Willie Brown on on US election, fear he has about Harris becoming president

 Vice President Kamala Harris' 90-year-old ex-boyfriend Willie Brown believes that President Joe Biden should step down as president so that she can take the job.

Brown candidly revealed his thoughts about Harris, who he dated when he was 60 and running for mayor of San Francisco, and she was a relatively unknown 29-year-old prosecutor.

Brown joked that if Harris won the presidency, 'She’ll deport my a**,' a joke he has long made about his former girlfriend turned political protégé.

He made his comments in an interview with Politico columnist Jonathan Martin. 

Brown also expressed concerns that Harris had 'the Hillary syndrome' and that 'people don't like her,' which he said was an unfixable problem.

Harris considers the former California state assembly speaker, and former San Francisco mayor, to be one of her political mentors.

Brown also revealed that Harris was not former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first choice for president and that he worked to make sure his other political protege Gov. Gavin Newsom was fully behind Harris.

Brown confirmed the story of how when he was dating Kamala Harris in the 1990s and participating an event at Harvard, then-business developer Donald Trump flew Brown, Harris and his team aboard his private plane for a meeting in New York.

Harris was not at the meeting, but Brown says he has a picture of he and Harris on Trump's plane.

Brown said that Former President Donald Trump was successful in politics because of his celebrity.

'He’s an entertainer, that’s all it is,' he said.

Brown gave Harris a significant boost in her political career, as detailed in Amateur Hour: Kamala Harris in the White House.

When they dated, Brown was considered the most powerful politician in California, and although he was still married, he was estranged to his wife Blanche, who lived in a separate home from him.

Brown appointed Harris to two different state boards, which paid her more than $400,000 over five years and gave her the keys to a BMW. He opened the doors to the wealthy and the powerful people of San Francisco.

Brown broke up with Harris after their year-long relationship, but he was always around to offer a helping hand during her political career.

During her first run as San Francisco District Attorney, Brown donated to her campaign and helped raise money for the race. 

Harris famously threw Brown under the bus during her campaign, insisting that her romantic and political connection with the mayor was over. 

'Willie Brown is not going to be around. He’s gone—hello people, move on,’ Harris told SF Weekly in a 2003 magazine profile insisting she would be ‘independent’ of Brown and that ‘he would probably right now express some fright about the fact that he cannot control me.’

'His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing,' she claimed. 

It was the last time she would speak publicly about her former lover and political mentor. 

Since Harris was endorsed by Democrats as the new presidential nominee, Brown shared his opinion with the San Francisco Standard about her abilities to run and win in elections. 

'You can very easily underestimate Kamala Harris, but if you do you will be looking up from the dungeon for the queen will be on the throne,' he said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13693767/Why-Kamala-Harriss-90-year-old-former-lover-fears-shell-deport-president-fears-Hillary-syndrome.html

Media Gaslighting Trump-Harris Polls

 What a month it’s been! Starting with President Joe Biden’s trainwreck debate performance a few weeks ago, stumbling and stuttering, with his zinger “We finally beat Medicare,” to an attempted and bungled assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump.

Biden then went dark for several days. Border czar and vice president Kamala Harris then emerged as the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee, supposedly raising more money than any candidate in history, securing enough delegates for the nomination without any vote by Democrat voters, and is now leading Trump in the polls.

Biden takes a nap and wakes up to discover he is no longer running for reelection, and while he was asleep, Democrat elites anoint their chosen candidate. Yet Trump is the “threat to democracy”? Welcome to the clown show.

Harris is the same candidate who was so “popular” just four years ago that she dropped out of the Democrat primaries before the first caucus or primary due to her inability to raise money and her polling around 1%. She is now apparently the second coming for the Democrat party. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Look at some recent headlines regarding her “popularity”. From The Hill, “Harris holds edge over Trump in new Reuters/Ipsos poll.” Politico is a bit more cautious, “Harris neck-and-neck with Trump after campaign launch, new poll finds.” And from NPR, “Poll: Presidential race hits a reset with Harris vs. Trump.”

