Executive Order Canceling the Constitution

On April 15, Biden signed an Executive Order on Blocking Property with Respect to Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation. Contrary to its title, this EO is not about Russia. It is designed to allow the Biden administration to deprive American citizens and organizations of their rights and property by arbitrarily linking those persons to real, imagined, or vaguely defined activities of the Russian government.

The Biden administration unilaterally makes the determination and requires neither criminal acts nor intent. The punishment is blocking assets and a prohibition on any dealing with the accused person. Spouses and adult children of individuals, found guilty by accusation under this EO, are punished, too.

The EO was preceded by some distracting maneuvers, both diplomatic (hostile rhetoric toward Russia) and military (sending naval ships toward the Black Sea and recalling them back, as if dealing with Russian threats). Thus, many people assumed that the EO was directed at Russia, and completely missed the fact that it is directed at dissent here, at home. 

Over the past four years, the Democrat Party, Fake News, and Big Tech have been frequently portraying their opponents as Russian trolls or Russian misinformation operators. The Russian collusion narrative, initially invented to overthrow the Trump administration, has been used to smear many conservative movements. Now this effort has been crowned by an Executive Order. 

Biden’s administration has been recently pushing so many other radical changes, such as packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the filibuster, restricting Second Amendment rights, etc., that the real ramifications of this new EO went completely unnoticed. In my opinion, this EO is the most dangerous of them all. It allows the Biden regime to eliminate its opposition, quickly and quietly.

Section 1 of the EO enumerates prohibited activities and defines guilty persons as those “determined” by the Secretary of Treasury and/or Secretary of State in consultation with the Attorney General to be:

(a)(ii) responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, any of the following for or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, directly or indirectly, the Government of the Russian Federation: 

(A)  malicious cyber-enabled activities;

(B)  interference in a United States or other foreign government election;

(C)  actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in the United States or abroad; 

(D)  transnational corruption;

Some of the language in this EO borrows from another: EO-13224 – Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism. George W. Bush signed EO-13224 on September 23, 2001, in response to 9/11.

However, Biden’s EO is as similar to Bush’s EO as an atomic bomb is to a sniper rifle. Bush’s EO targeted financing terrorism. It defined terrorism clearly and narrowly. It minimized legal jeopardy to US persons. It did not strip away the standard for criminal liability requirements of action and intent. It did not target spouses or children of accused individuals. Additionally, Bush made a legally meaningful promise to use it with due regard to culpability and the Bush administration used it with restraint. Even so, Democrats criticized it harshly, opposed it, and fought it in courts.

In contrast, Biden’s new EO is directed mostly at US persons. It criminalizes speech and political activities, based on whimsical and arbitrary definitions. The Biden administration can define “malicious activities,” “democratic processes or institutions,” and the activities that undermine them as it wants. 

The Biden administration is also free to interpret what constitutes “interests of the Russian Government.” Such broad and vague language allows the Biden regime to select US citizens and political organizations arbitrarily, and then deprive them of their property and rights without anything reminiscent of due process. The EO does not even require that anybody commit an actual crime somewhere. False cyber-attribution or fake bounty claims are sufficient. Biden’s remarks to the EO showed no regard to the culpability of any targeted US citizens or other persons.

Leftist pseudo-elites have been eager to ban speech based on allegations that such speech may be beneficial to Russia. Such ideation has been present among Big Tech influencers for a long time. This EO effectively gives Big Tech, banks, and credit card companies a new pretext to deplatform conservatives and anyone else who opposes the Biden regime by claiming that they are now engaged in illegal activity. 

Biden’s EO appears to allow the Democrat party to deny Americans the right to advocate against it in future federal elections. This might be accomplished through a “determination” that Russia is interfering in elections against democratic candidates. Thus, any US citizens who also oppose Democrats could be found to acting for Russia’s benefit, directly or indirectly. 

The list of prohibited activities justifying a Biden administration “determination” to deprive American persons of their property and other rights (referred to here as a “Deprived Person”) states:

       [a] (iii) to be or have been a leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors of:
           …   (C)  an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;

For comparison, Bush’s EO only covered the leaders of terrorist-supporting entities, not multiple officials, executives, or directors.

Unprecedently, Biden’s EO targets children and spouses:

[a] (v)    to be a spouse or adult child of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a)(ii) or (iii) of this section;

and countless associations:

[a] (vi)   to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of:

(A)  any activity described in subsection (a)(ii) of this section; or

(B)  any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order

[a] (vii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, … any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

Notice the infinite reach these subsections afford. Those connected to a “Deprived Person” can receive the same designation, and so on. There is no limit to the number of iterations. 

“Deprived Persons” essentially become untouchables, as dealing with them in any way is expressly prohibited without additional determinations:

Sec. 2.  The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include:

(a)  the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b)  the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Giving legal representation, hosting the website, selling food, and giving medical care to a “Deprived Person” is automatically prohibited. Section 4 prohibits transactions that “cause a violation” of this EO, even absent intent or knowledge. This serves as a hint to pre-emptively cut ties with anyone the Biden regime targets.

Section 9 exempts UN bodies and “related organizations” (NGOs) from any responsibility for interfering in US elections and other activities under this order.

The Russian Federation is mixed into the EO only for distraction and as a primer, triggering expanding layers of culpability. 

I do not expect any putative human rights organizations or large media outlets to hold the Biden regime accountable for how it applies this EO or to defend its victims. So far, these outlets have either ignored it or defended it.

Image by Andrea Widburg

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

SECOND STUDY This Time From CDC WEBSITE Confirms Stanford Study on Face Masks Being Harmful – Cause Serious Side Effects

More support for health concerns with wearing masks has been uncovered.  This report was published and presented at the CDC website in June 2020.  

It was brought to our attention today, that a report was published at the Hayride in March that is similar to our report from yesterday noted below:

Stanford Study Results: Facemasks are Ineffective to Block Transmission of COVID-19 and Actually Can Cause Health Deterioration and Premature Death

In March, the Hayride reported on the results of another mask study posted on June 10, 2020, at the CDC website.  This study confirms our reporting from yesterday that masks aren’t just a nuisance but can cause serious health problems. The article recently uncovered was published by the CDC and it states in black and white the side-effects of wearing a mask, specifically related to the masks trapping carbon dioxide or CO2.  The article states the masks cause breathing resistance that could result in a reduction in the frequency and depth of breathing, known as hypoventilation, in as little as an hour of wearing a mask.  The article further went on to elaborate on the side-effects of increased CO2 concentrations in the mask wearer that include:

  1. Headache;
  2. Increased pressure inside the skull;
  3. Nervous system changes (e.g., increased pain threshold, reduction in cognition – altered judgement, decreased situational awareness, difficulty coordinating sensory or cognitive, abilities and motor activity, decreased visual acuity, widespread activation of the sympathetic nervous system that can oppose the direct effects of CO2 on the heart and blood vessels);
  4. Increased breathing frequency;
  5. Increased “work of breathing”, which is result of breathing through a filter medium;
  6. Cardiovascular effects (e.g., diminished cardiac contractility, vasodilation of peripheral blood vessels);
  7. Reduced tolerance to lighter workloads.

The Hayride reports:

The Hayride has covered this in the past specifically regarding the cognitive loss caused by COVID masks trapping CO2 where according to a Harvard Study breathing in as little as 945 PPM of CO2 lowers cognitive ability 15% and at 1400 PPM of CO2 cognitive ability reduces by 50%… What is also disturbing is not only the brain damage that is caused by the masks, but the adverse cardiovascular effects on the heart and lungs along with the reduction of blood sugar and dehydration.

We also discovered that the Stanford report from our article yesterday was censored by Twitter last week when former Trump campaign staffer, Steve Cortes, tweeted out the results of this study.

Why are US medical experts not telling Americans of the dangers of wearing masks?   Why is Big Tech censoring this message?

The post SECOND STUDY This Time From CDC WEBSITE Confirms Stanford Study on Face Masks Being Harmful – Cause Serious Side Effects appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Apple tells GOP lawmakers Parler is approved to come back to its app store

Apple will allow Parler, the pro-free speech alternative social media app favored by conservatives and Trump supporters, back on to its iOS app store, the tech giant told Republican lawmakers Monday.

Parler was kicked off the iOS Store in the days following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol after Apple accused the company of failing to moderate violent content on its platform. Until now, Parler users have been unable to download the app on iOS devices. Apple had said Parler would not be allowed back in its store until the company made changes to comply with the App Store Review guidelines.

"There is no place for hateful, racist, discriminatory content on the App Store," Apple reportedly told Parler last month.

But in a letter responding to an inquiry from Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) about Apple’s actions toward Parler, Apple Senior Director of Government Affairs for the Americas Timothy Powderly said his company has been "engaged in substantial conversation" with Parler about bringing the app into compliance with its guidelines.

"As a result of those conversations, Parler has proposed updates to its app and the app’s content moderation practices, and the App Review Team has informed Parler as of April 14, 2021 that its proposed update app will be approved for reinstatement to the App Store," Powderly wrote.

He added that Apple expects the updated Parler app to become available as soon as Parler releases it.

Rep. Buck tweeted that the reinstatement of Parler’s app is a "huge win for free speech."

He also said it’s "time for Google and Amazon to follow Apple’s lead. Stop the censorship."

Around the same time Parler was kicked off the Apple App Store in January, Google dropped the app from its store and Amazon Web Services booted Parler from its web hosting services, effectively taking the website off the internet and forcing Parler to search for a new host.

Politico reported that Google sent a letter to Congress on Friday telling lawmakers that Parler is still not in compliance with its content moderation rules.

"Parler’s app has not yet complied with those policies, and that is why it remains suspended," said Mark Isakowitz, Google vice president of government affairs and public policy.

A spokesman for Google told Politico that Parler’s app will be welcomed back on the Google Play store "once it submits an app that complies with our policies."

There is no word on whether Amazon will allow Parler to return to its web services. In March, Parler filed a lawsuit against Amazon in the federal court for the Western District of Washington alleging defamation and breach of contract by Amazon.

A representative for Amazon said last March that Parler’s lawsuit was meritless and that it was clearly demonstrable that content on Parler "encouraged or incited violence against others" in violation of Amazon’s terms of service.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com/

VIDEO: Driver trying to get home comes face to face with bikers in BLM march. No one moves out of the way — then things turn ugly.

Cellphone video caught the moment things got ugly between an SUV driver trying to get home and several motorcyclists involved in a Black Lives Matter march.

And it all went down in Stillwater, Minnesota — population about 20,000 and around 30 minutes east of Minneapolis.

What happened?

Video posted Saturday to Twitter begins with the angry driver exiting his vehicle after apparently trying to left turn on Stillwater Avenue — but police told TheBlaze Monday that the trio of bikers in front him were trying to make a left as well.

A fourth biker actually had already turned left and was past the driver’s vehicle on the other street:

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @KBoomhauer

The bikers may have been expecting the driver to back up or get out the way; they certainly didn’t seem to be giving him a passage.

But not this time. The driver began yelling at the bikers that "I live here!" and pointed down the road.

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @KBoomhauer

With that a large biker in a dark vest — who stood a few inches taller than the motorist — appeared to challenge the driver and told him, "I don’t give a f***." But the driver got up in the biker’s face and moved forward on him until the biker shoved the driver.

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @KBoomhauer

Then a bigger shoving match ensued:

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @KBoomhauer

And by the time police arrived, the motorist may have appeared to be the aggressor:

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @KBoomhauer

Because police took the motorist away:

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @KBoomhauer

Here’s the clip. Content warning: Language:

BLM group has assaulted someone in his own neighborhood trying to get home. Police come and detain the man who was… https://t.co/7xtzt4727y

— Cat Hyde Кот Хайд (I’m just here for my ban)?? (@Cat Hyde Кот Хайд (I’m just here for my ban)??)1618705184.0

Police told TheBlaze on Monday that they detained the driver briefly, got him and his vehicle home safely after the march went through the intersection, and that there were no charges, citations, or arrests. Police also told TheBlaze that it’s commonplace for streets to be blocked during marches.

Oh, there’s more

There are two other videos showing the march. In one video, a woman on a megaphone tells the marchers about "an angry motorist who refused to move his car. The police were on the scene, and lo and behold, a miracle of God, they took him away, put him in the back of a squad car, they moved his vehicle out of the street so we can peacefully continue our march!"

And in the other clip, a man on a megaphone hollers at residents, "If you think black lives matter, you can come march with us, you can come join us. If you don’t, you can stay up at your house. You can stay up in your driveway looking at us like we’re doing something crazy when we’re just here trying to fight for our lives."

Earlier: "If you think black lives matter you can come march with us, you can come join us. If you don’t you can st… https://t.co/zNv4T8vztE

— Cat Hyde Кот Хайд (I’m just here for my ban)?? (@Cat Hyde Кот Хайд (I’m just here for my ban)??)1618707404.0

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com/

SCIENCE: White Libs More Likely To Have Mental Health Problems

White liberals are significantly more likely than other racial and ideological groups to be diagnosed with a mental health condition, according to science.

The findings, from a Pew Research Center survey published in March 2020, were the subject of a recent Twitter thread that inspired an Evie Magazine article on the possible "scientific correlation" between progressive ideas and mental illness.

According to the survey, white liberals of all ages were more likely to have been diagnosed with a mental health condition compared with their moderate and conservatives peers. The disparity was especially pronounced among young people aged 18-29, the most annoying demographic and the one with the worst opinions, generally speaking.

Nearly half of young white liberals (46 percent) reported being diagnosed with a mental health condition. That was significantly higher than the percentage of young white moderates (26 percent) and young white conservatives (21 percent) who reported a mental health diagnosis. Young white people who identified as "very liberal" were considerably more likely to report mental health problems, even compared with their peers who identified as liberal.

Across all demographics, young white females who identified as liberal or very liberal were by far the most likely to report a mental health diagnosis. In fact, a majority of young white liberal women (56 percent) said they had been diagnosed with a mental health condition, compared with 28 percent of young moderate women and 27 percent of young conservative women.

The ideological disparity was also present, albeit less pronounced, among young white men. Within this demographic, 34 percent of liberals reported having mental health problems, compared with 22 percent of moderates and 16 percent of conservatives.

Zach Goldberg, the doctoral candidate who dissected the Pew data on Twitter, suggested the disparity could be a result of white liberals being "more likely to seek mental health evaluations." It could also indicate a "genuine" difference in personalities, he argued, given that white liberals are more likely to exhibit neuroticism, according to the data.

"I didn’t write this thread to mock white liberals or their apparently disproportionate rates of mental illness (and you shouldn’t either)," Goldberg wrote. "Rather, this is a question that’s underexplored and which may shed light on attitudinal differences towards various social policies."

The article in Evie Magazine made some compelling points in response to Goldberg’s thread, noting that liberal ideology often "forces its followers to wallow in feelings of helplessness and victimhood," as opposed to "building resiliency against hardship," which can be a crucial tool for combating anxiety and depression.

White liberals in particular, who are often at the forefront of social justice movements that don’t necessarily affect them directly, may be susceptible to "white guilt and savior narratives," which are "pretty much as bad as any genuinely racist agenda because it robs the very group they’re trying to help of their own voice."

As you can see, being a white lib is hard. Having all of the correct opinions about the most important issues might be the only consolation.

The post SCIENCE: White Libs More Likely To Have Mental Health Problems appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Housing, food & job shortages: Is this the ‘PERFECT STORM’ for universal basic income?

From food and job shortages to the prices of building materials "skyrocketing," the world is currently moving into what could be the "perfect storm" for politicians to push for a universal basic income, explained Glenn Beck on the radio program.

