President Trump signed an executive order that expands the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative.
Surrendering small freedoms is a slippery slope to tyranny.
Abraham Lincoln, possibly the greatest and most beloved president in the history of the United States, said, “Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.”
President Trump signed his Executive Order on Safe Policing for Safe Communities, which mandates certain police reforms
LOS ANGELES, CA – Everyone hates fascists, so when a group like Antifa comes along and claims its name literally means “anti-fascist” it is a phenomenal branding move. It is only when you read the fine print that you realize that, to Antifa, everyone except them is a fascist, including you. For Antifa, fighting fascism includes doing many things that most Americans, even those on the far-left, would find objectionable. Antifa’s goals include the abolition of police and the death of America, among other terrifying objectives.
Who is this group and what do they want? The original Antifa was formed in the early 1930’s in Germany as Antifaschistische Aktion, known as Antifa for short. It was organized by the Stalinist Communist Party of Germany and they considered all non-communist political parties to be fascists. Ironically, Antifa cooperated with the Nazis in trying to destroy the social democrat Weimar Republic. Antifa considered both groups to be fascist, of course, but they made the mistake of believing the Nazis were less dangerous just because they were smaller. Big mistake. When the brutal Nazis came to power in Germany, Antifa was eliminated.
Modern Antifa was resurrected in the 1970’s as a left-wing student movement founded in West Germany by the Maoist Communist League. They adopted the same logo as the pre-war Antifa, with one small change. The old logo had two red flags, symbolizing communism and socialism. The new logo replaced the one of the red flags with a black flag. The red flag now represents communism and socialism, and the smaller black flag represents anarchism and autonomism. By the late 1980’s, Antifa was no longer associated with any political party and was more strongly leaning in the anarchist direction. In fact, some modern Antifa flags have the larger flag in black, implying that they are more strongly anarchist than communist.
Les Miserables fans might be under the mistaken impression that red represents the blood of angry men and black is the dark of ages past. We stand corrected.
Antifa is not hierarchical nor centrally-controlled. Antifa groups spontaneously emerge whenever there is a group of people who ascribe to their anti-authoritarian, anti-government, anti-capitalist beliefs, and are willing to pursue those beliefs using “direct action,” which generally means some sort of militancy. Antifa members do not typically engage in political behavior to affect policy, because they do not consider the political system to be legitimate.
Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement
The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement (RAM), according to its founders, thinks of itself an antifa (lowercase), rather than part of Antifa proper. References to RAM started appearing on the internet in 2017, so it is fairly new organization and very few people have even heard of it, despite its influence. Most people associated with RAM are also part of Antifa, since both groups share much of the same anarchist ideology and goals. The photo on the RAM website of the Philadelphia chapter has a RAM banner in the front, and an Antifa banner in the back.
Both Antifa and RAM are anarchist movements, which means that their goal is a society without any government at all. The primary difference between the two groups is the black liberation focus of RAM. The word “abolitionist” in the name refers to the belief of those within the movement that black people in the U.S. are still living under a form of slavery, and the only path to true freedom is a revolution that ends the American government. Thus, RAM has the same ultimate goal as Antifa (ending the American government), but has a significantly different motivation behind that goal.
RAM’s founders are community organizers from The Base, which is an anarchist headquarters in the Bushwick area of Brooklyn, New York. In its writings, the group seems to draw inspiration from Eldridge Cleaver’s Black Liberation Army (BLA), which was the direct-action successor of the Black Panther Party. Again, direct action is generally a euphemism for violent protest.
RAM’s goals, or “10 Points of Action,” are largely similar to Antifa’s objectives, but also include black liberation items. The following list is taken directly from the RAM website:
Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement 10 Points of Action
- Liberation will be won by any means necessary.
- We will destroy the state, police, military, corporations and all those who run the American Plantation.
- We will live in dignity in a world without prisons.
- Systems of punishment will be abolished. There will be no law to enforce, no money to protect.
- Revolutionary justice will be determined by those who are oppressed.
- There will be no government. No person or group will have power over another.
- Communities will make decisions about how they live, and will make sure that everyone has what they need to live a dignified life.
- Land is not property. It is alive, communal and must be protected.
- Alongside international comrades, we will destroy all borders for the free movement of people everywhere.
- Militant networks will defend our revolutionary communities. Liberation begins where America dies.
It is important to distinguish these anarchist groups from #BlackLivesMatter (BLM), which is a black liberation organization (according to their website) founded in 2013 in response to the jury acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s killer. Rather than being a pure anarchist group, BLM is more narrowly focused on the goals of ending white supremacy and police brutality. These are goals that nearly every person of every race embraces, so BLM enjoys widespread public support.
