“There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors.”—Professor Robert Gellately, author of Backing Hitler
If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the government and flagged for heightened surveillance and preemptive intervention.
Let that sink in a moment.
If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you have just been promoted to the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
I assure you I’m not making this stuff up.
So what is the government doing about these so-called American “extremists”?
The government is grooming the American people to spy on each other as part of its Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, or CP3 program.
This new era of snitch surveillance is the lovechild of the government’s post-9/11 “See Something, Say Something” programs combined with the self-righteousness of a politically correct, hyper-vigilant, technologically-wired age.
For more than two decades, the Department of Homeland Security has plastered its “See Something, Say Something” campaign on the walls of metro stations, on billboards, on coffee cup sleeves, at the Super Bowl, even on television monitors in the Statue of Liberty. Colleges, universities and even football teams and sporting arenas have lined up for grants to participate in the program.
If you see something suspicious, says the DHS, say something about it to the police, call it in to a government hotline, or report it using a convenient app on your smartphone.
This DHS slogan is nothing more than the government’s way of indoctrinating “we the people” into the mindset that we’re an extension of the government and, as such, have a patriotic duty to be suspicious of, spy on, and turn in our fellow citizens.
This is what is commonly referred to as community policing.
Yet while community policing and federal programs such as “See Something, Say Something” are sold to the public as patriotic attempts to be on guard against those who would harm us, they are little more than totalitarian tactics dressed up and repackaged for a more modern audience as well-intentioned appeals to law and order and security.
The police state could not ask for a better citizenry than one that carries out its own policing.
After all, the police can’t be everywhere. So, how do you police a nation when your population outnumbers your army of soldiers? How do you carry out surveillance on a nation when there aren’t enough cameras, let alone viewers, to monitor every square inch of the country 24/7? How do you not only track but analyze the transactions, interactions, and movements of every person within the United States?
The answer is simpler than it seems: You persuade the citizenry to be your eyes and ears. You hype them up on color-coded “Terror alerts,” keep them in the dark about the distinctions between actual threats and staged “training” drills so that all crises seem real, desensitize them to the sight of militarized police walking their streets, acclimatize them to being surveilled “for their own good,” and then indoctrinate them into thinking that they are the only ones who can save the nation from another 9/11.
Consequently, we now live in a society in which a person can be accused of any number of crimes without knowing what exactly he has done. He might be apprehended in the middle of the night by a roving band of SWAT police. He might find himself on a no-fly list, unable to travel for reasons undisclosed. He might have his phones or internet tapped based upon a secret order handed down by a secret court, with no recourse to discover why he was targeted.
This Kafkaesque nightmare has become America’s reality.
This is how you turn a people into extensions of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent police state, and in the process turn a citizenry against each other.
It’s a brilliant ploy, with the added bonus that while the citizenry remains focused on and distrustful of each other and shadowy forces from outside the country, they’re incapable of focusing on more definable threats that fall closer to home—namely, the government and its cabal of Constitution-destroying agencies and corporate partners.
Community policing did not come about as a feel-good, empowering response to individuals trying to “take back” their communities from crime syndicates and drug lords.
Rather, “Community-Oriented Policing” or COPS (short for Community Partnerships, Organizational Transformation, and Problem-Solving) is a Department of Justice program designed to foster partnerships between police agencies and members of the community.
To this end, the Justice Department identifies five distinct “partners” in the community policing scheme: law enforcement and other government agencies, community members and groups, nonprofits, churches and service providers, private businesses and the media.
Together, these groups are supposed to “identify” community concerns, “engage” the community in achieving specific goals, serve as “powerful” partners with the government, and add their “considerable resources” to the government’s already massive arsenal of technology and intelligence. The mainstream media’s role, long recognized as being a mouthpiece for the government, is formally recognized as “publicizing” services from government or community agencies or new laws or codes that will be enforced, as well as shaping public perceptions of the police, crime problems, and fear of crime.
Inevitably, this begs the question: if there’s nothing wrong with community engagement, if the police can’t be everywhere at once, if surveillance cameras do little to actually prevent crime, and if we need to “take back our communities” from the crime syndicates and drug lords, then what’s wrong with community policing and “See Something, Say Something”?
