Category Archives: Politics

It’s Official: Biden Ends Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

The moment Big Tech companies openly ally themselves with the federal government to censor speech is the moment we no longer have a First Amendment. That’s precisely what’s happening. Biden’s spokeswoman proudly and openly acknowledged that senior White House officials are telling Facebook and other social media companies which social media posts to censor, and who should be punished. THIS IS ACTUAL, DIRECT CENSORSHIP by the federal government. It’s no longer an issue of “private companies may kick off whomever they wish” BECAUSE ONCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ORDERS FACEBOOK AND TWITTER TO CENSOR posts, it’s the government doing the censoring.

Not only did Psaki triple down on her assertion that the Biden regime has every “right” to do this. She also brazenly claims that the government may direct ALL social media companies, not just Facebook, Google and Twitter, to take down posts. It would be like ordering CNN, MSNBC, Fox and Breitbart all to take down stories the “administration” does not like. Clearly, only Fox and Breitbart would be taking down stories, not CNN. THIS IS CENSORSHIP, plain and simple. These modern-day, irredeemably evil savages are doing it defiantly and openly. Literally, all that’s left are arrests and detainment of anyone the Biden regime considers as “spreading misinformation” — with misinformation defined as anything they don’t like. They hope to avoid that, of course, by counting on the totalitarian-minded Big Tech companies to support them in it. But the precedent has been established that a federal regime may order any posts, commentaries or stories arbitrarily deemed “misinformation” taken down. Will the Supreme Court eventually step in? Not if their zero support for election integrity is any guide.

Congratulations. You lived to see America become a dictatorship. This is not a republic. It’s an authoritarian regime literally at war with its own people.

Fox News 7/16/21: “The White House is courting intense criticism again Friday after press secretary Jen Psaki said that once users are banned from one social media platform for spreading coronavirus “misinformation,” they should be expelled from all others as well.” [Rest of the story here]

“Intense criticism”? It’s the literal end of free speech in America.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Frederick Douglass vs. the 1619 Project

Posted on by
Reply

How amusing it is to see the advocates of critical race theory (CRT) and the 1619 Project vehemently deny that their philosophy is even being taught in elementary and secondary schools. Most recently, teachers’ union president Randi Weingarten insisted that CRT is merely a subject of discussion in law schools and the legal community, not in the public school system.

Hogwash! Parents wouldn’t be mobilizing against CRT if they didn’t witness its divisive propaganda being dumped on their children. Ironically, we have the COVID lockdowns to thank for this. Ordinarily, parents aren’t exposed to what their children are being taught in school. But with online instruction, they can pop into their kid’s room and go, “They’re teaching him WHAT?”

If CRT and its ideological cousin the 1619 Project really aren’t being taught in schools, why would the teachers unions and the left worry about them being banned by state legislators? That would be like states banning unicorns. This is absolutely no problem, since there are no unicorns. Of course, the reason the unions and the left are up in arms is because CRT and the 1619 Project are being widely taught, and the state laws would curb these forms of indoctrination.

Taking a somewhat different approach, Gillian Brockell wrote a recent article in The Washington Post implying that CRT and the 1619 Project represent the very mainstream of American history, and that the great abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass would have been on board with their core premises. “Frederick Douglass had nothing but scorn for July Fourth,” her headline reads. “The Black abolitionist spoke for the enslaved.”

The article, however, like CRT and the 1619 Project, tells only half of the story. Let’s follow its narrative in some detail. Brockell recalls Douglass’s famous July 4 address (pdf), delivered in Rochester, New York, to the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society. The first part of the speech does indeed support Brockell’s account, because Douglass gives a savage indictment of how American independence looks to a black man.

“This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine,” Douglass says. “You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me by asking me to speak today?” Douglass here is not speaking for himself. After all, he had escaped slavery in Maryland 14 years earlier. He was not “a man in fetters.” Douglass, however, was speaking from the point of view of the slave, his former self.

“What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?” Douglass continues. “I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all the other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.”

