Posted in: America. Tagged: Biden Administration, Democratic Party, Democrats, Elections, Fraud, Free, Free Indeed, Free Men, Free Press, Free Society, free speech, Free Thought, Freedom, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Thought, Freedom to meet, Freedoms, Life, News, Political, Politics, Republicans, Republicans/Democrats, Rumble, Rumble Video, Science, Tennessee, truth, Voter Fraud, Voting. Leave a comment
Unbelievable that ‘A war is raging three thousand miles away from Jerusalem between two nations that share no borders with Israel, and in which it has no troops, no interests, and no involvement.
And yet somehow the war between Russia and Ukraine has come to be about Israel.
“Israel Needs to Make Up Its Mind on Ukraine,” a Foreign Policy Magazine op-ed blares as if the Jewish State were somehow a major player in a war between two much larger countries thousands of miles away. It’s as absurd as demanding that the Dominican Republic (which is still larger than Israel) make up its mind on the border clashes between India and China.
“Israel’s reaction to #Ukraine will have bearing on future aid from the US to #Israel,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger warned on Twitter. Whatever “bearing” it has won’t come from the Never Trumper ex-Republican who is retiring after becoming unelectable. But that hasn’t stopped him, or assorted politicians and media outlets, from threatening Israel anyway.
“Ukraine asked Israel – no bigger fan of Israel than Lindsey Graham – for Stingers, and apparently Israel said no,” Senator Graham said. “So I’m going to get on the phone with Israel – you know, we stand up for Israel with the Iron Dome.”
The only thing more baffling than why Graham felt the need to refer to himself in the third person is why the senator is demanding that Israel supply U.S. missiles to Ukraine. Isn’t that his job?
Despite Israel delivering 230 tons of humanitarian aid, including bulletproof ambulances, setting up a field hospital, and taking in thousands of refugees, the pressure campaign insists that it isn’t doing enough. And that the war not only involves Israel, but the outcome depends on it.
There’s notably much less interest in India, a country of 1.3 billion, which buys Russian oil, has close ties to Russia, and refused to condemn the invasion, than in Israel, a country of 6.5 million, which doesn’t buy Russian oil and did vote to condemn the invasion at the UN.
No matter what the position on the war is, the consensus is that Israel is doing the wrong thing.
The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Soros-Koch project that attacks America for being too tough on China, Iran, and Russia, demanded to know, “Why is Israel MIA on Ukraine-Russia crisis?” The outrage at Israel for not being involved enough in the Ukraine crisis is being directed by the same leftist-libertarian group that is warning against America getting involved with articles like, “Washington Should Think Twice Before Launching a New Cold War”.
The Catch 22 hypocrisy is as obvious as the hate. If Israel is involved in a war, it’s evil, but if it’s not involved in a war, it’s also evil. Whatever Israel does or doesn’t do is an outrage.
The hatred of Israel never had anything to do with the so-called “Palestinians”, the Arabs, Muslims, or anyone in the Middle East. That’s why the same political interests are capable of taking a war in Ukraine thousands of miles away and making it all about the Jewish State.
The Ukraine war has trotted out the familiar toolbox of tropes with the insistence that Israel somehow has the ability to resolve a war it didn’t make, even as Israel’s Prime Minister Bennett scrambles around on the impossible mission of bringing peace to people who don’t want it.
There’s the Holocaust inversion with Zelensky and assorted critics depicting Ukraine as the new Jews facing a new Holocaust, with the Jews now reinvented as the unfeeling bystanders. And that leads to the anti-Zionist contention that Israel’s nationhood is at odds with “Jewish values”.
“Ukraine War Ignites Israeli Debate Over Purpose of a Jewish State,” the New York Times argued, complaining that Israel hadn’t taken in enough refugees after it took in 15,000.
(The number of Ukrainian refugees taken in by the New York Times is estimated at zero.)
Compare that to France, which took in 26,000 Ukrainian refugees, despite being ten times the size of Israel. But France, like India, isn’t full of Jews. And so there’s no contention that France which, proportionally took in far less refugees than Israel, should just stop existing.
The magical ability to make any war anywhere about Israel with the same set of familiar anti-Zionist tropes shows that these arguments were never contextual responses to regional conflicts, but a general opposition to the existence of Israel regardless of anything else.
Whatever war is going on wherever, it’s Israel’s fault and evidence that it shouldn’t exist.
The media’s attempts to link Israel to the war in Ukraine are often so tenuous as to take on their own form of surreal absurdity.
NPR found it vitally important to write an entire story based around the fact that there was a bar named the Putin Pub in Jerusalem (it’s since been renamed). When a media outlet is this desperate to negatively connect Israel to the Ukraine war, the agenda is clear.
(This is the same media outlet which claimed that it didn’t want to report on Hunter Biden’s laptop because, “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories.”)
