Category Archives: Losing Freedom

America, It’s Time for ‘Unity’

Let’s see how close Mr. Baker comes to the “truth”. mrossol

WSJ  1/25/2021. by Geral Baker

Can you feel the unity? Have you come together to bind the nation’s wounds?

Have you renounced your white privilege? Your unconscious bias probably hasn’t been eradicated in the last week, so it will need attention. But don’t worry. If you work in the federal government, you’ll soon have the opportunity—sorry, obligation—to get that fixed with a series of bias-elimination sessions. If you work for a large company, you’ve probably already watched the videos, so you’ve no excuses for continuing not to recognize that America’s foundational malignity is all your fault.

If you’re a woman, have you shared a restroom with some strapping-looking figure you’re sure used to be a man but now says she’s all female? I hope your high-school daughters are doing their part to unify the country by ceding whatever hope of athletic success they had to the new class of 6-foot-tall girls with bulbous triceps.


If you work in fossil fuels—maybe you’re employed on the Keystone XL pipeline—aren’t you grateful that your imminent joblessness is bringing the country together?

If you were an enthusiastic Donald Trump supporter, are you ready to enter a re-education program? You may not realize that your reprogramming is essential to the preservation of democracy, but after attendance at a series of camps led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a team of journalists from the Washington Post, you’ll once again be able to contribute—civilly—to political discourse.

If you expressed doubt online about the reliability of the presidential election result, your contribution to bringing the nation together might be an interview with a pair of nice federal agents.

As a commentator on a conservative platform, I’m ready to do my part for national harmony by being deplatformed by technology companies the next time I step out of line. But if you’re that rare thing, a conservative in academia, you might want to make sure your barista skills are up to snuff, though you probably won’t be welcome in any of the Starbucks in Cambridge or Ann Arbor—or anywhere else.

After four years of hateful, divisive leadership that stoked raging enmities and fuelled murderous bigotries, I hope you’re feeling the soothing balm of comity as it pours forth from executive orders, presidential declarations and the various ministries of truth that used to be news organizations.


In President Biden’s inaugural address—which in its composition and significance was reminiscent of Lincoln’s second inaugural, Pericles ’ funeral oration and the Sermon on the Mount—he emphasized that the path to national unity lies not only through our acquiescence to the Democrats’ agenda, but in a renewed communal asseveration of the truth.


“There is truth and there are lies. Lies told for profit and for power,” he said. “And each of us has a duty and responsibility . . . to defend the truth and defeat the lies.”

It must have been in that spirit that on day one some administration official told CNN that the Biden team had discovered that their predecessors had left them a nonexistent coronavirus vaccine distribution plan. It was presumably heeding the president’s call to defeat lies that the CNN reporter decided not to challenge the official, given that, with almost 40 million vaccines already distributed, there might have been some plan in place.

Then there was defending the larger truth about Mr. Biden’s plan to get 100 million doses into American arms in 100 days—a million a day. An ambitious goal, his team called it. An ambitious goal, the press repeated, helping to lower the expectations bar for the new president.

Only in the small print did we learn that in the final week of the Trump administration, doses administered were already up to well over 900,000 a day, on a rapidly rising trajectory. Ambitious indeed.

Truth is attested to by actions as well as words. Wearing a mask, Mr. Biden has told us, is essential to saving lives. But on inauguration night, there he was, celebrating, maskless. His press secretary, in a searing moment of truthfulness, told us it was fine because he had “bigger issues” to worry about.

That admission, in its own way, was a clarifying one, capturing as it did the real meaning of our new era of truth and unity: the truth is that our unity will be achieved by your doing what we tell you to do.


Biden Admin Embraces ‘Racial Equity’ Ideology in Slew of Executive Action Announcements

Finally, we will have happiness, joy and peace when all people are equal.  mrossol

The Epoch Times. 1/20/2021

The incoming Biden administration has announced a series of executive actions that open the door for instituting the quasi-Marxist critical theory across the federal government.

President Joe Biden would sign documents to “launch a whole-of-government initiative to advance racial equity,” his transition team said in a Jan. 20 release.

Equity means equality of outcome, a concept tied to the critical theories that slice up society into identity groups based on race, gender, sexual proclivities, and others, while positing which groups are oppressed and which are the oppressors, similarly to how Marxism labels people as oppressors or the oppressed based on class.

“The president-elect will sign an Executive Order beginning the work of embedding equity across federal policymaking and rooting out systemic racism and other barriers to opportunity from federal programs and institutions,” the release said.

