Thursday, September 30, 2021

Democrat Virginia Governor Candidate Says Parents Shouldn’t Have A Say In What Their Children Are Taught In School

By  Ashe Schow | The Daily Wire

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Virginia’s Democrat and Republican gubernatorial candidates participated in their final debate Tuesday night, with Democrat and former Gov. Terry McAuliffe declaring that parents shouldn’t have a say in what their kids are taught in public schools.

At one point during the debate, the candidates were asked out whether protections for transgender students should be determined at the state or local level. McAuliffe responded to a recent incident where a parent complained that two books available to high school students contained graphic sexual content and pedophilia. The school district removed the books and is currently reviewing them.

“I’m not gonna let parents come in to schools and actually take books off and make their own decisions,” McAuliffe said to audience applause (the debate took place in ultra-Liberal Northern Virginia). “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

“I get really tired of everybody running down teachers. I love our teachers and what they’ve done through covid, these are real heroes who deserve our respect,” he added.

While McAuliffe’s statements about parents not being able to say what their kids are taught drew applause in Northern Virginia, many areas in the rest of the state are fighting for parents’ rights to know what their kids are being taught. The battle is especially strong in Loudoun County, where parents have repeatedly pushed back against the Loudoun County Public School district’s attempts to incorporate critical race theory in school curriculum. It started when the school attempted to restructure history and social studies to emphasize slavery and push racial victimhood. Meanwhile, the school began providing training sessions that insisted oppression was still rampant in America. Some of these trainings were racist themselves, such as one that suggested Hispanic parents and students didn’t perform as well because they face “immigration” and “deportation threats,” as if all Hispanic students are in the country illegally.

Teachers who objected to the district’s so-called anti-racist measures were told to remain silent. The district attempted to craft a speech code that prohibited teachers from criticizing the district’s racial equity plan, and an advisory board demanded teachers be dismissed if they criticized equity training. Parents who spoke out were put on a list to be harassed.

McAuliffe’s take on education is interesting considering some of his positions when he was governor between 2014 and 2018. He vetoed a school-choice bill “that would have allowed parents to use state money to pay for private schools or home schooling,” according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. McAuliffe vetoed this bill, which would allow low-income students to attend better schools, even though he has sent his own kids to expensive private schools.

Education was not the only issue on which McAuliffe demanded state control. He also knocked his Republican opponent, Glenn Youngkin, for refusing to force vaccine and mask mandates on people. Youngkin responded by saying “Everyone should get the vaccine … but I don’t believe we should mandate it.”

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

New Democrat Scheme Hires 87,000 new IRS Agents to Investigate Every American with More than $600

By Michael Brigham | American Action News

Claiming a supposed “tax gap” between what Americans owe and what they pay, a new proposal by President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats would spend $80 billion to create as many as 87,000 new federal “enforcement and compliance” agents to investigate any financial transaction involving more than $600 and create a federal database to record and monitor Americans’ financial activities.

“Democrats want to give the IRS $80 billion and hire 87,000 new agents so they can harass and audit taxpayers and create a new reporting regime that targets any bank account, Venmo account, or financial account exceeding $600 in gross inflows and outflows,” said Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform.  “This should be alarming given the IRS has a long history of failing to do its job and targeting taxpayers based on their political beliefs.”

“Congressional Democrats’ answer to Americans’ frustrations with the IRS is to hire more tax bureaucrats to audit them,” said Ryan Ellis, President of the Center for a Free Economy.

“People are fed up with being told they are tax cheats by academics and bureaucrats who have never signed the front of a paycheck, and that they must become the subject of fishing expedition audits in service to a fabricated ‘tax gap,’” said Ellis.  “Congress should focus on getting the IRS to answer phone calls and correspondence in a timely manner, not on new audits.”

Congressional Republicans are responding by proposing the “TaxGap Reform and IRS Enforcement Act.”    

“Before American taxpayers are subjected to 80,000 new IRS agents and surveillance of their private bank accounts, let’s begin with an accurate, independent estimate of Treasury’s so-called ‘tax gap,’” said House Ways and Means Republican Leader Kevin Brady (R-Texas.) “This bill also protects taxpayers from IRS targeting based on their political or religious beliefs and closes loopholes that risk leaking private taxpayer returns.”

“The IRS financial institution reporting requirement forces financial institutions to turn over detailed bank account information to the IRS based on vague and ‘flexible’ criteria, such as a $600 threshold and account inflows and outflows, which are determined by the IRS,” said U.S. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho.)  

“This time-draining burden disregards banking privacy in order to squeeze more resources out of responsible Americans and entrepreneurs.  It subjects law-abiding Americans to more intense targeting from the IRS and additional data collection, a concern that was recently amplified by a leak of private taxpayer information out of the IRS.  I have long been critical of big data collection activities, and oppose turning banks and brokers into government tax collectors,” said Crapo.

“My amendment prevents the undue monitoring and reporting of sensitive American taxpayer information to the IRS by financial institutions about deposits and withdrawals made by any individual or business,” said Crapo.