Already one can see Douglass’s speech as a masterpiece of rhetoric, each phrase building on the previous one, almost like a wave gathering force before crashing down on the audience. Yet as the speech moves on, Douglass makes a sharp and surprising turn. Far from denouncing the Fourth of July, far from scorning the Declaration of Independence as a charter of hypocrisy, far from blaming the Constitution for making an unholy pact with slavery—this is precisely what the critical race theorists do today—Douglass roundly affirms the founding as a “glorious liberty document” that launched “forces in operation” that “must inevitably work the downfall of slavery.”

Brockell has read Douglass’s speech. She knows about this “turn” in Douglass’s rhetoric. But she downplays it, quoting only a small part and suppressing the rest, and presenting even this tidbit as a sort of postscript, rather than the central point which Douglass was making. Why? Because the tidbit and its larger context completely undercuts her argument. Let’s probe deeper into what Douglass said.

Douglass argued in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, who famously argued that in affirming the equality clause of the Declaration of Independence, the founders “meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.” Lincoln and Douglass were both instruments of that enforcement. They helped realize the principles of 1776 and 1789.

Douglass’s point—and Lincoln’s too—is that there are two traditions in America, a tradition of enslavement and oppression, but also a tradition of emancipation and freedom. Both men regarded the Declaration of Independence and even the Constitution as part of the latter tradition. They also identified the Democratic Party with oppression and the Republican Party with freedom. Here’s a later remark by Douglass: “The Republican Party is the ship; all else is the sea.”

By contrast, CRT holds that there’s a single tradition, only enslavement and oppression, no genuine emancipation or freedom. That’s why the 1619 Project says virtually nothing about Douglass, and even Martin Luther King Jr. is barely mentioned. Its credo is that racism is built into the DNA of America not just from the founding but also from the country’s very beginning in 1619. So the deceit of the 1619 Project and CRT is that both exaggerate one tradition, conceal its association with the Democratic Party, and suppress the emancipation tradition and its inevitable association with the Republican Party.

Douglass ended his speech on a patriotic note that vividly contrasts with the way he began, and shows why he had no problem, in the end, with celebrating the Fourth of July and what it represented. Of the Constitution, Douglass later said, “Abolish slavery tomorrow, and not a sentence or syllable of the Constitution needs to be altered.” That’s because the document gives no support, no sanction, to slavery.

Douglass of course knew that the founders who approved the Constitution allowed slavery to continue beyond 1789, but his argument is that this compromise was necessary to get a union—the very union that would have the power to bring about the end of slavery. Slavery, Douglass concluded, is merely the “scaffolding to the magnificent structure, to be removed as soon as the building was completed.” Indeed, the founders delivered “the deadliest blow upon slavery” that could be practically “given at a particular time.”

Dinesh D’Sousa

Socialism’s Defenders: Their Stupidity May Cause Your Brain To Spasm

Posted on by
Reply

David Harbour, star of the hit movie Black Widow, said during an interview with The Guardian that he doesn’t think “there’s anyone who could disagree with socialist ideology.”

“If you work at Starbucks and you make the coffee, then you should own it,” said Harbour. “You’re the one making the coffee!” The actor went on to explain that his concept of ideal socialism is “a kindergarten-type society where we share things.”

Earth to David Harbour! Earth to David Harbour! The baristas at Starbucks do not “own” the coffee they serve to customers. The coffee is owned by the people who risked their savings to invest in a Starbucks licensed store, or other people who risked a portion of their savings by investing in the company’s stock.

Starbucks baristas are not slaves exploited by a greedy capitalist enterprise, as Democrats like David Harbour would have you believe — they are free at any time to seek employment elsewhere. They exchange their services for compensation that’s agreeable to both sides. Their only “ownership” in the company’s end product is dumping a bag of coffee beans into a coffee machine owned by someone else, and then serving a filled cup, which is also owned by someone else, to thirsty customers. Because they are not on the hook for rent, property insurance, legal & accounting services, utility bills, advertising, business license fees, corporate taxes or anything else, Starbucks baristas incur no financial risk in brewing and serving coffee.

Contrary to the kindergarten-like thinking of economically ignorant Democrats like David Harbour, socialism has never created a single free and prosperous society, but has destroyed many—if you doubt that fact, ask anyone who has fled Cuba or Venezuela or the former Soviet Bloc countries of Eastern Europe.