“The Executive Order will define equity as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities, such as Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and other persons of color; LGBTQ+ persons; people with disabilities; religious minorities, persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

While the release talks about fair treatment of all, the proposals indicate some people will be more equal than others based on whether their demographics fit the administration’s profile of “historically underserved and marginalized.”

Biden will direct all federal agencies “to undertake a baseline review of the state of equity within their agency and deliver an action plan within 200 days to address unequal barriers to opportunity in agency policies and programs.”

The Office of Management and Budget will be tasked with “working to more equitably allocate federal resources to empower and invest in communities of color and other underserved communities.”

The administration also wants to improve access to government benefits and services, “for example, by reducing language access barriers” and having agencies “engage with communities who have been historically underrepresented, underserved, and harmed by federal policies.”

The administration wants to look into new ways to check whether its policies “advance equity.”

Biden will also reverse the September executive order of then-President Donald Trump that banned federal agencies, contractors, subcontractors, and grantees from instructing their employees to follow the tenets of the critical theories.

Trump’s order cited the work of Christopher Rufo, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth and Poverty, who has been waging a “one-man war” against critical race theory in American government. Rufo has repeatedly warned of the intrusion of the ideology into civil society after obtaining documents showing the theory being pushed in various institutions.

. . .


Blacklists Are the Rage in Publishing

Surely Joe Biden does not support blacklisting. Why doesn’t he come out and say so? Biden supporters, do you support blacklisting? mrossol

WSJ. By Thomas Spence Jan. 18, 2021

In this image from video, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., speaks as the Senate reconvenes to debate the objection to confirm the Electoral College Vote from Arizona, after protesters stormed into the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021. (Senate Television via AP)PHOTO: /ASSOCIATED PRESS

Listen to this article3 minutes00:00 / 03:111x

I am an independent book publisher, and in recent days I have been taking calls from journalists asking which authors I would refuse to publish. That’s an odd question to ask an American publisher, but suddenly it seems to be on everyone’s mind in our industry. Some 250 self-described “publishing professionals”—mostly junior employees of major houses—have issued a statement titled “No Book Deals for Traitors,” a category in which they include any “participant” in the Trump administration.

Readiness to silence someone because of who he is or whom he associates with is often called the “cancel culture,” but I prefer an older term—blacklisting—whose historical associations expose the ugliness of what is going on. Not so long ago, publishing professionals would have been horrified to be accused of it. Today they compete to see who can proclaim his blacklist with the fiercest invective.

On Jan. 6, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri invoked his legal right to object to Congress’s certification of electoral votes. Reasonable people can disagree whether his act was noble or cynical, courageous or rash, but no one can reasonably argue that he intended to incite that afternoon’s invasion of the Capitol by a lawless mob. He immediately and forcefully condemned the attack. But the next day Simon & Schuster canceled his forthcoming book, “The Tyranny of Big Tech,” citing the senator’s “role in what became a dangerous threat.”

I started getting calls from reporters in effect daring me not to join the blacklisters and from publishers, editors and agents who wondered when and how the mob would come for them.

The founder of my publishing house, Henry Regnery, proudly called himself a “dissident publisher.” The conservative books to which he devoted his fortune and career were no more in favor in 1951, when he published William F. Buckley’s “God and Man at Yale,” than they have been during my own 25 years in this business. But blacklisting then, though real, was discreet. Everyone knew it was un-American. No one was proud of it.

An independent publisher is vulnerable to today’s Jacobins in many ways, for it relies on large partners to print, distribute and sell its books. Now that dissent from the latest version of progressive orthodoxy is equated with violence and treason, my colleagues and I know we could be next. But we choose to fight back.

We’re proud to publish Mr. Hawley’s book, which his original publisher has made more important than ever. We don’t have to agree with everything—or anything—Mr. Hawley does. We ask only if his book is well-crafted and has something true and worthwhile to say. The answer is yes.

The statement of the 250 “publishing professionals” shows that today’s censors recognize no limits. I appeal to the real professionals of publishing, some of whom may be the bosses and mentors of those who signed that mindless rant: Remember that you are Americans. Americans argue, write, preach, campaign and vote. They don’t blacklist.

Mr. Spence is president and publisher of Regnery Publishing.


Harvard: I thought it’s motto included ‘veritas’?

When I voted for Donald Trump, it was not because he was the most wonderful guy. It was the only vote I understood that would be committed to protect Americans from what is happening right now. Where are all the freedom-loving, Constitution protecting Democrats? mrossol.