Much of the Harris enthusiasm is due to “anyone but Biden” fatigue, Democrats pinned their hopes on a senile old man who destroyed the US economy, opened our borders to anyone and everyone, and has started several wars, if not World War 3 due to his foreign policy ineptitude.

Although Democrats loathe Donald Trump, voting for Biden was a bridge too far for many Democrat voters, and now having another option, a younger, non-corpse-like candidate, even if similarly incompetent, was a breath of fresh air.

But what about the actual poll previously mentioned? The above headlines are from a Reuters/Ipsos poll, “Most Americans support Biden leaving the race, Democrats rally behind Harris.” This confirms Biden fatigue and the relief of another option, the new shiny object for corporate media and paid Democrat shills on Twitter/X to salivate over.

Here is a Reuters headline, “Exclusive: Harris leads Trump 44% to 42% in US presidential race, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds.”

This is a poll of “registered voters”, names on the voter rolls. A more accurate sample would be of “likely voters”, the approach Rasmussen Reports takes in its political opinion polls. Many registered voters rarely or never vote. Likely voters are far more enthusiastic about voting, based on their past voting record.

More important are the political preferences of the survey sample. In the Reuters/Ipsos survey, buried in the methodology, far from the headline, is this gem, “The sample includes 1,018 registered voters, 426 Democrats, 376 Republicans, and 341 Independents.”

In percentages, their poll was 42% Democrat and 37% Republican, a 5-point difference, far more than Harris’s 2-point edge in the poll. Independents only represented 21% of the survey.

Why not poll the studio audience of The View or Jimmy Kimmel Live for an even more pro-Harris sample and result? Garbage in, garbage out.

Is the sample representative of the electorate? Hardly. According to Gallup, the US electorate is currently 25% Republican, 23% Democrat, and 51% Independent, far different than the surveyed sample in the Reuters/Ipsos poll. A skewed sample cannot be extrapolated to the entire voting population.

Another Yahoo! News/YouGov poll found, “Harris ties Trump in a hypothetical matchup, 46% to 46%.” They surveyed 1743 US adults. Are they US citizens or illegal migrants? Are they registered to vote? Did they just happen to answer the pollster’s phone call?

Again, party affiliation is important. In this sample, 33% were self-identified Democrats, and 29% were Republicans, a 4-point difference. Only 38% were Independent, far less than Gallup’s electorate.

Undersampling of Independents skews the poll results away from Donald Trump. Two months ago, Newsweek reported, “Donald Trump crushes Joe Biden among Independents in a new poll.” Weighting a survey sample away from Trump-supporting Republicans and Independents will produce predictably biased poll results.

Here's another way to look at Harris’s sudden popularity is to compare her to Biden. From 538, we can see Biden currently at 39% approval and 56% disapproval. By comparison, Harris is currently at 38% approval and 51% disapproval. Biden and Harris are essentially the same in terms of their political popularity.

Now compare Biden to Trump. In the RealClear Polling average, Trump has a 3-point advantage over Biden, ranging from -2 to +6, with all but one poll showing Trump ahead of Biden.

So now we see Harris, as unpopular as her boss Biden, with Biden behind Trump, suggesting that Harris should also be behind Trump. Yet Harris is now ahead of Trump?

In elementary school math, this was the transitive property. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. Instead, somehow, A became greater than C. This poll failed basic arithmetic.

Now look at the top battleground states where the election will be decided. Real Clear Politics shows that for seven battleground states (AZ, NV, WI, MI, PA, NC, and GA), Trump leads Biden (and by default Harris based on the above reasoning) in every state, with an average lead of 4.4 points.

Finally, Rasmussen Reports last week asked voters about Trump versus Harris. They found Trump up by 7 points, “50% of likely U.S. Voters would vote for Trump, while 43% would vote for Harris.” This was despite oversampling Democrats (35%) versus Republicans (33%) and Independents (32%)

How can these pro-Harris polls be explained? Partially through poorly sampled polls, partially through the “anyone but Biden” phenomenon, and lastly, due to the honeymoon phase bump that Harris is enjoying, at least for now.