Socialism has an unbroken trail of failure wherever it has taken root. Each new generation of social utopians think they are smart enough to make socialism work for the first time in human history. But each new false start has led to nothing other than widespread depravation and ruthless oppression.

Despite its empty promises, socialism isn’t about creating a society that’s “fair to all.” Rather, it’s a cynical way for totalitarians to consolidate ironclad political power before a propagandized citizenry realizes what happened.

Finally, socialism is doomed to fail wherever it’s tried, because it is in eternal mortal conflict with the basic human instinct that those who work harder, educate themselves, employ their ingenuity and risk their capital have an inborn expectation to do significantly better than those who don’t. That is an immutable human trait that will never change.

More about socialism’s Big Lie can be found in my recent Blue State Conservative article “Bummer: Cuba’s Freedom Uprising Couldn’t Come At a Worse Time For the Party of Marx, Lenin, Alinsky and Obama.”

By John Eidson

John Eidson is a conservative political commentator, a patriotic American, and a regular contributor to The Blue State Conservative.

Is School Choice the Answer to Critical Race Theory ?

Posted on by
Reply

Following the lead of lawmakers in Tennessee and Idaho, my state of Florida has become the latest state to ban the teaching of critical race theory in its public schools.School choice is not the answer to the teaching of critical race theory in public schools or the answer to anything else that is wrong with public education.
[Click to Tweet]

As adopted by the Florida State Board of Education, the amendment banning the teaching of critical race theory states in part:

Examples of theories that distort historical events and are inconsistent with State Board approved standards include the denial or minimization of the Holocaust, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory, meaning the theory that racism is not merely the product of prejudice, but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons.

One reason this is such a controversial issue is that if you ask twenty professors, politicians, and pundits to define critical race theory, you will get twenty different answers.

According to the unapologetically left-leaning CNN:

Critical race theory recognizes that systemic racism is part of American society and challenges the beliefs that allow it to flourish.

Critical race theorists believe that racism is an everyday experience for most people of color, and that a large part of society has no interest in doing away with it because it benefits White elites.

“Critical race theory is a practice. It’s an approach to grappling with a history of White supremacy that rejects the belief that what’s in the past is in the past, and that the laws and systems that grow from that past are detached from it,” said Kimberlé Crenshaw, a founding critical race theorist and a law professor who teaches at UCLA and Columbia University.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which maintains that “the realities of systemic racism are still alive and well,” characterized the bans on teaching critical race theory as an attempt to teach a version of American history “that erases the legacy of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people.”

Conservatives see things differently.

“Students in our universities are inundated with critical race theory. This is a Marxist doctrine holding that America is a wicked and racist nation, that even young children are complicit in oppression, and that our entire society must be radically transformed,” said former president Donald Trump. “Critical race theory is being forced into our children’s schools, it’s being imposed into workplace trainings, and it’s being deployed to rip apart friends, neighbors and families.”

Back in May, several Republican members of Congress introduced a bill banning the teaching of critical race theory in federal institutions and a resolution highlighting “the dangers” of teaching the theory in schools.

Florida governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, who spoke before the Board of Education meeting, said that critical race theory would teach children “the country is rotten and that our institutions are illegitimate.” “That is not worth any taxpayer dollars,” he said. In a statement on Twitter, DeSantis said the amendment protects students from being “indoctrinated to think a certain way.” “Critical Race Theory teaches kids to hate our country and to hate each other. It is state-sanctioned racism and has no place in Florida schools,” he wrote.

The leftist National Education Association (NEA) acknowledges that critical race theory is being taught in public schools and defends it as “reasonable and appropriate.”

Some conservatives and libertarians have posited school choice as the answer to the teaching of critical race theory in public schools. This is nothing new, as these same conservatives and libertarians generally present school choice as the answer to nearly every problem with public schools.

Whether it is low test scores, violence in schools, Common Core, high schools graduating functional illiterates, the decline in discipline and standards, the power of the teachers’ unions, restrictions on free speech, biased textbooks, school shootings, sex education, or the promotion of Islam, environmentalism, socialism, political correctness, evolution, homosexuality, or transgenderism—the answer always seems to be school choice.