In the latest BLM protests surrounding the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, we have witnessed a disturbing trend. The peaceful BLM protests that occur during the day have often transformed into violent riots, looting and destruction at night. It is unlikely that this is randomly occurring. The difference appears to be the after-dark arrival of anarchist groups such as Antifa and RAM, whose goals are much more extreme than BLM’s and who provoke violent clashes with police in order to capture video footage of it, presumably for propaganda purposes.
By definition, the anarchists have no political goals, so negotiation with them is unlikely to be effective. They are not, for example, seeking the passage of anarchist-friendly legislation. They simply want to take down the American government and will do so by any means necessary. RAM and Antifa’s goals include the abolition of police and the death of America as a sovereign country, so Americans ignore these groups at their own peril. As the anarchist groups continue to fail in achieving their goals, their militant tactics are likely to become more violent over time, not less. The anarchists that can be seen at protests do not want to end police brutality, they want to end the police itself. They do not want to end injustice in America, they want to end America itself.
There are many legitimate channels for enacting change in our society, but sedition is not one of them.
By Sarah Jones-Koskinen. Opinions are my own. To follow me or add me as a friend on Bigwigg, please visit my Profile Page.
On Bigwigg there is no shadow-banning or ideological censorship. Join Bigwigg today for free and invite your friends.
WASHINGTON, DC – May 31, 2020. President Trump tweeted this morning that the United States of America will be designating Antifa as a terrorist organization. This is in response to questions about the role of far-left Antifa in the violent riots happening this week across America. There are allegations that Antifa organizers have been manipulating peaceful protests about the wrongful death of George Floyd into lawless riots, destruction and violence.
As of Sunday morning, over 5,000 national guard troops have been activated nationwide to try to quell the street violence in fifteen states, including WA, CA, NV, UT, CO, ND, TX, MN, MO, IN, OH, KY, TN, GA, and PA. But many are questioning if the violence and vandalism is a spontaneous outgrowth of peaceful protests of an obvious injustice, or if it is deliberately organized criminal activity.
In response to riots in Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti has now called in the National Guard to help restore order. “We will always protect free speech and Angelenos’ right to live without fear of violence or vandalism,” stated Garcetti yesterday. “The California National Guard is being deployed to Los Angeles overnight to support our local response to maintain peace and safety on the streets of our city.”
In Minneapolis, the city where this all started with the senseless murder of George Floyd by police, Mayor Jacob Frey has finally taken a stronger stance against the lawless behavior of the rioters. “What started as largely peaceful protests for George Floyd have turned to outright looting and domestic terrorism in our region. We need you to stay home tonight,” Mayor Frey remarked on Twitter yesterday. “Governor Walz, at our request and in partnership with our city and Mayor Carter, has just fully mobilized the Minnesota National Guard.”
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz held a press conference yesterday and reported that state officials are estimating that up to 80% of the people causing destruction are from out-of-state. St. Paul Mayor Paul Carter initially reported that 100% of the rioters and looters arrested in St. Paul had been from outside the state of Minnesota, but it turned out that the number was actually less than 50%. St. Paul is the sister city of Minneapolis.
In Detroit, which is 80% African American, most the rioters arrested have been white, indicating that there has been substantial involvement by outside agitators.
There have also been some claims by the left that the rioting has been instigated by white nationalists, but without any video evidence. With everyone recording everything on their smartphones, if white nationalists are playing a significant role, it stands to reason that there would be a lot of video footage of it.
At the federal level, United States Attorney General William Barr took aim on far-left groups on Saturday in a televised statement made at the Department of Justice. “The voices of peaceful protests are being hijacked by violent radical elements,” Barr said. “Groups of outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate and violent agenda. In many places it appears the violence is planned, organized and driven by anarchic and left extremist groups, far left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics, many of whom traveled from outside the state to promote the violence.”
Designating Antifa as a terrorist group will broaden the tools available to the government to prosecute criminal activity. But there are already laws in place that could be used. For example, in a 2019 letter from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to A.G. Barr, Cruz lays out the case for prosecuting members of Antifa under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
“As you are well aware, federal law has provided the Nation’s law enforcement with powerful tools to prosecute criminal organizations, such as Antifa, the Ku Klux Klan, and the mafia, that rely on group anonymity,” stated Cruz in his letter to Barr. “The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act prohibits employment or association with any enterprise to conduct that enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. RICO enables law enforcement to prosecute individual members of these groups for participating in the criminal enterprise-even when the government cannot establish which particular individual in a corrupt organization committed a given crime.”
It has not yet been determined what is the role of far-left Antifa in the violent riots currently surging across the United States, but Trump’s statement today and Barr’s comments last week are a signal that federal law enforcement is poised to take a much more aggressive stance on organized rioting and destruction.
