Wednesday, January 26, 2022
Remember how last summer’s horrifying Atlanta spa shooting deaths of eight people, including six Asian women, spurred a season of #StopAsianHate sentiment to empower and protect Asian Americans? Harvard forgot all that very quickly. You see, Harvard doesn’t like too many Asian students getting accepted to their hallowed halls. Harvard is upset that on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted two cases challenging racial preferences in student admissions both at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. These schools use race to suppress the number of Asian students (and white students, but to a lesser degree) on campus in order to give more spots to black and Latino students. Asians are just too bright in terms of GPAs and standardized tests — the universal, equalizing yardstick to measure student achievement. As a graduate of the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, I was saddened to receive this email in my inbox this afternoon from Harvard University president Larry Bacow: Dear Members of the Harvard Community, Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced a decision that could put forty years of legal precedent at risk. Colleges and universities could lose the freedom and flexibility to create diverse campus communities that enrich education for all. Our admissions process, in which race is considered as one factor among many, makes us stronger. It prompts learning in day-to-day exchanges in our classrooms and laboratories, in our residential houses, and on our playing fields and stages. Our students understand these truths and see them reflected in their interactions with their classmates. Diversity opens our eyes to the promise of a better future. Harvard celebrates and nurtures individuality as intensely as this nation. Those who challenge our admissions policies would ask us to rely upon a process far more mechanistic, a process far more reliant on simple assessments of objective criteria. Each of us is, however, more than our numbers, more than our grades, more than our rankings or scores. Ask yourself, how much have you learned from other people at this University? How much have you grown from conversations across difference? Would these conversations have been as rich if you had shared the same interests, the same life experiences, and—yes—the same racial or ethnic background as your fellow community members? This is why applications of any kind routinely go beyond mere numbers to include interviews, samples of work product, recommendations, and references. Narrowly drawn measures of academic distinction are not the only indicators of individual promise. As the Supreme Court has recognized many times, race matters in the United States. I long for the day when it does not, but we still have miles to go before our journey is complete. Harvard will continue to defend with vigor admissions policies that were endorsed in the thoughtful decisions of two federal courts that concluded that we do not discriminate; our practices are consistent with Supreme Court precedent; there is no persuasive, credible evidence warranting a different outcome. Though I wish yesterday had turned out differently, I remain confident that the rule of law—and the respect for precedent that perpetuates it—will prevail. Sincerely, Larry President Bacow, who is Jewish and discusses his faith in communications to students and alumni, should know better than to keep defending such bigotry. It wasn’t that long ago that Jews were suppressed from campus to make room for WASPs. Brilliant, African-American economist Thomas Sowell showed in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study, that “race preference programs worldwide have not met expectations and have often produced the opposite of what was originally intended.” Props to the Supreme Court for picking up these cases. They have a chance to support the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. This will make #StopAsianHate more than just a trendy hashtag. Independent Women's Forum is an educational 501(c)(3) dedicated to developing and advancing policies that aren't just well intended, but actually enhance freedom, opportunities, and well-being. IWF is the sister organization of the Independent Women's Voice.