Ukraine’s government has colluded in the international hate campaign against Israel.
Zelensky and his government have berated Israel, exploited the Holocaust and demanded everything from Iron Dome (designed to stop crude rockets shot by terrorists, not a full assault by a world power) and the Pegasus cyberwarfare tool (it won’t stop Russian tanks), pushing for Israeli sanctions on Russia even while his government refuses to stop doing business with Iran.
In the latest bid, the Ukrainian government is demanding security guarantees from Israel, despite the fact that Israel is a country of 8,600 square miles while Ukraine encompasses 233,000 square miles. Ukraine is not only vastly bigger than Israel, it has seven times Israel’s population. That’s like Canada demanding security guarantees from Cyprus.
But that’s just the ex-comedian doing what he does. In his lecture to Congress, Zelensky invoked Pearl Harbor and 9/11, when addressing the Arabs, he brought up Syria, while speaking to the Japanese parliament, he called the Russian invasion a “tsunami” and referenced Japan’s nuclear disaster. The shallow formula of namechecking deep traumas in other countries while linking them to Ukraine and complaining they’re not doing enough to stop history from repeating itself has become a trite routine to anyone actually paying attention.
It’s the media’s fault for gleefully weaponizing Zelensky’s pressure campaign and amplifying outright antisemitism from leftists and Islamists who are happily exploiting the narrative.
Continuing his virtual world tour, Zelensky phoned in to Qatar’s Doha Forum. The Emir of the Islamic terror state of Qatar had opened the event by comparing “Palestinians” to Ukraine.
The Al Thani scion allied with Iran and Hamas then complained that, “The accusation of anti-Semitism is now used wrongly against everyone who criticizes Israel’s policies.”
Or, like Qatar’s Al Jazeera propaganda channel, broadcasts raw uncut antisemitism.
Back home the propaganda campaign against Israel is offset with weapons-grade levels of hypocrisy as bad actors tied to totalitarian regimes berate Israel over Russia and Ukraine.
William Cohen, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, went on CNN to rant to Christiane Amanpour that he was “deeply disappointed” with Israel. Cohen (despite his last name, he’s a Unitarian) and Amanpour both have a long history of hating Israel. And taking cheap shots at it.
“Are you with the Russians or are you with the United States and the West? They do have to make a decision here,” Cohen railed.
Amanpour neglected to mention that the Cohen Group has an office in Beijing, that Cohen serves on the Board of Directors of the U.S.-China Business Council and that his group includes “Chinese nationals with extensive experience in Chinese government ministries”.
The Cohen Group also boasts of “decades of experience working with officials in Moscow”, and “building relationships with government decision makers”.
Two years ago, Cohen was claiming that “President Putin is going to try and step in and be the peacemaker here” between America and Iran.
“I’m a bit more optimistic that the Russians will come in as a peacemaker,” he told CNBC.
This exciting new hatred of Israel is not about Ukraine, any more than the old variety was about the “Palestinians”. Hating Israel is in the end always about one thing and one thing alone.
‘The information that I am about to share with you is extremely alarming, but I have always endeavored to never sugarcoat things for my readers. Right now, there are shortages of certain items in grocery stores across the United States, and food supplies have gotten very tight all over the globe. I have repeatedly warned that this is just the beginning, but I didn’t realize how dire things have already gotten until I received an email from a farming insider that I have corresponded with over the years. I asked him if I could publicly share some of the information that he was sharing with me, and he said that would be okay as long as I kept his name out of it.
According to this farming insider, dramatically increased costs for fertilizer will make it impossible for many farmers to profitably plant corn this year. The following is an excerpt from an email that he recently sent me…
“Things for 2022 are interesting (and scary). Input costs for things like fertilizer, liquid nitrogen and seeds are like triple and quadruple the old prices. It will not be profitable to plant this year. Let me repeat, the economics will NOT work. Our plan, is to drop about 700 acres of corn off and convert to soybeans (they use less fertilizer, and we also have chicken manure from that operation). Guess what? We are not the only ones with those plans. Already there is a shortage of soybean seeds, so we will see how that will work out. The way I see it, there will be a major grain shortage later in the year, especially with corn. I mean, we are small with that. What about these people in the midwest who have like 10,000 acres of corn? This will not be good.”
Once I received that message, I wrote him back with some questions that I had.