We are now the unwitting victims of an interconnected, tightly woven, technologically evolving web of real-time, warrantless, wall-to-wall, widening mass surveillance dragnet comprised of fusion centers, red flag laws, behavioral threat assessments, terror watch lists, facial recognition, snitch tip lines, biometric scanners, pre-crime programs, DNA databases, data mining, precognitive technology, and contact tracing apps, to name just a few.
This is how the government keeps us under control and in its crosshairs.
By the time you combine the DHS’ “See Something, Say Something” with CP3 and community policing, which has gone global in the guise of the Strong Cities Network program, you’ve got a formula for enabling the government to not only flag distinct “anti-government” segments of the population but locking down the entire nation.
What this program is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale with the objective being to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source: racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc. In other words, police will identify, monitor and deter individuals who could be construed as potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats.
The government’s war on extremists has been sold to Americans in much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was sold to Americans: as a means of combatting terrorists who seek to destroy America.
However, as we now know, the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that has turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect.
Similarly, the concern with the government’s ongoing anti-extremism program is that it will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.
Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American “extremists” will carry out their objectives—to identify and deter potential extremists—in concert with fusion centers, data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).
This is pre-crime on an ideological scale, and it’s been a long time coming.
For example, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.
These reports, which use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably, indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right, or somewhere in between—can be labeled an extremist.
Fast forward a few years, and you have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which each successive presidential administration has continually re-upped, that allows the military to take you out of your home, lock you up with no access to friends, family or the courts if you’re seen as an extremist.
Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA and the far-reaching data crime fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.
Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that identifies and tracks you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers which are attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms, and prognostication programs.
If you can’t read the writing on the wall, you need to pay better attention.
New York’s Democratic legislature and governor have decided to change election laws despite the fact that voters had previously rejected the idea.
On Wednesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul’s website announced that she had signed a series of election reforms designed to “strengthen democracy and protect voting rights.”
Among these new voting laws is S. 7394-A/A. 7632-A, which strengthens the controversial early voting by mail that caused so much uproar in the 2020 presidential election.
“This legislation will create a process allowing all eligible, registered New York State voters the opportunity to vote early by mail in advance of an election,” a statement on the governor’s website reads. “This legislation represents a significant expansion of ballot access in New York State, and will provide millions of New York voters with an easy, safe, and secure means of voting early by mail ballot.”
Yet for all their talk about protecting “democracy” and “voting rights,” the leftist Democrats who run New York State seem to have forgotten one big thing: The people of New York do not want this.
According to Just the News, in 2021, voters in New York rejected a measure that would have enshrined early voting by mail into the state’s constitution.
Nevertheless, Hochul and her fellow Democrats have decided to push ahead anyway, in defiance of the will of the very people they claim to serve. It’s a strange form of “democracy,” if you ask me.
Hochul’s new laws are not without pushback, however, and several Republican lawmakers at both the state and federal levels have filed a lawsuit against the governor for violating the state’s constitution.
Among those suing the governor are Rep. Elise Stefanik, the Republican National Committee, and the New York Republican State Committee. All allege that this new law is unconstitutional.
“The Mail-Voting Law is a blatant violation of Article II, § 2 of the New York State Constitution, which requires qualified voters to cast their vote in any election in person at their designated polling places unless they will be unable to do so,” the lawsuit says. The only exceptions to voting in person allowed by law are absence from the county of residence or being unable to go to their polling place because of illness or physical disability.
The lawsuit is also careful to mention that the people of New York voted against this very thing two years ago.
“The Mail-Voting Law was enacted by the Legislature in open and knowing defiance of Article II, § 2, ignoring and subverting the will of the People whom the Legislature is supposed to represent. Only two years earlier at the general election held in November 2021, the voters of the State soundly rejected a constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature entitled “Authorizing No-Excuse Absentee Ballot Voting,” which had sought to amend Article II, § 2 by deleting the requirements for absentee voting in order to allow all qualified voters to vote by mail without providing a specific reason.”
