Sunday, January 31, 2021
Saturday, January 30, 2021
BipolarWINTER, Volume 1 | Trailer 1 + (Commentary)
P.S.
Related
I found this video @ https://sites.google.com/view/mymormonfamily/home, while looking for information about an author of a Novel (book) named Samuel David Steiner. The Novel is called "Bipolar Winter", it's about Seventh day Adventists conspiring to destroy the Catholic Church; So, when I heard it mentioned by a friend, I became curious and I searched for information on the Novel and its author.
In searching for information I discovered that the author Samuel David Steiner describes himself as being related to dozens of Mormons, many were founders of the denomination, others doctors, also politicians, some were businessmen, and even a Judge. I also noticed that he was previously known by another name:
On his father's side, Samuel David Steiner f/k/a Vernon Lee Leggett is related to each of the seventeen prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the Mormon or LDS Church). Steiner is also related to nine of the current members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
-
Mr. Samuel David Steiner f/k/a Vernon Lee Leggett, has been asked by many Seventh-day Adventist, friends, and family to share an introduction to the teachings found in The Book of Mormon that would have motivated the early Mormons to sacrifice everything to follow their Prophet to Utah. The following are four videos of talks given by one of Samuel Steiner's relatives which provide that insight. Please watch them in the following order:
Futhermore, I found that Samuel David Steiner claims he was raised Seventh day Adventist:
Samuel David Steiner
I was born on October 11, 1952, in Mobile, Alabama, U.S.A.
I was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist (SDA). My parents remained faithful to the church's teachings their whole life. My father, a church pastor who later became a church administrator, was a loving man devoted to his family. My gracious mother likewise loved her children deeply. Despite their membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, my parents cared for their children well and instilled in them the virtues of honesty and integrity. When I left the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I embraced my mother's Jewish roots and found my home in the ancient faith.
According to a church tradition, I was to follow in his father's footsteps and become a church administrator. I was to help further develop the massive medical arm of the church as a modern evangelistic tool.
I decided that I would not support a Sabbath (Saturday) keeping church that teaches its young people they could soon be forced into prison or even lose their lives for defying church teachings. According to the prophecies of the SDA Church, the United States government will soon pass laws forbidding any Christian from worshiping on Saturday. As unbelievable as this sounds, I struggled with the concept. Additional false teachings of the church ultimately prompted me to leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Bipolar Winter is a work of fiction, but much of the story is based on facts.
My story, as told in Bipolar Winter, is available at www.BipolarWinter.com
-
Steiner was raised in the heart of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and culture. From early childhood, he became aware that the current church was not teaching what the founders of the church had taught for over sixty years heightening his concern that the church was indoctrinating children with the teaching that one day soon, the United States government woulddeny[enforce] worship on Sunday instead of Saturday. Steiner says, "I decided to make my stance and put my knowledge into a fiction book to entertain and raise awareness."
======
After reviewing the above information I conclude that Samuel David Steiner, a.k.a. Vernon Lee Leggett is either not very honest or confused about his Mormon, Seventh day Adventist, and Jewish origins. Therefore, I conclude that the same can be said about his "Bipolar Winter" Novel, it can not be relied on for an accurate representation of Seventh day Adventism, though he many claim it's a Fiction Novel Based on Historical Facts. "Bipolar Winter" seems more like slander of a people whose movement has diligently studied the Bible and accepts it as God's word. Historic Adventists consider the Prophecies of the Bible as Gospel Truth, and expect them to be fulfilled exactly as they were written.
This book may be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle BIPOLAR.
Arsenio.
References:
Black Lives Matter is nominated for a Nobel peace prize
By Laura Italiano
January 29, 2021 | 6:23pm
Black Lives Matter has been nominated for the 2021 Nobel peace prize — a pitch that lauds the movement’s fight against racial injustice but takes little note of the decidedly non-peaceful violence and property damage that has been committed in its name.
BLM was nominated for the humanitarian honor by a Norwegian politician who hailed its multi-racial breadth, calling it “a very important worldwide movement to fight racial injustice,” The Guardian reported.
The pol, Petter Eide, a member of Norway’s Parliament, brushed aside questions of the movement’s occasions of violence on Friday.
“Studies have shown that most of the demonstrations organised by Black Lives Matter have been peaceful,” Eide said.
“Of course there have been incidents, but most of them have been caused by the activities of either the police or counter-protestors.”
More than 93 percent of U.S. BLM protests have been peaceful, according to a September study by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, which looked at 7,750 demonstrations from four months of last year.
A woman with ‘BLM’ written on her cheek poses for a picture during a demonstration on May 31, 2020 in Atlanta, Georgia.Getty Images
Still, throughout the U.S. and Europe, BLM demonstrations have devolved into bottle-throwing, fire-setting, graffiti-spraying. statue-toppling and attacks on police in the years since it was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of the man who shot Trayvon Martin.
Most recently, in New York, hundreds of BLM demonstrators tangled with NYPD officers in City Hall Park on Martin Luther King Day.
Eleven cops suffered minor injuries, including a captain who was struck in the head with a bottle, but who was wearing a helmet at the time.
Still, throughout the U.S. and Europe, BLM demonstrations have devolved into bottle-throwing, fire-setting, graffiti-spraying. statue-toppling and attacks on police in the years since it was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of the man who shot Trayvon Martin.
Most recently, in New York, hundreds of BLM demonstrators tangled with NYPD officers in City Hall Park on Martin Luther King Day.
Eleven cops suffered minor injuries, including a captain who was struck in the head with a bottle, but who was wearing a helmet at the time.
A protester waves a Black Lives Matter flag as others are seen in the Manhattan bound lanes of the Brooklyn Bridge, near the Brooklyn Tower as they block traffic on Sept. 25, 2020.Robert Mecea
Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump has been nominated for a second time, by another Norweigan pol.
Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a far-right member of Parliament, cited Trump’s role in normalizing relations between the United Arab Emirates and Israel.
The Norway-based Nobel Committee is expected to choose the winners in November.
Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump has been nominated for a second time, by another Norweigan pol.
Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a far-right member of Parliament, cited Trump’s role in normalizing relations between the United Arab Emirates and Israel.
The Norway-based Nobel Committee is expected to choose the winners in November.
A man recites spoken word poetry at a makeshift memorial honoring George Floyd, at the spot where he was taken into custody, in Minneapolis, Minnesota on June 1, 2020.REUTERS
The Unholy Alliance between the Vatican and the United States is Unfolding
January 29, 2021 by Andy Roman
The Joe Biden administration and Pope Francis’ pontificate are creating an unholy alliance that will enforce Catholic social doctrine, while denying others their religious freedoms. Joe Biden and Pope Francis are strategically teaming up to use their power to propel the world towards the Great Reset, which is the resurgence of global socialism under the guise of Catholic social justice. This union is the culmination of Vatican II and represents what Rome has been trying to bring to the world.
