempt, the NeverTrumper-aligned “Lincoln Project,” founded in 2019, quickly degenerated into a sleazy morass of malfeasance accusations, gay sex scandals, George Conway, and an incredibly boring series on Showtime.

Paradoxically, it was the Trumpian steamroller that gave neocons a renewed platform. In the leftist hysteria that followed his election, some neocons made profitable comebacks in the mainstream media, where they suddenly became palatable to the Left as columnists, TV talking heads, and “respectable” conservative intellectuals who—often for the right price—could reliably amplify the anti-Trump chorus and at least superficially shield leftist outlets against accusations of bias, while not complaining too much about social and cultural issues that never mattered to them, anyway.

After the 2020 election, many neocons presumed that rank-and-file Republicans would automatically come to their senses and restore them to leadership as a matter of course. Instead, Trump remained the aggrieved heart and soul of the Republican Party, which proceeded to drive the few remaining neocons in active political life into virtual oblivion. Their intellectual leadership preserved an outsized voice, but it was so hopelessly compromised by its hasty marriage of convenience to the mainstream outlets that it became just another variant of fake news, a self-dealing “Vichy conservatism” collaborating with a hateful regime in the hope of reward, or at least mitigated loss. It didn’t help that one of its leading writers bears the surname “French.”

Neocon 2.0: A New Hope?

Now, after the 2022 midterm elections have delivered an underwhelming victory to Republicans—but a victory nevertheless—the hapless neocons have detected a new hope. As much of the blame for the lackluster results is laid at Trump’s doorstep, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has definitively emerged as the only credible alternative for the 2024 presidential race. Before, neocons looked down on him. Southern and working-class, he was a founding member of the House of Representatives’ Freedom Caucus, a populist right-wing group strongly associated with Trump, who never tires of pointing out that he endorsed DeSantis for governor in a race he narrowly won the first time. 

DeSantis’ pandemic policies, which made him rightly beloved in Florida and a national hero to real conservatives, ran smack up against the dictates of the security-surveillance state the neocons are largely responsible for building and then handing over to the Democrats in a strange act of repressive bipartisanship. The Florida governor’s aggressive stances on cultural politics—which are identical to Trump’s in both content and style—strike neocons as an unnecessary distraction at best and illiberal tyranny at worst. His proud prizing of the values of Destin over Davos does not augur well for neocon dreams of realizing the new world order they still plot in Fairfax County salons now that they can no longer afford houses in Georgetown on their fixed incomes and penurious nonprofit gigs.

Nevertheless, neocons are jumping on the DeSantis bandwagon, hopeful that he will lead a Republican Party without Trump, one in which they might again find a respected, and perhaps even leading, place. David “Vichy” French, for one, tweeted after the election that he has “no doubt which is better for the nation and for the GOP.” He did not mean Trump. David Frum, once a high-level George W. Bush Administration official who has been reduced to writing for the wine moms who read the Atlantic, publicly urged DeSantis to get more aggressive about seizing the leadership mantle from Trump, arguing that “if DeSantis is in the game now, he has to play now.” Bill Kristol, who is perhaps more neoconservatism’s managing director than its godfather, is also spoiling for a fight for the soul of the party. “He’s gonna have to confront the madman head on,” he tweeted of DeSantis versus Trump, “for a stiff-armed mano a mano.”

It does not seem to have occurred to the neocon commentariat that a Republican civil war in the 2024 primary could be so destructive that whoever wins may emerge battered and overspent enough to allow an 82-year-old Joe Biden to stumble into a second term. Nor do they quite realize that while Trump will carry his supporters, the anti-Trump Republican vote will be divided not only with DeSantis, should he run, but with DeSantis and however many other Republicans throw their hats into the ring. A possible result is that Trump will sweep the primaries with the same pluralities he won in 2016. 

The true neocon, however, doesn’t care as long as his own “relevance” is back in play. As long as it’s not led by Trump, even a losing party offers hope and at least a glimpse of junior-varsity power somewhere down the line, or within the controlled opposition neocons already inhabit. A winning party led by DeSantis, however, promises the opportunity to fall at the young governor’s feet to offer him their unequaled “wisdom” and decades of “expertise,” wrapped up in the sickening platitudes of Beltway flattery. If DeSantis is triumphant in 2024, let us hope he sees through them and sends them back to their urban pastureland.