Key provisions of the TaxGap Reform and IRS Enforcement Act: 

Tax Gap Reform: Requires timely, annually-updated information on tax gap estimates in coordination with the Joint Committee on Taxation. 

Taxpayer Protection: Prevents the IRS from targeting Americans for their political and ideological beliefs, codifies President Biden’s pledge to not increase audits of taxpayers making less than $400,000 per year, and prohibits the establishment of new bank reporting requirements. 

Smarter Enforcement: Requires the IRS to use existing data and tools to improve its corporate audit selection process and increase enforcement against high-income non-filers. 

Closes the Expertise Gap: Creates an IRS enforcement fellowship pilot program to assist with the agency’s most complex audits and case selection decisions.  Before hiring thousands of new agents, Congress should test the effectiveness of increasing expertise in a targeted way. 

Original Senate co-sponsors include John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Mike Braun (R-Indiana), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mike Rounds (R-Nebraska), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) and Todd Young (R-Indiana).  

To date there is no serious effort by congressional Republicans to abolish the federal income tax and IRS.


Michael Brigham has written for American Action News since the summer of 2019. His areas of expertise include foreign affairs, government, and politics, but regardless of the subject matter, he has a nose and an insatiable appetite for news. In his free time, he enjoys reading nonfiction, watching a mix of comedies and true crime documentaries, and spending time away from the swamp hiking in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains.

Monday, September 27, 2021

Judge Orders Democrat Prosecutors To Release Jan 6th Videos, Now We Know Why Biden Admin HID THIS EVIDENCE From Americans

By Team Tucker Carlson

Now We Know Why Prosecutors Wanted To Keep Jan. 6 Videos Away From The Public

Prosecutors lost a battle to keep some of the 14,000 hours of January 6 surveillance video that was accumulated by the FBI out of the public view. And much to anti-Trump Democrats’ chagrin, social media is already having a field day with it. Buzzfeed’s Zoe Tillman who broke the tough news:

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday released a new collection of Capitol surveillance videos from Jan. 6 after a judge ordered them to do so, rejecting the government’s argument that making the clips public could threaten the security of the complex.

The disclosure marks a setback for the US Capitol Police and the US attorney’s office in their efforts to control how much footage from the Capitol’s closed-circuit video (CCV) system gets out. In the latest case, prosecutors argued that revealing the location and vantage points of more cameras could help “bad actors” trying to plan some future assault on the building. A judge concluded that argument was too speculative, however, and that the public had a strong interest in seeing videos that formed the basis for a recent plea deal.

US District Chief Judge Beryl Howell ordered the videos released in response to a request from a media coalition (including BuzzFeed News) that is petitioning judges on a rolling basis for videos that prosecutors have relied on in Jan. 6 cases. Howell’s decision isn’t binding on other judges in the US District Court for the District of Columbia presiding over Capitol riot prosecutions, but it gives the media coalition a favorable ruling to point to in future fights.

When some of this video made its way into the hands of the public, everyone could see exactly why the prosecution didn’t want it to get out: It doesn’t fit the narrative of the ‘deadly insurrection’ that the fake news media has been propagating. Watch for yourself:

Of course, this is just one example clip from the footage released. Zoe Tillman describes the gist of the newest footage release:

The clips cover a period of about 15 minutes on Jan. 6 — between 2:25 p.m. and 2:40 p.m. — in different locations inside the Capitol. They show rioters streaming through open doors and broken windows at an entrance on the Senate side; crowds of people walking into the Crypt, standing in a large crowd, and eventually dispersing; and, finally, rioters exiting as US Capitol Police officers in riot gear gather at the Senate entrance point to stand guard as a mob that’s outside looks in through the broken windows. There is no audio. The cameras are stationed up high and at a distance, providing a wide, stable perspective on the scene.

Tillman is far from a faithful narrator of the footage. She describes the event as an “insurrection,” instead of a riot, although no one has been charged for the “insurrection” and the FBI has not been able to determine that there was any centralized plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

There was, indeed, violence in some areas of the Capitol grounds on January 6. But it is not entirely clear that the worst offenders were Trump supporters, rather than anomalous extremists; it appears that the groups are all conflated into a misleading picture of what happened. There were Trump supporters who were merely let into the Capitol building by the Capitol police officers who were supposed to be protecting the building. Many of them merely walked around, took pictures, and protested in a reasonably orderly fashion. This is why many defendants are charged with crimes such as “trespassing” and “parading without a permit.”

It also appears from a time-stamped series of videos based on a restored Parler video archive that the Capitol protests escalated into riots in conjunction with indiscriminate police discharge of pepper spray and stun grenades into the crowd.

The new video release nonetheless provides more evidence that the picture portrayed by the media, that the January 6 riot was an existential threat to the republic, is quite demonstrably a false one. A number of commentators drove this point home:

This isn’t even all of the videos. Who knows what other embarrassments for the media lie in the rest of the 14,000 hours of January 6 footage?