By Sarah Jones-Koskinen. Opinions are my own. To follow me or add me as a friend on Bigwigg, please visit my Profile Page.
On Bigwigg there is no shadow-banning or ideological censorship. Join Bigwigg today for free and invite your friends.
WASHINGTON, DC — May 28, 2020. Earlier today, President Trump signed an Executive Order meant to combat political censorship by social media platforms and other technology giants. The argument by the White House is that since every citizen—liberal, conservative, or otherwise—has a right to be heard, the free exchange of ideas and public debate must be defended.
The following are some key components of the Executive Order on Combating Online Censorship:
- Makes it U.S. policy that platforms who selectively edit, censor, or are not acting in “good faith” with regards to content will not receive the liability protection included in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
- Directs the Commerce Department to petition the FCC to make clarifying rules on Section 230 in line with U.S. policy
- Helps stop millions of taxpayer dollars from being wasted by federal agencies on advertising with biased social media platforms
- Ensures the Justice Department will review more than 16,000 complaints about politically motivated censorship that were collected by the White House in advance of a Social Media Summit held last year
- Mobilizes State Attorneys General—who have massive subpoena and consumer protection authorities—to ensure social media platforms are not engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices
- Acts as federal law and lists the many ways in which tech platforms act with bias against viewpoints they disagree with
- Massive corporations that treat millions of American citizens unfairly shouldn’t expect special privileges and protections under the law.
“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” stated President Trump. “Social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield – that’s a big deal.”
In response to Trump’s executive order, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) stated, “Allowing the spread of disinformation is extremely dangerous. Yet still, the President encourages Facebook & others to continue to exploit and profit off falsehoods – while directing the federal government to dismantle efforts to help users distinguish fact from fiction.”
“If you’re wondering why this is happening now it is NOT just about Trump & Twitter,” tweeted Dr. Kate Klonick, law professor at St. John’s University. “It is almost certainly also about yesterday’s unanimous ruling against government regulating bias in social media from the DC Circuit.” Dr. Klonick has also stated that she believes that this order is not enforceable and will be struck down quickly.
It should be noted that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, and was specifically intended to protect political speech as a safeguard against tyranny.
Trump continued, “…virtually any form of communication between private citizens or large public audiences, there is no precedent in American history for so small a number of corporations to control so large a sphere of human interaction.”
The court challenges are expected to begin almost immediately.
By Sarah Jones-Koskinen. Opinions are my own. To follow me or add me as a friend on the Bigwigg Social Network, please visit my Profile Page.
On Bigwigg there is no shadow-banning or ideological censorship. Join Bigwigg today for free.
By Dr. Craig Everett
I am a finance professor and a firm believer in free market capitalism, so my thoughts in this article regarding the drawbacks of free trade may upset some of my academic colleagues. This is because there is a very widely held belief among economists that free trade is always a good thing. My scandalous proposition is that free trade is mostly a good thing.
The standard argument is that any barriers to international trade (like tariffs, for example) create a friction that shrinks economic activity. This is bad. Removing tariffs, on the other hand, lubricates international trade and both economies grow. This is good.
But it’s not quite that simple. What many people don’t realize is that free trade generally benefits smaller countries much more than the big ones. The bigger the difference in size between the two countries, the greater the lopsided benefits to the smaller partner. Therefore, since we are the first or second largest economy in the world (depending on whose numbers you trust), nearly every country gets more benefit from trading with America than America does by trading with them. We do indeed benefit, just less.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with helping smaller countries. We just need to be aware that the smaller country is typically getting the better deal. Foreign aid should be intentional, not accidental or naïve.
One reason why small countries benefit more from trade is because they often have fewer natural resources and thus their need for trade is more urgent. Large countries generally have all the natural resources they need, so international trade is not absolutely necessary for survival. Nearly every raw material we need exists naturally in the United States. There are exceptions, of course, like arsenic, chromium, gallium, manganese, rubidium, tantalum, and tin. There are no active domestic sources for any of those, so international trade is required. No way around it. Diamonds are another example. There are only two diamond mines in the U.S., neither of which is still open for commercial mining.
When economists argue that international trade benefits both countries, they are leaving out a critical piece of information. The overall economies of both countries benefit, but not necessarily all the people. The big loser for the larger country is the middle-class workforce.
For example, when companies decide to make their products in low-wage countries, the low-wage country obviously benefits by having more jobs, taxes, etc. In the large country, on the other hand, the management and stockholders benefit from the international trade by earning higher profits. The low-end consumers also benefit from the lower prices on those imported goods.