Modernism and liberalism are the epitome of the current papacy and the American presidency. We see a union between the global left and Pope Francis as they commit to working together on areas of common ground. We are not talking about the Pope speaking out on the current problems of our world. No. What is worrying is his participation and engagement with liberal policies that go beyond the scope of a religious institution. There is no problem when church leaders weigh in on issues that arise in politics. Churches can certainly speak up for or against any political measure. But that is not what we are seeing under the pontificate of Pope Francis.
In fact, the Pope and other religious leaders have been silent on the real moral issues (abortion, gay marriage, transgender identity, etc.) while engaging in political issues that God’s word does not sanction. A new morality has been created. It’s no longer about the 10 Commandments. It’s about climate change, open borders, mass migration, universal income, wealth redistribution, ending capitalism and Sunday sacredness (Laudato Si’). The voice of the church is being misapplied and misused by self-serving politicians dressed as clerics. Instead of sharing what God says about salvation and sin, religious leaders are trying to reshape our world politically with Marxism (Fratelli Tutti).
One of the main issues on which the Vatican and the United States are coming together is climate change. Both President Joe Biden and Pope Francis have called this one of the biggest problems facing the world. Joe Biden is making climate change the centerpiece of his administration and has surrounded himself with scientists from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. These are scientists who are appointed by the Pope to become members of the Vatican-based group.
Joe Biden has appointed Eric Lander, a Fellow of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, [1] as his Presidential Scientific Advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, a new position in the White House cabinet. [2] This unholy alliance is trying to use religion to “depoliticize” the issue of climate change. Rome has become the new propaganda tool to persuade all the world religions to embrace their climate message. So we are being bombarded by Pope Francis who is telling us that climate change is not a political issue, but a religious and moral imperative that must be addressed immediately.
This type of collaboration between church and state will continue to grow and will ultimately be seen as the solution for bringing permanent religious, social and political change. The church is taking a more active role in facilitating global policy, and politicians and governments are coming together to implement these reforms. This trend towards political and religious unity is the foundation for the unholy alliance between the Vatican and the United States.
Considering that such a unity will allow Rome to more effectively promote a new social and political society (Fratelli Tutti), many Protestant leaders are already reaching across the gulf and clasping the hand of Rome in the work of remodeling of our political and religious structures. Everyone is coming together, and the Biden administration will implement Rome’s policies faster than you can imagine in the coming months.
Let us beware of such a union. Prophecy declares that such a framework will be used to implement the mark of the beast. There will be a movement to establish Sunday observance by law (Laudato Si’). We have known for years that such a movement was coming. These predictions are based on the Word of God. Prophecy predicts that a sinister power would arise in the last days and impose a “religious” test on the people.
“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Revelation 13:8.
“And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.” Revelation 13:12.
The above versus describes a religious requirement imposed by the state. The seed of this development is present in this new unholy alliance between the Vatican and the United States. And although the whole world may be in favor of this cooperation, God is against it. The beast power of Revelation 13 will eventually pronounce a death penalty on those who refuse to worship the beast and receive his mark, but God will pronounce the penalty of everlasting death upon those who do (Revelation 14:9).
The stage for this final conflict is unfolding before our eyes. Governments must be very careful not to participate in any attempt to impose religious propaganda on their people by law. That is not part of the state’s business, and religion is always in a much healthier spiritual condition when its doctrines are confined to its own legitimate sphere and away from politics. Establishing a religious test in these last days is something that God never authorized or commanded, and it will only bring persecution on the minority.
“Sooner or later Sunday laws will be passed. But there is much for God’s servants to do to warn the people. This work has been greatly retarded by their having to wait and stand against the devisings of Satan, which have been striving to find a place in our work. We are years behind” (Review and Herald, February 16, 1905).
Sources
[1] https://www.livingfaith.in/church-news/pope-appoints-scientist-eric-lander-to-pontifical-academy-of-sciences/8746
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00118-8
Friday, January 29, 2021
...Adventist Leader Calls Gender-based Violence ‘Shame of Our Humanity’...
JANUARY 28, 2021
At the U.N., Adventist Leader Calls Gender-based Violence ‘Shame of Our Humanity’
Public Affairs and Religious Liberty director urges cooperation to confront forces working against the “full humanity” of women.
By: Bettina Krause, General Conference Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department
When we talk about the status and treatment of women worldwide, we’re not just indulging in “academic speculation about rights in the abstract,” Ganoune Diop said during a January 26, 2021, keynote address to more than a thousand attendees drawn from both the United Nations (UN) community and many faith-based organizations.
Diop is director for Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the Secretary General of the International Religious Liberty Association (IRLA).
In his presentation, which provided a thematic framework for the day-long event, Diop said that within many contexts, women “disproportionately suffer the tragedies of human existence.”
“Women are often the prime targets and victims of wars, genocides, human trafficking, domestic servitude, and slavery,” he said, “all adding to the toll of insecurities prompted by the multifaceted reality of gender inequality.”
Diop cited a list of statistics highlighting the lopsided impact on women of many social inequalities and harms—from denial of access to education to the prevalence of child marriage and sexual abuse to different forms of economic marginalization.
A key to addressing these tragic realities, Diop said, is to recognize that within many social and cultural contexts, women have long been denied recognition of their full humanity. This denial has led to what Diop called one of the “overarching and deepest obstacles” to improving the plight of women worldwide—the legitimization of gender-based violence.
“Domestic violence, societal violence, the horrors of human trafficking, all disproportionately affect women and girls and reveal the dark side of humanity,” Diop said.
The themes highlighted in Diop’s presentation were explored throughout the day during panel discussions and question-and-answer sessions with the audience. According to organizers, the goal of the event was not just to shine a spotlight on current realities but to begin a dialogue — between governments, international bodies, faith groups, and other civil society groups — about ways to collectively confront these challenges.
The UN event was the seventh annual symposium in a series focused on the role of religion and faith-based organizations in international affairs. The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has been one of several co-sponsors of the gatherings, which are intended to amplify the voice of faith groups within the international community and to foster greater collaboration on shared goals. Previous symposiums have focused on issues such as religiously motivated violence, refugees and migrants, and humanitarian funding.
Although usually held in person at the UN building in New York, the symposium this year took place virtually. It attracted participants from North America and across Europe, Asia-Pacific regions, Africa, and the Middle East.