Sunday, September 26, 2021

The Democrats War on Blacks Keeps Growing in the Pandemic

By Roger L. Simon

One of the key reasons I left the Democratic Party years ago was the atrocious way they treated black people.

I’m not just talking about “Jim Crow” or LBJ’s well-known patriarchal and racist use of the “n-word” to celebrate blacks voting Democratic forever in gratitude for his ultimately useless early “virtue signaling” called the “War on Poverty.”

(Notice any difference between South Central then and now?)

Since then, it’s only gotten worse. Democrats calling Republicans “racist,” as they do on a ritual basis, is literally one of the more nauseating examples of projection in human history.

But before I go into the egregious details of today’s malfeasances, it should be noted that Larry Elder—the estimable black conservative talk show host who makes videos for The Epoch Times—is in a near-tie with Arnold Schwarzenegger for the percentage of votes garnered in the California gubernatorial recall election. Schwarzenegger got 48.5 percent and Elder, so far, 47 percent. And they’re still counting. (In both instances, they were competing against dozens of candidates.)

Readers will—excuse the redundancy—recall that one made two votes in that election, the first deciding whether to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom and the second for whom to replace him if recalled.

Elder won the latter in a landslide. But just who were the people (along with the predictable corruption) who blocked his way from the governor’s office by voting to preserve Newsom?

I submit that many of them were what we used to call “limousine liberals” and might today be called “Tesla-crats.” They are the rich, often mega-rich, almost always white, people who drive by the myriad horrific homeless encampments of California, trying not to look, as they head for the next trendy restaurant or their magnificent home.

And what is the largest group on a percentage basis in those homeless encampments? Well, I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that it’s blacks.

How can we not have contempt for the hypocritical (to say the least) “Tesla-crats”? But they’re only the plutocratic tip of the Democratic war on blacks we’re watching at this very moment.

Let’s start with the border.

At the moment, there is a crisis of crises at a place called Del Rio, Texas. The left-leaning New York Times is reporting:

“The U.S. Border Patrol said that more than 9,000 migrants, mostly from Haiti, were being held in a temporary staging area under the Del Rio International Bridge as agents worked as quickly as they could to process them.

“The temporary camp has grown with staggering speed in recent days, from just a few hundred people earlier in the week. The authorities and city officials said they expected thousands more to cross the ankle-deep river between Mexico and Del Rio in coming days.”

How many of these people will ultimately enter our country we don’t know. Probably a lot. (It’s reported the numbers under the bridge have swelled to 12,000 now.) How many carry COVID? Again, we don’t know, but probably a lot. What we do know is that since they are, mostly, Haitian, they will likely end up in black communities, bringing their infections with them.

Where is there already the most COVID-19 on a percentage basis? Black communities.

War on blacks?

Okay, consider the next—if anything more horrible because more deliberate—example.

In their alacrity to punish Southern red states, our federal government is restricting the monoclonal antibody treatments given those states. Who suffers the most from this? Who may well die from this?

Again, the black community—where these treatments are most needed. Joel Pollak puts it succinctly over on

“President Joe Biden’s decision to cut deliveries of monoclonal antibodies to southeastern states, in what critics have called a politically-motivated effort to punish Republican states, could end up sentencing black people to death from coronavirus.”

Is this sadism or stupidity on the part of our president? An argument can be made for both.

Thankfully, Larry Elder is far from alone in standing up for the rights of his people.

Notable lately is rapper Nicki Minaj who has courageously stood up for the truth on Twitter by casting justifiable aspersions—or should I say “throwing shade”—on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Naturally she got a lot of pushback from the usual crowd who don’t know what pathetic conformists they are.

Someone named “hasanabi” wrote after the rapper appeared on Tucker Carlson, “You know he’s a white nationalist right?”

Minaj responded: “Right. I can’t speak to, agree with, even look at someone from a particular political party. [People] aren’t human any more… If another party [than the Democrat Party] tells u to look out for that bus, stand there & get hit.”

So far, no one has said it better.

Friday, September 24, 2021

VIDEO: FDA Official Wants To Deploy COVID-19 Vaccine ‘Drones’ To ‘Blow Dart’ Black People, Vaccine Resisters, Start Nazi-Style Registry

By Team Tucker Carlson

Taylor Lee, FDA Economist: “Go to the unvaccinated and blow it [COVID vaccine] into them. Blow dart it into them.”

Lee: “Census goes door-to-door if you don’t respond. So, we have the infrastructure to do it [forced COVID vaccinations]. I mean, it’ll cost a ton of money. But I think, at that point, I think there needs to be a registry of people who aren’t vaccinated. Although that’s sounding very [much like Nazi] Germany.”

Lee: “Nazi Germany…I mean, think about it like the Jewish Star [for unvaccinated Americans].”

Lee: “I’m gonna go door-to-door and stab everyone [with the COVID vaccine], ‘Oh, it’s just your booster shot! There you go!’”

Lee: “So, if you put every anti-vaxxer, like sheep, into like Texas and you closed off Texas from the rest of the world, and you go, ‘Okay, you be you in Texas until we deal with this [pandemic].’”