Many religious conservatives are still lamenting the elimination of prayer and Bible reading from schools. The solution to them, of course, is school choice, so their children can go to a school that does have prayer and Bible reading.

There are five things that can be said about all of this that are not being said.

First of all, although public schools should not exist, as long as they do, there is nothing wrong with parents objecting to what they teach and trying to improve them. This is no different than wanting cities and counties to keep their parks and recreational facilities clean and free from homeless encampments even though these things should be privatized.

Second, just because a school is a private school does not mean that it won’t also teach critical race theory. Just recently, for example, a private school in Ohio sent a letter to parents of two students informing them that their children will not be reenrolled at the school because the parents launched a public campaign against the school’s woke curriculum and promotion of critical race theory.

Third, all parents have school choice right now. They don’t have to wait for a voucher from the government to remove their children from public schools that are pushing critical race theory. They can homeschool their children or enroll them in a parochial school, a Montessori school, or an independent private school. That most parents don’t have the money to send their children to the private school of their choice doesn’t negate the fact that they have school choice right now that doesn’t involve choosing where to spend other Americans’ money

Fourth, the answer to a failed government program is never another government program. The answer is always the free market. The reason why private schools are expensive and not available in every community is because “free” and ubiquitous public schools have distorted the market. Government vouchers distort the market even more by establishing a floor below which tuition will not go because they remove incentives for schools to compete on cost.

Fifth, all arguments about school choice ignore the real issue: government involvement in education. Education is a service that parents can provide their children with just like health care, recreation, organized sports, music lessons, cultural activities, religious instruction, and haircuts. If they can’t provide these things on their own, or can’t fully provide them, then it is up to them to seek providers, with assistance from family, friends, organizations, associations, and like-minded other parents, but never from the government. As the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out in his book Liberalism: “There is, in fact, only one solution: the state, the government, the laws must not in any way concern themselves with schooling or education. Public funds must not be used for such purposes. The rearing and instruction of youth must be left entirely to parents and to private associations and institutions.”

School choice is not the answer to the teaching of critical race theory in public schools or the answer to anything else that is wrong with public education.

This post was written by: Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance is a columnist and policy advisor for the Future of Freedom Foundation, an associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Gun Control and the Second Amendment, The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom, and War, Empire and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society. Visit his website: www.vancepublications.com. Send him e-mail.

Let’s Get Real: America WILL Break Apart

Posted on by
Reply

America will break up. I don’t wish for it. It’s not a solution. It’s just a fact. Look at what’s happening culturally, politically, socially. Masks. Forced vaccinations. Massive tax hikes. Inconceivable government spending, debt and bankruptcy–FOR NO REASON. Lockdowns looming every cold and flu season. Elimination of fossil fuels. No control of the borders. When you consider that millions of people WANT all this, while millions of others cannot tolerate any of it — these are impossible, irreconcilable differences. It can’t be fixed. I believe America will end up broken not in two, but in multiple pieces.

I hope it can be peaceful. But when I look at violent threats against citizens (millions who voted for Trump) coming from Biden, from the head of the U.S. military and much of the Congress — I just don’t see how this ends well. The trigger for it all? Escalation of censorship, by some partnership between Big Tech and our hard leftist government; OR gun confiscation. Or both. The break will come with the final nail in the coffin for the First or Second Amendments. It’s fitting, at least, for a nation once based on the rights of man.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Freedom Memes

Posted on by
Reply

Memes from my Twitter and Facebook feeds over the last several days:

The only people protesting freedom are those who live in freedom.

If you were ill, would you go to Dr. Fauci for treatment?

You have NOTHING in common with the Democratic Party if you are a freedom-loving American.

With inflation returning, will the millions living on permanent unemployment 35K/year be getting a raise soon?

Hate speech? Absolutely.
I HATE tyranny, irrationality and stupidity.
Because I LOVE truth, beauty and freedom.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Regulation or Innovation ?

Posted on by
Reply

America has so many regulations that today, often the only way to do something new, to create something great, to (SET IATL)prosper is to ignore rules.

Minutes before SpaceX launched a rocket, the government told the company that the launch would violate its license.

SpaceX launched anyway.