In an interview following the symposium, Diop said that it’s important for Adventist voices and perspectives to be heard within the international community. “Events such as these, undertaken in cooperation with other organizations, are not about negating differences between groups,” Diop said. “Instead, it’s a chance to highlight the unique contributions the Adventist Church brings to the table; how our biblical convictions about the innate dignity and worth of every person — as sons and daughters of the Creator God — drives our global advocacy for fundamental human rights.”
Diop also noted that the theme of this years’ symposium fits well with the Adventist Church’s ongoing work — through health care, education, humanitarian care, and spiritual witness — to elevate the status and treatment of women around the world. For more than a decade, various Adventist organizations, including the General Conference women’s ministries department and the Adventist Development and Relief Agency, have joined together to promote a global initiative called enditnow, which continues to call for an end to violence against women and other vulnerable members of society.
Other speakers at this years’ UN symposium included Azza Karam, Secretary-General, Religions for Peace; Alice Nderitu, UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide; Anwar Khan, president of Islamic Relief Worldwide; Laura Janner-Klaus, former inaugural Senior Rabbi to the Movement for Reform Judaism; Ibrahim Salama, Chief, Human Rights Treaties Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); Alison Kelly, UN representative for ACT Alliance; and Liberato Bautista, Assistant General Secretary, United Methodist Church-General Board of Church and Society, and President of the Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CoNGO).
As the oldest publishing platform of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Adventist Review (est. 1849) provides inspiration and information to the global church through a variety of media, including print, websites, apps, and audio and video platforms.Content appearing on any of the Adventist Review platforms has been selected because it is deemed useful to the purposes and mission of the journal to inform, educate, and inspire the denomination it serves.Unless identified as created by “Adventist Review” or a designated member of the Adventist Review staff, content is assumed to express the viewpoints of the author or creator of the content.
Pope marks Holocaust Remembrance Day with warning against extremism
January 27, 2021 - 09:43 AM EST
GETTY IMAGESBY JOHN BOWDEN
Pope Francis in an address Wednesday as part of Holocaust Remembrance Day urged his followers to continue battling the forces of political extremism, warning that genocide "can happen again" if society doesn't remain vigilant.
"To remember is an expression of humanity. To remember is a sign of civility. To remember is a condition for a better future of peace and fraternity," the pope said in comments marking the 76th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp, according to Reuters.
"Be wary of how this path of death, extermination and brutality started," he added from the papal library in the Vatican, referring to the rise of the Nazi Party in 1930s Germany.
His remarks come just weeks after the Washington, D.C.-based Holocaust Museum "unequivocally" condemned comments from a Republican congresswoman who referenced Nazi leader Adolf Hitler while attacking Democrats at a rally just before then-President Trump's supporters rioted at the U.S. Capitol. Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a result of the siege.
"Hitler was right on one thing, that whoever has the youth has the future. Our children are being propagandized," Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said at the Jan. 6 event.
The head of the Jewish community of Vienna, Austria, also warned last week that anti-Semitism is again on the rise across Europe.
"Austria is not an island. The increase in anti-Semitic incidents can, unfortunately, be observed across Europe," Oskar Deutsch told The Associated Press. "The fight against anti-Semitism is not a Jewish task alone, but rather a task for society as a whole. The findings of 2019 show us that the time to act has really come."
Coexistence Is the Only Option
Coexistence Is the Only Option
Millions of Americans sympathize with the Capitol insurrection. Everyone else must figure out how to live alongside them.
CRAIG RUTTLE / REDUX
They could be real-estate agents or police officers, bakers or firefighters, veterans of American wars or CEOs of American companies. They might live in Boise or Dallas, College Park or College Station, Sacramento or Delray Beach. Some are wealthy. Some are not. Relatively few of them were at the United States Capitol on January 6, determined to stop Congress from certifying a legitimate election. Millions more cheered the rioters on—and still do.
They could be real-estate agents or police officers, bakers or firefighters, veterans of American wars or CEOs of American companies. They might live in Boise or Dallas, College Park or College Station, Sacramento or Delray Beach. Some are wealthy. Some are not. Relatively few of them were at the United States Capitol on January 6, determined to stop Congress from certifying a legitimate election. Millions more cheered the rioters on—and still do.
As a group, it’s hard to know what to call them. They are too many to merit the term extremists. There are not enough of them to be secessionists. Some prominent historians and philosophers have been arguing for a revival of the word fascist; others think white supremacist is more appropriate, though there could also be a case for rebel. For want of a better term, I’m calling all of them seditionists—not just the people who took part in the riot, but the far larger number of Americans who are united by their belief that Donald Trump won the election, that Joe Biden lost, and that a long list of people and institutions are lying about it: Congress, the media, Mike Pence, the election officials in all 50 states, and the judges in dozens of courts.
Not all Republicans are seditionists, nor is everyone who voted for Trump, nor is every conservative: Nothing about rejecting your country’s political system is conservative. Still, those who do hold these views are quite numerous. In December, 34 percent of Americans said they did not trust the outcome of the 2020 election. More recently, 21 percent said that they either strongly support or somewhat support the storming of the Capitol building. As of this week, 32 percent were still telling pollsters that Biden was not the legitimate winner.
One Odd Trick Restores Your Eyes To Perfect 20/20 Vision (Watch)
Doctors Stunned New Vision Discovery Fixes Your Vision Naturally
SPONSORED BY WEEKLYPENNY.COM
See More
Even if we assume that only half of those polled are impassioned by politics, and even if we put the number of truly seditious Americans at 10 or 15 percent, that’s a very large number of people. For although Trump will eventually exit political life, the seditionists will not. They will remain, nursing their grievances, feverishly posting on social media, angrily listening to Tucker Carlson—the Fox News host has just told them that the federal troops in Washington, D.C., are “not there for your safety” but because Democrats want to send a “message about power”—and energetically running for office. A member of the West Virginia state legislature filmed himself in the mob breaking into the Capitol on January 6: “We’re taking this country back whether you like it or not,” he told his Facebook followers. A New Mexico county commissioner came home from the riots; bragged about his participation; and, according to authorities, told a public meeting that he planned to go back to D.C., but this time carrying firearms.
Perhaps in 2022, more seditionists will enter Congress, joining Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, the QAnon-aligned conspiracist who has already said she will launch impeachment proceedings against Biden. Perhaps in 2024, seditionists, rather than reality-based Republicans, will be running the elections in Georgia and Arizona. Americans could see worse postelection scenarios than the one we’ve just lived through.