The group that typically gets hurt the most is the skilled middle-class worker in the larger, richer country. A generation ago, these were the people that used to graduate high school, go to work at the local factory, have a great career, buy a house, buy a boat, take nice vacations, and then enjoy a comfortable retirement. This group is rapidly disappearing because those jobs have been shipped overseas. Soon, most of our economy will consist of highly-paid information workers on the one extreme, and low-paid service workers on the other extreme (with very little in-between). If this is what we want, then it needs to be a deliberate decision, not a surprise when we wake up and realize that we no longer have the ability as a nation to make anything ourselves.
Make no mistake, there are many middle-class business owners and entrepreneurs that benefit from free trade. This should be celebrated. I am specifically speaking about the negative impacts of trade on skilled middle-class workers, particularly workers that are in manufacturing.
A robust middle-class is the hallmark of a true capitalist economy. If the middle-class is struggling, then maybe we don’t have real capitalism anymore. Crony capitalism is actually economic aristocracy, so it doesn’t really count.
There is an obvious national security component to this issue. Is it safe for us to give away our manufacturing base to countries that don’t like us? Even if offshoring these activities makes economic sense right now, what happens when there are geopolitical changes? Many of us were very surprised to find out recently, during the COVID-19 situation, that most of our medications are made in China. This seems like a very risky situation. How much of our population would die if one day prescription drug shipments from China suddenly stopped?
I am a huge fan of free markets, but it really seems like we need to entice more manufacturing back to our own shores, even if it costs a little more. It is a national security issue and a matter of survival. A strong national defense – both military and economic – brings a peace of mind that is not easily measured in dollars.
President Trump appears to have improved the manufacturing situation with his tariffs, deregulation and tax reform. He campaigned in 2016 on the promise of bringing manufacturing jobs back, and to his credit, total manufacturing output in real dollars hit an all-time high in 2019. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs, which fell by 200,000 during the previous administration, had increased by over 500,000 during the Trump administration before the COVID-19 shutdown happened. This has caused me to reflect on my previous hard-line position about the absolute virtue of free trade in its purest form.
Is free trade always a good thing? Well, it definitely helps both economies on the whole. However, it mainly benefits the rich and the poor, while simultaneously hurting many workers in the middle-class. So the answer is no – free trade is not always a good thing, just mostly.
By Craig Everett. I am a finance professor at the Pepperdine Graziadio Business School and I teach entrepreneurial finance and private capital markets. Opinions are my own. To follow me or add me as a friend on the Bigwigg Social Network, please visit my Profile Page.
On Bigwigg there is no shadow-banning or ideological censorship. Join Bigwigg today for free and invite your patriotic friends.
WASHINGTON, DC (October 23, 2019) – The Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank and advocacy group announced today a set of fourteen principles intended to define the core of conservatism.
This move is in response to widespread debate regarding what conservatism really is. Heritage saw the need to step in and definitively lay out the set of principles—based on America’s founding principles—that made this the strongest, most free, most prosperous nation on earth.
Heritage calls these the True North principles, which were officially unveiled at their annual President’s Club Meeting this week. “While good conservatives may have differing viewpoints about some aspects of conservatism, there are certain fundamental principles where we must remain resolute. These are our True North principles,” said Heritage President Kay Coles James. “They’re called True North because they represent a fixed direction on which to stay focused, regardless of which way forces may be pressuring us.”
The Heritage Foundation formulates policies that promote free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Heritage does not support policies that deviate from these principles. The following are the Heritage Foundation’s True North Principles of Conservatism:
- The federal government exists to preserve life, liberty and property, and it is instituted to protect the rights of individuals according to natural law. Among these rights are the sanctity of life; the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly; the right to bear arms; the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law; and to enjoy the fruits of ones labor.
- The federal government’s powers are limited to those named in the Constitution and should be exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people.
- Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ personal and political predispositions.
- Individuals and families—not government—make the best decisions regarding their and their children’s health, education, jobs, and welfare.
- The family is the essential foundation of civil society, and traditional marriage serves as the cornerstone of the family.
- The federal deficit and debt must not place unreasonable financial burdens on future generations.
- Tax policies should raise only the minimum revenue necessary to fund constitutionally appropriate functions of government.
- America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system of free enterprise, with special emphasis on economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies promoting free trade and deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort markets and impair innovation.
- Regulations must not breach constitutional principles of limited government and the separation of powers.
- America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens.
- Justice requires an efficient, fair, and effective criminal justice system—one that gives defendants adequate due process and requires an appropriate degree of criminal intent to merit punishment.
- International agreements and international organizations should not infringe on American’s constitutional rights, nor should they diminish American sovereignty.
- America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad.
- The best way to ensure peace is through a strong national defense.
Hashtags: #Heritage, #Conservatism, #ParentalRights, #Family, #Freedom