Our Military Needs Officers Chosen For Their Qualifications, Not Skin Color

To avoid racial tensions that weaken morale and cohesion, the Defense Department should eliminate all CRT programs, discontinue the use of racial preferences, and end all forms of race-based discrimination.

by Elaine Donnelly for The Federalist

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in two cases challenging race-based affirmative action practices at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). A group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued those civilian schools for discriminatory admission policies, but the high-stakes legal drama also involves the military.

Arguing for the Department of Defense, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar insisted (without evidence) that military officer corps diversity “is a critical national security imperative” and that “it’s not possible to achieve that diversity without race conscious admissions, including at the nation’s service academies.”  

How did the military get roped into this legal debate?

The controversy started with a 2003 case called Grutter v. Bollinger, when a group of retired defense officials and military officers filed a friend of the court (amicus) brief arguing in support of racial preferences at the University of Michigan Law School.

In Grutter, the Department of Defense (DOD) surrogate brief claimed that racial preferences in admissions to the service academies and colleges having Reserve Officers’ Training Corp (ROTC) scholarship programs were “essential to national security.” It was a far-fetched, disingenuous argument, but absent rebuttal, some justices bought it.

The 5-4 Grutter ruling allowed Michigan Law to consider race in choosing applicants, relying on the contrived claim that racial preferences in admissions were necessary to achieve racially diverse ROTC and military service academy programs. The alleged “national security imperative,” unfortunately, was deemed sufficient to satisfy the “compelling state interest” requirement needed to survive strict scrutiny.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor supported the Grutter ruling, but she cautioned that race-conscious practices should end in about 25 years. Nineteen years later, SFFA is petitioning the court to overturn Grutter and end discriminatory admissions policies now.

DOD and Veterans Engaged on Both Sides

The students’ case presents specific evidence of race-based discrimination against higher-scoring Asian applicants at Harvard and higher-scoring Asian and white applicants at UNC, arguing that such practices violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Biden administration is supporting the pro-discrimination side, not the white and Asian students seeking non-discrimination and recognition of merit. Another DOD surrogate group filed an amicus brief like the one submitted in Grutter.

Enter a group called Veterans for Fairness and Merit (VFM), which advocates for equal opportunity and merit and condemns all forms of racism. VFM filed a new amicus brief disputing the claim that effectiveness in combat depends on policies that are race-conscious instead of colorblind.

The VFM brief, filed on behalf of its more than 600 distinguished veteran members including 21 Medal of Honor recipients, presents persuasive facts countering the claim that the military officer corps lacks diversity. The percentage of black Army officers (12.3 percent), for example, is only one point shy of the approximately 13 percent of black people in the general population. VFM also argues that increased officer diversity is not essential to national security and that our military can defend America without suspending the equal protection clause.  

VFM’s brief further states that discriminatory racial preferences are “unquestionably harmful to our national security,” explaining that such preferences are antithetical to the “selfless servant, colorblind culture necessary for our military to prevail on the battlefield.”

When Justice Clarence Thomas asked Solicitor General Prelogar to describe the education benefits of race-conscious admissions, she noted intangibles such as “cross-racial understanding.” She also warned that smaller percentages of minorities in the officer corps than the enlisted ranks would lead to “tremendous racial tension and strife” as the armed forces have experienced in the past.

DOD Predicts ‘Racial Tension and Strife’

It was an astonishing argument. Unsurprisingly, it falls apart under closer examination. Racial strife in the armed forces did occur in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but it was largely caused by conscription, anti-Vietnam War radicalism, widespread drug abuse, racial suspicions, and Great Society failures like Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara’s “Project 100,000.”  

Launched in 1966, this disastrous social experiment did not target racial minorities, but it was supposed to help inner-city and rural men to escape poverty on the ladder of military service. Because standards were lowered to achieve social goals, “Category IV” inductees who scored low on aptitude tests became known as “New Standards Men.” Many of the disadvantaged Project 100,000 men were Black and Latino, and thousands died in disproportionate numbers. Those who survived did not fare well in civilian life.