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
By Ella Kietlinska and Joshua Philipp January 21, 2022, The Epcoh Times There is a phenomenon being observed in America today, “an attempt at changing reality” to foster a new Marxist revolution, said Mike Gonzalez, an author of two books on this topic. According to Marxist thought, “reality is just put together by our conceptual framework,“ Gonzalez told EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program. “So what we see with Black Lives Matter, what we see with the 1619 Project … is to replace the American narrative, to replace the idea of America from: all men are created equal, we’re all free … with this idea that we’re an awful country, that our history is hideous, that our system is racist itself—that the system must be changed.” Most people believe that reality cannot be changed because they believe in an ultimate and fundamental truth, in natural law, or in God, but Marxists do not believe in any of that, Gonzalez said. Black Lives Matter (BLM) used the death of George Floyd as an excuse to change society, Gonzalez explained, “to dismantle the organizing principle of society”—in the words of BLM co-founder Alicia Garza. Play Video Gonzalez said that the concept of Black Lives Matter is “unimpeachable.” “Seven billion people on earth matter. And we’re all children of God. But I think it’s important—given our history—to affirm that the lives of our black co-citizens, compatriots, matter because we know the history.” But Black Lives Matter is also the movement and the organization BLM Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF), said Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Epoch Times Photo Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, speaks in Los Angeles, Calif., in a file photograph. (Rich Fury/Getty Images for Teen Vogue) The BLM founders say that they were trained Marxists, the expert noted. Patrisse Cullors, a BLM co-founder said in an interview with Real News Network in 2015, “We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia [Garza] in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.” “Cullors trained for a decade as a radical organizer in the Labor/Community Strategy Center, established and run by Eric Mann, a former member of the Weather Underground, the 1960s radical faction identified by the FBI as a domestic terrorist group,” Gonzalez wrote for the Heritage Foundation. The group, originally called “Weathermen,” explained in its 1969 foundational statement that they were dedicated to “the destruction of U.S. imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism.” Alicia Garza, a co-founder of BLM, was trained by the School of Unity and Liberation (SOUL), an institution founded by Harmony Goldberg, Ph. D., a scholar in cultural anthropology, Gonzalez said. Goldberg is also an expert on Antonio Gramsci (pdf), the founder of Italy’s communist party in the 1920s and a Marxist intellectual. She understands Gramsci’s theory of the war of position, the concept of recruiting people, organizing them, training them, and convincing them to replace one culture with another culture, Gonzalez said. Gonzalez cited the words of Gramsci, who said that in the West, in societies with strong civic society, you need to have a war of position. Gramsci likened political “warfare” to military warfare, where the war of position is akin “to trench warfare, settling in for a long-term struggle with strategic smaller victories to gain more territory bit by bit,” as opposed to the warfare of movement which is like “a rapid military attack,” Bradley Thomas, a libertarian activist, and writer wrote for the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). “In other words, you have to take the worker, infiltrate them, indoctrinate them, teach them that the family was a form of oppression, teach them that the nation-state was a form of oppression, teaching that private property led to war and more oppression. And that is what we have today, except here in America, we practice it through the lens of the race with critical race theory,” Gonzales said. The core of Marx’s thought is that the family, the nation-state, private property, as well as the beliefs in God and religion, had to be abolished, Gonzalez said, adding that the workers at that time didn’t agree with any of that. From the mid-19th century all the way till 1917 when the first Marxist revolution succeeded, the workers during these 70 or so years liked the nation-state, were patriotic, loyal to God, and really liked private property, Gonzalez continued. Therefore, the Marxist revolution failed miserably in Central and Western Europe—exactly the place where Marx had said that it would succeed, Gonzalez explained. “These communist thinkers in Italy and Germany came up with the idea that Marx had been right on the strategy on getting rid of the nation, state, and private property but his tactic needed to be upgraded.” “Marx’s tactic was that it was going to be the material forces of society, economics was going to determine everything,” but these communist intellectuals in the 1920s in Europe realized that it was culture—not economy—which accounts for how man behaves, Gonzalez said. “The Marxism we see in America today—it’s that type of Marxism.” “The communists who trained the founders of BLM organizations … took their cues from these cultural Marxists of the 1920s from Europe.” In 2019, Garza said: “America itself was founded on violence, steeped in white supremacy and predicated on theft and genocide. “When we talk about fighting white nationalism, fighting white supremacy, we’re not talking about fighting white people. We’re talking about changing how we’ve organized this country so that we actually can achieve the justice that we are fighting