Robert Ortt, New York State Senate Minority Leader, called the vote-by-mail scheme “yet another attempt by the far-left to keep themselves in power in New York State.”
Honestly, this situation is really infuriating. The governor and legislature are not only violating the laws of their own state, they are also going against the will of the people and are trying to push this agenda through anyway.
Yet this is hardly surprising. The left always loves to talk about “defending democracy,” but more often than not, that just means defending the liberal agenda and advancing their ideology.
The people of New York are learning the hard way that in the world of the left, just because you vote a certain way, it does not mean that the leftist authorities are going to respect your decision.
The Republicans have every right to take Hochul and her state election officials to court because what they are doing is illegal.
Let’s hope the people of New York will not forget this illegal act and will vote differently in the next election.
Share the post "NY Governor Goes Around Voters’ Backs, Signs Change in State Election Laws"
5 Major Problems with ProPublica’s Latest ‘Ethics’ Hit Piece on Justice Clarence Thomas.
By Ken Klukowski
Lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department.
There are five major problems with the latest so-called “ethics” attack on Justice Clarence Thomas, which this time is a hit piece from the leftwing ProPublica, attempting to kick Thomas off an upcoming Supreme Court case.
ProPublica has the vapors over the fact that Thomas flew on a private jet to a conference in Palm Springs in 2018 hosted by the network of Charles and David Koch, suggesting several ethics violations. ProPublica is legally wrong on every claim.
Two problems are that Supreme Court justices can speak at nonpartisan gatherings so long as there are no presentations to or from parties to a case currently pending before the Court, and the justice does not engage in fundraising.
First, Thomas did not present at the conference on any issues pending before the court, and no parties or lawyers on cases that were scheduled at the court made any presentations to him.
Second, although fundraising certainly takes place at such gatherings, so long as the justice does not ask for money, the fact that private citizens do so is not an ethics concern for a justice in attendance.
On various occasions when liberal justices like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor have spoken at events, fundraising people huddle about how to promote the justice’s name to raise more money off the event. But Kagan and Sotomayor violate no ethics rules when this happens, because they are not the ones engaged in fundraising.
Third, it is utterly irrelevant that the Koch Network supports filing briefs in a case currently before the court that would change the scope of the federal government’s regulatory law. Justices frequently speak at events hosted by groups that take positions on pending matters, and the upcoming case is no different.
That case, Loper Bright, asks the court to overrule a 1984 case named Chevron, where the court held that courts should defer to agency bureaucrats about whether regulations are consistent with a law passed by Congress, if Congress’s law is either silent or ambiguous about the precise legal question at issue in the regulation.
Chevron should be overruled because it is egregiously wrong and has led to terrible results. It upends bedrock principles of the rule of law for judges who defer to the almost-all-powerful government about the government’s claims as to the government’s own power over citizens and companies. If anyone should get the benefit of the doubt, it should be the powerless ordinary citizen. But better yet, there should be no deference, and judges should just interpret the law and the regulations the same way they interpret any other law, regulation, or contract. (Full disclosure: I coauthored one of the many briefs in Loper Bright urging the Supreme Court to overrule Chevron.)
The left is panicking over Loper Bright. Chevron gives unelected bureaucrats enhanced power over the lives of private citizens on countless issues, from energy production, to transportation, to immigration, to transgenderism in schools, to firearms. It hobbles the ability of courts to require Congress to legislate clearly and for public policy to be made by officials accountable to the people. Overruling Chevron would restore transparency and good government, so the left is trying to disqualify conservative justices like Thomas from being able to vote on it.
Fourth, ProPublica’s authors are again ignoring judicial standards on personal hospitality. During the time in question (2018), if private individuals are a friend of a Supreme Court justice and offer the justice a seat on a private airplane, that form of personal hospitality is ethically allowed. Liberal justices like the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the retired Stephen Breyer frequently accepted such hospitality.