Be wary of polls that suddenly show Harris crushing it. The media and Democrat influencers on social media will push these polls, ignoring the unfavorable polls or sampling differentials. Just as the media is gaslighting about Harris being the “border czar”, appointed by President Biden to “lead response to border challenges.”

Remember that many of these polls are designed to influence, not reflect, public opinion. They also represent a snapshot in time, and much can and will change over the next few months. Take them with a big grain of salt, especially when the media is pushing a propaganda narrative that defies math and common sense.

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and writer. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/08/media_gaslighting_trump_harris_polls.html

'With 100 days to go before Election Day, mainstream moderation breaking out all over from Dems'

 By Monica Showalter

What is it with Democrats? Now that we are 100 days out from Election Day on Nov. 3, moderation is breaking out all over.

Instead of the customary extremism we have seen these past three years, we are supposed to think they've gone moderate and mainstream. That's rather contrasting to their record in office, which they have assured us, was highly successful and popular.

Case one: The sickening plea deal announced by the Department of Defense on 9/11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in exchange for, well, nothing. They just didn't want to punish him for killing nearly 3,000 Americans 23 years ago, as well as young Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, because leftists don't believe in punishing criminals, let alone terrorists. Terrorists, as the pro-Hamas campus protests of the Spring indicated, are romantic freedom fighters.

After a public outcry, the DoD made a sudden U-turn.

According to CNN:

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin abruptly revoked a plea deal for the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks and his co-conspirators, and he relieved the overseer in charge after years of effort to reach an agreement to bring the cases to a close.

In a surprise memo quietly released Friday night, Austin said the responsibility for such a significant decision “should rest with me.” Only two days earlier, the Pentagon announced that it had reached a plea deal with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, more commonly known as KSM, and two other defendants – Walid Bin ‘Attash, and Hawsawi – accused of plotting the attacks.

The memo, addressed to Susan Escallier, the convening authority for military commissions who runs the military courts at Guantanamo Bay, said the defense secretary would immediately withdraw her authority in the cases and “reserve such authority to (himself).”

Austin said that he was withdrawing from the three pre-trial agreements, which had taken the death penalty off the table for the three men.

So they didn't want to be radical leftists after all. Nothing left of the plea deal but a little egg on their faces.

The reality, though, is that this Susan Escallier creature, a radical U.C. Berkeley graduate and likely DEI-promotion, has been at it for awhile, letting them off, and getting them out. Austin said he was "withdrawing her authority," presumably in cases that would enrage the public, but he hasn't relieved her of command.

With elections on, she jumped the shark and it was enough for Austin to get involved, taking his orders from someone above him, most likely Joe Biden, doing the bidding of Kamala Harris, or their campaign managers and donors. It's unlikely it was Austin acting by himself. He doesn't like making waves. Now he's gone moderate.

Meanwhile, over at the Department of State, all of a sudden, they're outraged at Nicolás Maduro and now say he didn't "win" his stolen election from this past weekend after all. They aren't stalling and demanding proof and investigations and commissions and all the other dreary he-said, she-said discussion of what happened. They are calling fraud 'fraud,' and even making nice with the actual winners of the vote, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling them up on the phone as reported here.

According to Axios:

The U.S. State Department said Thursday that it is recognizing opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia as the rightful winner of Venezuela's presidential elections.

Why it matters: President Nicolás Maduro has claimed, without evidence, that he won Sunday's contest. The U.S. government says there is "overwhelming evidence" González won.

Catch up quick: Ahead of the election, Maduro banned opposition leader María Corina Machado from running. González ran in her place, though she campaigned with him.

• Without releasing a tally, the Maduro-aligned electoral commission, CNE, declared him the winner with 51% of the vote.
• But the opposition says it has tallies from 80% of precincts that show González easily beating the deeply unpopular Maduro, who has governed over a massive economic crisis while further dismantling the country's democratic institutions.

Driving the news: The U.S. on Monday said it had "serious concerns" about the fairness of the election results but did not outright denounce them.