Lee: “All of the wealthy white people are getting vaccinated because they’re educated.”

Lee: “There are political appointees [at the FDA] that are generally scientific advisors or are appointed by the president or the commission…They’re being paid based on if the other people are staying in power.”

Lee: “Unfortunately, everyone ends up playing politics, but I don’t think that the career scientists are — I think that it’s the people that they’re unfortunately having to report to because these political appointees are being put in place and that’s part of like — the Senate confirms the people to then just pick their people.”

Project Veritas released the second video of its COVID vaccine investigative series today exposing U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] economist, Taylor Lee, who was recorded calling for forced COVID vaccinations and a registry for all unvaccinated Americans.

Lee said that U.S. Government policy could emulate Nazi Germany when it comes to the COVID vaccine.

“Census goes door-to-door if you don’t respond. So, we have the infrastructure to do it [forced COVID vaccinations]. I mean, it’ll cost a ton of money. But I think, at that point, I think there needs to be a registry of people who aren’t vaccinated. Although that’s sounding very [much like Nazi] Germany,” Lee said.

“Nazi Germany…I mean, think about it like the Jewish Star [for unvaccinated Americans],” he said.

“So, if you put every anti-vaxxer, like sheep, into like Texas and you closed off Texas from the rest of the world, and you go, ‘Okay, you be you in Texas until we deal with this [pandemic].’”

Lee said that due to a large portion of the African American community being hesitant to take the COVID vaccine, the solution would be to “blow dart” on them:

Taylor Lee, FDA Economist: “I think that a lot of the time — so there’s also this issue of — I remember reading about how with COVID [vaccine] trials, they were having an issue recruiting African American people. It was because of a different medication the government tried to do that was specifically designed to kill African Americans.”

Veritas Journalist: “Oh, so like a mistrust thing.”

Lee: “Yeah.”

Veritas Journalist: “But this thing [COVID vaccine] is safe, though.”

Lee: “We know that now, but like again, I think there is still this big mistrust and like it’s deep-rooted.”

Veritas Journalist: “Yeah. Can’t blame them [African Americans].”

Lee: “I can’t. But at the same time, like, blow dart. That’s where we’re going.”

Lee affirmed that “wealthy white people” are more likely to get the COVID vaccine because they are “educated,” and added that he would be willing to force COVID vaccines upon Americans himself if needed.

“I’m gonna go door-to-door and stab everyone [with the COVID vaccine], ‘Oh, it’s just your booster shot! There you go!’”

Lee also said that FDA officials can often be political appointees rather than actual scientific experts.

“There are political appointees [at the FDA] that are generally scientific advisors or are appointed by the president or the commission…They’re being paid based on if the other people are staying in power,” he said.

“Unfortunately, everyone ends up playing politics, but I don’t think that the career scientists are — I think that it’s the people that they’re unfortunately having to report to because these political appointees are being put in place and that’s part of like — the Senate confirms the people to then just pick their people.”

Thursday, September 23, 2021

Clarence Thomas and the Declaration of Independence

By Star Parker | Black Community News

Last week, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas arrived at the University of Notre Dame to speak about the Declaration of Independence.

Speaking invitations like this that Thomas accepts are few and far between.

Anyone who cares about our country and listens to this address will wish that he would agree to speak more.

His presentation was a brilliant and profound articulation of what America is about at its core.

It is what every American needs to hear in these troublesome and divisive times.

Thomas tells his own story and how his life’s journey led him to understand what America is about.

He grew up poor near Savannah, Georgia, raised by his grandparents, under the tutelage of his grandfather, a devout Catholic and American patriot.

Thomas’ grandfather understood that the injustices of the country were not about flaws in the country but about flaws in human beings in living up to ideals handed down to them. What needed to be fixed were the people — not the nation.

This insight strikes at the heart of the divisions going on today that are so bitterly dividing us.

But Thomas left his grandfather’s house and went to college in the midst of the civil rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, and Thomas became filled with bitterness and the sense that America is an irredeemably flawed, racist nation, which is so much in the spirit of the times today.

In his own words, “What had given my life meaning and sense of belonging, that this country was my home, was jettisoned as old-fashioned and antiquated. … It was easy and convenient to fill that void with victimhood. … So much of my time focused intently on our racial differences and grievances, much like today.”

“As I matured,” Thomas continued, “I began to see that the theories of my young adulthood were destructive and self-defeating…..I had rejected my country, my birthright as a citizen, and I had nothing to show for it.”

“The wholesomeness of my childhood had been replaced with an emptiness, cynicism, and despair. I was faced with the simple fact that there was no greater truth than what my Nuns and grandparents had taught me. We are all children of God and rightful heirs to our nation’s legacy of equality. We had to live up to the obligations of the equal citizenship to which we were entitled by birth.”

As he continued work in the federal government, Thomas became “deeply interested in the Declaration of Independence.”

