Obama’s Fundamental Manipulation of Free Speech By Jeannie DeAngelis

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/05/obamas_fundamental_manipulation_of_free_speech.html

Setting the stage for the DHS announcement of the Biden Administration’s Disinformation Governance Board recently, at a Stanford University Cyber Policy Center symposium entitled, “Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm,” deceptive mind-control specialist Barack Obama emerged from behind his Joe Biden mask to deliver the keynote speech. 

According to the anonymous author of the 2009 Department of Homeland Security treatise on “right-wing extremism,” government needs to help companies better “…recognize the often-dangerous relationship between social media, nationalism [and] domestic hate groups” like pro-lifers, ex-military, Second Amendment supporters, Christians, and America-First patriots.

Well aware that the voice of the people threatens the trajectory of the global elite agenda, the former president used the opportunity to double down on what he does best, which is to manipulate minds with clever word games. The stunning effort focused on convincing the naïve that government control of public discourse somehow strengthens “democracy.”

Attempting to persuade Americans that controlling free speech correlates with democratic non-complacency, Obama argued that limiting freedom “nurtures” democracy by instituting a policy that runs counter to freedom.  

Credit where credit is due, the former president is masterful at presenting nonexistent consensuses as if they truly exist. Take for instance his suggestion that questioning the 2020 election threatens “democratic ideals” and is tantamount to affiliation with Putin, while simultaneously inferring everyone agrees that the 2016 election was stolen from Hillary.

An Open Letter to the Editorial Board of the Harvard Crimson What your commitment to – and promotion of – the toxic BDS campaign really reveals. Richard L. Cravatts

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/05/open-letter-editorial-board-harvard-crimson-richard-l-cravatts/

“In short, you have given credence to Bertrand Russell’s observation that “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

On April 29th, in a breathtaking display of tendentiousness and a misreading of history and fact, you published an editorial in the Harvard Crimson entitled, “In Support of Boycott, Divest, Sanction and a Free Palestine,” an outrageous column replete with slanders against the Jewish state that called for the Harvard community to commit itself to the corrosive BDS campaign against Israel.

You suggested that the editorial was inspired by the April demonstrations and programming of the Harvard College Palestine Solidarity Committee (HCPSC) which, as part of Israeli Apartheid Week, “installed a colorful, multi-panel ‘Wall of Resistance’ in favor of Palestinian freedom and sovereignty.” Additionally, you heaped praise on the childish mock wall and suggested that “art is a potent form of resistance” and that you were “humbled by our peers’ passion and skill” in creating such an activist masterpiece.

Even more importantly, you contended, fallaciously, “The admittedly controversial panels dare the viewer to contend with well-established, if rarely stated, facts [emphasis added].” What are examples of those “well-established facts” you alluded to? One panel announced in capital letters, for example, that “Zionism is: Racism – Settler Colonialism – White Supremacy – Apartheid,” mendacious slurs that echo the UN’s notorious 1975 Resolution 3379 that proclaimed that Zionism is racism.

Framing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a matter of race, as this foolish display did, and accusing Israel of maintaining a system of apartheid, is something that Israel-haters are fond of doing, even when the charge is patently false. The accusation of apartheid was given even more support last year with the publication of reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, both obsessive, perennial critics of Israel, that redefined apartheid in a way that it could be used to slander Israel—reports that you, in fact, alluded to in your editorial. The puerile accusation of white supremacy against Israel is as grotesque and unhinged as is the oft-repeated claim that Israelis are the new Nazis, committing genocide against the Palestinians, and both are not only counter-factual but are also forms of anti-Semitic expression described in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism.

Of course, your claim that the “facts” on the HCPSC mock wall are “well-established” is only true inasmuch as these are facts that live in the minds of progressives and anti-Semites who promiscuously and carelessly throw around words without attention to their actual meaning and import. Progressive thought, such as is apparent in this editorial, involves allowing emotions to define things instead of facts.

At the Met Gala, a Night of Gilded Irony By Arjun Singh

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/at-the-met-gala-a-night-of-gilded-irony/

When Edith Wharton wrote The Age of Innocence, her 1920 novel of the Gilded Age, she drew back the veil on the hypocrisy, arrogance, and tone-deafness of New York high society. She might have been surprised to see how today’s elites openly and explicitly embrace their gilded privilege.