So that's a U-turn to the mainstream, too. They wasted several days waiting for the Chinese, Cubans and Russians to come to Maduro's rescue to help him consolidate power, but in the end, went with what all normal people saw -- a flamingly, brazenly, stolen election by an evil communist dictator.

Part of the delay may have been the egg-on-their-faces issue, given that they released a string of criminal kingpins back to Maduro in exchange for "free and fair" elections, allowing themselves to be played for fools. The other part may be that they are commiting the same kinds of fraud over here and are sensitive to the fraud issue.

Nevertheless, they are admitting the obvious, taking the mainstream point of view, and putting on a decent and moderate face for the voters. Maduro committed fraud, it's a plain as day and now they are saying so publicly, and enraging their radical leftist allies.

There was also the hostage and prisoner exchange with Russia, which to some extent may be in this category, given that these negotiations are complex and take time, especially this one. The Biden administration shot its wad by trading the big prize of arms dealing kingpin Viktor Bout for basketball player Brittney Griner who was in the can on a marijuana violation, which struck many as giving away the store. After that, Putin took an innocent young Wall Street Journal reporter, Evan Gershkovich, hostage and Biden had nothing left to trade, save for what the European allies could cough up from their prisons.

The bottom line is that Biden and Harris sought to capitalize on the exchange politically by showing up at their release, which was a far cry from the grudging appearance Biden alone made at the return of the bodies of 13 service members killed by Taliban terrorists during the U.S. pullout, with Joe looking at his watch, suggesting he had better things to do.

Suddenly, they've gone moderate. Suddenly, they've gone mainstream.

Verbally, we see a lot of this stuff, too. Kamala Harris insists she's not against fracking, and both Biden and Harris insist they are big on defending the border, now that the barn door has been left open for awhile. Reporter Todd Bensman says all signs point to a temporary agreement between Mexico's president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Biden to damp down the border activity until election time and then let-'er-rip afterwards, which is likely to happen. Once again, the temporary moderate face makes its appearance known.

They even claim to care about inflation, still blaming others, but at least not calling it transitory or saying it's zero. Their minions have even tried to make the claim that President Trump will make it worse, a ridiculous claim when we all remember what inflation was like under President Trump. Aside from that, they say it's the doing of Putin, or Big Oil, or "greedy" gas station owners, or chicken plant owners, or whatever they can think of, instead of their own out-of-control government spending. But they are trying the same moderate face tactics.

They're actually quite weak on this front, which is why the Trump camp should hit them hard for it -- they can't put on a moderate face when people know what's in their checkbooks.

The rest is a smog of gaslighting, lots of moderate deeds and words, as if with Democrats, you get 100 days of sanity, and three and a half years of far-left lunacy.

The voters should know this, this strangely moderate face put on for election time, against their far-left record of radicalism all the other days of their administration, running the entire U.S. government like a one-party blue city with all the failure that entails, along with the corruption.

It's sickening stuff and needs to be called out. Leopards don't change their spots overnight.

One can only hope that the Trump campaign can effectively counter this Eddie Haskell act from Camp Harris-Biden and drive home to voters that these people are putting on a carnival barker's face and will revert to form once they are safely ensconced in power.

It's a tall task, but it's got to be fought with political trench warfare, one phony gaslight at a time. I hope they are up for it.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/08/with_100_days_to_go_before_election_day_mainstream_moderation_is_breaking_out_all_over_from_the_democrats.html

Harris’s failed, weak, and dangerously liberal immigration record

 Vice President Kamala Harris, whom her campaign says should never be referred to as President Joe Biden’s Border Czar, now says she “will proudly” put her record up against President Donald Trump’s on any issue, “including, for example, on the issue of immigration.”

Let’s do that.

Before we turn to the numbers, it should first be noted that as lax and extreme on border security as President Joe Biden and his administration have been, Harris was even more radical as a presidential candidate and as a senator.

As a senator, she fought against Trump’s efforts to increase funding for new Border Patrol agents and migrant detention beds. She also tried to defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and funnel that money to non-profit organizations that encourage illegal immigration. 