Fifth, even federal judges on lower courts that are already subject to the ethics code that Senate Democrats are trying to foist on the Supreme Court – a code that would be unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court is a coequal branch of government. In May 2005, Judge Ray Randolph – a highly respected judge on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – conferred with ethics counsel at the Judicial Conference regarding a similar trip.
The judicial ethics expert at the Judicial Conference responded that the trip did not even need to be disclosed. So even if the Supreme Court could be forced into a subordinate role to Congress, like the federal appeals courts are, such trips would still be permitted.
The left’s latest desperate attempt to smear Thomas – this one from ProPublica – appears to be yet another swing and miss. And the fact that it focused so heavily on gaslighting the American people about Loper Bright shows that it is just the latest attempt at reverse court-packing to disqualify conservative justices in a brazen attempt to manipulate the outcome of a Supreme Court case on government power.
Share the post "5 Major Problems with ProPublica’s Latest ‘Ethics’ Hit Piece on Justice Clarence Thomas."
Cockburn wouldn’t be so skeptical of the radical left nearly as much if they didn’t have an insatiable need to suck the joy out of holidays. First they replaced the Christmas tree with the Kwanzaa bush. Then they told us that tofurkey tastes just as good as the real thing. Now, they are attempting to crush Oktoberfest too.
The two-century-old German tradition, which kicked-off in Munich on September 16, is under attack for its skimpy costumes and environmental impact. The man leading the charge: Luitpold Rupprecht Heinrich, the seventy-two-year-old Prince of Bavaria whose great-grandfather was the last Bavarian king.
“When I see Chinese-made folk costumes made of plastic, pseudo-costumes with tight dirndls, then the whole thing becomes a carnival. We all talk about cultural appropriation today,” Heinrich said. “Here it’s happening to us Bavarians!”
Heinrich added that wearing a costume to get drunk in degrades the festival’s tradition. Cockburn, who has stumbled out of many beer tents, would apologize for cultural appropriation, but feels his ambiguous European heritage protects him. And while he isn’t one to question royal authority, he feels he must correct Heinrich’s account of the festival. The first Oktoberfest celebrated the wedding of a 19th-century Bavarian prince. And what is a wedding if not an excuse to dress up and drink?
As if the removal of busty women weren’t enough, environmentalists are driving up the cost of festivities. Traditionally, revelers have enjoyed whole rotisserie chickens sold by vendors lining the streets. But this year, the Paulaner festival tent, a historic Oktoberfest tent in Munich, serves organic chicken only, costing 20.50 euros ($22). Paulaner’s chickens are 50 percent more expensive than non-organic ones, meaning many a reveler will go chickenless. An Oktoberfest official and a Green Party member told the Wall Street Journal that the changes are part of the city’s goal of becoming climate neutral by 2035 — and also zero fun, apparently.
Despite activists’ attempts to institute food mandates at the festival, Munich officials have yet to impose them. The spirit of Oktoberfest is protected by a coalition of innkeepers opposing the measures. “I don’t think anyone really wants a planned economy in which a small group decides what is good for the people and what is not,” said Thomas Geppert, head of the Bavarian Hotel and Restaurant Association.
Prost! to that.
Orignally published in The Spectator.
Share the post "It’s Not Just Here: The woke mob is ruining Oktoberfest"
Several former intelligence officials who signed a letter suggesting that the Hunter Biden laptop was likely a “Russian information operation” are joining a federal “expert” board handling issues of national security, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced Tuesday.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former CIA Operations Officer Paul Kolbe, who will now serve on the board, all signed an October 2020 letter casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop and suggesting its release was a Russian disinformation ploy. The group will advise DHS on intelligence and national security efforts regarding issues such as “terrorism, fentanyl, transborder issues, and emerging technology,” DHS announced.
The group will meet four times per year to advise DHS on countering threats to national security, according to the agency.
“The security of the American people depends on our capacity to collect, generate, and disseminate actionable intelligence to our federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, campus, and private sector partners,” Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas said in a statement Tuesday regarding the group’s formation. “I express my deep gratitude to these distinguished individuals for dedicating their exceptional expertise, experience, and vision to our critical mission.”