In response, he expanded on his comments in a subsequent email…As for the farming, I see it getting bad. Things like fertilizer and liquid nitrogen have tripled and quadrupled in price. Yes commodity prices are up, but that certainly wont cover the new increased input costs. We are in NC, so while certainly not like the midwest, we still grow grain. The midwest of course will have these same higher input costs as well.Corn for example, typically takes about 600 pounds of fertilizer per acre, plus 50 gallons of liquid nitrogen. Times that by many acres and thats a lot of money. Soybeans take much less. The plan for us, and most others around here, is to drastically cut corn acres and switch to soybeans. Problem is, there is apparently a soybean seed shortage because others have this plan as well. We were lucky enough to pre buy enough to do it. However, most people, especially younger farmers, or farmers where that is all they do, probably don’t have the money to front like that.The way I see it, a corn shortage will come. I guess there could possibly be a glut of soybeans, but remember that could depend on the seed being available. I guess there are other alternatives, maybe milo, oats, or barley. Of course the corn market is much larger. Think animal feed and ethanol. I mean for animals, soybeans are used too, but its a mix. What happens to the animal producers who depend on reasonably priced corn? I just don’t see how it can end well. I mean, even if we end up with plenty of soybeans, even a glut, then you have a busted market for that. I don’t know. There just isnt much history to base any of this on. I just see it hurting both grain farmers, and animal farmers, and also translating to more shortages and price increases for consumers who buy the end products.
I was stunned when I first read that.
Corn is one of the foundational pillars of our food supply.
If you go to the grocery store and start reading through the ingredients of various products, you will quickly discover that corn is in just about everything in one form or another.
So what is our country going to look like if a severe corn shortage actually happens?
I don’t even want to think about that.
Of course fertilizer prices are not just going through the roof here in the United States.
In South America, high fertilizer prices are going to dramatically affect coffee production…
Christina Ribeiro do Valle, who comes from a long line of coffee growers in Brazil, is this year paying three times what she paid last year for the fertilizer she needs. Coupled with a recent drought that hit her crop hard, it means Ms. do Valle, 75, will produce a fraction of her Ribeiro do Valle brand of coffee, some of which is exported.
There is also a shortage of fertilizer. “This year, you pay, then put your name on a waiting list, and the supplier delivers it when he has it,” she said.
If you love to drink coffee in the morning, you will soon be paying much more for that privilege.
Over in Africa, fertilizer prices could result in “30 million metric tons less food produced”…
Fertilizer demand in sub-Saharan Africa could fall 30% in 2022, according to the International Fertilizer Development Center, a global nonprofit organization. That would translate to 30 million metric tons less food produced, which the center says is equivalent to the food needs of 100 million people.
“Lower fertilizer use will inevitably weigh on food production and quality, affecting food availability, rural incomes and the livelihoods of the poor,” said Josef Schmidhuber, deputy director of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s trade and markets division.
Where in the world are we going to get enough food to replace “the food needs of 100 million people”?
This is beyond serious.
Basically, the stage is being set for the sort of historic global crisis that I have been relentlessly warning about.
Many Americans had assumed that even if the rest of the world was suffering that we would be immune.
But now there are widespread shortages all over the nation, and the Wall Street Journal just published a major article entitled “U.S. Food Supply Is Under Pressure, From Plants To Store Shelves”.
This is really happening.
In Washington D.C., residents are being instructed to “just buy what you need and leave some for others”…
“If you’re hitting the grocery store to prepare for winter weather, please just buy what you need and leave some for others! You may have noticed empty shelves in some stores due to national supply chain issues, but there is no need to buy more than you normally would.”
What would have been unimaginable just a few years ago is now making headlines on a daily basis.
Of course it isn’t just our food supply that is under threat. As Victor Davis Hansen has aptly noted, our country is now in the process of undergoing a “systems collapse”…
In modern times, as in ancient Rome, several nations have suffered a “systems collapse.” The term describes the sudden inability of once-prosperous populations to continue with what had ensured the good life as they knew it.
Abruptly, the population cannot buy, or even find, once plentiful necessities. They feel their streets are unsafe. Laws go unenforced or are enforced inequitably. Every day things stop working. The government turns from reliable to capricious if not hostile.
A lot of people are going to be caught off guard by the pace of change.
Things are shifting so rapidly that it really is hard to keep up with it all unless you are paying very close attention.
Now that you have been exposed to the information in this article, please don’t go back to sleep.
This is not a drill.
We really are heading into a nightmare scenario, and I strongly urge you to act accordingly.’http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/a-farming-insider-has-warned-me-that-the-coming-food-shortages-are-going-to-be-far-worse-than-we-are-being-told
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College reception in Overland Park, Kansas, on November 18, 2021.
‘Here are two questions pertinent to our times: (1) How would you reduce the greatest free republic in history to despotism in a short time? and (2) How would you stop that from happening? The answer to the first question has been provided in these last two disastrous years. The answer to the second has begun to emerge in recent months. Both are worthy of study.
Reducing a Great Republic to Despotism
To establish despotism in a nation like ours, you might begin, if you were smart, by building a bureaucracy of great complexity that commands a large percentage of the resources of the nation. You might give it rule-making powers, distributed across many agencies and centers inside the cabinet departments of government, as well as in 20 or more “independent” agencies—meaning independent of elected officials, and thus independent of the people.