As a presidential candidate, Harris said she wanted to decriminalize illegal border crossings, which even Biden was not prepared to do. Harris also said she would extend free healthcare to illegal immigrants, a policy her radical home state of California has since implemented.

While Biden is not as radical as Kamala, he still let millions of illegal immigrants into the country. Immediately upon entering office with Harris, he ended Trump’s Remain in Mexico program, which required asylum-seekers to wait until their cases were adjudicated before crossing into our nation. Instead, he and Harris let illegal migrants in to go wherever they wanted. Biden and Harris ended all deportations from the interior of the country for 100 days, and curtailed the number of interior deportations since. In the final year before COVID-19, Trump deported 267,258 illegal immigrants from the country’s interior. In Biden’s first full year in office, he deported just 72,177.

The results of the Biden-Harris immigration policies were swift. Southwest border apprehensions soared from fewer than 75,000 in the month before Harris took office to over 100,000 the month after she took office. It further soared to more than 300,000 in December 2023. All told, there have been more than 8 million Southwest border apprehensions since Harris became vice president and was given special responsibility for tackling the issue, compared to less than 2.5 million during Trump’s full four-year term.

The total number of illegal immigrants in the country fell during Trump’s term, but the number under Harris has surged by almost 4 million. These have been a strain on communities, including Democrat-controlled communities, across the country. Cities, including Denver, Chicago, New York, and Washington, D.C., have pleaded for federal bailouts to pay to feed, house, and educate migrants and provide them with healthcare.

Not only has Harris failed even to speak to the last two Border Patrol Chiefs, she actually mocked the suggestion she should visit the southern border. “I don’t understand the point you are making,” she laughed when NBC News’ Lester Holt corrected her and pointed out that she had never been to the border.

Harris’s campaign claims she is better on border security because she supported legislation authored by Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), but it would have made the crisis worse. It codifies catch-and-release policies by creating a new “Alternatives to Detention” pathway for illegal migrants to be released into the country and set on a path to work permits and amnesty. The bill would have done nothing to prevent the murder of Laken Riley or the other violent crimes perpetrated by illegal immigrants the Biden-Harris administration welcomed into the country. 

Harris can flip-flop and abandon her past border positions, but she can’t run away from the Biden-Harris record of border failure.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3106230/kamalas-harris-failed-weak-and-dangerously-liberal-immigration-record/

The Riots Are Part of the Plan

REVIEW: ‘NextGen Marxism: What It Is and How to Combat It’

 When I entered Cornell University in 1964, I could not have imagined that given the thousands of future doctors, lawyers, scholars, engineers, architects, and executives in my class, the person destined to have possibly the greatest influence on America’s future would not be one of them. Instead, that role may have been achieved by a fellow member of Cornell’s debate association, a tall, loudmouthed Brooklynite who proudly bore the cognomen Rick "The Pr*ck" Mann.

Mann soon achieved a local notoriety when he and his partner/sidekick, chosen to represent Cornell at the prestigious Georgetown University debate tournament, stood up to issue a loud "Boo!" when the dinner speaker, a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee, was announced. For their misbehavior, Mann and partner were dismissed from the association, and I never encountered (nor expected to hear of) them again. Imagine my surprise, then, in 2020, when Patrisse Cullors, cofounder of the Black Lives Matter movement, which organized violent riots in many American cities following the George Floyd killing, described herself as a "trained Marxist" thanks to the tutelage of Mr. Mann.

Mann, I discovered, had carved quite a career following graduation. He gravitated from the murderous Black Panthers (Mann is white) to the still more violent Weather Underground of the late ’60s and served jail time for shooting up a police station. Subsequently, in view of the failure of the Weathermen to generate the nationwide, armed revolution they had hoped for, Mann became one of the major figures in the enterprise that Mike Gonzalez and Katharine Cornell Gorka depict in their powerful and important book, NextGen Marxism. (Gonzalez is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, while Gorka is a former official of the Department of Homeland Security whose work focuses on threats posed by extremist ideologies.)