Biden himself used the letter, whose conclusion is false, to characterize reports on the laptop’s contents as a “bunch of garbage.”
However, former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell testified to the House Judiciary Committee that then-Biden senior adviser Antony Blinken, who is now the Secretary of State, “triggered” the creation of the letter. Former CIA chief of staff Jeremy Bash, who signed the letter, connected Morrell and then-Biden campaign chairman Steve Richetti; Bash was later appointed to Biden’s Intelligence Advisory Board.
Moreover, both Clapper and Brennan have been previously criticized for misleading the American public.
Clapper gave incorrect information to Congress on multiple occasions, including in one instance when he gave “inconsistent testimony” about contacts he had with the media while in office. Brennan, for his part, denied that CIA officials had hacked the computers of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, a statement that was later proven false.
The Letter signed by Brennan, Clapper and Kolbe argued that the release of emails from the laptop was an attempt by Russia to influence the U.S. election.
“We write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” the 2020 letter read.
“If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this,” the letter added.
In a February letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), lawyers representing Hunter Biden appeared to admit that data from his laptop is real.
Several social media platforms censored the New York Post’s reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop archive.
DHS didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the specifics of the board.
Share the post "Biden Admin Taps Ex-Intel Officials Who Signed Infamous Hunter Biden Laptop Letter To Form DHS ‘Expert’ Committee."
On Monday, Democrat Mayoral candidate John Gomes filed a lawsuit challenging the results of his party’s primary in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and requesting a new Democratic primary.
This comes after a video surfaced showing a Democrat clerk inserting illegal ballots into a drop box, which prompted an investigation by the Bridgeport Police Department for “possible misconduct.”
The Gateway Pundit reported that Gomes’ campaign released a damning video on Saturday showing evidence of election fraud in the recent Bridgeport Democratic primary.
The video posted on Gomes campaign’s Facebook page shows a woman dropping stacks of ‘illegal’ ballots into an absentee ballot box outside the Bridgeport government center, where the city’s Registrar of Voters office is located, CT Mirror reported.
The Gomes campaign was able to identify the woman in the footage as Wanda Geter-Pataky, the Vice Chairwoman of the Democratic Town Clerk and a vocal supporter of incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim, who is seeking reelection.
Gomes’ campaign claims that the video shows Geter-Pataky dropping off stacks of absentee ballots ahead of the September 12th primary.
“Video surveillance proving that the mayoral election was unequivocally stolen through corruption within City Hall by tampering with absentee ballots,” John Gomes said in a statement.
“This is an undeniable act of voter suppression and a huge civil rights violation. It’s time to restore lasting credibility to our city’s democracy. Once and for ALL. Enough is enough!” he added.
Gomes lost to incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim in the Democratic primary by a narrow margin of 251 votes, according to the most recent preliminary count posted on the Secretary of the State’s website. Ganim won the absentee vote tally 1,545 to 779, while Gomes led on the voting machines.
The Bridgeport Police Department confirmed that they are actively investigating the actions shown in the video.
“The Bridgeport Police Department are actively investigating information regarding possible misconduct based upon a video that has surfaced on social media,” the department told CT Mirror.
The police department is investigating how the video was obtained and released to the public.
“The Bridgeport Police Department immediately initiated an investigation to determine if any criminal wrongdoing has occurred. In addition, an internal investigation is being conducted to determine if any possible breach to our security video management system has occurred,” it added.
Bridgeport Police Chief Roderick Porter said the department takes “these actions seriously and we will pursue possible criminal prosecution and/or administrative discipline as it relates to any such security violations.”
In a press conference held on Monday, Christine Bartlett-Jose, the campaign manager for Democrat Mayoral candidate John Gomes, laid out a compelling case for why the recent Democratic primary election results in Bridgeport should be scrutinized and possibly invalidated.
“In this primary alone, the city of Bridgeport received over 4,000 absentee ballot applications, an unprecedented number in the city and possibly the state,” said Bartlett-Jose. She pointed out that the city had a lead of 470 votes based on incoming results on primary night. However, as absentee ballots were tabulated, their lead dramatically eroded, resulting in a two-to-one loss margin with an ultimate election difference of 251 votes.