Such was the case at last night’s Met Gala, the annual celebrity confab hosted by Vogue magazine’s Anna Wintour at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Known for its bold red-carpet fashion and ostentation, the event is where the who’s-who of the entertainment, fashion, and corporate worlds, and sometimes politics, schmooze and party through the night on the first Monday in May. One of the world’s most exclusive social events, it’s been an ode to gilded — and guiltless — excess for the last 75 years. The Gala is followed by equally exclusive after-parties at Manhattan’s posh or hip hotels, including the Carlyle on the Upper East Side and the Standard in the Meatpacking District.

Metaphor and reality were fused at this year’s event, whose theme was, in fact, the Gilded Age. Perhaps Wintour chose that theme as a subtle yet searing joke on the attendees. Another interesting aspect of the evening was that, at both the Gala and the two after-parties, I observed that Covid seemed nonexistent. There was no proof of vaccination or negative test required for entry. Nor were masks required.

In itself, this is not a bad thing; Covid is receding and should be treated as a waning problem. What made it bad was the sheer hypocrisy.

My Testimony On New York’s “Scoping Plan” To Achieve Net Zero Carbon Emissions Francis Menton

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/

Today I trekked out to Brooklyn to testify at a public hearing on New York’s plans to achieve “net zero” electricity by 2030 or so, and a “net zero” economy by 2050. Actually, it wasn’t much of a trek — the hearing took place at an auditorium in Brooklyn Heights, near the first subway stop on the other side of the East River.

The organization holding the hearing was the New York Climate Action Council. This body was created under New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (Climate Act), and is tasked with figuring out how to achieve the statutorily mandated net zero targets. The first statutory target is 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, which as a practical matter means that fossil fuels must be almost completely eliminated from the electricity sector by that date. The Council issued its Draft Scoping Plan for how to achieve the targets on December 30, 2021. The Draft Scoping Plan is some 300 pages of text plus 500 pages of appendices; but the gist comes down to, we will order the private sector to eliminate emissions by various dates certain, and then it is up to the little people to work out the details. Today’s hearing allowed for members of the public to comment on the Draft Scoping Plan, supposedly so that any appropriate adjustments can be made before the Plan becomes final later this year.

The Climate Action Council has some 21 members. A full list can be found here. Seven of the 21 attended today’s hearing. I’m going to give you a list of these people and their titles, to give an indication of the extent to which the Council is dominated by environmental activists and political functionaries with no background or interest in how a huge electrical grid might actually get converted to “net zero” as an engineering matter. The members present were: Doreen Harris, President and CEO of the New York Energy Research and Development Authority; Basil Seggos, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Roberta Reardon, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor; Robert Rodriguez, Acting Secretary of State of New York; RuthAnne Visnauskas, Commissioner and CEO, New York State Homes and Community Renewal; Peter Iwanowicz, Executive Director, Environmental Advocates NY; and Raya Salter, Lead Policy Organizer, NY Renews. Of these, maybe Ms. Harris of NYSERDA knows something about how the electrical grid works. Then again, maybe she doesn’t.

Sen. Ed Markey Is A Dangerous Insurrectionist Who Must Be Canceled! (For His Attack On The Supreme Court)

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/05/04/sen-ed-markey-is-a-dangerous-insurrectionist-who-must-be-canceled-for-his-attack-on-the-supreme-court/

The left’s freakout over a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is hardly surprising. It has a collective breakdown whenever it loses on an issue, even a trivial one. But what did surprise us was the radical, downright insurrectionist talk spewed by at least one Democrat.

The unprecedented leak of a draft of a Supreme Court opinion – apparently in hopes that it would somehow change the outcome – was a sign of the left’s unbalanced mental state. As soon as the leak hit the internet, protests erupted, calls for packing the court and ending the filibuster re-emerged, and the hyperbole gushed forth.