We could also see more violence. Since the election, the Bridging Divides Initiative, a group that tracks and counters political violence in the U.S., has observed a singularly ominous metric: a sharp uptick in the number of protests outside the homes of politicians and public figures, including city- and county-level officials, many featuring “armed and unlawful paramilitary actors.” In Idaho, aggressive protesters shut down a public-health meeting; in Northern California, numerous public-health officials have resigned in the face of threats from anti-maskers. Death threats are already shaping U.S. politics at a higher level too. We may never know how many more Republicans in Congress might have voted for Trump’s impeachment last week had it not been for the ominous messages they were receiving online.
Outside politics, outside the law, outside the norms—the seditionists have in fact declared their independence from the rest of us. January 6 was indeed their 1776: They declared that they want to live in a different America from the one the rest of us inhabit, ruled over by a different president chosen according to a different rule book. And yet they cannot be wished away, or sent away, or somehow locked up. They will not leave of their own accord, and Americans who accept Biden’s lawful victory won’t either. We have no choice except to coexist.
But how? Clearly we need regulation of social media, but that’s years away. Of course we need better education, but that doesn’t help us deal with the armed men who were standing outside the Ohio statehouse this week.
Here’s another idea: Drop the argument and change the subject. That’s the counterintuitive advice you will hear from people who have studied Northern Ireland before the 1998 peace deal, or Liberia, or South Africa, or Timor-Leste—countries where political opponents have seen each other as not just wrong, but evil; countries where people are genuinely frightened when the other side takes power; countries where not all arguments can be solved and not all differences can be bridged. In the years before and after the peace settlement in Northern Ireland, for example, many “peacebuilding” projects did not try to make Catholics and Protestants hold civilized debates about politics, or talk about politics at all. Instead, they built community centers, put up Christmas lights, and organized job training for young people.
This was not accidental. The literature in the fields of peacebuilding and conflict prevention overflows with words such as local and community-based and economic regeneration. It’s built on the idea that people should do something constructive—something that benefits everybody, lessens inequality, and makes people work alongside people they hate. That doesn’t mean they will then get to like one another, just that they are less likely to kill one another on the following day.
Translating this basic principle to the vast landscape of the U.S. is not easy: We don’t have UN peacebuilding funds to pay for red-blue community centers, and anyway, American political opponents are often physically separate from each other. We are not fighting over control of street corners in West Belfast. But the Biden administration, or indeed a state government, could act on this principle and, for example, reinvigorate AmeriCorps, the national-service program, offering proper salaries to young people willing to serve as cleaners or aides at overburdened hospitals, food banks, and addiction clinics; sending them deliberately to states with different politics from their own. This might not build eternal friendships, but seditionists and progressives who worked together at a vaccination center could conceivably be less likely to use pepper spray on each other at a demonstration afterward.
Although the bipartisan appeal of roads, bridges, and railways has become a joke—Trump’s promised “Infrastructure Week” never happened—infrastructure investment can produce projects benefiting all of society too. So can a cross-community discussion about infrastructure, or even infrastructure security. Get potential protesters of different political views into a room and ask them, “How are we going to protect our state capitol during demonstrations?” Ask for ideas. Take notes. Make the problem narrow, specific, even boring, not existential or exciting. “Who won the 2020 election?” is, for these purposes, a bad topic. “How do we fix the potholes in our roads?” is, in contrast, superb.
And how do we invite seditionists to a public meeting if they won’t read emails from anyone outside their bubble? Here’s another tactic from the world of conflict prevention: work with trusted messengers, people who have authority within the seditious community, who sympathize with its shared values but are nevertheless willing to talk their comrades down from the brink. A brief version of how this works was actually visible in some of the videos taken by The New Yorker inside the Capitol on January 6. There’s a moment when the insurrectionists are in the Senate chamber, and one of them who seems to have more authority tells the others not to sit in Mike Pence’s chair: “It belongs to the vice president of the United States, but he isn’t here. It’s not our chair. Look, I love you guys—you’re brothers—but we can’t be disrespectful.” Not long after that, a cop comes in and refers to the room as “like, the sacredest place.” Eventually, the motley crew of QAnon/MAGA militants files out without trashing the place.
Not that this phenomenon is anything new: In 1930, a white Texan named Jessie Daniel Ames founded an organization called the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching, a group that campaigned against anti-Black violence. Ames both intervened directly, even confronting lynch mobs in person, and engaged in education and advocacy. Her group sometimes sat uneasily alongside its northern counterparts—its members opposed federal intervention and denounced lynching, not for universal reasons but on the grounds that it was contrary to the creed of southern, white, Christian women—but it worked: In areas where the group operated, the violence went down.
Rachel Brown, the founder of an anti-violence group called Over Zero, told me that she sometimes uses that case study when talking to religious leaders, business leaders, and veterans across the country—people who might be heard in the seditious community—when trying to persuade them to start parallel projects of their own. Clearly the Republican Party is well placed to reach out to members who have rejected democracy, which is why it’s important to support the Adam Kinzingers and the Ben Sasses, even the Mitch McConnells who belatedly and self-interestedly switch sides: Better late than never, especially if it helps undermine the seditionists’ conviction and makes them feel doubt. Of course, Fox News could make an enormous difference too, though at the moment its owners still seem to believe they will make more money off sedition than democracy.
Finally, we could learn some useful lessons from Colombia, a country that has for several years tried, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, to bring members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) back into society. The guerrilla movement had sustained itself for more than 50 years by selling drugs and ransoming hostages, and the decision to reintegrate its members created great ambivalence, and even hostility: Understandably, people don’t especially relish the idea of working alongside former FARC operatives who might have murdered their relatives, let alone paying taxes so that the government can help them retrain and find jobs. At the same time, leaving them to wage drug wars in the jungle isn’t a solution either, and so the program continues.
America’s situation is nowhere near as extreme (though it will be if the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys retreat into the Rocky Mountains for half a century), but some of the Colombian program’s principles have useful resonance. It focuses on the long term, offering former outcasts the hope of a positive future, and providing training and counseling designed to help them assimilate. Not everyone will like the idea, but America’s seditionists arguably pose a similarly long-term social problem. True believers—especially those who are unemployed, underemployed, or so far down the conspiracy-theory rabbit hole that they can no longer cope with ordinary life—are part of an intense, deeply connected, and, to them, profoundly satisfying community. In order to be pried away from it, they will have to be offered some appealing alternative, just as the ex–FARC members are offered the alternative of a legal life in society.
Not coincidentally, this is exactly the kind of advice that can be heard from psychologists who specialize in exit counseling for people who have left religious cults. Roderick Dubrow-Marshall, a psychologist who has written about the similarities between cults and extremist political movements, told me that in both cases, identification with the group comes to dominate people psychologically. “Other interests and ideas become closed off,” he said. “They dismiss anything that pushes back against them.” Remember, the people in the Capitol really believed that they were on a mission to save America, that it was patriotic to smash windows and kill and injure police. Before they can be convinced otherwise, they will have to see some kind of future for themselves in an America run by Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and a Democratic Congress.
I recognize that this is not what everyone wants to hear. Even as I write this, I can hear many readers of this article uttering a collective snort of annoyance. Quite a few, I imagine, feel that, having won the election, they don’t want to pay for a bunch of happy-clappy vaccine volunteers, or new roads in rural America, or mental-health services and life counseling for the MAGA-infected—let them learn to live with us. I can well imagine that, like the Colombians who hate the reintegration of FARC, many will resent every penny of public money, every ounce of political time, that is spent on the seditious minority. Some might even prefer an American version of de-Baathification: track down every last Capitol-riot sympathizer and shame them on social media, preferably with enough rigor that they lose their jobs.
I know how they feel, because I often feel that way too. But then I remember: It won’t work. We’ll wake up the next morning, and they’ll still be there.
ANNE APPLEBAUM is a staff writer at The Atlantic, a senior fellow of the Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, and the author of Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism.
Lawmakers push Biden to offer recurring $2,000 stimulus checks
BY AIMEE PICCHI
JANUARY 29, 2021 / 6:39 AM / MONEYWATCH
As Congress debates President Joe Biden's request for $1.9 trillion in coronavirus relief funding — including a third stimulus check pegged at $1,400 — some Democratic lawmakers are pushing for an even bigger response: $2,000 monthly payments until the pandemic is history.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, and more than 50 other House members are urging the Biden administration to back such a policy, according to a signed letter sent to Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Signers of the January 28 letter also include other leading House progressives such as Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
"One more check is not enough during this public health and economic crisis," they wrote. "Many families cannot afford to wait for eight months between payments. To truly build back better, families need stability and certainty through ongoing relief — they cannot be at the mercy of congressional gridlock."
A recurring stimulus check is a familiar proposal for Harris, who last year introduced a bill in the Senate that would have provided $2,000 a month for each adult and child in the U.S. until the pandemic ended, although the effort failed to gain traction.
Supporters of the idea note that financial hardship remains widespread around the U.S. 10 months after COVID-19 effectively shuttered the economy. A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank, found that one-third of adults are struggling to pay their bills. Many of those who are hurting are low-wage workers whose service jobs were impacted by the crisis, such as those in restaurant and retail jobs.
While the letter didn't specify an amount for a recurring stimulus payment, Rep. Omar tweeted on Thursday that she would like to see payments of $2,000 per month until the global health crisis has ended. So far, the federal government's response efforts have included two direct payments to most low- and middle-class families: a $1,200 check for eligible adults last spring and a $600 per person check earlier this month.
The recurring payments should be directed to "those who need it most and will spend it the quickest," as well as include "all immigrant workers, refugees, and their families," Omar wrote. Older dependents and people over the age of 16 who are claimed as dependents — and who were excluded from the first two stimulus checks — should also be included, she added.
"Economic suffering"
The latest relief plan under debate in Congress would provide a third stimulus check of $1,400 to most U.S. households, with Wall Street analysts estimating that the payments could be approved by the end of March.
Given ongoing hardship and high unemployment rates, a bold stimulus plan is needed to both alleviate current suffering and plant the seeds for economic revival, said Gene Sperling, former director of the National Economic Council under President Clinton and President Obama, on a conference call with reporters on Thursday.
"We know there is still an enormous amount of economic suffering going on in our country," Sperling said on the call hosted by Invest in America Action, an advocacy group for public investment. "The top quartile might see unemployment around 5%, but for the bottom quartile, it's over 20%."
For people in the bottom fifth of income-earners, unemployment remains at "Depression-level" rates, he added.
Asked about Omar's request for recurring stimulus payments, Sperling noted that Biden's $1.9 trillion proposal includes several recurring aid programs, including $400 in extra weekly jobless benefits and an increase in tax credits to $3,600 per child under 6-years-old. There's some discussion that such a child tax credit could be paid on a monthly basis, he added.
Some economists have argued that direct stimulus checks aren't as effective in boosting economic growth as other forms of aid, such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, which are provided to people in need and are spent relatively quickly. The effectiveness of the second round of checks has been mixed, with lower-income households spending the money quickly, while wealthier households socked away the cash, a recent study found.
Ongoing payments would provide stability to families struggling in the crisis, Omar wrote. "Recurring direct payments until the economy recovers will help ensure that people can meet their basic needs, provide racially equitable solutions and shorten the length of the recession," she said.
First published on January 28, 2021 / 3:28 PM
Source
JANUARY 29, 2021 / 6:39 AM / MONEYWATCH
As Congress debates President Joe Biden's request for $1.9 trillion in coronavirus relief funding — including a third stimulus check pegged at $1,400 — some Democratic lawmakers are pushing for an even bigger response: $2,000 monthly payments until the pandemic is history.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, and more than 50 other House members are urging the Biden administration to back such a policy, according to a signed letter sent to Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Signers of the January 28 letter also include other leading House progressives such as Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
"One more check is not enough during this public health and economic crisis," they wrote. "Many families cannot afford to wait for eight months between payments. To truly build back better, families need stability and certainty through ongoing relief — they cannot be at the mercy of congressional gridlock."
A recurring stimulus check is a familiar proposal for Harris, who last year introduced a bill in the Senate that would have provided $2,000 a month for each adult and child in the U.S. until the pandemic ended, although the effort failed to gain traction.
Supporters of the idea note that financial hardship remains widespread around the U.S. 10 months after COVID-19 effectively shuttered the economy. A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank, found that one-third of adults are struggling to pay their bills. Many of those who are hurting are low-wage workers whose service jobs were impacted by the crisis, such as those in restaurant and retail jobs.
While the letter didn't specify an amount for a recurring stimulus payment, Rep. Omar tweeted on Thursday that she would like to see payments of $2,000 per month until the global health crisis has ended. So far, the federal government's response efforts have included two direct payments to most low- and middle-class families: a $1,200 check for eligible adults last spring and a $600 per person check earlier this month.
The recurring payments should be directed to "those who need it most and will spend it the quickest," as well as include "all immigrant workers, refugees, and their families," Omar wrote. Older dependents and people over the age of 16 who are claimed as dependents — and who were excluded from the first two stimulus checks — should also be included, she added.
"Economic suffering"
The latest relief plan under debate in Congress would provide a third stimulus check of $1,400 to most U.S. households, with Wall Street analysts estimating that the payments could be approved by the end of March.
Given ongoing hardship and high unemployment rates, a bold stimulus plan is needed to both alleviate current suffering and plant the seeds for economic revival, said Gene Sperling, former director of the National Economic Council under President Clinton and President Obama, on a conference call with reporters on Thursday.
"We know there is still an enormous amount of economic suffering going on in our country," Sperling said on the call hosted by Invest in America Action, an advocacy group for public investment. "The top quartile might see unemployment around 5%, but for the bottom quartile, it's over 20%."
For people in the bottom fifth of income-earners, unemployment remains at "Depression-level" rates, he added.
Asked about Omar's request for recurring stimulus payments, Sperling noted that Biden's $1.9 trillion proposal includes several recurring aid programs, including $400 in extra weekly jobless benefits and an increase in tax credits to $3,600 per child under 6-years-old. There's some discussion that such a child tax credit could be paid on a monthly basis, he added.
Some economists have argued that direct stimulus checks aren't as effective in boosting economic growth as other forms of aid, such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, which are provided to people in need and are spent relatively quickly. The effectiveness of the second round of checks has been mixed, with lower-income households spending the money quickly, while wealthier households socked away the cash, a recent study found.
Ongoing payments would provide stability to families struggling in the crisis, Omar wrote. "Recurring direct payments until the economy recovers will help ensure that people can meet their basic needs, provide racially equitable solutions and shorten the length of the recession," she said.
First published on January 28, 2021 / 3:28 PM
Source
Nancy Pelosi Buys Tesla Calls, Stands To Benefit From New Biden EV Plan
Chris Katje
January 26, 2021, 2:10 pm
The ability of members of U.S. Congress to buy and sell stocks has been controversial over the years. One of its most prominent members made some purchases in December that could benefit from the new Biden administration.
What Happened: It was revealed over the weekend that Speaker of the House and California Rep. Nancy Pelosi purchased 25 call options of Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA). The purchases could have been done by Pelosi or her husband Paul, who runs a venture capital firm.
The options were bought at a stake price of $500 and expiration of March 18, 2022. Pelosi paid between $500,000 and $1,000,000 for the options, according to the disclosure.
Pelosi also disclosed that she bought 20,000 shares of AllianceBernstein Holdings (NYSE: AB), 100 calls of Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL) and 100 calls of Walt Disney Co (NYSE: DIS).
Tesla shares have risen from $640.34 at the time the calls were purchased to over $890 today. The call options were valued at $1.12 million as of Monday.
Related Link: How The 2020 Presidential Election Could Impact EV, Auto Stocks
Why It’s Important: The purchases by Pelosi are questionable as arguments could be made that the companies stand to benefit from new President Joe Biden’s agenda.
Biden's push for electric vehicles, which could include lifting the cap on sales, would give buyers tax credits again and is advantageous for Tesla. The president has also suggested a possible cash-for-clunkers program that could incentivize customers for trading in used vehicles towards the purchase of an electric vehicle.
Pelosi could now have a conflict as she works to pass clean energy initiatives from which her family could profit.
Former U.S. Senator David Perdue, a Republican, was criticized for making numerous stock trades during his six years in Congress. Perdue was the most prominent stock trader from Congress, making 2,596 trades during his time served.
Some of Perdue’s transactions came while he was a member of several sub-committees. The Justice Department investigated Perdue and found no wrongdoing.
What’s Next: It's legal for members of Congress and their spouses to own stocks. The transactions have to be disclosed per the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act that was passed in 2012.
U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon is one member of Congress who has co-sponsored legislation to ban the adding of individual stocks by members of Congress. Both Merkley and Pelosi are Democrats.
Pelosi’s transactions could push for more regulations concerning stock purchases by members of Congress.
(Photo: Official U.S. Embassy photograph by Archibald Sackey and Courage Ahiati.)
The ability of members of U.S. Congress to buy and sell stocks has been controversial over the years. One of its most prominent members made some purchases in December that could benefit from the new Biden administration.
What Happened: It was revealed over the weekend that Speaker of the House and California Rep. Nancy Pelosi purchased 25 call options of Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA). The purchases could have been done by Pelosi or her husband Paul, who runs a venture capital firm.
The options were bought at a stake price of $500 and expiration of March 18, 2022. Pelosi paid between $500,000 and $1,000,000 for the options, according to the disclosure.
Pelosi also disclosed that she bought 20,000 shares of AllianceBernstein Holdings (NYSE: AB), 100 calls of Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL) and 100 calls of Walt Disney Co (NYSE: DIS).
Tesla shares have risen from $640.34 at the time the calls were purchased to over $890 today. The call options were valued at $1.12 million as of Monday.
Related Link: How The 2020 Presidential Election Could Impact EV, Auto Stocks
Why It’s Important: The purchases by Pelosi are questionable as arguments could be made that the companies stand to benefit from new President Joe Biden’s agenda.
Biden's push for electric vehicles, which could include lifting the cap on sales, would give buyers tax credits again and is advantageous for Tesla. The president has also suggested a possible cash-for-clunkers program that could incentivize customers for trading in used vehicles towards the purchase of an electric vehicle.
Pelosi could now have a conflict as she works to pass clean energy initiatives from which her family could profit.
Former U.S. Senator David Perdue, a Republican, was criticized for making numerous stock trades during his six years in Congress. Perdue was the most prominent stock trader from Congress, making 2,596 trades during his time served.
Some of Perdue’s transactions came while he was a member of several sub-committees. The Justice Department investigated Perdue and found no wrongdoing.
What’s Next: It's legal for members of Congress and their spouses to own stocks. The transactions have to be disclosed per the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act that was passed in 2012.
U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon is one member of Congress who has co-sponsored legislation to ban the adding of individual stocks by members of Congress. Both Merkley and Pelosi are Democrats.
Pelosi’s transactions could push for more regulations concerning stock purchases by members of Congress.
(Photo: Official U.S. Embassy photograph by Archibald Sackey and Courage Ahiati.)
Thursday, January 28, 2021
GM Announces Goal to Eliminate Gas and Diesel Vehicles by 2035
The automaker is focused on electric vehicles and wants to be completely carbon-neutral by 2040.
JAN 28, 2021
GMC
GM CEO Mary Barra announced a bold plan to phase out gas- and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035.
The plan is part of a larger strategy to make the company carbon neutral by 2040.
GM’s plan aligns the automaker with regulations being put in place by states like California.
GM’s plan aligns the automaker with regulations being put in place by states like California.
It’s one thing for the state of California to announce that it will no longer allow the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. It’s quite another when an automaker announces essentially the same thing. Today, General Motors CEO Mary Barra unveiled the automaker’s proposal to make GM a net-zero-carbon company. That means phasing out of light-duty vehicles that run on gasoline and diesel by 2035.
GM already accelerated its electric-vehicle plans back in November and now intends to build 30 new EVs by 2025. Now Barra has announced an even bolder clean vehicle plan that eliminates gas cars from the company and that might take consumers and the industry a while to fully comprehend.