The authors’ title alludes to a movement that arose in Germany and Italy a century ago when leftist intellectuals, disheartened by their failure to achieve a Communist revolution like the one that had just occurred in Russia, turned to a different strategy. Instead of relying on factory workers (Karl Marx’s "proletariat") to generate the Communist paradise, they would gradually shape the surrounding "culture" to achieve that end.

The movement originated with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, best-known for its invention of "critical theory," based on the theory and strategy of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci (who spent his later years composing his 30-volume Prison Notebooks in one of Mussolini’s jails) maintained that the revolution would require a painstaking, decades-long "education" (indoctrination) of the workers, so as to disabuse them of their attachment to the system of private property and imbue them with "revolutionary consciousness." That education would be the work of a handful of "enlightened" Marxist intellectuals.

In one of the ironies of history, Hitler’s rise compelled the leaders of the Frankfurt school, including Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse, to flee to the great bastion of "capitalist" democracy, the United States. Among them, the most influential was Marcuse, who remained in postwar America and from his perch as a tenured professor at Brandeis University (and later at the University of California, San Diego) concocted a youth-tempting witches’ brew combining Marxist utopianism (the abolition of government and property) with sexual "liberation." He thereby became the guru of the American "New Left" of the 1960s. (His prize pupil was Angela Davis, the future prominent Communist and terror supporter.)

What was "new" about this Left was that following Gramsci’s plan, it concealed its authoritarian aspirations behind a mask of "cultural" renewal. (Recall the intentionally misnamed "Free Speech" movement at Berkeley in 1964, which actually aimed at suppressing rival views in accordance with Marcuse’s doctrine of "repressive tolerance" and culminated in the student riots of 1968-69, not accidentally prefiguring the pro-Hamas campus chaos we have witnessed since last fall.) Another of Marcuse’s protégés, the West German radical Rudi Dutschke, termed the Gramscian project a "Long March through the Institutions" of society.

Far from drawing their inspiration from Marx’s promise that socialism would elevate the material conditions of working people, by the ’60s, as the authors recount, the New Leftists, like the latter-day Frankfurt scholars, came to realize "that capitalism was, in fact, much better at supplying material goods." Given this fact, and what Horkheimer described as the "dialectical" relationship between freedom and justice, it followed that ordinary people’s freedom, and even their economic welfare, would have to be sacrificed for the sake of "true" justice. And it was the students and their mentors, not factory workers (who were too attached to their freedom and prosperity to want to overthrow them), who would become the truly "revolutionary" class.

While the violence of the Weathermen was suppressed, the Gramscian-Marcusian project of gradual, outwardly peaceful revolution advanced as some of the radicalized students of the ’60s became academics themselves and passed on their ideology to others who achieved positions of influence in the media, Hollywood, the foundation world, and college and K-12 teaching. (Remarkably, Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the Weather Underground, wound up being teachers of education—with Ayers, additionally, mentoring Barack Obama in the art of "community organizing," though Obama tried to downplay that connection during his 2008 presidential campaign.)

Drawing on a multitude of books, law-review articles, manifestoes, and scholarly studies, Gonzalez and Gorka demonstrate the underlying unity among a variety of contemporary endeavors aimed at transforming or undermining fundamental aspects of American political society so as to bring us closer to the Marxist paradise. Among the most important elements of this enterprise are the devaluing of American constitutional democracy as an oppressive oligarchy; the assault on the traditional family on behalf of a "gender theory" that directs schools to teach elementary-school students to rethink (and possibly seek medical treatment to "correct") the gender they were "assigned" at birth; the legal establishment of "gay marriage"; the rejection of Martin Luther King’s vision of a colorblind society whose members would be judged by "the content of their character" in favor of encouraging race hatred; and a general disparagement of the rule of law in favor of rioting and looting when they serve the revolutionary cause.