This much has been done. It would require a doctoral thesis to list all the ways that rules are made in our federal government today, which would make for boring reading. The truth is that very few people not directly involved know how all this works. Although civics education is practically banned in America, most people still know what the Congress is and how its members are elected. But how many know how the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) came to be, under what authority it operates, and who is its head? Here is a clue: it is not Anthony Fauci.
Admittedly, this new kind of bureaucratic government would take—has taken—decades to erect, especially in the face of the resistance of the Constitution of the United States, which its very existence violates. But once it has been erected, things can happen very fast.
What, for example, if a new virus proliferates around the world? There have been procedures for dealing with such viruses for a long time. They begin with isolating the sick and protecting the vulnerable. But suddenly we have new procedures that attempt to isolate everybody. This is commanded by the CDC, an element of this bureaucratic structure, and by a maze of federal and state authorities, all of which see the benefit to themselves in getting involved. The result is that large sections of our economy were closed for months at a time, and citizens placed under the equivalent of house arrest. This has not happened before. The cost of it, and not just in monetary terms, is beyond calculation.
To set up a despotism capable of pulling this off you would need the media’s help. Those controlling the media today are trained in the same universities that invented the bureaucratic state, the same universities the senior bureaucrats attended. The media would need to be willing to suppress, for example, the fact that 50,000 doctors, scientists, and medical researchers signed the Great Barrington Declaration. That document reminds people that you cannot suppress a widely disseminated contagious virus through shutdowns and mass isolation, and that if you try, you will work immeasurable destruction of new kinds—unemployment, bankruptcy, depression, suicide, multiplying public debt, broken supply chains, and increases of other serious health problems. Some of the signatories to this Declaration come from the most distinguished universities in the world, but never mind: their views do not fit the narrative propagated by the powerful. They have been effectively cancelled, ignored by the media and suppressed by Big Tech.
You would need some help from business, too. As far as influence is concerned, “business” is dominated by large institutions—those comprising big business—whose leaders are also educated in the same universities that conceived bureaucratic government and trained the bureaucrats and media heads. This provides a ground of agreement between big business and the bureaucratic state. Anyway, agree or not, businesses are vulnerable to regulation, and to mitigate the risk of regulatory harm they play the game: they send lobbyists to Washington, make political contributions, hire armies of lawyers. If you are big enough to play the game, there are plenty of advantages to be won. If you are not big enough to play the game—well, in that case you are on your own.
Amidst the unprecedented lockdowns, imagine there comes an election, a time for the people to say if they approve of the new way of governing and of this vast, unprecedented intrusion into their lives. Then let us say that in several states the election rules and practices are altered by their executive branches—the people in charge of enforcing the law—on their own, without approval by their legislatures. Say this brazen violation of the separation of powers takes place in the name of the pandemic. One does not need to know what percentage of votes in the final tally were affected to see that this is fishy. No sensible person would place control of the election process in one party—any party—or in one branch—any branch—of the government, alone. In some crucial states, that was done.
Finally, to sustain this new kind of government, you would need to work on education. You might build a system of centralized influence, if not control, over every classroom in the land. You might require certification of the teachers with a bias toward the schools of education that train them in the approved way. These schools, poor but obedient cousins of the elite universities, are always up on the latest methods of “delivery” of instruction (we do not call it teaching anymore). These new methods do not require much actual knowledge, which can be supplied from above.
As far as content, you might set up a system of textbook adoption that guarantees to publishers a massive and captive market but requires them to submit proposed books to committees of “experts,” subject of course to political pressures. You might build a standard approved curriculum on the assumption that everything changes—even history, even principles. You might use this curriculum to lay the ground for holding everything old, everything previously thought high and noble, in contempt.
Doing this, incidentally, deprives the student of the motive to learn anything out of fashion today. It is a preparation not for a life of knowing and thinking, but for a life of compliance and conformity.
This is by no means an exhaustive account of what it would take to build a thoroughgoing tyranny—for further instruction, read Book Five of Aristotle’s Politics or George Orwell’s 1984. But it gives an idea of a mighty system, a system that seems unassailable, a system combining the powers of government and commerce, of education and communication. Money and power in such a system would accrue to the same hands. The people who benefit from the system would be the ruling class. Others would be frustrated. And such a system would tend to get worse, because the exercise of unchecked power does not bring out the best in people.
Any elaborate system of government must have a justification, and the justification of this one cannot simply be that those in the ruling class are entitled on the basis of their superiority. That argument went away with the divine right of kings. No, for the current ruling class, the justification is science. The claim of bureaucratic rule is a claim of expertise—of technical or scientific knowledge about everything. Listen to Fauci on Face the Nation, dismissing his critics in Congress as backward reactionaries. When those critics disagree with him, Fauci said recently, “They’re really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous.”