“The Declaration captured what I had been taught to venerate as a child but had cynically rejected as a young man. All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

“As I had rediscovered the God-given principles of the Declaration and our founding, I eventually returned to the church, which had been teaching the same truths for millennia.”

Despite the strident voices dividing us today, Thomas observes “there are many more of us, I think, who feel America is not so broken, as it is adrift at sea.”

“For whatever it is worth, the Declaration of Independence has weathered every storm for 245 years. It birthed a great nation. It abolished the sin of slavery. … While we have failed the ideals of the Declaration time and again, I know of no time when the ideals have failed us.”

The Declaration of Independence “establishes a moral ideal that we as citizens are duty-bound to uphold and sustain. We may fall short, but our imperfection does not relieve us of our obligation.”

Thomas’ message about the Declaration may be summarized: There are eternal truths; they are true for all of humanity; and it is the personal responsibility of each individual to live up to them.

Thomas’ detractors are those who reject these premises. This defines the culture war that so deeply and dangerously divides America today.


Star Parker is the founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and author of “Necessary Noise: How Donald Trump Inflames the Culture War and Why This is Good News for America.” She hosts a weekly show called “Cure America with Star Parker.”


Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Labor unions three years after Janus

By William Haupt III | The Center Square contributor 

 Mark Janus, the plaintiff in Janus vs. AFSCME, speaks to supporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 26, 2018. - Dan McCaleb / The Center Square

“Take this job and shove it. I ain't work-en here no more. You better not stand in my way, As I'm walk-en out the door. Take this job and shove it! I ain't work-en here no more."– Johnny Paycheck

For years, cities, counties and states spent millions of dollars paying full time salaries and benefits for employees that were obligated to belong to labor unions. Collective bargaining agreements with labor unions around America were financed by high paid union lobbyists and bosses. Their mission was to obtain capriciously high salaries and benefits for civil servants compared to private industry.

Since the early 1900s, public sector union bosses have unified with Democratic federal, state and local politicians to enact policies that forced civil service workers to pay ransom in order to keep their jobs. To appease members for receiving more for doing less, union bosses used their dues money to finance the election of Democrats who'd reward them with gratuitous benefit packages.

Almost three years to the day, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mark Janus in the landmark Janus v. AFSCME case. They held it was unconstitutional to force public sector workers to pay money to a union to maintain employment. The case was filed by Mark Janus, who balked at paying dues for collective bargaining and other work that the union did on behalf of their employees in the workplace.

While organized labor was dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court in Janus, the ruling did not impact obligations in the private sector. The court held that the private-sector model cannot be applied to "public sector unions," since collective bargaining in the public service is approved by government officials.

"There is no need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people and people cannot bargain with themselves." – Franklin Roosevelt

The Janus decision was a win for taxpayers also since they pay the salaries and benefits of public service employees. Many Americans thought it was unfair for pubic service union members to pay into a system that was financed by them. These unions didn’t only concern themselves with labor issues, they engaged in political activity. Janus gave employees freedom of political choice also.

Public unions in all union states were affected by Janus. It was predicted Janus would destroy the public-sector unions since they would lose income. This would also limit their political power. Why would workers who could receive the same benefits as members without paying dues join a union?

But America underestimated the political power of public service unions. They had an arsenal of state and federal politicians in their hip pocket by the time SCOTUS ruled on Janus.

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought are legislators." – P J O'Rourke

Many liberal states with strong unions had already taken legal steps to buffer public-sector unions against the impact of a positive Janus ruling. Unions were aware they would lose dues money and members, and were working with liberal politicians to cut their losses. Therefore, the Janus decision did not negatively affect the unions or their Democratic Party allies like labor experts had predicted.

Within weeks of the Janus ruling, blue states passed legislation to protect unions from the impact of Janus. Liberal states like New York, where 70% of public employees are unionized, were first toreact. Fallen Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order shielding work records of public union employees to prevent them from being informed of their newly acquired rights. Cuomo said, "This order is to protect workers from harassment and intimidation by the union haters." His order also required new hires to meet with union reps so they could be intimidated into joining the union.

Blue state Democrats went on a rampage to protect their political revenue. California, Maryland, and Washington gave unions access to employee records. California also made new hires meet with unions.

"The only effective answer to organized greed is organized labor." –Thomas Donahue

California, Washington and New Jersey prohibited employers from discouraging membership. In New Jersey, public employers who violated this provision would have to reimburse unions for lost dues. These laws were designed to prevent workers from learning about their rights after Janus.

Although public service unions found ways to work around Janus, there were some unanticipated benefits of Janus. The difference between public and private unions is critical. Private unions are governed in the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and by federal court decisions. But no matter how much these unions pay liberal politicians, taxpayers only indirectly foot the bill.

Since the Janus case was tried in the court of public opinion, it shed light on the obtrusive power of the unions. And this did not sit well with many Americans who blamed unions for higher prices on tangible goods and services. They took their anger to state legislatures who began passing right to work laws.