Case in point is the statement from the two Democratic congressional leaders. “The Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years – not just on women but on all Americans,” they screeched, adding that overturning Roe would be “an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”

What really caught our eye, however, was what Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey said:

“A stolen, illegitimate, and far-right Supreme Court majority appears set to destroy the right to abortion, an essential right which protects the health, safety, and freedom of millions of Americans. There is no other recourse. We must expand the court.” 

Vance wins Ohio GOP Senate primary after Trump endorsement, NBC News projects Gov. Mike DeWine secured the Republican nomination in his bid for re-election, fending off challengers from his right.

By Henry J. Gomez and Alex Seitz-Wald

CINCINNATI — Buoyed by former President Donald Trump’s endorsement, J.D. Vance prevailed in Ohio’s competitive Republican Senate primary Tuesday and will face off in November against Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan.

In the gubernatorial contest, incumbent Republican Mike DeWine secured the nomination in his bid for re-election, NBC News projects, while former Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley won the Democratic nod.

In a Democratic congressional primary, NBC News projects Rep. Shontel Brown defeated former state Sen. Nina Turner, a progressive insurgent who had previously challenged Brown in a special election last year.

LIZ PEEK: JOE BIDEN IS MAKING AMERICANS POORER

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3474968-joe-biden-is-making-americans-poorer/

Americans are getting poorer by the day, and they can thank President Biden.

Too harsh? Not at all. Stock markets are crashing, costing Americans trillions of dollars, and home prices will likely follow. All of this is happening even though our economy remains essentially strong.

Why the disconnect? Americans are worried about inflation and don’t think the Biden administration can fix it without plunging our economy into recession. With the president still hawking even more government spending, higher business taxes and increased regulations – all of which will drive prices higher – why would they?

Almost from the start, Americans knew that Biden’s policies were wrong for the country. From the second quarter of Biden’s presidency, consumer sentiment has trended sharply lower, even as jobs were plentiful and consumers flush with cash.

The University of Michigan consumer sentiment index stood at 88.3 in April 2021; today it has dropped to 59.4, one of the lowest levels since 1980, when the data were first collected. A reading, for sure, completely out of kilter with 3.6 percent unemployment.

According to a Real Clear Politics average of polls, only 38 percent of the nation approves of Biden’s management of the economy.

First, the facts: The economy shrank by an annualized rate of 1.4 percent in the first quarter, not because consumers stopped spending but mainly because we had a big jump in our trade imbalance. Imports surged nearly 18 percent on an annualized basis while exports fell. Economists at ISI Evercore estimate the blowout in the trade gap crimped real GDP growth in the quarter by 3.2 percent.

The Destruction of Election Integrity: Your City Could Be Next by Lawrence Kadish

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18498/destruction-of-election-integrity

The language could not be any clearer. You can participate as a voter in our American democracy if you are a citizen, over 18 years of age on Election Day, and meet certain state requirements regarding residency and registration – except in some areas of our nation which, inexplicably, now “allow non-citizens to vote in local elections only.”

What still stands unchallenged is that in all federal elections you must be a citizen of our nation where our leaders are chosen by individuals who are either born into that solemn responsibility or have sworn:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America …”

Unless of course if you are living within the five boroughs of the City of New York, where the criteria for voting in local elections has been redefined to meet a Progressive political agenda while broadening the potential for ballot harvesting.

In the closing days of 2021, the New York City Council approved legislation that will allow nearly one million documented non-citizens to vote in local elections. For people seeking to displace our Constitution and alter the very fabric of our nation, this action, coupled with open borders, essentially loads the dice for their candidates, their manifesto, and for non-citizens having an increasingly large say in how America’s cities are run.

In an NPR interview, San Francisco State University political science professor Ron Hayduk suggests that because securing citizenship is a long and challenging task, immigrants should be given the right to vote regardless of their status. But that, Professor Hayduk, is the whole point. One should need to work hard to achieve the priceless gift of deciding how the most populous parts of our country are governed. Allowing non-citizens to vote creates an overwhelming voter advantage on any given Election Day for people who are not American citizens.