for. I believe we all have work to do to keep dismantling the organizing principle of this society, which creates inequities for everyone, even white people,” Garza said according to Maine Beacon. “In 2020, we had months of de-stabilization. And … with critical race theory, there’s been a real attempt at changing our culture from within,” Gonzalez said. According to the U.S. Crisis Monitor, in 2020 after the death of George Floyd, 633 riots took place, Gonzalez said. The Insurance Information Institute said that these riots were the costliest civil unrest in U.S. history with insured losses estimated at over $2 billion. BLM activists were involved in 95 percent of the 633 riots for which the identity of the perpetrators was known, according to Gonzalez. “I take that seriously. … That’s why I wrote my book: BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution,” Gonzalez said. The results of the riots have been felt until today, the expert noted. “The jump in the murder rate in 2020 was astronomical. It was 30 percent,” Gonzalez said. “It was the highest increase in the homicide rate in history,” he added. “We know from statistics that over 50 percent of people murdered are African Americans. “So this is a lot of additional black lives that were lost. Don’t they matter?” Gonzalez asked rhetorically. BLM had a plan when it carried out protests and riots in 2020, Gonzalez continued. The organization proposed federal legislation in July 2020 called the BREATHE Act. The bill, sponsored by Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D- Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D- Mass.), called for defunding the police and replacing them with a new approach to community safety. Cullors, the BLM Executive Director described this approach as a “new, non-punitive, and non-carceral approaches to community safety that would incentivize states to shrink their criminal-legal systems and center the protection of Black lives,” according to a BLM report. BLM also partnered with the musical Hamilton and Sprite soda brand to increase the voter turnout in the 2020 election, the report said. The organization has been spreading its curriculum that promotes critical race theory in the country’s 14,000 school districts, Gonzalez wrote in his book. The organization has millions in financial resources obtained through fundraising. “Across our entities and partners, we have raised just over $90 million in one year, 2020” with the average donation of $30.64, the BLM report said, while their expenses such as staffing, operating and administrative expenses, civic engagement, programs, and field expenses, rapid response, and crisis intervention, and its “get out the vote” campaign amounted to $8.4 million. BLM sent out 127 million emails related to their activities in 2020 which resulted in 1.2 million actions taken, according to its report. In addition to the book about BLM, Gonzalez also wrote earlier the book, “The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics Is Dividing the Land of the Free.” The author explained why he penned these books that expose the Marxist infiltration in America. “The fact that I spent the first 12 years of my life in a communist country in Cuba has made me recognize them right away. … I know how culture was destroyed. I know how a country was destroyed. America is my country. I don’t want to see happen to America [what has happened] to the country of my birth.”
Friday, January 21, 2022
By Zachary Stieber January 20, 2022 FBI agents were seen at the home and campaign office of Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), a frequent critic of President Joe Biden, on Jan. 19. Photographs shared by local reporters showed agents at Cuellar’s residence in Laredo removing bags, bins, and at least one computer. Federal agents also went to Cuellar’s campaign office. In a statement to media outlets, the FBI said the bureau “was present in Laredo conducting court-authorized law enforcement activity.” “The FBI cannot provide further comment on an ongoing investigation,” it said. A Cuellar spokesperson told media outlets: “Congressman Cuellar will fully cooperate in any investigation. He is committed to ensuring that justice and the law are upheld.” Cuellar, 66, has represented Texas’s 28th Congressional District since 2005. The district includes land that touches the U.S.–Mexico border. Considered to be a moderate, he has been a frequent critic of Biden’s lax immigration enforcement policies, which experts say have contributed to the explosion in illegal immigration recorded since Biden took office one year ago. Under the Democratic president, the most illegal immigrant apprehensions at the southwest border were recorded for both a fiscal year and a calendar year. Shortly after being sworn into office, Biden halted construction of the border wall, curbed the use of pandemic-era expulsion powers, and directed officials to end the “Remain in Mexico” program, which forced many asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico for their claims to be heard. Some of the administration’s moves have been blocked or reversed by courts, but December 2021 arrests were higher than the month before, according to preliminary figures provided in court documents by the Customs and Border Protection agency. Attorney Jessica Cisneros and educator Tannya Benavides are challenging Cuellar in the Democratic primary for his seat. Cueller beat Cisneros in the previous primary by about 2,700 votes. Cisneros has targeted Cuellar’s reputation and voting record, calling him “Trump’s favorite Democrat” and criticizing his willingness to work with Republicans on legislation. Benavides has offered a similar critique, saying the district should be represented by a more progressive Democrat.
Wednesday, January 19, 2022
By Lydia Moynihan The New York Post Jessica Schumer is a registered lobbyist at Amazon, according to New York state records. Alison Schumer works at Facebook as a product marketing manager. Advocates of the legislation fear that the tech companies’ ties to Sen. Schumer’s children could create a conflict of interest, people close to the matter told On the Money. And they say Schumer’s familial connection to the tech companies is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the cozy relationships some members of Congress have with the firms. “When you put together the amount of money Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi made off tech with the fact that leader Schumer’s two kids work for giant tech companies, Democrats are going to have a very hard time explaining if major legislation doesn’t move forward this session,” one progressive operative told The Post. “It’s not just a messaging problem — it also raises substantive concerns,” this person said. If you were a judge with a kid who worked for Facebook you’d recuse yourself from the case.” The most immediate test will be on the so-called “non-discrimination bill” that would stop platforms from “self-preferencing” their content. For instance, Amazon would no longer be able to promote its own content over third-party sellers on its e-commerce platform. The bill could be ready for introduction as soon as this week. It is under review by the Senate Judiciary Committee — and assuming it emerges from the committee markup, it could be put to a vote in the coming weeks. Schumer, however, has yet to signal where he stands on it — or when he could introduce the legislation. A source close to Schumer says though the legislation is still in committee markup, the senator will back it once that process completes.” As Senate Majority Leader, Schumer has the ability to decide what bills get put up for a vote. Angelo Roefaro, a spokesman for Schumer, said in a comment to On the Money that there was “no basis” for the narrative of this story. “Sen. Schumer is championing these issues both legislatively and with his appointments to federal agencies. He will fight for action and success that delivers a fairer and more innovative playing field for all,” Roefaro said. Representatives at Facebook and Amazon didn’t respond to requests for comment on behalf for Alison and Jessica Schumer. Meanwhile, Jessica’s husband, Michael Shapiro, worked at Google’s Sidewalk Labs from 2017 to 2019, according to Shapiro’s Linkedin profile. He left the company in 2021 for a job at the US Department of Transportation. He also didn’t respond to a request for comment. Jeff Hauser, founder and director of the Revolving Door Project, which looks at money in politics, said Schumer’s ties to the tech companies are cause for concern. “When they are on opposite sides of the divide it can make the public servant member of the family too sympathetic to the company that employs their child or family member,” he contended. The Post previously reported US Rep. Zoe Lofgren — a Democrat who’s one of the most vocal opponents of antitrust bills now winding their way through Congress that would target Big Tech — has a daughter who works on Google’s legal team. SHARE THIS ARTICLE:
Monday, January 17, 2022
By RealClearInvestigations January 16, 2022 When U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd went on “NBC Nightly News” to tell his side of shooting and killing unarmed Jan. 6 rioter Ashli Babbitt, he made a point to note he’d been investigated by several agencies and exonerated for his actions that day. “There’s an investigative process [and] I was cleared by the DOJ [Department of Justice], and FBI and [the D.C.] Metropolitan Police,” he told NBC News anchor Lester Holt in August, adding that the Capitol Police also cleared him of wrongdoing and decided not to discipline or demote him for the shooting. In fact, investigators cleared Byrd of wrongdoing in the shooting without actually interviewing him about the shooting or threatening him with punishment if he did not cooperate with their criminal investigation. “He didn’t provide any statement to [criminal] investigators and they didn’t push him to make a statement,” Babbitt family attorney Terry Roberts said in an RCI interview. “It’s astonishing how skimpy his investigative file is.” Roberts, who has spoken with the D.C. MPD detective assigned to the case, said the kid-glove treatment of Byrd raises suspicions the investigation was a “whitewash.” The lawyer’s account appears to be backed up by a January 2021 internal affairs report, which notes Byrd “declined to provide a statement,” D.C. MPD documents show. Asked about it, a D.C. MPD spokeswoman confirmed that Byrd did not cooperate with internal affairs agents or FBI agents, who jointly investigated what was one of the most high-profile officer-involved shooting cases in U.S. history. “MPD did not formally interview Lt. Byrd,” deputy D.C. MPD communications director Kristen Metzger said. And, “He didn’t give a statement while under the U.S. Attorney’s Office investigation.” Still, USCP concluded in August that “the officer’s conduct was lawful and within department policy.” The agency launched its administrative investigation after the criminal investigation was closed. In April, within four months of the shooting, Byrd was cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the Justice Department, which declined to impanel a grand jury to hear evidence in a departure from other lethal police-shooting cases involving unarmed citizens. Justice ruled there “was not enough evidence” to conclude Byrd violated Babbitt’s civil rights or willfully acted recklessly in shooting her. Byrd remains the commander in charge of security for the House of Representatives. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department would comment on whether they pressed Byrd after he insisted on remaining silent. The D.C. police force, which shares some jurisdiction with the Capitol Police, takes the lead in internal affairs probes like this one. Roberts questioned how investigators could find that Byrd acted in self-defense and properly followed his training procedures, including issuing warnings before shooting Babbitt, since he refused to talk about it while the investigation was open—and his statements, unlike those made to NBC, would have been taken under penalty of perjury. “How would they know if they never interviewed him?” he said, adding that it’s not enough to say an officer did nothing wrong without showing how it reached such a finding. Troy Nehls, Texas Republican and former sheriff: “Many officers in the USCP I have spoken to believe the investigations of Lt. Boyd were dropped because of his position and other political considerations.” By avoiding an interrogation, he said Byrd avoided saying anything that could have been used to incriminate him, including making false statements to federal agents, which would be a felony. Remarkably, he did not formally invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, according to people familiar with his case, which makes the reluctance of authorities to lean on him or sanction him for not cooperating all the more puzzling. By law, federal agencies can use leverage short of termination, such as an unwelcome duty reassignment, to persuade employees to cooperate with investigators. Byrd was put on paid administrative leave during the investigative process. Byrd waited to speak publicly until after his statements could no longer be used against him in a criminal probe. The heavily promoted NBC “exclusive” told only his account of what happened with no opposing viewpoints. “I believe I showed the utmost courage on Jan. 6,” Byrd said. In defending his actions, Byrd told Holt things he evidently wouldn’t tell investigators, including his claim that he shot as “a last resort” and only after warning Babbitt to stop. However, documents uncovered by Judicial Watch reveal that eyewitnesses—including three police officers at the scene—told investigators they did not hear Byrd give Babbitt any verbal warnings prior to firing, contradicting what Byrd told NBC. The Babbitt family has maintained that the rushed investigation amounted to a “coverup” of misconduct by the officer. It says the federal probe was conducted under political pressure, arguing that Byrd was not put through the normal rigors of a police shooting investigation to avoid making a martyr of Babbitt, an avid Donald Trump supporter. An Air Force veteran from California, Babbitt died while wearing a Trump flag as a cape. The former president has demanded the Justice Department reinvestigate her death. Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas, a former sheriff, argued Babbitt’s shooting should have been presented to a federal grand jury. “This case was mishandled from the very beginning,” the Republican lawmaker told the U.S. attorney who led the probe for the Justice Department in a recent letter. In a separate letter to the Capitol Police chief, Nehls wrote: “Many officers in the USCP I have spoken to believe the investigations of Lt. Boyd were dropped because of his position and other political considerations.” Some use-of-force experts are skeptical Byrd did the right thing, even after watching his largely sympathetic NBC interview. “The limited public information that exists raises serious questions about the propriety of Byrd’s decision to shoot, especially with regard to the assessment that Babbitt was an imminent threat,” said police consultants and criminologists Geoffrey Alpert, Jeff Noble and Seth Stoughton in a recent Lawfare article. “We have serious reservations about the propriety of the shooting,” they wrote. They said they doubted Byrd’s claims that he reasonably believed Babbitt “was posing a threat” and had the ability and intention to kill or seriously injure Byrd or other officers or lawmakers and therefore had to be stopped with lethal force. They noted that he admitted to Holt that he never actually saw Babbitt, who stood 5-foot-2 and weighed 110 pounds, brandish a weapon. Babbitt was shot by Byrd a year ago when she and other pro-Trump rioters breached the Capitol amid efforts to stop Congress from certifying the state results of the 2020 election of Joe Biden. They sought to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject electors from Arizona and other states, where narrow results were challenged by Trump and his lawyers over allegations of voter fraud and other election irregularities. Roberts and the Babbitt family are preparing to sue Byrd and the Capitol Police in a wrongful-death claim seeking at least $10 million in damages. Asked why his client chose not to go on the record and cooperate with investigators, Byrd’s attorney, Mark Schamel, declined comment. In an earlier interview, Schamel maintained the shooting was justified and that there is no basis for a civil case against his client. The federal investigation of the lethal shooting was marked by secrecy and other irregularities. Unlike other officers involved in fatal shootings of unarmed civilians, Byrd was long shielded from public scrutiny after shooting Babbitt as she tried to climb through a broken window of a barricaded door at the Capitol. For eight months D.C. police officials withheld Byrd’s identity, first revealed by RealClearInvestigations, and they have not released a formal review of the shooting, or the 28-year veteran’s disciplinary records. Nor did the Capitol Police hold a briefing on Babbitt’s death. Records uncovered by Judicial Watch reveal authorities ordered her body cremated two days after the shooting, without her husband’s permission. Meanwhile, the feds have thrown the book at suspected Jan. 6 rioters—publicly identifying them on a Justice Department website—and are still engaged in a national manhunt for suspects. More than 725 defendants have been charged mostly for relatively minor offenses ranging from trespassing to disorderly conduct. So far, the select House committee set up to investigate the Jan. 6 siege at the Capitol has not explored the most lethal violence that occurred that day. Byrd was responsible for the only shot fired during the riot–all other armed officers showed restraint, including 140 who were injured confronting rioters—and Babbitt was the only person directly killed on that day. Like the other rioters, she carried no firearm—no guns were recovered from the Capitol. Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., has pledged to “investigate fully the facts and circumstances of these events.” Asked if the police shooting is on the agenda for public hearings planned for this winter, or whether it will be addressed in a final report scheduled for release before November’s congressional elections, a committee spokesman declined comment. Trump and GOP leaders have accused the panel, which is composed of seven Democrats and two Republicans, of trying to damage pro-Trump Republicans ahead of the midterms by claiming they helped orchestrate an “insurrection” and continue to pose “a threat to democracy.” Unlike in a criminal investigation, there is no right to remain silent in a civil case. Wrongful-death litigation claiming negligence may hinge on whether Byrd warned Babbitt before opening fire on her. Roberts said Babbitt, a former military police officer who served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, would have complied with commands to stop and peacefully surrendered had Byrd or other Capitol officers attempted to arrest her. But he said additional eyewitnesses he’s interviewed say Byrd never gave her such verbal commands. He said Babbitt wasn’t even aware that the officer was nearby because he was positioned in a doorway of a room off to the side of the Speaker’s Lobby doors. Byrd, whose mouth was covered with a surgical mask, took aim outside her field of vision and fired as her head emerged through the window. Roberts compared her shooting to an “execution.” Epoch Times Photo Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd advances just before firing on unarmed Ashli Babbitt. John Sullivan captured the shooting on video. (Screen Capture/Jayden X) “Killing her by shooting her at point-blank range was completely unnecessary,” he said. “This alone renders the shooting legally unjustified.” Roberts pointed out that Byrd had mishandled his firearm in the past. He was the subject of a previous internal investigation for leaving his loaded service pistol in a Capitol restroom. It’s not clear if he was disciplined. At the time, the lieutenant reportedly told officers he would not be punished due to his high rank, which he kept despite the incident. But in the NBC interview, he said he was “penalized” for the 2019 misstep, without elaborating. A USCP spokeswoman declined to respond to repeated requests for information about any discipline administered for his misconduct. Byrd could not be reached for comment, but in the NBC interview he denied receiving special treatment. “Of course not,” he said. “No way.” Before filing a lawsuit naming a federal agency, Roberts has to send a formal complaint for a claim for “damage, injury or death”—known as a federal form SF-95—to USCP and wait for a response. He sent the notice in May and is still waiting for the Capitol Police to reply. “We have received the SF-95 from Ms. Babbitt’s family attorney,” USCP General Counsel Tad DiBiase confirmed to RCI in an email. He declined to say how the department plans to respond: “I cannot comment on that.” In the meantime, Roberts said he is interviewing witnesses and also building a case from documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act. “I am still reviewing records obtained in FOIA action and there are more coming,” he said. “I am in no rush.” This article was written by Paul Sperry for RealClearInvestigations.