Bartlett-Jose stated that the campaign has gathered evidence indicating voter suppression and absentee ballot fraud. “Multiple complaints have been filed with the State Election Enforcement Commission, including the most recent and irrefutable piece of evidence—an incriminating video from City Hall security footage showing Wanda Gita Pasky, the vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee, depositing absentee ballots,” she said.
Gita Pasky’s involvement in this election is deeply concerning, according to Bartlett-Jose.
“She has been named in various complaints across many districts related to harassment, bullying, promises of Section Eight, rent rebate, groceries, just to name a few,” she added.
Gita Pasky was recommended by the State Election Enforcement Commission to the State’s Attorney’s Office for criminal investigation regarding the alleged misuse of absentee ballots in the 2019 primary election.
The campaign will be petitioning the court to file an injunction against the primary election results, which have yet to be certified by the Secretary of State.
“This step is essential to prevent potential tainted results from being finalized,” Bartlett-Jose emphasized. They will also be seeking a restraining order against the distribution of any additional absentee ballot applications from the Town Clerk’s Office.
John Gomes, the Democratic challenger, said, “Right now there is a black cloud over Bridgeport, there is no trust. We walk around and I don’t know what to tell the people.”
He added that the evidence is overwhelming and speaks for itself, especially the video footage. Gomes and his campaign are filing a lawsuit, not only seeking a judge to prevent last week’s election results from being certified but also asking for a new Democratic primary.
So, if they (Conn State Election Enforcement Commission) recommended a prosecution regarding absentee ballots for an election in 2019, doesn’t that suggest that Trump was correct about the 2020 election? — TPR
Share the post "Democrat Mayoral Candidate John Gomes Files Lawsuit to Block Certification of Stolen Connecticut Primary Race That Was Caught on Video"
Comedian Hasan Minhaj has admitted to inventing several first-person tales of facing discrimination — including a racist attack on his daughter — that undergird his standup comedy act and his politically-themed TV shows.
Minhaj, born in 1985 in the United States to Muslim Indian immigrants, made a name for himself on The Daily Show and his own Netflix comedy series, Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj. He won a Peabody Award in 2018 for the short-lived (2018-2020) Netflix series.
The comedian has become a favorite among left-wingers for skewering America as a hateful and inherently racist country, often with personal stories of discrimination against him and his family.
Minhaj — who joined Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Steward in 2014 — made headlines as host of the 2017 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner (WHCD), where he ripped President Donald Trump, calling him the “liar-in-chief” and “the orange man behind the Muslim ban.”
His comedy was even panned by Saudi Arabian officials, who forced Netflix to remove one of his 2019 episodes of Patriot Act that criticized the Kingdom over the Jamal Khashoggi incident.
Minhaj relays several stories during his show. To name a few, he has claimed that a white girl refused to go to a high school homecoming dance with him, tells the tale of a “brother Eric” who infiltrated a mosque for the FBI, and even told the harrowing tale of an envelope with “white powder” in it spilling all over his daughter.
He also tells the story of Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner arrogantly sitting in a chair reserved for a formerly imprisoned Saudi activist at a Time 100 gala in 2019. He now admits that never happened.
At long last, Minhaj has admitted that none of these stories of discrimination ever happened, though he tells them on stage and on TV as if they are real.
In an interview with the New Yorker, Minhaj explained that he tells all these false stories for “emotional truth” and that none of them really happened to him.
“Every story in my style is built around a seed of truth,” Minhaj explained. “My comedy… is 70 percent emotional truth and then 30 percent hyperbole, exaggeration, fiction.”
The comedian went on to say that, in his opinion, the “emotional truth is first. The factual truth is secondary.”
The magazine had spent some time trying to track down some of the people that Minhaj mentions in his “emotional truth” stories on stage, but it was unable to verify most of the claims he makes. The magazine also discovered that some of the people he mentions in his act have tried to get him to stop using their names and stories, but Minhaj has ignored their requests.