CEO Elon Musk says that the Federal Aviation Administration has “a broken regulatory structure” and that “there is simply no way that humanity can become a spacefaring civilization without major regulatory reform.”

But reform isn’t likely.

While businesses must constantly adjust to survive, once bureaucrats create regulations, they have no incentive to repeal them, ever. Instead, they add hundreds of new ones every year.

Musk complains that government “can overregulate industries to the point where innovation becomes very difficult. The auto industry used to be a great hotbed of innovation … but now there’s so many regulations that are intended to protect consumers. … Regulation for cars could fill this room.”

So, Musk broke rules to make Tesla the success it is. He knew he couldn’t innovate if he obeyed all of them. He’s flaunted the rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, even tweeting that SEC stands for “Suck Elon’s … ”

So far, he’s gotten away with it.

So have a few others.

In my latest video, Adam Thierer, author of “Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance,” explains why rule-breakers are the best hope for innovation.

When 23andMe came out with genetic testing by mail,” he says, “They didn’t get a permission slip from the Food and Drug Administration. They just started providing that service.”

Once the bureaucrats noticed, they ordered 23andMe to stop offering health insights based on genes.

“The product was off the market for over a year. That stopped genetic testing by other companies, too,” says Thierer. “Smaller players saw what the government did and said, ‘I don’t want that to happen to me.’” This delayed innovation for years.

“Maybe the only way to succeed today is to break the rules,” I suggest.

“Yes,” says Thierer. “Just to go out and try doing it.”

A group of parents whose children have diabetes did that. They developed software that helps people track blood sugar levels.

“Their hashtag is, ‘#WeAreNotWaiting,’” says Thierer. “What are they not waiting for? For the Food and Drug Administration to approve new insulin monitoring devices. Instead, they built them themselves. These devices were better than regulatory approved devices.”

But it only happened because they had the courage to do it without permission.

“Innovations come out of nowhere,” Thierer points out. “The problem is law sometimes blocks all of that and says, thou shall not until you get a permission slip. That’s the death of entrepreneurialism.”

Ride-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft prospered only because they didn’t ask for permission; they just created ride-sharing apps. By the time sleepy bureaucrats noticed and took steps to regulate Uber and Lyft to death, the company had so many satisfied customers that politicians were afraid to crush them.

Some regulation is useful. The alternative isn’t zero rules. “If a product is dangerous,” says Thierer, “it can be recalled. You can be sued. But don’t treat innovators as guilty until proven innocent.”

It’s easier to see how absurd regulators can be when you look at old regulations.

In 1982, after Sony’s Walkman came out, a New Jersey town banned wearing them while walking. “You couldn’t wear headphones because they would be a danger to yourself!” laughs Thierer. “Sometimes, laws stop making sense. Governments need to adapt.”

COVID-19 persuaded some governments.

Suddenly, it was OK if private companies made virus tests, if nurses and doctors practiced in other states, if doctors used telemedicine without obsessing about stupid privacy rules, if liquor companies made hand sanitizer, etc.

“All sorts of people started doing really interesting entrepreneurial things to try to just help each other out,” says Thierer.

“Those laws needed to change,” Thierer concludes, “But most changed only because people evaded the system.”

John Stossel

The Mullahs Have Lost the Iranian People

Posted on by
Reply

The regime in Iran, under the Supreme Leader, has ruled as a theocratic government for 40 years. During that time, the Iranian people have watched their middle class disappear, natural resources exploited, and their economy become chaotic. How did it all happen?

Over the years, the regime’s domestic and foreign policies have wreaked havoc on its people, yet they continue to blame countries outside of Iran for their problems. Meanwhile, the domestic economy continues to decline, corruption is on the rise, and poverty is increasing.

Every industry and class has protested the regime’s decisions, from farmers to professionals. Complaints about wages not being paid, unsafe working conditions, and more have fueled these protests. There is a risk of prison time, torture, and other human rights abuses by the regime and its security forces for those who participate in the protests.

Yet, despite these risks, protests and uprisings continue to grow in frequency and intensity. In 2017, 2018, and 2019, uprisings threatened the authority of the regime. Oppression against their people was the only way to maintain their power, but it has cost some Iranians their lives. Those who spoke out suffered, such as the mass execution in 1988 of 30,000 political prisoners. Leaving Iran did not guarantee safety, as assassinations have been routinely carried out using their vast network of embassies and diplomats to access those speaking out against the regime and living in other countries around the globe.