One of the most important revelations of NextGen Marxism is that the riots that swept American cities following the police killings of criminal suspects Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014, and then of George Floyd, were not spontaneous incidents. Instead, the authors document how those events were used by "a large web of Marxist groups" aimed, as Cullors attested, at "transform[ing] black people’s relationship" to the country. In pursuit of that goal, shortly after Brown’s death, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, "formed at the behest of socialist leaders overseas," sent a "special projects" director, Alicia Garza, to Ferguson to "network"—and, presumably, provoke an uprising. (The NDWA was funded by the billionaire leftist George Soros, who has more recently supported pro-Hamas rioters as  well as financing the election campaigns of prosecutors who aim at "decarceration" and depolicing.) As Garza, the Marxist-trained cofounder of BLM, put it, their ultimate goal was "to keep dismantling the organizing principle" of American society.

Garza shared that goal with Eric Mann, with whom she served on the planning committee of a U.S. branch of an international Marxist organization, the World Social Forum, in 2007. Also on the international scene, Gonzalez and Gorka document the growing links between BLM and the anti-American dictators of such Latin American countries as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. And Mann, who does get around, claims that he got the idea of centering his intended American revolution on black people at the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, (which the United States boycotted on account of its equating Zionism with racism).

The concluding chapter, "What to Do," sets out an ambitious agenda for Americans and their elected leaders to combat the NextGen assault on our institutions and way of life. These include banning indoctrinating schoolkids in gender "theory"; eliminating ideological training in "diversity, equity, and inclusion" from our public and private workplaces; cutting off the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies that the federal government provides annually for projects concocted by the "progressive" left; and combating the inclusion of propagandistic "ethnic studies" courses (now scheduled to be graduation requirements in Boston and California) from the public schools. NextGen Marxism should serve as a much-needed wakeup call.

NextGen Marxism: What It Is and How to Combat It
by Mike Gonzalez and Katherine Cornell Gorka
Encounter Books, 328 pp., $32.99

David Lewis Schaefer is professor emeritus of political science at the College of the Holy Cross.

https://freebeacon.com/culture/the-riots-are-part-of-the-plan/

Court blocks FCC’s reinstatement of net neutrality rules scrapped by Trump admin

 A US appeals court on Thursday blocked the Federal Communications Commission’s reinstatement of landmark net neutrality rules, saying broadband providers are likely to succeed in a legal challenge.

The FCC voted in April along party lines to reassume regulatory oversight of broadband internet and reinstate open internet rules adopted in 2015 that were rescinded under then-President Donald Trump.

The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals, which had temporarily delayed the rules, said on Thursday it would temporarily block net neutrality rules and scheduled oral arguments for late October or early November on the issue, dealing a serious blow to President Biden’s effort to reinstate the rules.

The FCC voted in April along party lines to reassume regulatory oversight of broadband internet and reinstate open internet rules adopted in 2015. FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, above.REUTERS

“The final rule implicates a major question, and the commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations,” the court wrote. “Net neutrality is likely a major question requiring clear congressional authorization.”

The court on July 12 had temporarily placed the net neutrality rules on hold until Aug. 5 as it considered industry legal challenges.

FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel said: “The American public wants an internet that is fast, open, and fair. Today’s decision by the Sixth Circuit is a setback but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality.”

Net neutrality rules require internet service providers to treat internet data and users equally rather than restricting access, slowing speeds or blocking content for certain users. The rules also forbid special arrangements in which ISPs give improved network speeds or access to favored users.

The rules would bar internet service providers from blocking or slowing down traffic to certain websites, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful content, as well as give the FCC new tools to crack down on Chinese telecom companies and the ability to monitor internet service outages.

The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals, which had temporarily delayed the rules, said on Thursday it would temporarily block net neutrality rules and scheduled oral arguments for late October or early November on the issue.REUTERS
Reinstating net neutrality has been a priority for Biden, who signed a July 2021 executive order encouraging the FCC to reinstate the rules adopted in 2015 under President Barack Obama, a fellow Democrat.

Under Trump, the FCC had argued that net neutrality rules were unnecessary, blocked innovation and resulted in a decline in network investment by internet service providers, a contention disputed by Democrats.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/01/business/court-blocks-fccs-reinstatement-of-landmark-net-neutrality-rules/