"The right to work simply means 'the right to work' and nothing more." – Scott Walker

The U.S. union labor movement has been in crisis for years and has continued to hitch its hopes for survival on state and federal Democrats. But no matter what liberal lawmakers do for the unions their slide will be impossible to reverse since union interests are at odds with those of members.

Unions are out of touch with today's every-man-for-himself attitude. The Hoffa days of brotherhood are gone forever. Former AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka tried to strictly enforce the Fair Labor Standards and National Labor Relations Acts to force more people into unions, but that backfired. Workers value individual pay over collectivism. They want the best deal for them, not for a union.

John Wooden told us, “It's OK to be a team player. But personal effort makes you a winner.” Only 10.3% of the U.S. workforce is unionized today. Labor Department data reveal that is half of what it was in 1983 and a third of what it was in 1950. With many states passing right to work laws and employers and employees benefiting from them, the labor union model of "one size fits all" in the workplace is obsolete. Workers care less about brotherhood and more about their own paycheck.

The irony of Janus is it had little affect on public unions since blue states were able to neutralize it. Although Janus did not apply to private unions, it publicized the political power of unions and voters reacted. Today, the entire south is right to work and a total of 30 states now have right to work laws.

Georgetown's Joseph McCartin wrote that when unions became dependent solely on Democrats to prioritize their needs, this made it difficult to sell their policies to the public. This ruined their image with the average American voter. Labor and politics don't mix and this will be the union's Waterloo.

"We have to get militant with employers to get what we want for our union brothers. There's no shortcuts to get our demands in the workplace. And that's how we will get it done!" – James P. Hoffa

shortcuts to get are demands in the workplace. And that's how it will get it done!" --James P. Hoffa

Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Left Leans Into Champagne Socialism

By Jarrett Stepman

“Tax the rich” reads a dress worn by a socialist congresswoman at an exclusive New York City gala that typically costs $35,000 to get into.

The now infamous dress worn by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who appears not to understand the irony or really even the definition of irony, was made by a company deep in tax debt in three states (in part for not paying out workers’ compensation insurance to employees).

Being aligned with socialists in 2021 apparently means looking like the decadent elite in “The Hunger Games,” dodging taxes, and stiffing workers.

In response to criticism, Ocasio-Cortez said that politicians have to attend the event “due to our responsibilities in overseeing our city’s cultural institutions that serve the public.” 

She added that the criticisms are just the latest example of how her body is “policed from all corners politically.”

We’re to believe that Ocasio-Cortez’s appearance at the Met Gala was just being done for you, the people. And by the way, anyone who criticizes this decision is a sexist.

As absurd as her comments may seem and as hypocritical as it may look like on the surface, there is a certain kind of logic to it if you separate what the new “socialists” say they are for and what they are really about.

Confused as to why someone who presents as a “for the people” socialist demands all the opulent privileges of a Politburo member? Welcome to champagne socialism.

This perfectly illustrates the cultural and political trends of American society.

Left-wing, woke sloganeering is the social capital of the cultural elite. It’s the currency by which they maintain their status and shield themselves from criticism. “Tax the rich” is a perfectly acceptable and, in fact, an approved message, just as “protect unborn life” wouldn’t be.

John Gibson, the executive officer of Tripwire Interactive, a video game studio, resigned after tweeting out support of a Texas law prohibiting the abortion of babies with a heartbeat. 

He was literally denounced by the company as he left.

Solidarity to the cause is the only quality that now matters in our increasingly mediocre “meritocracy.”  

Join the cause and you can do no wrong; go against it and you’ll be unpersoned.

By demonstrating their commitment to various left-wing causes—especially diversity, equity, and inclusion—no manner of hypocrisy, incompetence, or failure can derail this elite’s access to power.

Remember when Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, basically endorsed infanticide and then admitted to wearing blackface—or maybe it was a Ku Klux Klan hood—in a college yearbook photo?

One would think that would have been a career-ender for the Democrat politician, but he got a pass after doubling down his commitment to wokeness and tearing down historical statues.

Racism is just fine as long as you join the crusade of anti-racism.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed has been praised widely by the left for being at the forefront of creating new, “equitable” American cities. How has she demonstrated that commitment?

Breed was caught dining at the exclusive Napa restaurant French Laundry—clearly a popular spot for California Democrat politicos—in November when she and so many other politicians were insisting that we all must socially distance and avoid gatherings.

At the time, she called the criticism “fair.”

A year later and we see what that fair criticism really meant to the San Francisco mayor.

She was once again caught at a large social gathering in a San Francisco nightclub, this time dancing and singing without a mask among a party of maskless people, violating her own city’s rules.

Breed’s initial excuse was that she was vaccinated, but San Francisco’s rules don’t make distinctions for mask-wearing between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

She then followed up with excuse No. 2.

“I was feeling the spirit and I wasn’t thinking about a mask,” Breed said while laughing and smiling in an interview.

Taking the mask on and off to follow a ridiculous rule is tedious, you see.

This is basically the equivalent of “whatever, I’m the mayor, stop killing the vibe while I break my own dumb rules that you have to follow at the risk of a hefty fine.”