By William McGurn Jan. 18, 2021

Rep. Elise Stefanik at a rally in Fort Drum, N.Y., Jan. 17.PHOTO: ADRIAN KRAUS/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Elise Stefanik grew up in a working-class family in upstate New York, where her father and mother ran a small plywood distribution business. After getting accepted to Harvard, she became not only the first Ivy Leaguer in her family but also the first to graduate from college.


“I’ll never forget what my dad told me the summer before my freshman year,” she tells me. “He said, ‘Elise, I can’t tell you what to expect or what’s going to happen because I never had this experience. I know you will do well and we will be proud of you. All I ask is that you remember where you came from.’ ”

He was right: His daughter would make him proud. Two days before she graduated from Harvard in 2006, she received a job offer from the George W. Bush White House (where I was a colleague). Afterward she helped on various Republican campaigns before returning home for a stint with the family business.

Then, in 2014, she ran for Congress—and won—in New York’s 21st, a mostly rural, upstate district between Albany and Canada. At the time she was 30, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.

But now she’s not good enough for Harvard.

On Jan. 12, the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School booted her off its senior advisory committee after first trying to get her to go quietly. Dean Doug Elmendorf put it this way: “In my assessment, Elise has made public assertions about voter fraud in November’s presidential election that have no basis in evidence, and she has made public statements about court actions related to the election that are incorrect.” It came days after a petition had demanded her removal for “enabling violence at our Capitol” and undermining both democracy and the Constitution.

It’s an extraordinary sanction for an institution dedicated to free and open inquiry, one that doesn’t seem to be used against Harvard liberals. Now there’s a new, student-driven petition demanding Harvard “take a stand for representative democracy and against violent white supremacy” by stripping Ms. Stefanik of her Harvard degree—along with other Republican alumni, including the Kennedy School’s Rep. Dan Crenshaw (class of 2017), and the Harvard Law School’s Sen. Ted Cruz (1995) and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany (2016).

These moves at Harvard are all the more extraordinary because, unlike Mr. Trump, Ms. Stefanik has not used language about a “rigged” or “stolen” election. Though she has spoken about voting irregularities, it’s been in the context of constitutional issues such as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s overriding powers reserved for the state Legislature to extend the voting deadline.

In a floor statement delivered the day the Capitol was stormed, Ms. Stefanik decried the violence as “un-American” and demanded those responsible be “prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” But she defended her objection to certifying electors, saying it reflected the concerns “tens of millions of Americans” had about “unconstitutional overreach by unelected state officials and judges ignoring state election laws. We can and we should peacefully and respectfully discuss these concerns.”

As a private institution Harvard has the right to decide who serves on its advisory committees. But shouldn’t an institution whose motto is “Veritas” at least have the decency to back up its accusations by listing the specific offenses that rendered Ms. Stefanik unfit for Harvard life?

Alas, Harvard’s truth squads target only Republicans. Rep. Adam Schiff, for example, is a graduate of Harvard Law School. As the top Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff falsely insisted for years that he had “more than circumstantial evidence” of Mr. Trump’s collusion with Russia.

Laurence Tribe is a Harvard law professor whose Twitter feed during the Trump years suggested a man unhinged. Even BuzzFeed noticed: “Why Is A Top Harvard Law Professor Sharing Anti-Trump Conspiracy Theories?” it asked.

As for confirming presidential electors, in January 2001 then- Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. objected to the formal recording of the Electoral College votes that gave George W. Bush his victory. Mr. Jackson was then an adviser on the same Harvard board as Ms. Stefanik.

Four years later, when Mr. Bush was re-elected, some Democrats objected to counting the results for Ohio, which had tipped the election to Mr. Bush. Mr. Jackson, still on the Institute of Politics committee, was again among the objectors. There doesn’t seem to have been any move by Harvard to give him the heave-ho.

Back then, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi explained the Democrats’ objections this way: “Our very democracy depends again on the confidence of the American people in the integrity of our electoral system. So, my colleagues, please don’t talk about this, about a conspiracy theory. It’s not about that. It’s not about conspiracy. It’s about the Constitution of the United States.”

Fair enough. But when Ms. Stefanik says it, Harvard casts her out. Is there any leader at Harvard willing to protest the embarrassment Dean Elmendorf has inflicted on the entire university by indulging the progressive mob that wants a congresswoman canceled?

How about it, President Lawrence Bacow?