The problem with this kind of thinking was pointed out by a young Winston Churchill in a letter to the writer H.G. Wells in 1901. Churchill wrote:
Nothing would be more fatal than for the government of states to get into the hands of the experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge: and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who knows only what hurts is a safer guide, than any vigorous direction of a specialised character. Why should you assume that all except doctors, engineers, etc. are drones or worse? . . . If the Ruler is to be an expert in anything he should be an expert in everything; and that is plainly impossible.
Churchill goes on to argue that practical judgment is the capacity necessary to making decisions. And practical judgment, he writes in many places, is something that everyone is capable of to varying degrees. Everyone, then, is equipped to guide his own life in the things that concern mainly himself.
Another thing about the experts is that they are not really engaged in the search for truth. Instead, the powerful among them suppress the obvious fact that there is wide disagreement among the experts. There always is.
God save us from falling completely into the hands of experts. But God has given us the wherewithal to save ourselves from that. So let us move to the second question posed above.
How to Defeat a Rising Despotism
In answering the second question, I will tell two stories that are suggestive.
The first took place in the small town of Jonesville, Michigan, five miles north of Hillsdale College. In our state, as in most places where the lockdowns were enforced, businesses were crippled or destroyed en masse. Restaurants were chief among them. One of our local restaurants is a 30-year-old diner called Spanglers Family Restaurant. Mitch Spangler is the proprietor. The business was founded by his late father, and Mitch was purchasing the business from his mother. The payments to his mother depended upon the revenues of the business, and his mother’s retirement depended upon the payments. The life’s work of two generations was at stake. Mitch was also helping to support a daughter in college.
This is not to mention the more than 20 employees whose livelihoods are dependent on Spanglers. “Our employees are moms who have kids,” Spangler told the local paper. “One of our employees is pregnant; another is a 19-year-old kid. This is his first job, and he just bought a car.” Our leaders in Washington treat it as a small thing when trillions are being thrown about. To the Spanglers and people like them, their relatively small revenue streams are everything.
Mr. Spangler was not prepared to surrender all this. When a second lockdown was ordered by Michigan’s governor a year ago last month, he kept his restaurant open. He put a sign on the door and posted on Facebook to make clear, among other things, that he was acting out of necessity for the sake of his business and the livelihoods of all those dependent on it; that precautions would be taken, including the installation of an electrostatic fogger that would disinfect the air; that he understood the thinking of those who would choose to stay away from his restaurant, but that he hoped they would understand his own thinking. “If you cannot support us, we understand,” he wrote, “but please allow us to have the freedom to do what we have to do.”
The wheels of bureaucracy began to grind. Spanglers was visited repeatedly by the health department, by the licensing authorities, and even by the agriculture department (one wonders what they had to do with it). Spangler was fined and threatened with forcible closure. But he persevered, never backing down, and his busines did well. On a typical weekend, not only locals but supporters from the neighboring states of Indiana and Ohio lined up outside to show their support.
Mitch Spangler is our kind of fellow, and the College gave him some help organizing his legal representation. We did not wish to be in the newspaper about this because we were facing our own pressures, and we too were determined to resist them. But Spangler was no good at keeping a secret: he wore a Hillsdale College t-shirt on FOX News and thanked us for our help. And when he had a little ceremony in his parking lot in the spring to thank his staff and his customers, I was honored to say a few words.
This may not seem on its face a big story, but it is a most important story. It is important because it is a story about the nature of human beings and of citizens and of our rights. The nature of a thing is the essence of a thing. One aspect of the nature of a human being is that he must eat to live. In condemnation of slavery, Abraham Lincoln loved to say that every man was created with a head, hands, and mouth, the implication being that the head should guide the hands in the feeding of the mouth. Because we are made to live this way, we are also determined to live this way. The alternative is dependence, which does not make us happy.
It should not therefore be surprising that, if you try to destroy the business of a man whose family has spent over 30 years building it, he will resist. Trying to strongarm people like Mitch Spangler is not a good idea. There are millions of them, and they have always made up the core of this greatest of free republics.
The second story is more famous, but it too is about nature—indeed, about that word’s most basic meaning. The word nature, as I said, refers to a thing’s essence, but it comes from the Latin word for birth. Our nature begins with how we are born and how we grow. Just as we are attached by nature to the way we get our livings, so we are attached by nature to our parents, and still more to our children. And this second story, set in Loudoun County, Virginia, is about parents and children.
In schools throughout Virginia, including in Loudoun County, children are being subjected to critical race theory (CRT). This involves lecturing children, especially those belonging to the non-preferred races, about the “structural evils” of which they are told they are part. Being taught alongside CRT is a distorted view of the history of our country, which true enough has its warts, but which surely has its glories as well—including glories about equal rights regardless of race. Between fighting the armies of the English monarch, the Confederacy, the Nazis, the communists, and Islamic terrorists, something nearing a million Americans have died for the cause of equal rights. These Americans have come in all colors.
Amidst statewide controversy over the teaching of CRT, the Loudoun County School Board also adopted a broad policy of recognizing “transgender” students in preference to their “biological sex” (excuse the redundancy). Even before this, boys were permitted to use girls’ bathrooms, in one of which there was an assault and rape of a female student by a “gender-fluid boy.” The boy in question was then allowed to attend another school in Loudoun County, where he assaulted another girl. This first girl’s parents were understandably outraged and, at the risk of being called narrow-minded, went so far as to complain to the school board.
Groups of parents who had already been protesting CRT and policies promoting transgenderism joined in the complaint. There was no violence at the school board meetings with one exception: law enforcement was summoned, and the outraged father of the assaulted and raped girl was bloodied and dragged out of one meeting. It is true, however, that voices were raised.
The National School Board Administration called upon the Biden administration to investigate these protesting parents as potential perpetrators of “domestic terrorism or hate crimes.” Remember, these parents were citizens attending a meeting of an elected body to tell their representatives what they think. The rights of petition and assembly are protected in the First Amendment. Except for certain preferred groups, these rights today appear to have been repealed.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland intervened, instructing the FBI to investigate these parents and others around the country. The FBI’s Counterterrorism Division has reportedly deployed tools and resources normally reserved for terrorist threats against parents who are angry at school boards for what is occurring in their children’s schools. All this provoked massive support, across Virginia and around the nation, for the parents of Loudoun County.
This support is not surprising. By nature, parents love their children and feel responsibility for them. Citizens, especially one hopes American citizens, feel entitled to state their grievances. The Declaration of Independence itself contains a list of grievances against the King. The Biden administration reacted to these protests just as King George III reacted against the American colonists in the years leading up to the American Revolution: he called in law enforcement. And the people of Virginia reacted in a way reminiscent of the American colonists: they defeated the candidate for governor who took the position that parents should have nothing to do with their children’s education.
What do these two stories—one of them taking place in Hillsdale County, Michigan, a deep red county, and the other in Loudoun County, Virginia, which is deeply blue—have in common? In both stories we see reactions against violations of our rights, rights that we have by nature as human beings.
The story about Mitch Spangler is about our right to work and to store up the product of our labor so that we and our families can eat and thrive. The American Founders put this in terms of our natural right to property. The story about the parents of Loudoun County is about the natural right of mothers and fathers to raise their children. To interfere with these rights is to interfere with the nature of the human being.
These facts about nature were well known during the American Revolution, the very Revolution that is besmirched by the members of our ruling class today, just as it was besmirched by the ruling class at the time of the Revolution. It was the interference with the colonists’ natural rights by that former ruling class that led to the American Revolution. These recent stories from Michigan and Virginia show that we Americans do not seem to like that interference any better today.
In addition to the right to make a living and the right to raise our children, we have the right to participate in our government, even if we are not experts, and the right to look to the heavens and not to our ruling class for guidance. We have these rights because we—every single one of us—were born with them sewn by God into our nature, and we cannot find our earthly fulfillment without them.
If we put these facts together as a people, we will have recovered the understanding that produced the American Revolution. We will stop these current predations upon our rights. We will bring this overwhelming government back where it belongs, under the control of the people.
The signs of such a movement are emerging. Pray they are enough.’https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-way-out/?utm_campaign=imprimis&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=193756221&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–tnTIeeTOtN0bEq0yHrClXtYes5w6Qht2itXjfLJy_erGHH6LnYmVB75BG4SZ-8hrA6NQYZvw2rst3HqXA4ljqDVnaKw&utm_content=193756221&utm_source=hs_email
The following is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “Critical American Elections.”
‘Sixteen years ago, in 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform issued a report that proposed a uniform system of requiring a photo ID in order to vote in U.S. elections. The report also pointed out that widespread absentee voting makes vote fraud more likely. Voter files contain ineligible, duplicate, fictional, and deceased voters, a fact easily exploited using absentee ballots to commit fraud. Citizens who vote absentee are more susceptible to pressure and intimidation. And vote-buying schemes are far easier when citizens vote by mail.
Who was behind the Carter-Baker Commission? Donald Trump? No. The Commission’s two ranking members were former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker III, a Republican. Other Democrats on the Commission were former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton. It was a truly bipartisan commission that made what seemed at the time to be common sense proposals.
How things have changed. Some of the Commission’s members, Jimmy Carter among them, came out last year to disavow the Commission’s work. And despite surveys showing that Americans overwhelmingly support measures to ensure election integrity—a recent Rasmussen survey found that 80 percent of Americans support a voter ID requirement—Democratic leaders across the board oppose such measures in the strongest terms.
Here, for instance, is President Biden speaking recently in Philadelphia, condemning the idea of voter IDs: “There is an unfolding assault taking place in America today—an attempt to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections, an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, an assault on who we are—who we are as Americans. For, make no mistake, bullies and merchants of fear and peddlers of lies are threatening the very foundation of our country.” Sadly but predicably, he went on to suggest that requiring voter IDs would mean returning people to slavery.
But the fact is that the U.S. is an outlier among the world’s democracies in not requiring voter ID. Of the 47 countries in Europe today, 46 of them currently require government-issued photo IDs to vote. The odd man out is the United Kingdom, in which Northern Ireland and many localities require voter IDs, but the requirement is not nationwide. The British Parliament, however, is considering a nationwide requirement, so very soon all 47 European countries will likely have adopted this common-sense policy.
When it comes to absentee voting, we Americans, accustomed as we are to very loose rules, are often shocked to learn that 35 of the 47 European countries—including France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden—don’t allow absentee voting for citizens living in country. Another ten European countries—including England, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, and Spain—allow absentee voting, but require voters to show up in person and present a photo ID to pick up their ballots. It isn’t like in the U.S., where a person can say he’s going to be out of town and have a ballot mailed to him.
England used to have absentee voting rules similar to ours in the U.S. But in 2004, in the city of Birmingham, officials uncovered a massive vote fraud scheme in the city council races. The six winning Labor candidates had fraudulently acquired about 40,000 absentee votes, mainly from Muslim areas of the city. As a result, England ended the practice of mailing out absentee ballots and required voters to pick up their ballots in person with a photo ID.
Up until 1975, France also had loose absentee voting rules. But when massive vote fraud was discovered on the island of Corsica—where hundreds of thousands of dead people were found to be voting and even larger-scale vote-buying operations were occurring—France banned absentee voting altogether.
On the topic of buying votes, I should point out that we in the U.S. did not always have secret ballots. It wasn’t until 1880 that the first state adopted the secret ballot, and the last state to adopt it was South Carolina in 1950. Perhaps surprisingly, when secret ballots were adopted, the percentage of people voting fell by about twelve percent. Why was that? Prior to the adoption of the secret ballot, lots of people would get paid for voting. In those days, people voted by placing pieces of colored paper in the ballot box, with different colors representing different parties. Party officials would be present to observe what color paper each voter put into the box, and depending on the color, the voter would often get paid. Secret ballots put an end to this practice.
France learned in 1975 that the use of absentee ballots led to the same practice—it allowed third parties to know how people voted and pay them for voting a certain way. This same problem is now proliferating in the U.S. in the form of “ballot harvesting,” the increasingly common practice where party functionaries distribute and collect ballots.
Defenders of our current voting rules point out that in lieu of absentee voting, some European countries allow “proxy voting,” whereby one person can designate another to vote for him. And while it is true that eight of the 47 European countries allow proxy voting—meaning that 39 do not—there are strict requirements. In five of the eight countries—Belgium, England, Monaco, Poland, and Sweden—proxy voting is limited to those with a disability or an illness or who are out of the country. In Poland, it also requires the approval of the local mayor, and in Monaco the approval of the general secretariat. In France and the Netherlands, proxy voting has to be arranged through a notary public. Switzerland is the only country in Europe with a relatively liberal proxy voting policy, requiring only a signature match.
How about our neighbors, Canada and Mexico? Canada requires a photo ID to vote. If a voter shows up at the polls without an ID, he is allowed to vote only if he declares who he is in writing and if there is someone working at the polling station who can personally verify his identity.
Mexico has had a long history of election fraud. Partly because its leaders were concerned about a drop in foreign investment if it wasn’t perceived to be a legitimate democracy, Mexico recently instituted strict reforms. Voters must present a biometric ID—an ID with not only a photo, but also a thumb print. Voters also have indelible ink applied to their thumbs, preventing them from voting more than once. And absentee voting is prohibited, even for people living outside the country.
Those who oppose election integrity reform here in the U.S. often condemn it as a means of “voter suppression.” But in Mexico, the percent of people voting rose from 59 percent before the reforms to 68 percent after. It turned out that Mexicans were more, not less, likely to vote when they had confidence that their votes mattered.
H.R. 1, the radical bill Democratic Party leaders have been pushing to adopt this year, would prohibit states from requiring voter ID and require states to allow permanent mail-in voting. And mail-in voting, I hardly need to point out, is even worse, in terms of vote fraud, than absentee voting. With absentee voting, a person at least has to request a ballot. With mail-in voting—as we saw in too many places in the 2020 election—ballots are simply mailed out to everyone. With loose absentee voting rules, a country is making itself vulnerable to vote fraud. With mail-in voting, a country is almost begging for vote fraud.
If the rhetoric we hear from the Left today is correct—if voter ID requirements and restrictions on absentee (or even mail-in) voting are un-democratic—then so are the countries of Europe and the rest of the developed world. But this is utter nonsense.
Those opposing common sense measures to ensure integrity in U.S. elections—measures such as those recommended by the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission in 2005—are not motivated by a concern for democracy, but by partisan interests.’https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/ensuring-election-integrity-anti-democratic/?utm_campaign=imprimis&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=182212930&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8-oiRBN0Vykw1B9dlrIYbtAK_LAmaky9raOG5YdLgk5xMLiozqnRM1g8YlXKP9fOTmlK8bzIfCnFdRYYWxqEVGHReQTw&utm_content=182212930&utm_source=hs_email
Yes, the Republicans won Virginia’s governorship but at the same time the GOP has divided their voting block into identity groups. Therefore, ‘The Left must go to bed most nights thanking its lucky stars for the Republican Party. If it weren’t for some misguided GOP leaders, the Democratic Party would probably be well on its way to irrelevance in 2022.
But instead of watching the other side pack its bags for the minority after last Tuesday’s drubbing, Republicans have decided to leave the door open a crack — first by voting for another $1.2 trillion dollars in unnecessary spending, and now by throwing out the welcome mat to the one cause (apart from CRT) that’s swung parents to the GOP’s side: LGBT radicalism.
It’s a movie, unfortunately, that conservatives have seen before. Just when the GOP starts to draw a sharp contrast with the Left, moderate Republicans decide to shoot the party in the foot. Until late Friday, Democrats were about to go over the cliff with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) leading the parade after a humiliating showing in Virginia, New Jersey, and school board races across the country. But now, thanks to some chronic tone-deafness inside the party, there are some who want to take the baton from AOC.
Barely five days after Republicans swept Virginia, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel has decided to embrace the very wokeness parents were trying to defeat in places like Loudoun County. “Tonight,” she said to guests at the Spirit of Lincoln Gala, “we are launching our first-ever RNC Pride Coalition.”
The Log Cabin Republicans, she insisted, “don’t just share our vision for a free, secure, and prosperous America — they enrich it by adding unique perspectives to our party and recruiting even more diverse candidates and supporters to join our cause.“‘https://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=5066
Even the Marxist Left get it right sometimes.
I encourage you to listen to Vivek’s whole speech on this subject and then share. Perhaps what he says will WAKE UP that Woke friend!
With people like Pete Snyder who needs enemies?
‘Establishment Republican Candidate for Governor Pete Snyder ‘Teamed Up’ with Anti-Police BLM Democrat
The establishment Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, Pete Snyder, “teamed up” last year with Sean Perryman, a radical, Black Lives Matter Marxist who is running for Lieutenant Governor in Virginia as a Democrat.
Perryman’s agenda includes forcing critical race theory into classrooms, banning guns, making Virginia a sanctuary state for illegal aliens, “defelonizing all drugs,” giving criminals in prison the right to vote, ending qualified immunity so that individual police officers can be personally sued and bankrupted for doing their job, and defunding the police.
Like most Black Lives Matter activists, Perryman sees white supremacy everywhere. That’s why last year during the COVID lockdowns he directed financial assistance only to businesses owned by non-white Americans. Teaming up with him in this woke effort to discriminate against white people was none other than Pete Snyder.
You may remember Snyder as the former Romney-McCain Republican who is best buds with Lincoln Project cofounder and Never Trumper Rick Wilson. Wilson and Snyder shared an apartment together, along with some Russian hookers they like to tweet about.
But Perryman and Wilson aren’t the only liberals Snyder is cozy with. Aside from his own self-funding, Snyder’s gubernatorial campaign is primarily bankrolled by Mark Kimsey, who gave Snyder a $1 million check in March. Kimsey is a Beverly Hills Democrat and big donor to Hillary Clinton and Democrat Senator Mark Warner.
Daniel Gade, the Virginia Republican who tried to unseat Senator Warner in 2020, recently revealed that when he asked Snyder to donate to his campaign last year, Snyder told him that “first I’ve got to call Mark Warner and get his permission because he and I are friends.”
And speaking of Hillary, new video has emerged showing Snyder calling Hillary a “rockstar” and saying he is a “big fan.” He has also praised the “exceptional job” she did as Secretary of State under Obama.
Given all this, it makes sense that Snyder was paid to do online marketing for years by the Democrat Party – and it’s absolutely clear that conservatives in Virginia need to support anyone BUT Snyder.’https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/establishment-republican-running-virginia-governor-teamed-anti-police-blm-democrat/