Another great victory for equity and science.

Will Breed face any consequences from this? Of course not. She’s committed to the revolution.

The lesson is that under our new cultural hierarchy, blatant hypocrisy and double standards from the elite should be expected. 

Photo - Elite celebrities party indoors without masks at the 2021 Primetime Emmy Awards on September 19 in the Microsoft Theatre, downtown Los Angeles, California

You stay within those ranks and in the good graces of the regime by paying constant homage to its cultural tastes and making it clear that in this new world of tolerance and inclusion, those who disagree or differ are justly and ruthlessly excluded.

The only flaw in this system is it will crumble if the people truly turn against them. If the people decide that they’ve had enough of the hypocrisy, enough of the vapid sloganeering, and begin to demand competence and accountability from leaders, maybe there will be consequences to this nonsense.

Until then, expect more absurdities.

Sunday, September 19, 2021

Milley’s actions were attempted military coup against Trump

 By  Michael Goodwin | New York Post

Gen. Mark Milley's admitted actions at the end of President Donald Trump's term were the equivalent of a military coup. - Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

In the continuing war for the truth, the good guys went to battle with a lone pea shooter against miscreants that have a military. To be precise, it is the military of the United States of America.

Its leader is the latest to have been exposed trying to delegitimize Donald Trump’s presidency.

First, it was the FBI, the CIA, the media, academia and others who crossed the line into political activism, and now we have clear evidence that the top man in the Pentagon also succumbed to the siren song of power. It turns out that the nation’s most admired public institution is led by some people with very dirty hands.

The reprehensible actions of Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, take the cake for audacity and arrogance.

Milley admitted that, late in Trump’s term, he made the calls reported in a forthcoming book, which included a promise to his Chinese counterpart that he would alert China to any planned attack by America. His argument that the calls were “routine” and done to “reassure both allies and adversaries in this case in order to ensure strategic stability” underscores his serious misconduct.

Those decisions and actions are above his pay grade, but Milley never told his superiors what he was doing. But he did reportedly tell his top staff that only he could give final approval for a nuclear strike. A separate report says he warned aides of trouble from Trump supporters, declaring that “we’re the guys with the guns.”

Notably, not a single military officer blew the whistle.

In plain English, this was an attempted coup. Milley, in a fit of pique over the president’s conduct after the election, reversed the chain of command. No longer would a duly elected civilian be on top.

A general trusted with awesome responsibility went rogue, usurping the president’s power and making himself commander in chief.

Milley’s actions are the latest manifestation of a sickness that led the leaders of many important institutions to turn their hatred for Trump into a license to break restraints, standards and even laws.

The first aim was to block him from being president and then sabotage his administration with anonymous leaks of classified information and false charges. Milley went the logical next step in trying to seize the power to declare war.

The pattern is unlike anything seen in modern times and perhaps ever in American history.

That was the view of William Barr, Trump’s second attorney general, who launched a Department of Justice probe into the spying against Trump during the 2016 campaign and the subsequent undermining of his White House.

That probe is headed by John Durham, whom Barr named a special counsel, meaning he would outlive the administration. That has happened, though the results so far are puny given the scope of the scandal and the number of top officials implicated.

In more than two years, Durham has filed charges against just two people. Both have been important, but no clear legal connection has been established to the larger plot, especially the effort to use the secretive FISA court and other agencies to tip the election to Hillary Clinton.

Last week illustrated the enormous mismatch between Durham’s plodding probe and the unchecked willfulness of the other side, as exemplified by Milley.

The special counsel charged Democratic-connected lawyer Michael Sussmann of lying to the FBI when he tried to steer the agency toward what he claimed was cyber-evidence of ties between a Russian bank and the Trump campaign. Asked who his client was, Sussmann allegedly said he didn’t have one, when in fact his law firm, Perkins Coie, was working for Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Sussmann’s “tip” soon became news among pliant media eager to help Clinton, and she herself touted the supposed connection to the Russian bank. In the end, there was no there there, but the hit on Trump was typical of 2016.

The fraudulent Michael Steele dossier also was funded by Clinton through Perkins Coie and given to the FBI to try to make a Russian-collusion angle stick. It was and still is the dirtiest dirty trick in modern politics.

Similarly, the charge against Sussmann shows he was floating another Russian angle to the FBI. There was zero truth in either case.

Sussmann denies the charge, but the indictment says he billed the Clinton campaign for his repeated efforts to promote the Russian bank scam, so a trial would be informative.

Earlier, Durham had charged former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty to lying on a surveillance-warrant application during the bid to spy on Carter Page, a Trump associate. Clinesmith’s punishment was just one year of probation.

While the media mostly relegates Durham’s cases to sideshows, Milley is being treated as a hero by many on the left. Predictably, Joe Biden expressed confidence in him despite his dance with treason.

And why not? Milley’s defenders, including Biden, were all for blocking Trump or driving him from office, by hook or crook. Recall that Biden took part in an infamous White House meeting in January of 2017 where the FBI spying probe was discussed.