Friday, January 14, 2022
Below are the 41 failed doomsday, eco-pocalyptic predictions (with links): 1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975 2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969) 3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000 4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980 5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030 6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070 7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast 8. 1974: Another Ice Age? 9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph) 10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent 11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link) 12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link) 13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s 14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs 15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not) 16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000 17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not) 18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is 19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy 20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024 21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018 22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013 23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World 24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’ 25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014 26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link) 27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’ 28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide 29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources 30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years 31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years 32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s 33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000 34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020 35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010 36. 2006: Super Hurricanes! 37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015 38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985 39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable 40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish 41. 1970s: Killer Bees! Update: I’ve added 9 additional failed predictions (via Real Climate Science) below to make it an even 50 for the number of failed eco-pocalyptic doomsday predictions over the last 50 years. 42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production 43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century 44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum 45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980 46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018 47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020 48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past 49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming 50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter
Monday, January 10, 2022
Robert W Malone MD, MS Today in “factchecking the factcheckers”, junior academics cited by Forbes, Associated Press, Reuters and The Independent have just not done their homework concerning the work of Professor Dr. Mattias Desmet of the University of Ghent in Belgum. All I can say about this is that I hope that their naive, ignorant, grandstanding statements to the press are brought up during their future Academic Tenure and Advancement reviews. But there has been an amazingly coordinated effort to shoot the messenger and actively character assassinate (or “defenstrate”) me as a surrogate while avoiding any reference to the highly credentialed academic Professor Dr. Mattias Desmet who actually developed the theory and has documented the extensive evidence in an upcoming academic book. So, what can we learn from this in the short term? Clearly, Google was not the only corporation triggered by Joe Rogan podcast # 1757 which previously reached #1 podcast ranking worldwide, has been referred to as “the most important interview of our time” and has been seen by over 50 million viewers. But what absolutely has been generated by all of the coopted reactionary press and Big Tech titans metaphorically tripping over their shoelaces is a massive trove of real time data validating the brilliant Mass Formation intellectual synthesis developed by Professor Desmet over the last two years. In this coordinated propaganda and censorship response, we can clearly see the hands of the BBC-led Trusted News Initiative, the Scientific Technological Elite, the transnational investment funds and their World Economic Forum allies which control Pfizer and most of Big Pharma, Legacy Media and Big Tech (and many national governments) acting in real time to suppress a growing awareness by the general public of having been actively manipulated using crowd psychology tools to generate clinically significant fear and anxiety of COVID-19 (otherwise known as “Coronaphobia”) to advance their agendas on a global scale. Multiple governments have now admitted to actively using fear and 'Mass Formation'-related theories as a tool for totalitarian population control during this outbreak. This is occurring at the same time that Omicron is destroying the legitimacy of government and WHO propaganda concerning the “Safe and Effective” mRNA vaccines and associated mandates. But what confuses me is why the western press is all following the same narrative as Forbes, which is now owned by a Chinese media holding company. Is this all really just about China wanting to advance a New World Order agenda, and working in a coordinated fashion together with captured western legacy media and their transnational fund overlords? Break out the popcorn, because we have an “approved narrative” dumpster fire in progress. “Mass formation has been studied for over 200 years, beginning with such scholars as Gustave Le Bon, Freud, McDougal, Canetti, Hannah Arendt, etc. In the twentieth century, psychologists such as Ash and Sheriff have studied mass formation experimentally. These scholars did not always call it “mass formation”, but what they studied was basically the same: the way in which