Given President Biden’s current dismal showing in the polls, and that last year alone, more than two million new arrivals poured across our southern border — many of whom are being secretly spirited in the dead of night by our government to cities throughout America and with millions more on the way — significant number of Americans are indicating that they are losing confidence in how major issues facing our nation are being managed. The idea of non-citizens lining up to vote will surely have much appeal to those who feel that they cannot win elections if only American citizens are allowed to vote.

“Hypocrisy of the Left”- Sydney Williams

http://swtotd.blogspot.com

If what we are hearing about Roe v. Wade is true, perhaps Congress will do what it should have done forty-nine years ago – pass a law that reflects the will of the people, rather than depend on the opinions of nine Supreme Court Justices.

“The best defense is a good offense,” is an adage that has been used by many, from George Washington to Mao Zedong. It has been adopted by the Democrat Party. Elon Musk’s bid for Twitter has Democrats atwitter. Columnist Leonard Pitt wrote that the purchase “will turn one of the world’s leading social-media platforms into an even greater transmitter of disinformation and hate…” Keep in mind, Mr. Pitt’s definition of disinformation includes only that uttered by conservatives.

Barack Obama, speaking at a conference organized by The Atlantic called “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy,” opined: “It’s very difficult to get out of the reality that is constructed for us.” Constructed by whom, one might ask? As the New York Sun editorialized, Obama’s words were an “apt description of what Mr. Obama and the Democrat Press have built. Forget the metaverse. This is an alternative reality.” Speaking at Stanford University, a few days later Mr. Obama added that social media censors don’t go far enough, suggesting the government must step in. Six days later, the Biden Administration announced the establishment of a Disinformation Governance Board (DGB), an Orwellian-like “Ministry of Truth.” Coincidence? The DGB’s mission is to separate fact from fiction for the American people. Its real purpose, I feel certain, is to censor information that does not accord with the Administration’s narrative. The Board will be chaired by Nina Jankowicz who will report to Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Secretary for Homeland Security. Ms. Jankowicz seems an odd choice, as she disbelieved the truth of Hunter Biden’s laptop, claiming it was Trump “disinformation.” On the other hand, she did believe Christopher Steele, the discredited purveyor of disinformation about the fake Russian collusion story.

Antisemitism Comes to Harvard, in Both Intent and Effect Apart from raw animus against the Jewish State, how could any thoughtful person today regard Russia and Israel on the same plane when Russia is waging a war of aggression?

https://www.nysun.com/article/antisemitism-comes-to-harvard-in-both-intent-and-effect?utm_content=The%20Evening%20Sun

During my presidency of Harvard 20 years ago I warned that “serious and thoughtful people are advocating measures that would be antisemitic in their effect if not their intent.” 

In light of the recent exhibition by the Palestinian Solidarity Committee in Harvard Yard and the resounding endorsement of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions by the Harvard Crimson, it is clear to me that antisemitism is being practiced in both intent and effect.

To be clear at the outset, free expression must be sacrosanct in an academic community. The PSC and the Crimson have every right to express their view no matter how upsetting it may be to others. Academic freedom, though, does not mean freedom from criticism or the right to have contemptible views treated with respect. It is no shield against moral bankruptcy.  

This has long been recognized at Harvard as, say, when Drew Faust was president and deemed a student-led Black Mass — a ritual performed by satanic cults to parody the Catholic Church — to be abhorrent and a fundamental affront to academic values of inclusion even as she ruled out any suggestion that event be banned. 

Likewise when controversial conservative scholar Charles Murray was invited to speak at Harvard, a variety of communications were sent to students labeling him a practitioner of racist pseudoscience.

So there is nothing “anti-First Amendment” about calling out antisemitism. Indeed not identifying and attacking antisemitism in our midst would be a major moral failing, especially when it comes in conjunction with proposals to instrumentalize the university by having it engage in antisemitism.

The question that remains is whether the BDS agenda enthusiastically embraced by the PSC and the Crimson is in fact antisemitic. The Crimson and other BDS proponents ​​condemn antisemitism and note that there are people of Jewish descent who support BDS. That is true.

It’s also true that President Trump asserts firmly that he is not racist and can point to prominent African-American supporters and to having received more than a million votes from African Americans. At Harvard we don’t consider such assertions “arguments.”