Like anyone in an abusive relationship, there is a point when the Iranian people will take no more. They are fast reaching that point. “Iranian society is a powder keg on the verge of explosion,” said National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) President-elect Maryam Rajavi during an email interview with the Washington Times. “More ferocious and extensive uprisings are waiting to erupt at a moment’s notice.”

The dissident movement that has been in place for decades has played a vital role in the anti-regime protests throughout Iran in recent years. “The organized resistance movement is gaining ground and momentum is building through a rapid expansion and rise in the activities of resistance units inside Iran,” said Rajavi.

There is evidence of a seismic shift happening within Iran. Support for the regime continues to fall as fast as the Iranian currency, as the people confront the realities of decades of corruption and oppression. The international community is also showing support for the Iranian people by their attendance at the Free Iran World Summit 2021. It was held virtually over three days and included leaders and activists from around the world. Governments and international institutions were invited to the event, thus standing with the Iranian people and showing support.

One of the biggest issues on the table for the Iranian people is the election of Ebrahim Raisi as the next Iranian President. He was approved by the Supreme Leader Khamenei and had the support of various factions within the regime. Yet, among the Iranian people, he is known as the Henchman of 1988, for his participation in that mass execution.

“No other outcome could more accurately display the regime’s sheer political desperation and impending overthrow. The religious dictatorship has emerged weaker and more fragile out of its presidential elections. Raisi’s emergence shows that as the regime’s death throes begin, Khamenei cannot trust even some of his closest apparatchiks and instead needs to put someone in place who has been completely and unconditionally immersed in the brutal massacre of dissidents,” said Rajavi, before calling for Raisi to face justice in an international tribunal for his participation in the 1988 massacre, a true crime against humanity.

Within Europe, a shift is occurring against the regime and its diplomats, as the recent trial and sentencing of an Iranian diplomat for his terrorist activities demonstrated. Even after the JCPOA came into effect in 2015, the regime continued its secret activities to develop nuclear weapons. Using concessions in an attempt to bring the regime in line only resulted in more destructive activities throughout the Middle East.

“Any negotiation or cooperation with this regime would simply serve the suppression and murder of the Iranian people and facilitate the regime’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons and set the region on fire,” said Rajavi.

This year’s election of Raisi was boycotted by many Iranians, who saw it as an attempt to speak out against a regime that is not interested in reform but only interested in retaining power. The official turnout from the regime’s reporting indicates less than a 50% turnout. There have been at least four rounds of massive nationwide uprisings, thousands of ongoing protests, acts of defiance, and strikes throughout the country.

The regime under Khamenei is unable to offer any solutions to the crises facing the Iranian people from the pandemic, as well as the social and economic issues. Even those working in oil and gas are protesting lack of pay and working conditions. Only those attached to the regime are benefiting financially, but if it appears they are no longer loyal to Khamenei, then they are at risk of losing their position within the government.

Organization efforts are helping to fuel the rapid expansion of resistance units throughout the country. With the resistance achieving growing solidarity with the elected representatives throughout Europe and the United States, it is clear that a seismic change is in the air.

Hanid Emeyat

What Would President Reagan Have to Say about Today’s Mess ?

Posted on by
Reply

“Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.” – President Ronald Reagan, 1987 in his famous “Tear Down This Wall” speech at the Berlin Wall.

Yet today, 35 years later, the U.S. government openly embraces Communism, does business with the tyrants and thieves of the Chinese Communist Party, and directly threatens its citizens with censorship, imprisonment for political opposition, and the force of the U.S. military if guns are not handed over. Not to mention the ever-present threat of economic shutdowns (for small business owners only) and mandatory medical treatment enforced by snowflake, police state-backed door-knocking volunteers.

What would Ronald Reagan say about the state of the United States today? Would he even have a voice? Or would he be shut down completely by Facebook, Google, Twitter, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, and the federalized U.S. Capitol Police?

How low will we fall in a society once lifted up by Reagan’s eloquent words ?

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason