Report: Marxist Black Lives Matter Co-founder Bought Four Homes since 2016

Patrisse Khan-Cullors, one of the co-founders of the Black Lives Matter movement and a “trained Marxist,” is reported to have bought four homes over the past several years, as her activist profile grew and protests raged around the country.

Last week, real estate website Dirt.com reported that the “37-year-old social justice visionary” Khan-Cullors had bought a $1.4 million compound in Topanga, a remote Los Angeles neighborhood nestled deep in the Santa Monica mountains.

In L.A. terms, $1.4 million is not necessarily extravagant, though the activist took criticism for spending what would be a fortune in most other real estate markets, and for buying in a largely white neighborhood after urging people to “buy black.”

However, it turns out that Khan-Cullors also owns a house in the predominantly black neighborhood of Inglewood — among several other homes. The New York Post reported Saturday that she bought a $510,000 home there in 2016, which is worth about $800,000 today. She also bought a $590,000 home in South Los Angeles that is worth $720,000 today, and bought a ranch in rural Georgia for $415,000 last year, “featuring a private airplane hangar with a studio apartment above it.”

The Post added that Khan-Cullors and spouse Janaya Khan “also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort where Justin Timberlake and Tiger Woods both have homes” called the Albany last year, with the price not disclosed.

Khan-Cullors declared in 2015 that she and the other Black Lives Matter co-founders were “trained Marxists” who are ” super-versed” on “ideological theories.” Last year, as Breitbart News noted, the radical activist signed a content production deal with Warner Bros. Television Group.

The news of Khan-Cullors’s real estate purchases prompted some activists called for a financial investigation of the Black Lives Matter movement. Khan-Cullors is hardly the first to cash in. Tamika Mallory, notorious for her support of the antisemite Louis Farrakhan, has scored product endorsements.

Nor would Khan-Cullors be the first Marxist to succeed in the real estate market with multiple homes. In 2014, Breitbart News reported on local landlords in Santa Monica, California, who are avowed supporters of the Castro regime in Cuba.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Source

China Admits Its Coronavirus Vaccines ‘Don’t Have Very High Protection Rates’

China’s top disease control official admitted Sunday the country’s domestic coronavirus vaccines have low effectiveness and the Communist government is considering how to give them a boost.

Chinese vaccines “don’t have very high protection rates,” said the director of the China Centers for Disease Control, Gao Fu, at a conference in the southwestern city of Chengdu, AP reports.

Beijing has distributed hundreds of millions of doses in other countries while at the same time trying to seed doubt about competing Western products.

In May 2020, China’s president, Xi Jinping, even told the World Health Assembly its coronavirus vaccines were “a global public good”, and their distribution would be part of Xi’s vision of a “shared future for the people of the world to work as one”.

Beijing’s efforts to vaccinate its own people while exporting vaccines have drawn support abroad before the full medical outcomes have become known.

Now questions are being asked about China’s program and the ability of its products to do what they promise.

“It’s now under formal consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process,” Gao said.

The effectiveness rate of a coronavirus vaccine from Sinovac, a Chinese developer, at preventing symptomatic infections has been found to be as low as 50.4 percent by researchers in Brazil. By comparison, the vaccine made by Pfizer has been found to be 97 percent effective.

No foreign vaccines are approved for use in China, where the coronavirus emerged in late 2019 in the city of Wuhan.

Gao gave no details of possible changes in strategy but mentioned mRNA, a previously experimental technique used by Western vaccine developers while China’s drug makers used traditional technology.

“Everyone should consider the benefits mRNA vaccines can bring for humanity,” Gao said. “We must follow it carefully and not ignore it just because we already have several types of vaccines already.”

Experts say mixing vaccines, or sequential immunization, might boost effectiveness rates.

Trials around the world are looking at mixing of vaccines or giving a booster shot after a longer time period. Researchers in Britain are studying a possible combination of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines.

Sunday’s admission by Beijing is not the first time its has been called up on unsubstantiated claims for its coronavirus vaccines.

As Breitbart News reported, the Sinovac vaccine candidate, “CoronaVac,” was found to be just 50.38 percent effective against the Chinese coronavirus in late-stage trials as recently as last January.

The Sinovac vaccine has already been sold to at least 10 other countries and is being administered to people in at least five other countries.

In China, the shot was given emergency approval last July, allowing people such as medical workers and employees of state-owned firms to receive it.

AP contributed to this story

Follow Simon Kent on Twitter: or e-mail to: skent@breitbart.com

Source

‘Huge Debts:’ Millions in Earnings Failed to Satiate Hunter Biden’s Hunger for Crack, Prostitutes, Luxury Cars

Hunter Biden owes massive credit card debt after living like a high roller with access to millions of dollars linked to business dealings overseas that proved insufficient to satisfy his ravenous appetite for drugs, prostitutes, and luxury cars, the Daily Mail reported Friday.

The Daily Mail published a bombshell report surrounding the potentially  incriminating contents of a laptop purportedly owned by Hunter that was dropped off at a Delaware repair shop and eventually given to the FBI.

On Friday, the Daily Mail unveiled contents of the laptop that go well beyond the emails first reported by the New York Post in October 2020 detailing Hunter’s lucrative overseas business deals that helped him lead a drug-addled lifestyle, with prostitutes, and luxurious rides.

Ultimately, his lifestyle left him broke, unable to support his drug and prostitute habit and support his family.

The Daily Mail summarized its long bombshell report, noting:

  • Hunter Biden’s wild spending left him with huge debts to credit card companies and desperate to avoid jail for unpaid taxes, DailyMail.com can reveal
  • Pictures, documents, emails and texts obtained by DailyMail.com from Hunter’s laptop reveal he spent thousands of dollars on strippers and prostitutes
  • Biden even threatened to take $20,000 out of his daughter’s education savings account
  • Pictures found on the laptop show what appears to be thousands of dollars worth of crack bagged up on a scale, and Hunter naked and in bed with women
  • The numerous expenses left him strapped for cash when it came to supporting his new family
  • In an April 2017 email, [Hunter’s company] Rosemont Seneca Vice President wrote to Hunter detailing how he faced total bills of $476,231.60, including $60,467 on three credit cards and $320,417.85 in unpaid federal taxes

In 2019, the FBI seized the laptop in connection to a money-laundering scheme. Last December, Hunter and his then-president-elect father admitted that the U.S. Attorney in Delaware was investigating the younger Biden over his federal taxes.

Hunter reportedly made between $50,000 and $100,000 monthly working for corruption-linked Ukrainian gas conglomerate Burisma between 2014 and 2019, helping him fill his coffers with at least $6,070,150 from 2013 to 2016, the Daily Mail found.

Nevertheless, the news outlet noted, “Leaked emails reveal how Hunter Biden was desperate to avoid jail for unpaid taxes – after blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars on luxury cars, prostitutes, drugs, and designer clothing.”

According to the documents obtained by the Daily Mail, Hunter kept a 2014 Porsche, an Audi, a 2018 Ford Raptor Truck, an $80,000 boat, a Range Rover, Land Rover, BMW, and Chevrolet Truck.

He also spent thousands of dollars on strippers – including one who had his child – suspected prostitutes, and massive amounts of crack.

Hunter told an Arkansas judge he could not pay child support for the child he fathered with stripper Lunden Roberts, even as he rented a $12,000 per month home in Hollywood and was driving a Porsche Panamera at the time.

Ultimately, he settled the case with Roberts out of court after the judge ordered him to produce his financial records.

The Daily Mail noted:

The bombshell cache of 103,000 text messages, 154,000 emails, more than 2,000 photos, and dozens of videos from Hunter’s laptop and authenticated by experts retained by DailyMail.com are packed with revelations conveniently missing from his newly published memoir, Beautiful Things.

The pictures, documents, emails, and texts reveal that despite reporting more than $6 million of income from 2013 to 2016, Hunter’s bacchanalian expenses left him with huge debts to credit card companies and the tax man.

Some of the pictures show Hunter half nude, with only a bathrobe on like the late Hugh Hefner from the Playboy mansion, only instead of a cigar, Hunter is reportedly shown smoking what appears to be a crack pipe.

Other pictures found on his laptop show what appears to be thousands of dollars worth of crack on a Cheech and Chong branded scale and Hunter naked and in bed with likely prostitutes.

Like most drug addicts, Hunter sunk low, threatening to take money from his daughter’s education savings account.

The walls began to close in as his business dealings, described as shady by critics, came under the microscope of conservative media outlets such as Breitbart News. At the same time, the Democrat-allied mainstream outlets ignored Hunter’s overseas deals.

Although his money situation reportedly appeared to substantially improve in 2020, allowing him to pay the District of Columbia a $453,890 tax bill just six days after it was issued, that did not last long.

Hunter was unable to keep his high roller lifestyle and support his family on over a half a million dollar a year salary, and he had to borrow money from one of his companies to keep himself solvent, Eric Schwerin, the president of Hunter’s company Rosemont Seneca, reportedly wrote in an email in January 2017,

“As his finances descended into disarray and his assistants begged him to pay his mounting bills, the President’s son lashed out threatening to cut staff pay, take money from his daughter’s educational savings, and complained about his alimony bills,” the Daily Mail noted, adding:

In October 2018 email from Hunter’s accountant shows that by that year his tax debt had ballooned to an eye-watering $804,000, including $600,000 in personal taxes and $204,000 for one of his businesses that received money from Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

It appears Hunter is not the only Biden with a distorted version of reality.

In the few public comments Joe has made recently amid the fall to rock bottom by his son, his then-president-elect father blamed other people for his son’s downfall.

When announcing the feds were investigating Hunter for failing to pay taxes, Biden said last December he is “deeply proud of his son who has fought through difficult challenges, including personal attacks of recent months, only to emerge stronger.”

During a softball interview earlier this month, Hunter told CBS News that the laptop “certainly” could be his, but he denied dropping it off at the repair shop.

Source

Cher: If They’re No Democrats to Protect America, GOP Will Achieve the Dream of White Supremacy

Left-wing pop superstar Cher believes Democrats are the only thing standing in the way of the GOP achieving what she says is the party’s “dream of white supremacy,” contending “they bring Jim Crow back” despite the fact that Democrats historically introduced, supported, and championed Jim Crow Laws in the U.S.

“’VOTER SUPPRESSION,’” Cher began. “2 Words That Define Immoral Republican Pols. They Bring Jim Crow Back, Wrap Themselves In The,&Have Gone 2 ‘Whites Only’2BLK, ETHNIC,& POOR DEMS FROM VOTING,& WINNING.”

“IF THERE R NO DEMS 2 PROTECT,Gop WILL ACHIEVE THE DREAM THEY’VE4. ‘WHITE SUPREMACY,’” the “Strong Enough” singer told her 3.9 million Twitter followers.

Cher later responded to a commenter who said “the right to vote shouldn’t come with barriers” in a democracy, triggering the left-wing activist to declare in all caps, “THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY‼️”

“ITS GOP’S MANTRA ‘WHITE IS RIGHT’,& ‘ONLY THE RIGHT PPL SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VOTE’ Why aren’t Dems Quaking in Their Boots About The Browning of. I’m Excited.We Are Better Together,” she added.

Nowhere in Cher’s tweets did she mention the fact that the Democrat Party is solely responsible for pushing and enacting Jim Crow Laws in the United States. The Democrat Party championed slavery and segregation, dating back to the country’s founding through the Civil War era. All the while, Democrat Party figures stood hand in hand with the pro-slavery KKK and worked to usher in the era of Jim Crow. While history may be lost on modern-day woke leftists, Republicans, such as Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), remember and have made a point to bring the facts to the forefront of political discussions.

Last year, Gohmert introduced a privileged resolution to ban the Democrat Party for its roots of racism and ties to the Confederacy — a call which came as Democrats, ignoring their own history, began to demand historic statues to be taken down while calling for reparations in the name of equality.

Gohmert provided a list of key instances of the Democrat Party supporting and promoting racist policies, as Breitbart News detailed:

  • The Democratic Party platforms of 1840, 1844, 1848, 1852, and 1856 stated “that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery . . . are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.”
  • The Democratic Party platform of 1856 declared that “new states” to the Union should be admitted “with or without domestic slavery, as [the state] may elect.”
  • The Democratic Party platform of 1856 declared that “we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories . . .  to form a Constitution, with or without domestic slavery.”
  • The Democratic Party platform of 1860, in seeking to uphold the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 that required law enforcement officials to arrest any individual suspected of being a runaway slave, stated that “the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.”
  • No Democrat in Congress supported the 14th Amendment, which gave full citizenship to freed slaves. It passed in 1868 with 94 percent Republican support and zero support from Democrats.
  • No Democrat in Congress supported the 15th Amendment, which gave freed slaves the right to vote. It passed in 1870 with 100 percent Republican support and zero support from Democrats.
  • Various state Democratic Party officials enacted policies to disenfranchise and “systematically suppress” the right of African Americans to vote. The resolution specifically cites the 1902 Constitution of the State of Virginia that disenfranchised about 90 percent of the African American voters at the time, forcibly reducing the number of eligible African American voters from about 147,000 in 1901 to about 10,000 by 1905. The resolution notes that this measure was “supported almost exclusively by Virginia Democrats.”
  • The administration of President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, “began a racial segregation policy for U.S. government employees and, by 1914, the Wilson administration’s Civil Service instituted the requirement that a photograph be submitted with each employment application.”
  • When the Democratic Party held its national convention in 1924 in New York City at Madison Square Garden, the event was commonly referred to as the “Klan-Bake” due to the influence of the Ku Klux Klan in the party.
  • Senate Democrats held a 75-calendar day filibuster against the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  • Former Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), a known recruiter for the KKK, led the Democrats to oppose civil rights for African Americans.
  • Democrats “enacted and enforced Jim Crow laws and civil codes that forced segregation and restricted freedoms” for African Americans.
  • In June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) ordered the removal of the portraits of four previous Speakers of the House  who served in the Confederacy, stating that these portraits “set back our nation’s work to confront and combat bigotry.” However, Gohmert’s resolution notes that the Speakers that Pelosi removed (Robert M.T. Hunter, Howell Cobb, James L. Orr, and Charles F. Crisp) were all Democrats.

Despite that, leftists, including Cher, have continued to ignore their own party’s history while accusing Republicans of attempting to usher in the era of Jim Crow by pursuing basic election integrity measures in states across the country.

“Some of these voter suppression laws in Georgia and other Republican states smack of Jim Crow rearing its ugly head once again. It is 160 years since the 13, 14, and 15th amendments abolished slavery, and Jim Crow stills seems to be with us,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said during a Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing on S. 1, or the “For the People Act,” last month.

Notably, a majority of voters, including a majority of black and Hispanic voters, support basic election integrity measures, such as voter ID.

Source

Republican House Judiciary Members Witness Border Crisis: This Is ‘Biden’s Mess’; America Has Become ‘Sanctuary Nation’

McALLEN, Texas — Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) led several Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee on a two-day visit to McAllen this week where they witnessed the ongoing border crisis, and all the members — as they recapped their visit — said the Biden administration was at fault for surging numbers of illegal migrants.

Border Patrol agents apprehended nearly 170,000 migrants crossing the southern border illegally in March, a 72 percent increase from February. As Breitbart News reported, in the first two full months of President Joe Biden’s time in office, February and March, apprehensions were at a combined total of nearly 210,000, while in the last four months of former President Donald Trump’s tenure, apprehensions were at a combined total of just over 280,000.

Jordan, the ranking Republican member on the Judiciary Committee, gathered from speaking with Border Patrol agents that the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program, also known as Remain in Mexico — which Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suspended on his first day as president — is imperative to reinstate as a first step in controlling the migrant influx.

Jordan told Breitbart News on Wednesday near the conclusion of his visit, “This is … not just Jim Jordan talking, not just Republican members of the Judiciary Committee talking. This is the Border Patrol agents themselves, what they’re telling us. That’s what we’ve got to get done, and we have to talk about this and try to persuade our Democratic colleagues this is just good common sense. This is for the good of the country, and frankly, it’s for the good of these kids and these families who are making that treacherous trek up through Mexico to get here.”

The MPP program allowed border officials to return asylum-seeking migrants back to Mexico while they await the processing of their claims, which the Trump administration at the time of implementing the program, in January 2019, said would serve as a deterrent for illegal migration and help control an “unprecedented number” of “fraudulent asylum claims.”

Opponents of the MPP program argue sending asylum-seekers back to Mexico puts them in potentially unsanitary or dangerous conditions and creates nearly insurmountable barriers to being granted asylum if they do actually qualify for it.

However, as Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) detailed during a roundtable the delegation attended Wednesday, halting the MPP program has served as one cause — among several other Biden policies — of what has now become America’s “massive humanitarian crisis.”

“We know that it’s policy driven,” Biggs said. “We know that it’s this Biden administration’s policies that have done this. Why do we know that? Because we simply have to look at when those policies were in place. I’m talking MPP, the Remain in Mexico policy. I’m talking about the agreements with the Northern Triangle states, with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. I’m talking about the incentive factor. We all respond to incentives. How about $1,400 per illegal alien in the COVID relief package? How about a free education? How about, you’ll get transported wherever you need to go? And once you’re in, it’s almost impossible for you to be sent out, and that’s really what’s going on. And so, President Trump found a problem, and he solved it. President Biden saw a solution and now he’s dissolved that and created a massive humanitarian crisis.”

Biggs, at a press conference later on Wednesday, referred to comments Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador made: “That’s why the president of Mexico said this is Biden’s mess. It is Biden’s mess.”

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC), who also attended the trip, agreed asylum claims are a “predicate for people entering the country.” He told Breitbart News of the MPP program, “It was an innovative, strategic policy to eliminate the perverse incentive in asylum claims. They can assert their asylum right, but you don’t want as the price of that to have any unlimited numbers of people coming into the country.”

The House Judiciary Committee is the committee that has primary jurisdiction over immigration policy. Jordan said at the press conference the committee’s Democrat members were invited on the trip and declined the invitation. Breitbart News reached out to committee chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) to inquire about the reason for this and did not receive an immediate response.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), the lead Republican on the committee’s subcommittee on immigration, said the Biden administration also shares blame for the swell of illegal migration because of his 100-day moratorium on most deportations. “My assessment is that Biden’s executive order on returning criminal illegals, deporting them after they’ve served their terms, now essentially makes the United States a sanctuary nation,” McClintock said during the roundtable.

Despite a federal judge blocking Biden’s moratorium in February, a Wall Street Journal analysis found Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s job priorities have still changed under the new administration’s policies as indicated by a drop of 50 percent in deportations in March compared with deportations in the months at the end of Trump’s tenure.

Biden’s DHS issued a memo on his first day in office justifying calling for the moratorium, saying DHS must “surge resources” to the southern border to “ensure safe, legal, and orderly processing, to rebuild fair and effective asylum procedures that respect human rights and due process … and to prioritize responding to threats to national security, public safety, and border security.”

The delegation’s consensus, however, was that Biden’s immigration policies and rhetoric about such policies have created a magnet for illegal migration and resulted in what has become growing and uncontrollable numbers of illegal migrants.

Two other members of the Judiciary Committee in attendance, Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) and Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), railed against Biden for failing to acknowledge the issue. “Not dealing with this issue, not looking at the policies, I think it’s a complete lack of leadership and disregard,” Spartz told Breitbart News.

Owens surmised, “It’s either incompetence or it’s on purpose.”

Write to Ashley Oliver at aoliver@breitbart.com.

Source

AZ Gov. Ducey Signs Bill into Law that Prohibits Private Funding of Election Administration

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill into law on Friday that prohibits the private funding of election administration in the state.

Arizona is now the first state in the country that specifically prohibits the controversial private funding of election administration that was introduced to the American political process in the 2020 presidential election, when Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg contributed $419 million to two non-profit groups that in turn funded state, county, and local election administration, which critics say benefited Democrats unfairly.

“With public confidence in our elections in peril, it’s clear our elections must be pristine and above reproach — and the sole purview of government,” the Associated Press reported Ducey wrote in a letter expressing his reasons for signing the bill into law.

The bill, HB 2569, passed the Arizona House of Representatives in a straight party-line vote, 31 to 29, in March. Last week, it passed the Arizona State Senate, also in a straight party-line vote, 16 to 14.

Heritage Action Executive Director Jessica Anderson praised Gov. Ducey, a Republican, for signing the bill into law in a statement released late Friday:

Gov. Doug Ducey stood up for all Arizonans by taking swift action and signing this historic election integrity law. HB 2569 is another in a series of strong measures Arizona lawmakers have taken to protect election integrity and keep the influence of private money out of Arizona’s election system operations. Arizonans deserve an election process free from outside influence and partisan funding — by banning corporate and private funding for election operations, this law will safeguard that system.

State Rep. Jake Hoffman and the grassroots activists of Arizona worked hard to advance HB 2569 and other common-sense legislation to ensure Arizona’s elections are fair and transparent. As Arizona legislators continue working to pass further election integrity legislation, they should do so with the knowledge that they are supported by the people of Arizona.

The Associated Press reported that Arizona Democrats blamed underfunding by Republicans for Zuckerberg’s private funding of election administration in the state in 2020:

“It’s easy to make a boogeyman ou[t] of billionaires. I don’t like them either. But we put ourselves in this situation,” Sen. Juan Mendez, a Tempe Democrat, said of the Legislature’s budgeting decisions. “Our elections are so underfunded we’ve got counites out there asking for money to do voter outreach.”

Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs used $4.8 million from the Center for Election Innovation and Research for an advertising campaign telling voters when and how to vote, encourage signup for the permanent early voting list, recruit poll workers and combat misinformation before and after the election.

Arizona Secretary of State Hobbs, a Democrat, was one of the state election officials in 23 states who accepted monies from the Zuckerberg-funded Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), as Breitbart News reported in November. The Secretary of State in eight of those states was a Republican, including Georgia, where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger accepted a “large grant” from CEIR.

As Breitbart News reported in December:

A report released by the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society at a press conference on Wednesday alleged Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife made $419.5 million in contributions to non-profit organizations during the 2020 election cycle–$350 million to the “Safe Elections” Project of the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and another $69.5 million to the Center for Election Innovation and Research–that, “improperly influence[d] the 2020 presidential election on behalf of one particular candidate and party.”

“The 2020 presidential election witnessed an unprecedented and coordinated public-private partnership to improperly influence the 2020 presidential election on behalf of one particular candidate and party. Funded by hundreds of millions of dollars from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and other high-tech interests, activist organizations created a two-tiered election system that treated voters differently depending on whether they lived in Democrat or Republican strongholds,” Amistad Project Director Phill Kline wrote in the report’s executive summary.

According to a report released by the Foundation for Government Accountability in March, the CTCL spent more than $5 million in grants for election administration in nine Arizona counties in 2020:

While CTCL has not yet disclosed full details about how much was distributed to each grantee during the 2020 election, publicly available data shows that CTCL funneled more than $5 million into nine Arizona jurisdictions.8 Based on the preliminary numbers, a large share of that money was spent in counties carried by President Biden.9 Unsurprisingly, Maricopa County, the fourth most populous county in America and home to more than 60 percent of Arizona’s voters, received more than half of all Zuckerbucks distributed in the state. . .

While data is limited due to CTCL’s unwillingness to make full reports on grant allocations and spending public, initial analysis points to Zuckerbucks having an influence on election outcomes in Arizona. On average, counties that received Zuckerbucks saw the Democratic presidential candidate’s share of the vote increase compared to the 2016 election.

For example, in Maricopa County, the only county in the state to flip in the 2020 election, President Trump increased his vote total by more than 248,000 votes yet lost the county to Biden. In 2020, Biden improved on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 vote total in the county by more than 337,000 votes. This nearly 90,000-vote difference cannot be explained by registration increases. While Democratic voter registration in Maricopa County has grown more than Republican registration since the 2016 election, the net increase was fewer than 50,000 votes and registered Republicans still outnumber registered Democrats by more than 100,000 voters. In counties that went for Biden in 2020, Zuckerbucks seem to have helped boost Democratic turnout.

Several other state legislatures are considering bills to ban the private funding of election administration.

Georgia’s Election Integrity Act, signed into law by Gov. Kemp in March, included a clause designed to ban the private funding of election administration, but the Amistad Project’s Phill Kline believes that law may contain loopholes.

Kline has praised the simple one sentence language of Arizona’s new law–“Notwithstanding any other law, this state and a city, town, county, school district or other public body that conducts or administers elections may not receive or expend private monies for preparing for, administering or conducting an election, including registering voters” — as the gold standard and model for other states that seek to ban the private funding of election administration.

Source

Exclusive: ZOA Slams ‘Deeply Troubling’ Tweets of House Committee, Ilhan Omar on Holocaust Remembrance Day

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton Klein blasted the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFA) as well as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) on Friday, after tweeting out messages on Holocaust Remembrance Day viewed as “reprehensible,” “hateful” and “antisemitic.”

In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News, ZOA head Morton Klein expressed his “deep concern” over an official HFA tweet that neglected to “mention Jews and antisemitism,” and instead merely recalled “six million (unidentified) lives” and “general forces” of prejudice and injustice, in addition to a “hateful, antisemitic” tweet by Omar which used Holocaust Remembrance Day to attack the Jewish state.

The official HFA tweet reads:

On #YomHaShoah we commit ourselves to remembering the 6 million lives extinguished during the holocaust & millions more who survived its cruelty. To honor their memories, we must remain vigilant against the forces of prejudice & injustice or risk reliving the horrors of the past.

Klein, who was born in a displaced persons camp in Germany and is a child of Holocaust survivors, described the omission as both “incomprehensible and reprehensible.”  

“The Nazis and their collaborators murdered six million Jews,” he stressed,including almost two million Jewish children.”  

“Universalizing the Holocaust forgets its victims and ignores the uniquely hateful scourge of antisemitism, which is rearing its ugly head more and more today,” he added, before noting that several Congresspersons also “issued similar tweets, omitting all mention of Jews and antisemitism.” 

Klein also slammed Omar for a personal tweet of hers which he also deemed antisemitic.

In the tweet, Omar describes Israel as “a wealthy country that’s getting $3.8 billion a year from America. Yet their Ambassador has the audacity to complain about $150 million going to Palestinian refugees,” before adding, “Shameful.”

”It is deeply troubling that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) chose Holocaust Remembrance Day to issue another of her hateful, antisemitic and insensitive tweets,” Klein wrote, as he elaborated:

In her Yom HaShoa Day tweet, antisemitic BDS-promoter Omar wrongly referred to the Jewish State as “wealthy,” condemned the military assistance that enables Israel to defend herself from Arab/Muslim terrorists, and even condemned Israel for expressing concern that the Biden administration is renewing sending hundreds of millions of dollars to UNRWA (whom Omar misleadingly referred to as “Palestinian refugees”). Israel-hater Omar ignored the fact that UNRWA, which will receive hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funds, teaches Arab children to hate and commit violence against Jews and Israel, in their textbooks and schools. UNRWA also has operations with the murderous terrorist group Hamas.  

 Klein then referred to a “shocking” video posted by a Twitter user in reply to Omar’s tweet, showing Arab school children describing the lessons they learned from their UNRWA school education: 

They teach us that Jews are bad people”; “I am ready to stab a Jew and drive a car over them”: “I will run a car into the Jews”; “We have to constantly stab [the Jews], drive over them and shoot them”; “Stabbing and running over Jews brings dignity to the Palestinian people”; “I’m going to run [the Jews] over and stab them with knives”; “I am prepared to be a suicide bomber”; and “With Allah’s help, I will fight for ISIS.”

Klein also noted the Nazi collaboration with a Palestinian Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine.

“Hitler and his collaborator [Palestinian leader] Haj Amin Al Husseini also plotted to murder every Jew in the Middle East,” he wrote. “We must never forget those monstrous facts, painfully unique in human history.”  

As a result, the ZOA — the nation’s oldest pro-Israel organization — called for corrections to be published.

“ZOA urges the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and anyone else who omitted the Holocaust’s Jewish victims, or the need to stamp out antisemitism today, to issue a corrected statement,” Klein wrote, adding that Omar should also “publicly rescind her ugly statement insensitively issued on Holocaust Remembrance Day.” 

In contrast, Klein personally thanked Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s GOP members, and its Ranking member, Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) and others, both Democrats and Republicans, for their “heartfelt statements.”  

“Senator Menendez commemorated the unspeakable horrors that the Jews of Europe endured from 1939-1945, and condemned the dangerous current worldwide rise in antisemitism,” he wrote. “The House Foreign Affairs GOP members’ statement, retweeted by Ranking Member McCaul, made it very clear that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and millions of others, and honored the survivors and heroes.”

Follow Joshua Klein on Twitter @JoshuaKlein.

Source

Rep. Dan Crenshaw Says He Will Be “Effectively Blind” for a Month After Emergency Surgery

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) announced Saturday he underwent emergency eye surgery and will be effectively blind for about a month.

The 37-year-old Navy veteran lost his right eye and sustained damage to his left in 2012 when a homemade bomb exploded during his deployment in Afghanistan, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

“A few days ago, I noticed some dark, blurry spots in my vision, which seemed out of the ordinary. I went to get this checked out by an ophthalmologist on Thursday and they discovered that my retina was detaching,” he wrote in a statement:

This is a terrifying prognosis for someone with one eye, and the nature of the injuries that I sustained in Afghanistan. Anyone who knows the history of my injuries knows that I don’t have a ‘good eye,’ but half a good eye. The blast from 2012 caused a cataract, excessive tissue damage, and extensive damage to my retina. It was always a possibility that the effects of the damage to my retina would resurface, and it appears that is exactly what has happened. The prognosis I received on Thursday is obviously very bad.

Crenshaw said the surgery went well but explained he will be “effectively blind for about a month”:

“During the surgery, they put a gas bubble in my eye, which acts as a bandage for my retina. This means I have to be face-down for the next week or so, unable to see anything,” he noted.

Following his deployment in 2012, Crenshaw later deployed to the Middle East in 2014 and South Korea in 2016, according to his website.

In his statement, Crenshaw said his offices in Washington, D.C., and Houston will continue operations.

“I have gotten through worse before, and I will get through this,” he noted, adding, “I’ve got Tara by my side, and we are here in Houston with plenty of support.”

“A few prayers that my vision will get back to normal and that I will make a full recovery wouldn’t hurt, though, and would be much appreciated. Thank you in advance for your thoughts, prayers, and support,” the representative concluded.

Source

Pinkerton: Joe Biden, First Elected in the 1970s, Is Bringing Back the 1970s

When Joe Met Jimmy 

Joe Biden was first elected to public office in 1970, the same year that Jimmy Carter was elected governor of Georgia.  Two years later, in 1972, Biden was elected as a senator from Delaware, and four years after that, in 1976, Carter was elected to the presidency—with Biden as a worker bee on his behalf.   

So, during the late 1970s, Biden served in the Senate while Carter was in the White House.  Then in 1980, when Carter was running for re-election, Biden appeared at the Democratic National Convention praising Carter on national television.

In other words, Biden should remember well what life was like during the Carter administration.  And he should also remember that Carter went down in a landslide defeat in 1980, losing 41 of 50 states—including Biden’s Delaware—to Ronald Reagan.  

President Jimmy Carter and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., greet Biden supporters at a $1,000-a-couple fund raising reception at a Wilmington, Delaware, hotel on Monday, Feb. 20, 1978. Biden was the first U.S. senator to endorse Carter’s presidential candidacy in 1976. (AP Photo)

Given President Carter’s miserable experience, one might expect that President Biden would be cautious about doing anything that would harken back to the Carter days.

Yet curiously, Biden’s policies are echoing Carter’s in what’s typically the most important issue-area for any president: economic policy. As we shall see, Carter’s policies were not a success—they were, in fact, a disaster—and yet there goes Biden, following down Carter’s path. So if Biden remembers the 1970s, what could he be thinking, re-enacting 70s-type policies?   

Perhaps he’s thinking that not that many Americans remember the 1970s—and he’s right about that. In fact, about two thirds of Americans alive today are under the age of 50, which means that they have little or no memory of the larger events of that decade.    

Thus we can see: Americans are at risk of finding themselves in the mental trap described by the philosopher George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  The only escape from this trap, of course, is that we all learn about the past. 

So perhaps those of us who do remember the 1970s can offer a refresher on its economic history. Or better yet, a been-there-done-that warning about failed economic policies. Here goes: 

The predominant economic school of thought at the beginning of the 1970s was Keynesianism.  John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) believed that the critical variable to economic growth was the maintenance of aggregate demand—that is, the overall willingness of the population to spend money. Yet, of course, people couldn’t spend money unless they had money.  So if they lacked money, the government should, Keynes said, print money or borrow money and give it to people who would then spend it, thereby stimulating the economy. Presto! Aggregate demand is maintained, the economy reaches its optimum output, and people are happy. That at least was the theory.  

Economist N. Gregory Mankiw, author of a standard economics textbook in the 1990s, explains: 

It was the administration of President John F. Kennedy [1961-1963] that first used fiscal policy with the intent of manipulating aggregate demand to move the economy toward its potential output.  Kennedy’s willingness to embrace Keynes’s ideas changed the nation’s approach to fiscal policy for the next two decades.

Yet there was a bad side effect from too much pumping up of demand: inflation.  That is, if too much demand, or money, is chasing too few goods, then the prices of those goods are bid up. Mankiw further details the impact of the wastrel aggregate-demand policy of the 1960s: 

But the inflation that came with it, together with other problems, would create real difficulties for the economy and for macroeconomic policy in the 1970s.

Yes, in the 1970s America suffered a hangover from the spending spree of the previous decade. In the 60s, free-spending policies—most obviously President Lyndon Johnson’s decision to fight the War in Vietnam and the War on Poverty at the same time—caused more than a tripling of the annual change in the Consumer Price Index, from 1.7 percent in 1960 to 5.5 percent in 1969. 

That was indeed long ago and far away. In 1969, even after a decade of rising prices, the price of a first-class postage stamp was just six cents, a gallon of gasoline was 36 cents, and the median home price was a little more than $23,000. 

Then came the 1970s—and real inflation.  In the years of that decade, the inflation rate was never lower than 3.2 percent, and it reached as high as 11.3 percent; the average rate was a stiff 7.1 percent. Not surprisingly, consumers—especially those on fixed or limited incomes—were alarmed and angry. And consumers, of course, are also voters. We can add that in 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the inflation rate soared to 13.5 percent.  

Such inflation was unacceptable, even if it wasn’t so easy to overcome. During the ’70s, three presidents, of both parties—Republicans Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and Democrat Carter—struggled to combat inflation; they tried everything, from imposing price controls, to wearing lapel buttons, to delivering “malaise” speeches, and yet nothing worked.  

To make matters worse, at the same time, the unemployment rate was rising: from 3.9 percent in January 1970, to a peak of nine percent in May 1975, to a still-too-high six percent at the end of 1979.  

Most economists were puzzled by this unfortunate concatenation of events, rising  prices and rising joblessness.  Yet if they couldn’t cure the problem, they could at least give it a name.  Thus we had a new portmanteau word: “stagflation”—a fusing of “stagnation” and “inflation.” 

President Gerald Ford, wearing a WIN button on his lapel, holds up a WIN enlistment form which asks citizens to sign up as inflation fighters, during his news conference in the White House Rose Garden on October 9, 1974. WIN stands for Whip Inflation Now. (AP Photo)

President Jimmy Carter delivers his energy speech, which became known as the “malaise” speech, on television on July 15, 1979. (AP Photo/Dale G. Young)

Demand Side, Meet Supply Side

However, a few rogue economists did step forward with new solutions. One such was Arthur Laffer, whose Laffer Curve showed that high tax rates—the top personal income tax rate in the ’70s was a daunting 70 percent—were stifling productivity and supply. And to Laffer, supply was more important than demand, hence the nickname assigned to Lafferites, “supply siders.” To Laffer and his allies, including Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY), borrowing or printing money to pump up aggregate demand did not help if supply was being choked by taxes and regulation; in fact, such over-stimulation and under-production proved to be a recipe for still more inflation.  

Another economist with a different approach was the late Robert Mundell, who died just on April 4 of this year, at the age of 88. Mundell argued that predictable tight money, not loose money, was vital so that businesses, investors, and governments could make better financial decisions. To Mundell, the whole Keynesian idea of “fine-tuning” aggregate demand was a misnomer; the key was monetary stability.

To put it mildly, the ideas of Laffer and Mundell were viewed as heresy by most of their professional contemporaries.  In the words of Mankiw: “Economists did not think in terms of shifts in short-run aggregate supply.  Keynesian economics focused on shifts in aggregate demand, not supply.”  

Meanwhile, in the White House, Jimmy Carter had to defend his failed economic record.  He himself was not a big spender, and yet he defended demand-side economics, even as it dissolved into stagflation. Indeed, during his 1980 re-election campaign, Carter attacked challenger Reagan’s supply-side tax-rate-cutting plan.  So what was Carter’s better idea?  What was his economic vision for a brighter second term?  He didn’t say.   

For his part, Reagan was a firm believer in the supply side, which he linked to the basic virtues of hard work, entrepreneurship, and limited government. And in the 1980 election, it was he, not Carter, who prevailed. 

After being sworn in as our 40th president, Reagan followed Laffer’s advice and cut tax rates; he also followed Mundell’s idea of tight money.   

President Ronald Reagan signs the largest tax cut bill in U.S. history at his ranch near Santa Barbara, California, in 1981. (AP Photo/Charles Tasnadi)

There’s no need now to recall the history of Reaganomics, and yet we can observe that the people who knew Reagan best—that is, his fellow Americans, living under his leadership—boosted  him to a massive re-election in 1984, granting him 525 of their 538 electoral votes.  

We can also add that epic rewards came to both Mundell and Laffer. In 1999, Mundell was honored with the Nobel Prize in Economics, and in 2019, Laffer received the Medal of Freedom from President Donald Trump.

Yet now today, Biden is undoing what remains of Reagan’s supply-side legacy; he is shifting his focus back to the demand side.  In fact, in contravention of Laffer Curve thinking, Biden has even proposed raising some tax rates. In other words, Biden is on his way back to where entered into politics—back to the 1970s.  

So what does the liberal Main Stream Media think about this shift? The MSM, of course, was never a fan of Reagan, or of his policies.  Thus Biden is being greeted with effusive MSM headlines, “The end of Reaganomics,” “Bidenomics beats Reaganomics,” and “Biden’s Huge New Bill Leaves Reaganomics on the Ash Heap of History.”   (And of course, to the extent that Trump embraced some of Reagan’s policies, rolling back Reaganomics means rolling back Trumponomics—and the MSM has to love that.) 

Most obviously, Biden has returned to the Keynesian prescription of boosting aggregate demand.  As The New York Times explained, “The president sees public spending, rather than relying on businesses to turn tax cuts into investment, as the key to competitiveness.”

And since a central tenet of aggregate-demand theory is that the poor have a higher propensity to consume—that is, they are more likely to spend, not save—Biden is most glad to transfer money to the poor.  As another New York Times piece declared in its headline, “To Juice the Economy, Biden Bets on the Poor.” As far as the Times is concerned, more spending equals more growth, pure and simple: “Many economists predict that the increase in consumer spending would spur more hiring and business production, helping to lift the economy to its fastest annual growth rate since the mid-1980s.”

So is that really how the economy works?  That we can simply spend ourselves rich?  The Biden people seem to think so. Once again, journalists and pundits are on board; the MSM abounds with upbeat speculation that Bidenomics could bring about a new “Roaring 20s.”

But what about roaring inflation?  After all, the new spending has to be spent somewhere—and so will that pump up aggregate demand to inflationary levels?  That’s the concern of Lawrence Summers, a top economic official in the Clinton and Obama administrations. In a February 4 Washington Post op-ed he warned: 

There is a chance that macroeconomic stimulus on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation, with consequences for the value of the dollar and financial stability.

The new spending has, after all, been a gusher—a gusher of red ink. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, last year’s federal deficit was $3.1 trillion, and this year’s deficit will be $3.4 trillion—although, of course, that number could go up if federal expenditures rise higher than the current level of about $6 trillion.  

To look at this spending another way, we can look to the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, which calculates that federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product rose from 20.7 percent in 2019 to 31.3 percent in 2020; yes, that’s the biggest spike in Uncle Sam’s share of GDP since World War II. 

And with all that aggregate demand surging into the economy, it’s possible, as Summers suggests, that we could see the sort of rapidly rising prices that blighted the decade of the 1970s—and wrecked Jimmy Carter’s presidency.   Indeed, just on April 9, Breitbart News’ financial newsletter took note of the sudden surge in producer prices in March, suggesting a possible annual inflation rate of 4.2 percent. That is, indeed, a 1970s-ish inflation number.  

President Joe Biden speaks during an event on the American Jobs Plan in the South Court Auditorium on the White House campus, Wednesday, April 7, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Still, Biden supporters are untroubled; they see inflation as much less of a problem than unemployment.  Thus New York magazine hailed Biden’s American Rescue Plan (ARP, the $1.9 trillion Covid bill, which the president signed into law on March 11), as a “paradigm shift.”  And specifically addressing the threat of inflation, the author asserted:

With the ARP, the federal government is risking a depreciation in the real value of the economic elite’s bonds and cash holdings for the sake of minimizing involuntary joblessness.

In other words, maybe yes, bonds and cash will depreciate (that’s what happens with inflation). But according to the article, that’s okay, because such depreciation will affect rich people.  

Yet in fact, the elite don’t often hold much in the way of bonds or cash; they mostly hold stocks, or own real estate, or other variably priced assets, which often rise with inflation. In addition, of course, the rich tend to pay close attention to their money—and so, of all the income classes, they are the most likely to shift their assets as the need arises. 

In other words, if there’s a new bout of inflation, the wealthy will likely be fine—and they’ll still be wealthy, no matter what. In reality, the biggest losers are likely to be those of humbler means, including those on fixed-income pensions and those who keep their funds in a checking account—or under a mattress.  

It seems unnecessary to add that there are more voters with middle and low incomes than with high incomes. Which is, to say, by inflating the economy, Biden could be deflating his political standing.  

So now we can wonder: If we again suffer from inflation as we had in the 1970s, might the Democrats today suffer another political backlash—as they did in 1980?  Surely Biden remembers Reagan giving Carter the boot? Right?  

There’s no way to know. And yet we do know, because wise old Santayana told us, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. 

Source

Supreme Court orders CA to lift limits on in-home religious gatherings

The Supreme Court decided late on Friday to lift orders by Gov. Gavin Newsom preventing in-home religious gatherings, overturning a decision made by the Ninth Circuit.

This makes the fifth time the Supreme Court has rejected the Ninth Circuit’s decisions on California’s COVID-19 restrictions, as reported by Fox News.

The decision said there must be proof that religious activities lead to more of a spread of the virus than secular activities such as grocery shopping or visiting an entertainment venue.

“Otherwise, precautions that suffice for other activities suffice for religious exercise too,” the majority opinion said.

The state of California “treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts and indoor dining at restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time,” the decision said.

The opinion added that orders cannot “assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work.”

The highest court has heard numerous similar cases on religious gatherings and COVID-19.

A federal judge had previously ruled against Newsom’s order, which the Ninth Circuit held up.

“The state reasonably concluded that when people gather in social settings, their interactions are likely to be longer than they would be in a commercial setting,”  the Ninth Circuit said, “that participants in a social gathering are more likely to be involved in prolonged conversations; that private houses are typically smaller and less ventilated than commercial establishments; and that social distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in private settings and enforcement is more difficult.”

Read the full story here.

Source