The plan is to stop the production of gas-powered light-duty vehicles by 2035 and transition completely to electric vehicles to eliminate tailpipe emissions. It’ll be a transition that will take 14 years and, as time progresses, many of your favorite GM vehicles will switch from gasoline to electricity—yes, even the Corvette (or whatever GM decides to call it in the future).
GM's factories are also going green. Barra announced that all U.S. factories will use renewable energy by 2030 and global factories will switch over by 2035. Suppliers will also be pulled into the plan as GM plans to set ambitious targets to reduce emissions and source more sustainable materials. To achieve this metric, it will establish a sustainability council that will learn and share best practices with others in the industry.
This announcement expands upon Barra's earlier statements at the 2021 CES technology conference to transition GM to a net-zero-carbon future. The company says it will be working towards being completely carbon neutral by 2040. Barra stated that it means, “removing emissions from all our products, including every vehicle we produce, and all of our global operations in the next twenty years.” To make that a reality, the company will use a combination of technologies that remove emissions from its business and carbon credits or carbon offsets.
GM is also working to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement by signing the Business Ambition for 1.5 Celsius commitment. The goal of the businesses that have signed the commitment is to limit global warming to below 2 degrees celsius by changing their practices. According to the committee’s website, over 1000 companies have already joined the initiative.
Then of course In today’s announcement Barra stated, “with these actions, General Motors is joining governments and companies around the globe working to establish a safer, greener and better world. We believe that with our scale and reach we can encourage others to follow suit and make a significant impact on our industry and on the economy as a whole.”
As countries and states begin to legislate the future sales of new gas-powered vehicles and the Biden administration has announced the transition of the government fleet to all EVs, GM is putting a stake in the ground. This plan shows that GM wants to be part of that future, not only giving the company clout in the eyes of government officials but also giving the entire company a goal to focus on. For GM, the future is electric.
Joe Biden terminates much of Donald Trump’s legacy
What a recent flurry of executive orders shows about the drawbacks of executive fiat
United StatesJan 30th 2021 edition
Jan 30th 2021
WASHINGTON, DC
Building a presidential legacy out of executive actions can be like building castles out of sand—both risk being wiped out by the changing tides. Donald Trump spent much of his presidency playing in the sand. His lasting legislative accomplishments—a conventionally Republican tax cut, chiefly, and a worthwhile, albeit modest, sentencing-reform law—are few in number and hardly embody his hard-nosed populism. The most sensational bouts of Trumpism came instead through executive fiat: the order to build a border wall with Mexico, a ban on transgender Americans serving in the military, and the steady campaign to loosen pollution controls. A new administration means new rules. President Joe Biden has already rescinded many of those actions. Given his current pace and the vigour of his appointees, he may even achieve something like total de-Trumpification of federal policy.
The executive orders have been coming at an extraordinary clip. The first tranche were breezy values-signalling measures on high-profile controversies. On his first day on the job, Mr Biden posed behind the Resolute desk of the Oval Office beside a stack of 17 immediate actions—undoing his predecessor’s decisions on immigration (like banning entry from several Muslim-majority countries), climate change (by leaving the Paris climate agreement) and covid-19 knownothingism (by not mandating mask-wearing on federal property). The deeper-cleaning orders, on matters that provoke comparatively little public interest and much litigation, come later.
Jan 30th 2021
WASHINGTON, DC
Building a presidential legacy out of executive actions can be like building castles out of sand—both risk being wiped out by the changing tides. Donald Trump spent much of his presidency playing in the sand. His lasting legislative accomplishments—a conventionally Republican tax cut, chiefly, and a worthwhile, albeit modest, sentencing-reform law—are few in number and hardly embody his hard-nosed populism. The most sensational bouts of Trumpism came instead through executive fiat: the order to build a border wall with Mexico, a ban on transgender Americans serving in the military, and the steady campaign to loosen pollution controls. A new administration means new rules. President Joe Biden has already rescinded many of those actions. Given his current pace and the vigour of his appointees, he may even achieve something like total de-Trumpification of federal policy.
The executive orders have been coming at an extraordinary clip. The first tranche were breezy values-signalling measures on high-profile controversies. On his first day on the job, Mr Biden posed behind the Resolute desk of the Oval Office beside a stack of 17 immediate actions—undoing his predecessor’s decisions on immigration (like banning entry from several Muslim-majority countries), climate change (by leaving the Paris climate agreement) and covid-19 knownothingism (by not mandating mask-wearing on federal property). The deeper-cleaning orders, on matters that provoke comparatively little public interest and much litigation, come later.
Veterans Affairs Secretary Nominee Denis McDonough Testifies at Co...
Denis McDonough
Denis Richard McDonough (born December 2, 1969) is an American political and national security advisor. He was the 26th White House chief of staff, succeeding Jack Lew at the start of President Barack Obama's second term, and serving in that role throughout that term.[1]
Denis McDonough
McDonough in 2021
United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Nominee
Assuming office
TBD
President Joe Biden
Succeeding Robert Wilkie
26th White House Chief of Staff
In office
January 20, 2013 – January 20, 2017
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Jack Lew
Succeeded by Reince Priebus
25th United States Deputy National Security Advisor
In office
October 20, 2010 – January 20, 2013
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Thomas E. Donilon
Succeeded by Tony Blinken
Personal details
Born
Denis Richard McDonough
December 2, 1969 (age 51)
Stillwater, Minnesota, U.S.
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Karin Hillstrom
Children 3
Education St. John's University, Minnesota (BA)
Georgetown University (MS)
Previously, McDonough served as Deputy National Security Advisor from 2010 to 2013 and as chief of staff of the National Security Council from 2009 to 2010. President Joe Biden has nominated McDonough to serve as United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs in his administration.[2]
Early life and education
McDonough was born on December 2, 1969, in Stillwater, Minnesota.[3] He was raised one of eleven children in a devout Irish Catholic family, his grandparents having immigrated from Connemara Gaeltacht.[4][5]
McDonough attended Saint John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota,[6] where he played safety on the Johnnies football team for Hall of Fame coach John Gagliardi.[7][8] McDonough was a member of teams that won two conference titles in the Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference.[7] McDonough graduated from Saint John's University with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, in history and Spanish in 1992.[7] After graduation, McDonough traveled extensively throughout Latin America and taught high school in Belize.[7]
He graduated from Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service with an MSFS degree in 1996.[7]
Source: Wikipedia
Enemies of the Deep State: The Government’s War on Domestic Terrorism Is a Trap
by JOHN W. WHITEHEAD, The Rutherford Institute
2 days ago
John Whitehead's Commentary
Enemies of the Deep State: The Government’s War on Domestic Terrorism Is a Trap
By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead
January 26, 2021
“This is an issue that all Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians should be extremely concerned about, especially because we don’t have to guess about where this goes or how this ends. What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? [The proposed legislation could create] a very dangerous undermining of our civil liberties, our freedoms in our Constitution, and a targeting of almost half of the country.”—Tulsi Gabbard, former Congresswoman
This is how it begins.
We are moving fast down that slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts.
In the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, “domestic terrorism” has become the new poster child for expanding the government’s powers at the expense of civil liberties.
Of course, “domestic terrorist” is just the latest bull’s eye phrase, to be used interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist,” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.”
Watch and see: we are all about to become enemies of the state.
In a déjà vu mirroring of the legislative fall-out from 9/11, and the ensuing build-up of the security state, there is a growing demand in certain sectors for the government to be given expanded powers to root out “domestic” terrorism, the Constitution be damned.
If this is a test of Joe Biden’s worthiness to head up the American police state, he seems ready.
As part of his inaugural address, President Biden pledged to confront and defeat “a rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism.” Biden has also asked the Director of National Intelligence to work with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security in carrying out a “comprehensive threat assessment” of domestic terrorism. And then to keep the parallels going, there is the proposed Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021, introduced after the Jan. 6 riots, which aims to equip the government with “the tools to identify, monitor and thwart” those who could become radicalized to violence.
Don’t blink or you’ll miss the sleight of hand.
This is the tricky part of the Deep State’s con game that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.
It follows the same pattern as every other convenient “crisis” used by the government as an excuse to expand its powers at the citizenry’s expense and at the expense of our freedoms.
As investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald warns:
“The last two weeks have ushered in a wave of new domestic police powers and rhetoric in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’ that are carbon copies of many of the worst excesses of the first War on Terror that began nearly twenty years ago. This New War on Terror—one that is domestic in name from the start and carries the explicit purpose of fighting ‘extremists’ and ‘domestic terrorists’ among American citizens on U.S. soil—presents the whole slew of historically familiar dangers when governments, exploiting media-generated fear and dangers, arm themselves with the power to control information, debate, opinion, activism and protests.”
Greenwald is referring to the USA Patriot Act, passed almost 20 years ago, which paved the way for the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.
Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since Sept. 11, 2001.
Some members of Congress get it.
In a letter opposing expansion of national security powers, a handful congressional representatives urged their colleagues not to repeat the mistakes of the past:
“While many may find comfort in increased national security powers in the wake of this attack, we must emphasize that we have been here before and we have seen where that road leads. Our history is littered with examples of initiatives sold as being necessary to fight extremism that quickly devolve into tools used for the mass violation of the human and civil rights of the American people… To expand the government’s national security powers once again at the expense of the human and civil rights of the American people would only serve to further undermine our democracy, not protect it.”
Cue the Emergency State, the government’s Machiavellian version of crisis management that justifies all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.
This is the power grab hiding in plain sight, obscured by the political machinations of the self-righteous elite. This is how the government continues to exploit crises and use them as opportunities for power grabs under the guise of national security. Indeed, this is exactly how the government added red flag gun laws, precrime surveillance, fusion centers, threat assessments, mental health assessments, involuntary confinement to its arsenal of weaponized powers.
The objective is not to make America safe again. That has never been the government’s aim.
Greenwald explains:
“Why would such new terrorism laws be needed in a country that already imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world as the result of a very aggressive set of criminal laws? What acts should be criminalized by new ‘domestic terrorism’ laws that are not already deemed criminal? They never say, almost certainly because—just as was true of the first set of new War on Terror laws—their real aim is to criminalize that which should not be criminalized: speech, association, protests, opposition to the new ruling coalition.”
So you see, the issue is not whether Donald Trump or Roger Stone or MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell deserve to be banned from Twitter, even if they’re believed to be spouting misinformation, hateful ideas, or fomenting discontent.
Rather, we should be asking whether any corporation or government agency or entity representing a fusion of the two should have the power to muzzle, silence, censor, regulate, control and altogether eradicate so-called “dangerous” or “extremist” ideas.
This unilateral power to muzzle free speech represents a far greater danger than any so-called right- or left-wing extremist might pose.
The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.
Yet where many go wrong is in assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or challenging the government’s authority in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up like a dangerous criminal.
Eventually, all you will really need to do is use certain trigger words, surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, question government authority, or generally live in the United States.
The groundwork has already been laid.
The trap is set.
All that is needed is the right bait.
With the help of automated eyes and ears, a growing arsenal of high-tech software, hardware and techniques, government propaganda urging Americans to turn into spies and snitches, as well as social media and behavior sensing software, government agents have been busily spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state.
It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.
What’s more, the technocrats who run the surveillance state don’t even have to break a sweat while monitoring what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, how much you spend, whom you support, and with whom you communicate. Computers by way of AI (artificial intelligence) now do the tedious work of trolling social media, the internet, text messages and phone calls for potentially anti-government remarks, all of which is carefully recorded, documented, and stored to be used against you someday at a time and place of the government’s choosing.
For instance, police in major American cities have been using predictive policing technology that allows them to identify individuals—or groups of individuals—most likely to commit a crime in a given community. Those individuals are then put on notice that their movements and activities will be closely monitored and any criminal activity (by them or their associates) will result in harsh penalties.
In other words, the burden of proof is reversed: you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.
Dig beneath the surface of this kind of surveillance/police state, however, and you will find that the real purpose of pre-crime is not safety but control.
Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.
This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.
According to one FBI latest report, you might also be classified as a domestic terrorism threat if you espouse conspiracy theories, especially if you “attempt to explain events or circumstances as the result of a group of actors working in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of others” and are “usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations of events.”
Additionally, according to Michael C. McGarrity, the FBI’s assistant director of the counterterrorism division, the bureau now “classifies domestic terrorism threats into four main categories: racially motivated violent extremism, anti-government/anti-authority extremism, animal rights/environmental extremism, and abortion extremism.”
In other words, if you dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s, you may well be suspected of being a domestic terrorist and treated accordingly.
Again, where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.
In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.
In much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect, the government’s anti-extremism program renders otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.
In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, or appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom.
Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.
You will be tracked wherever you go.
You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.
This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.
The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the corporate sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).
If you’re not scared yet, you should be.
Connect the dots.
Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.
To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones and balloons that are beginning to blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify so-called criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.
Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.
There’s always a price to pay for standing up to the powers-that-be.
Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, you don’t even have to be a dissident to get flagged by the government for surveillance, censorship and detention.
All you really need to be is a citizen of the American police state.