In the early 1970s, the Navy also lowered standards to enlist a greater percentage of Category IV recruits with disciplinary problems and no high school diploma. According to a 1973 House Armed Services Subcommittee report, the carrier U.S.S. Kitty Hawk experienced severe insubordination and racial violence that shattered the chain of command.  

Racially polarized riots also occurred on the carrier U.S.S. Constellation, but the House subcommittee found no evidence of racial discrimination. Instead, agitators incited riots by convincing minority sailors that commanders were victimizing them because they were black.

Conditions of that era do not exist today. Since Vietnam, the all-volunteer force has fought several wars without race riots or combat refusals. However, the Defense Department risks heightening racial tensions with its critical race theory (CRT) instructions.

In “anti-racist” CRT programs, white participants must confess their “white supremacy,” and minorities are indoctrinated in woke victimology. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has quoted servicemember whistleblowers who said they were forced to participate in race-conscious “privilege walks” and viewings of videos re-writing American history as a “fundamentally racist and evil nation.”

CRT “anti-extremist” programs and divisive use of racial preferences weaken mutual trust and cohesion, which are essential for combat effectiveness. To avoid racial tensions, the Defense Department should eliminate all CRT programs, discontinue the use of racial preferences, and end all forms of race-based discrimination.

The nine Supreme Court justices did not mention the competing military amicus briefs during oral arguments, but advocates of equality and meritocracy are raising a simple question: If a friend or family member is in combat, should their commanding officer be the best qualified, regardless of race? Or would it suffice to be led by lesser qualified officers whose skin color was used to achieve “demographic parity” between officers and the enlisted ranks?

Given what is at stake, the choice should be easy to make.

Another Lawsuit Filed Against Oregon for Most Restrictive Gun Law in the Country

Sarah Arnold reporting for Townhall

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Oregon State Shooting Association (OSSA), and Mazama Sporting Goods filed a lawsuit against the state’s recently passed Ballot Measure 114, which is considered one of the strictest gun control laws in the country. 

The lawsuit claims that the measure infringes upon the right of Oregon residents to buy and own firearms, imposing “severe and unprecedented burdens on individuals seeking to exercise perhaps the most basic right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

This is the third lawsuit filed since November 8, which was filed by the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), Sherman County Sheriff’s Department, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

“The deficiencies in this ballot measure cannot go unaddressed. Forget that it is scheduled to go into effect before Oregon even certifies the election, but it requires potential gun owners to take a class that has yet to be created, at a cost yet to be determined, so that they can obtain a permit that doesn’t permit them to purchase a firearm,” NRA Oregon state director Aoibheann Cline said in a statement to the Daily Caller. 

The strict measure will require residents to get background checks, firearm training (which does not currently exist), fingerprint collection, and a permit to purchase any firearm. 

The lawsuit also alleges that the measure creates a “Kafkaesque regime” which they claim is not supported by history, tradition, or modern regulation.

“Oregon’s Measure 114 is blatantly unconstitutional,” NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane said, adding “the right to keep and bear arms begins with the ability of law-abiding citizens to be able to obtain a firearm through a lawful purchase at a firearm retailer.”

He also said that it threatens the most constitutional right… “Oregon has created an impossible-to-navigate labyrinth that will achieve nothing except to deny Second Amendment rights to its citizens. The measure is an affront to civil liberties which belong to People, not to the state to grant on impossible and subjective criteria,” Keane added. 

The state has rushed to pass the measure, meaning no one will be able to buy a firearm beginning on December 8. 

Veteran Lawyer Fails to Freak out That Roe Was Overturned, Top Firm Promptly Fires Her

Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

(The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.)

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in June, white-shoe law firm Hogan Lovells held an all-female online conference call to discuss what employees were feeling in the aftermath. When Robin Keller, a retired equity partner who boasted a 44-year career and was still actively serving clients, failed to express sufficient outrage at the decision and dared to opine that the case was correctly decided, her colleagues were immediately triggered, one of them filed a formal complaint, and just like that—Keller was canceled.

She wrote about her experience in the Wall Street Journal this week:

In her powerful piece, she described the events leading up to her termination:

I was invited to participate in what was billed as a “safe space” for women at the firm to discuss the [Dobbs] decision [overturning Roe v Wade]. It might have been a safe space for some, but it wasn’t safe for me.

Everyone else who spoke on the call was unanimous in her anger and outrage about Dobbs. I spoke up to offer a different view. I noted that many jurists and commentators believed Roe had been wrongly decided.

As we’ve reported before, this is not a particularly controversial opinion. Many legal scholars, including the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, had serious issues with the legalities underpinning Roe, and many predicted its eventual overturn.

Keller continued:

I said that the court was right to remand the issue to the states. I added that I thought abortion-rights advocates had brought much of the pushback against Roe on themselves by pushing for extreme policies. I referred to numerous reports of disproportionately high rates of abortion in the black community, which some have called a form of genocide. I said I thought this was tragic.

You said what?! You can’t say those things in today’s America, Robin!

Stating a fact is racist and anti-Black, evidently. Sure enough, Keller was quickly kicked to the curb:

Later that day, Hogan Lovells suspended my contracts, cut off my contact with clients, removed me from email and document systems, and emailed all U.S. personnel saying that a forum participant had made “anti-Black comments” and was suspended pending an investigation.

One colleague called her a racist, while another said she “lost their ability to breathe.” (Might want to see a doctor, FYI.) The problem with these charges, however, is that Keller simply spoke the truth: Black women have the highest abortion rate in the country at 40 percent, and more than 20 million have chosen to abort their babies since Roe. This is not in dispute, yet the fact that some people don’t like that reality is enough to get you fired.

In her close, Keller notes a phenomenon that so many doctors have experienced during the COVID pandemic: Many of their colleagues agree with their conclusions but can’t say anything for fear of retribution.

Several women on the call—as well as male lawyers at the firm—contacted me later to offer private support for my right to express my views. Those former colleagues must now realize that they are in a hostile work environment. If this could happen to me, anyone who expresses a disfavored opinion—even on a matter of law—can expect the same treatment: immediate cancellation without concern for client interests, due process or fairness.

I discussed the issue with Scott Cousins, a bankruptcy lawyer who I interviewed last spring for a (fascinating, if I may say so) story regarding Native American mascots. He’s known Keller since his law school days, and credits her for inspiring his career choice; he also says, “I know the quality of her character and I know that she is not a ‘racist.’”

He also acknowledges the fear out there:

Interestingly enough, I’m getting emails from others (both inside the legal community and outside) from those who are afraid to speak out publicly in support of Robin for fear of being called a “racist” and being “canceled.”

Yes, that’s the world we live in these days, folks.

The reaction of course has been mixed, with those critical of “cancel culture” coming to Keller’s defense and those infuriated that she would dare question that sacred cow of the progressives—abortion—claiming that she’s a whiner. One letter to the editor at the WSJ reads [emphasis mine.]:

Although I sympathize with Ms. Keller, her former firm’s stated goal of creating a “safe space” should have been a flashing red light. “Safe space” means that certain opinions aren’t allowed and that those expressing them would do so at their peril. Ms. Keller may have placed faith that her employer, as a law firm, would support the right of employees to state their own views. Alas, law firms, particularly large ones like Hogan Lovells, are no less susceptible to corporate groupthink than any other employer.

If Ms. Keller wished to retain her position at Hogan, she should have skipped the “safe space” meeting and stayed in her office grinding out billable hours.

An alternative view is expressed at the website Above the Law, where an outraged progressive doesn’t bother to argue the facts about black abortion rates or the legal foundations of Dobbs; she just tears down Keller for daring to mention them:

…Keller would rather gin up the disingenuous rallying cry of twisted First Amendment talking points than take any personal responsibility for what she said…

If anyone came into a big meeting a [sic] spouted harmful rhetoric that academics say is “full of misogynoir” there’d be no argument in defense of what she’d done. But because the Court gave space to half truths and a twisted version of history to undo 50 years of reproductive freedom, it gifted cover to racists and sexists to say the quiet part out loud.

Sorry, Above the Law, you lost me at “misogynoir.” (It refers to the special sexism that gets extra points when directed at a black woman. Or something.) This Twitter user vehemently disagreed with the article:

The author also says Keller does not get to “eschew responsibility for imposing her problematic views on her colleagues.” Missing from her unhinged rant is that Keller wasn’t imposing her views on her colleagues, she was specifically asked for them, and that was the whole purpose of the conference call. The problem for this journalist is that Keller’s views are different from hers—which simply can’t be allowed.

There are many who argue that “cancel culture” is a right-wing myth, and that it doesn’t exist. Add this story to the many, many examples proving that it’s alive and well in America. Good for Keller for refusing to stay silent. In a sign of the madness that defines modern progressives, this Harvard-educated female former partner’s LinkedIn profile now says #OpenToWork at an age when she could be mentoring young lawyers on the importance of our adversarial system—which requires all sides be heard.

Robin Keller’s LinkedIn profile picture. (Credit: Robin Keller/LinkedIn)

DNC Moves to Align 2024 Primary Roadmap Using AME/BLM Model Constructed by Barack Obama Inc

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

If you haven’t followed the granular details of how Barack Obama organized the AME Church Network (SC, Clyburn) with the BLM movement (GA, Abrams) in 2020 to control the democracy primary process, then the moves today to codify that approach will not be clear.

Once you understand what took place in the 2020 Democrat primary that saw all candidates fall in line behind Biden, according to the process that Obama initiated, then everything centered around the DNC moves today makes buckets of sense.

Despite how the media is presenting this, it is not Biden’s plan. This is Obama’s 2024 insider club roadmap, and it specifically includes the alignment of interests that he created in 2020 to remove the threat that Bernie Sanders represented.  More on that in a moment.  First, the DNC plan:

(Via Politico) – […] The DNC is on track to reshape its primary calendar after dissatisfaction with the traditional first state, Iowa, boiled over in 2020. Members of the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, charged with recommending a new calendar, gave a near-unanimous vote of approval on Friday for Biden’s proposal, with only minor tweaks to the dates and two ‘no’ votes from Iowa and New Hampshire members.

The revised proposal would see South Carolina host the first 2024 presidential primary on Feb. 3, a Saturday, followed three days later by New Hampshire and Nevada. Georgia would then hold an early primary on Feb. 13, and Michigan would hold its contest on Feb. 27. Iowa would be out of the early lineup altogether.  (read more)

These changes are all about keeping the corporate wing of the DNC in control and eliminating the influence of the momentum progressive candidates.  Just like the RNC wants MAGA destroyed, the DNC corporation wants control over the Bernie Sanders wing and democrat socialists.

Keep in mind, we wrote about this over two years ago, when Obama stepped into the 2020 primary to create the AME/BLM alignment.

Right before the 2020 SC Primary the DNC Club knew they had a problem with the Bernie Sanders momentum.  An urgent assembly of all party control officers was called. The DNC Club designed a plan around using James Clyburn as the official spark for Joe Biden to take back control of the primary outcome.  Barack Obama was instrumental.

♦ BACKGROUND – There is a history – a backstory – that only a small group of people genuinely understand.  The answers around this 2024 DNC change boil down to the less discussed issue of ideological camps and the modern alignment that has taken place over the past decade.  The most visible reference for the inflection point was the 2008 primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Throughout the first decade of this millennium there was an ideological shift, an inflection point, that became most clear in the rise of a little-known state representative who was appointed to become a Senator from Illinois, his name was Barack Obama.  In the background of Obama’s rise were the people who designed the modern political left. Those Obama creationists were/are hardline revolutionary communist types.

This RevCom group was comprised of the more radical elements of the progressive movement; those who wanted to “fundamentally change” the United States, and who have a very patient and methodical plan to do so.  Those elements took control by convincing the far-left labor movement to abandon the traditional Democrat apparatus and support a more radical approach.  The SEIU, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, UAW, UFCW and others were leveraged to this position through promised financial benefit if they went along.

Those groups became the more powerful ammunition needed by the radical community activist teams, which were entirely on the side of Obama.  Hillary Clinton’s first run for the presidency was crushed under the weight of the leverage all of the radicals aligned on the Obama side.  Clinton was only left with the option to support the extremists in exchange for support in 2016.

However, the support she received was not full-throated.  The ideological hatred that was created during the earlier inflection point, when the camps were at war, left scars.  Those scars never healed; and, quite frankly the radicals were not going to support someone they just didn’t like.

Radical foot soldiers operate best on feelings and emotions. Clinton just didn’t do it for them…  One by one the traditional democrat left was wiped out by the more extreme radical leftists.  [Remember the destruction of the Bart Supak “blue dogs”?]

Fast forward to today, very recently, and what we are seeing is the outcome of the Obama coalition in complete control over the internal club systems and political party apparatus.  It took some time for this takeover to matriculate.

We are there now…. and into this far-left soup of radical elements the new left-wing media is mixed.  The media are now activists for the radicals.  This is why there is a more brutally obvious bias present today that was not present before.  The bias was always present, but the scale of the ideological nature of the bias was not always as visible.  Today the ideological support is crystal clear.

Right before the 2020 SC Primary the DNC Club knew they had a problem with the Bernie Sanders momentum.  An urgent assembly of all party control officers was called. The DNC Club designed a plan around using James Clyburn as the official spark for Joe Biden to take back control of the primary outcome.

Barack Obama the figurative and ideological leader of the movement known as “Black Lives Matter”, and South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the figurative and ideological leader of the political construct within the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, struck a deal.

Obama and Clyburn really had no choice but to come to an agreement and form the alliance.  If they did not act fast, Bernie Sanders was gaining momentum, and they could not have Sanders at the top of the 2020 ticket, because he was too outside the club system which was now almost exclusively focused on racial identity as a tool for political power.

A Bernie Sanders -vs- Donald Trump general election would have been a disaster for both clubs.

To get rid of Sanders, BLM (based in Georgia) and AME (based in South Carolina) aligned.  This was the actual moment when Hillary Clinton was cast into the pit of irrelevance in Democrat politics.

Within the agreement, Obama and Clyburn selected Biden as the tool they could easily control to deliver on their larger, progressive, leftist intentions.  The only one told not to drop out yet was Elizabeth Warren, as she would be needed as the insurance policy, the splitter against Bernie Sanders.

Within 48 hours all members of the club and candidates had their instructions and proceeded to follow-through on the plan.  They had no choice.  If they did not comply, they would suffer the consequences of a fully aligned club hierarchy who would target them personally and financially.

The plan worked flawlessly.  A few days after their meeting James Clyburn endorsed Biden while Barack Obama began making phone calls telling each of the other candidates to drop out in sequence and support Biden or else the club would destroy them.

As part of the coordinated deal Representative James Clyburn was put in charge of the Biden campaign; Clyburn stunningly admitted this immediately after the strategy went public.  James Clyburn and Barack Obama also controlled the vice-presidential nominee.

Joe Biden has dementia. Everyone knows this to be true.  The Biden presidency is a front; a ruse, a manipulative scheme that needed a face in 2020. That’s Joe Biden.

In the background the DNC Club has been in full control of everything behind the scenes.  All policy is Club policy; and, specifically because of their importance in triggering the origin of the entire enterprise, the primary policy beneficiaries were the corporate donors, the AME church network and the BLM activists.

The new DNC primary contest map essentially codifies the control process and blocks any rogue non-club approved candidate from entering a challenge.   Only the corporate and club approved candidates will benefit from the changes.

(Politico) – […]  DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, who attended the meeting, also called the proposed early window a reflection “of the diversity of our party” and “a more equitable and accessible nomination process that puts our candidates in the best position to win.” Harrison is the former chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

But David McDonald, another longtime DNC member, did raise light concerns that the committee’s introduction of large states, including Michigan and Georgia, could “effectively [create] a bias toward certain kinds of candidates,” particularly those who enter a presidential primaries with significant financial resources, which would allow them to compete more effectively in expensive media markets. (link)