The taint was so obvious that Susan Rice wrote a notorious memo two weeks later, on the day Trump was inaugurated, claiming Barack Obama had insisted the probe of Trump be done “by the book.”

If that were true, the last-minute memo to the file wouldn’t have been needed.

Not incidentally, Rice now serves as Biden’s top domestic adviser.

As we have known for some time, the plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent began when it appeared he was a good bet to get the GOP nomination. It involved the White House, major elements of the Department of Justice and intelligence agencies in a coordinated effort with Clinton’s campaign.

It’s not quite true that all those involved got away with it. FBI Director James Comey was fired by Trump, and his crew of dirty cops, including Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, was forced out in disgrace.

Yet not a single one of the scores of people unmasked in the corrupt effort received a punishment commensurate with their abuse of power and the weaponizing of federal agencies for partisan purposes. In fact, some were actually rewarded, with the odious Comey getting a fat book deal and teaching gigs at prestigious colleges.

No doubt that record has Milley savoring his prospects. It certainly won’t hurt that he previously aligned himself with the far left by supporting the teaching of critical race theory at West Point, telling Congress: “I want to understand white rage. And I’m white.”

As for the unending disaster in Afghanistan, including the drone strike that killed 10 innocent civilians, including seven children, Milley hasn’t had much to say.

That won’t hurt him. By resisting Trump and giving credence to anti-white racism, he’s already checked the required progressive boxes.

And isn’t that what matters most?

Pentagon Admits Drone Strike Against ‘High Profile’ ISIS-K Operatives Actually Killed Family, Children

By Jordan Davidson| The Federalist 

Photo Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. - Twitter/Photo

The Pentagon admitted on Friday that a U.S.-ordered drone strike in Afghanistan in late August did not kill any “high-profile” ISIS-K terrorists as the administration claimed but tragically killed at least 10 civilians, seven of whom were children.

“I offer my profound condolences to the family and friends of those who were killed,” Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the commander of United States Central Command, said before pledging that the U.S. is “exploring the possibility” of ex gratia payments for the living relatives of those killed by the strike.

Originally, U.S. Central Command touted the “over-the-horizon counterterrorism operation” as having successfully killed one “ISIS-K planner.” Despite the U.S. Department of Defense’s confidence that specifically two terrorist “planners and facilitators” died as a result of the drone strike and a third was wounded, the Pentagon refused to release the alleged “high-profile” terrorists’ names.

“The fact that two of these individuals are no longer walking on the face of the Earth, that’s a good thing,” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said. “It’s a good thing for the people of Afghanistan, and it’s a good thing for our troops and our forces at that airfield.”

Even when news reports indicated that the U.S.-ordered strike killed 10 Afghan family members, seven of whom were children, the Pentagon simply pledged to investigate the civilian deaths but refused to say anything else on the matter.

Gen. Mark Milley, who is under fire for making potentially treasonous phone calls to his counterpart in communist China, originally called the operation a “righteous” strike but cushioned his claim on Friday after the news broke.

“In a dynamic high threat environment, the commanders on the ground had appropriate authority and had reasonable certainty that the target was valid, but after deeper post-strike analysis, our conclusion is that innocent civilians were killed,” Milley said in a statement. “This is a horrible tragedy of war and it’s heart-wrenching and we are committed to being fully transparent about this incident.”

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Saturday, September 18, 2021

NEW VIDEO RELEASED: Shock Footage Shows Countless Migrants Wading Across Rio Grande into America

Posted by Hannity Staff

New Drone Footage Shows ‘Out of Control’ Situation at US-Mexico Border

Recently released drone footage is revealing the “out of control” situation taking place at the US-Mexico border in Del Rio, Texas; showing thousands of Central American migrants waiting to be processed by Federal Agents before entering the United States.

“Our drone is back over the international bridge in Del Rio, TX. Per source, the number of migrants waiting to be processed has now swelled to approx 8,200. It was 4,000 yesterday AM. Doubled in one day. BP overwhelmed, & I’m told situation is ‘out of control,’” posted Fox News’ Bill Melugin.


The number of migrants crossing the United States border from Mexico continued to surge this summer, with new data from the Department of Homeland Security showing more than 200,000 encounters between immigrants and Federal Agents.

That’s up 317% compared to August 2020.

“The source told Fox that there were 208,887 encounters in August. While it marks the first decrease in migrant encounters seen under the Biden administration, where migrant encounters have been sharply rising for months, it is only a 2% drop over the more than 212,000 encounters in July,” reports Fox News.

“Additionally, the 208,887 number for August represents a 317% increase over last August 2020 which saw 50,014 apprehensions — and a 233% increase over August 2019, where there were 62,707 apprehensions during that year’s border crisis,” adds Fox.

“We have a plan, we are executing our plan and that takes time,” said DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas last month.

“A couple of days ago I was down in Mexico, and I said look, you know, if, if our borders are the first line of defense, we’re going to lose and this is unsustainable,” Mayorkas said. “We can’t continue like this, our people in the field can’t continue and our system isn’t built for it.”