"We really need to look at the economy and be prepared for what is coming," Glenn said. "I feel like my job is to warn you of the things that are coming and, when I can, give you ways to navigate around. But at least so you can hear the warning and decide yourself what you’re going to do with that."

Glenn explained that now, for the first time, there is a shortage of starter homes and building supplies just as increasing numbers of millennials are in the market. Also, analysts are predicting that shortages of food items and products such as pork, polystyrene, and chlorine could send prices soaring. Then there’s the matter of unemployment, kicked off by the COVID-19 pandemic and likely to worsen because of the technological revolution, there are going to be fewer and fewer jobs for people to do.

"We are creating this perfect storm, right now, where universal basic income is going to be embraced by people," Glenn warned. "It’s just this nasty cycle that we’re beginning, and we’re watching it unfold right in front of us."

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com/

Ted Cruz Is Right: Biden’s Ban Of Terms Like ‘Illegal Alien’ Is Orwellian, Designed To Cover Up The Truth

According to memos sent to department heads at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Biden administration is ordering U.S. immigration enforcement agencies to stop using terms like “alien,” “illegal alien,” and “assimilation” when referring to immigrants.

The term “alien” will now be “noncitizen or migrant,” “illegal” will be “undocumented,” and “assimilation” will be “integration.”

“As the nation’s premier law enforcement agency, we set a tone and example for our country and partners across the world,” Troy Miller, CBP’s top official, said in his memo, as reported by The Washington Post. “We enforce our nation’s laws while also maintaining the dignity of every individual with whom we interact. The words we use matter and will serve to further confer that dignity to those in our custody.”

The acting director of ICE, Tae Johnson, said in a separate memo, “In response to the vision set by the Administration, ICE will ensure agency communications use the preferred terminology and inclusive language.”

On January 18, The Washington Post reported that Biden would be proposing an “overhaul of immigration laws” on his first day in office, as part of a broader strategy to “solve problems of migration” by attacking “the root causes of what causes that migration.”

Biden wants to move the refugee and asylum systems “back to a more humane and orderly process,” according to a Biden official. But “it’s also been made clear that that isn’t a switch you flip overnight from the 19th to the 20th, especially when you’re working with agencies and processes that have been so gutted by the previous administration.”

It appears that part of this process includes a change in vocabulary.

“Immigrant advocates have long condemned the use of the terms as a dehumanizing effort to draw a distinction between immigrants without the means to explore legal avenues of migration,” reported ABC News.

“Words matter, and we need to continue to take steps to make sure our policies and our language reflects recognize the vital role of immigrants and immigration to our families, communities and economy,” said Peter Boogaard, Communications Director at FWD.us.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz slammed the move, describing it as “Orwellian.”

Approaching his first 100 days in office, Biden has done more to enact speech codes, silence the media & cover up the truth than he has done to secure the border and end the [Biden border crisis],” Cruz tweeted.

Sen. Cruz is correct. This move by the Biden administration does nothing to change policy, and certainly nothing to change the lives of those affected — whether positively or negatively — by illegal immigration.

This is nothing other than a lexicographic version of “papering over the cracks,” engaging in the fantasy that changing our method of describing an act changes the nature of that act. At its very core, this is a lie, and a dangerous one at that.

This linguistic tactic is part of a broader strategy to achieve ideological ends through the control of our very language. There are countless examples of this tactic, including the redefinition of racism to align with the flawed notion of intersectionality, the demand that you prove fealty by chanting “Black Lives Matter” with no regard for its underlying premises or the radical organization it supports, or the assertion that we must “Believe Women” despite the obvious fact that men and women are equally capable of duplicity.

As I noted last year, “The Left understands that achieving full control of language will open the gateway to their subsequent goal of controlling our culture. The generational removal of methods of dissent or disagreement, alongside the subjective redefinition of words for political gain, will be difficult, if not impossible, to undo. For this reason, and this reason alone, the Left focuses on speech more than anything else. ‘Speech is violence’ justifies a violent reaction to speech, until the only speech that remains is deemed politically acceptable.”

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at @ighaworth.

The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com