individual’s mental states is influenced by their tendency to conform to group thinking. I myself have over 130 publications on Web of Science, a large part of them focusing on how individuals’ personality structures is influenced by their relationships with other people. In my upcoming book: The psychology of totalitarianism, I analyze and describe the way in which the psychological process of mass formation got stronger and stronger throughout the last two centuries.” Mattias Desmet, Professor of Clinical Psychology at Ghent University in Belgium Please follow this link for Professor Dr. Desmet’s Prior Academic Works Abridged from M. Desmet: “The Psychology of Totalitarianism” Mass Formation – brief summary • Totalitarianism requires the total obedience of the mass • This obedience is been created via mass formation process inside the population • Four conditions are needed: The masses must feel alone and isolated. Their lives must feel pointless and meaningless. The masses then must experience constant free floating anxiety, and They must experience free-floating frustration and aggression. With these conditions met, people are now ripe for hypnosis. •No matter how stupid, senseless or even harmful the “solution”, people are made to feel solidarity, which validates the whole thing for them • They are now changed, no longer rational. This automatically excludes analyses based on mathematical approaches like Nash’s game theory, where all agents are assumed to act completely rationally. • People who are consumed by the mass formation process become intolerant and cruel. Development of mathematical models to describe this process are currently in progress in a collaboration between Professor Desmet and Dr. rer. nat. habil. Norbert Schwarzer. This work is building upon prior academic modeling work including the following volumes: Earlier seminal academic works regarding mass formation upon which Professor Desmet has based his theory include the following Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931) The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, 1895 PDF (pp. 157), HTML, Public Domain complete audiobook, Worldcat Overview of The Crowd William McDougall (1871-1938) The Group Mind; A Sketch of the Principles of Collective Psychology, with Some Attempt to Apply Them to the Interpretation of National Life and Character, 1920 First Edition 1920 (pp. 419), HTML/ebook format; Second Edition 1927 (pp. 304), Worldcat Elias Canetti (1905-1994) Crowds and Power, 1960 PDF (pp. 495), Worldcat Overview of Crowds and Power Classification and Symbols of Masses in the Conception of Elias Canetti (2019) John Ioannidis (1965-) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, 2005 Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) Eichmann in Jerusalem, A Report on the Banality of Evil, 1963 PDF (pp. 401), Worldcat The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951 HTML, Second Edition 1958 (pp. 521), Worldcat Solomon Asch (1907-1996) Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments, 1951 Opinions and Social Pressure, 1955 PDF Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority, 1956 Use of fear to control behavior in Covid crisis was ‘totalitarian’, admit scientists Members of Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour express regret about ‘unethical’ methods. The Telegraph. By Gordon Rayner, 14 May 2021 A State of Fear by Laura Dodsworth 9781780667201.jpg A State of Fear: how the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic This is a book about fear. Fear of a virus. Fear of death. Fear of losing our jobs, our democracy, our human connections, our health and our minds. It’s also about how the government weaponised our fear against us – supposedly in our best interests – until we were the most frightened country in Europe. Fear is the most powerful emotion. Hardwired into humans, fear is part of our evolutionary success. But that also makes it one of the most powerful tools in the behavioural psychology toolbox and it has been used to manipulate and control people during the pandemic. In one of the most extraordinary documents ever revealed to the British public, the behavioural scientists advising the government said that a substantial number of people did not feel threatened enough by Covid-19 to follow the rules. They advised the government to increase our sense of ‘personal threat’, to scare us into submission. But why did the government deliberately frighten us, and how has this affected us as individuals and as a country? Who is involved in the decision-making that affects our lives? How are behavioural science and nudge theory being used to subliminally manipulate us? How does the media leverage fear? What are the real risks to our wellbeing? Ahead of any official inquiry into the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, Laura Dodsworth explores all these questions and more, in a nuanced and thought-provoking discussion of an extraordinary year in British life and politics. With stories from members of the general public who were impacted by fear, anxiety and isolation, and revealing interviews with psychologists, politicians, scientists, lawyers, Whitehall advisers and journalists, A State of Fear calls for a more hopeful, transparent and effective democracy. Subscribe to Who is Robert Malone By Robert W Malone MD, MS · Thousands of subscribers Medicine, science, bioethics, analytics, politics and life Subscribe 70 4 Share Matthew Bailey5 min ago Keep up the pressure! Reply Woodrow F Dick, Jr14 min ago First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. I think you are moving into stage four. 13Reply 2 more comments… Top New Community What is Who is Robert Malone? What if the largest experiment on human beings in history is a failure? A report from an Indiana life insurance company raises serious concerns. Robert W Malone MD, MS Jan 2 2,360 479 MASS FORMATION PSYCHOSIS or... mass hypnosis- the madness of crowds Robert W Malone MD, MS Dec 9, 2021 705 55 Permanently suspended on Twitter... and how to find me. Robert W Malone MD, MS Dec 29, 2021 1,591 195 See all Ready for more? Subscribe © 2022 Robert W Malone, MD. See privacy, terms and information collection notice Publish on Substack Who is Robert Malone is on Substack – the place for independent writing