The “white girl” who supposedly left him standing at her front door and ditched him for homecoming, for instance, says that no such incident ever occurred and that she had turned him down many days before when he first asked her to the dance. She also says that she and her family frequently face online attacks when Minhaj fans link her real identity to the fake anecdote.
The magazine also found out that the “brother Eric” who Minhaj claims infiltrated a mosque never did any such thing. Indeed, the man said he was in prison in 2002, the year Minhaj said he was infiltrating a mosque for the FBI. Minhaj admitted that the whole story was a fiction made up for his show.
The story of his daughter being exposed to a “white powder” sent to him in the mail, supposedly causing him to take the girl to the hospital, also turns out to be fake. Minhaj says that he did receive an envelope with white powder in the mail, but he just threw it out and his daughter was never exposed to it.
Minhaj even admitted that his wife has not been happy with his race-obsessed comedy because it has put a target on their children.
“You get to say whatever you want onstage, and we have to live with the consequences. I don’t give a s**t that Time magazine thinks you’re an influencer. If you ever put my kids in danger again, I will leave you in a second,” he told the magazine that his wife said during a recent argument.
The magazine also found instances of alleged sexism in the writers room of his TV series, Patriot Act. Several female researchers who were hired as “fact-checkers” for the political stories Minhaj used as fodder for his comedy said that they were eventually shunted out of the show and that Minhaj only relied on male writers.
“[Minhaj] just assembled people around him to make him appear different and much smarter and more thoughtful. But those people—the smart people and hardworking people—were treated poorly for bringing the perspective that he is celebrated for,” one female writer told the New Yorker.
In fact, several female employees filed a lawsuit against Minhaj and Netflix for gender discrimination in a case that was eventually settled out of court. The lawsuit was only revealed after Netflix canceled Patriot Act.
Despite the flood of lies. all personalized as if they actually happened in his life, Minhaj told the magazine that he does not regret his actions.
“I don’t think I’m manipulating. I think they are coming for the emotional roller-coaster ride. To the people that are, like, ‘Yo, that is way too crazy to happen,’ I don’t care because yes, f*** yes—that’s the point. It’s grounded in truth,” he insisted.
“I think what I’m ultimately trying to do is highlight all of those stories. Building to what I think is a pointed argument as opposed to a ‘pointless riff’ of jokes,” Minhaj explained.
Share the post "Sounds like a lot of Progressives. Comic Hasan Minhaj Admits He Makes Up Stories About Experiencing Racism — and Doesn’t Regret Smearing Real-Life Acquaintances."
“This ongoing, coordinated campaign to wage meritless, politicized lawsuits against a foundational American industry and its workers is nothing more than a distraction from important national conversations and an enormous waste of California taxpayer resources,” institute senior vice president Ryan Meyers said in a statement.
If big oil caused this, why not sue for damages? But the state wants the establishment of a fund to offset future costs from extreme weather events and climate mitigation efforts. In other words, it rains, or snows, big oil pays.
Share the post "Blaming Big Oil for their incompetence. California Sues Exxon, Shell and BP."
I expect to be kicked off of ‘Breaking News’ soon.
Pud is supposed to be a mod there, but his name doesn’t appear as a mod there. I asked Finn, a gold star with a closed profile, about it. That will probably get me kicked off. Anyone still displaying a gold star in their screen name is likely not to be trusted. Several of our lurkers still display their gold star and brag about their “All Star” status.
Disqus is the AI bot. Fate is a gold star with a closed profile, and then there’s Finn:
So, where is Pud’s name in that list????
He’s already stated although he was made a moderator on Breaking News and Chit Chat, he can’t override the Disqus Bot “decisions.” Numerous users have complained about innocuous posts getting deleted over there. (I can attest to that!)
But Leftists have free reign to insult every other poster on a thread. Why is that? Disqus is up to its old tricks.
Finally, they are also auto-censoring OP’s with no REAL reason given. Seriously? (You may need to enlarge the screencap below, even though it is full-size and easily readable IRL.)
The only POSSIBLE “rule” I am breaking there is #1: “Targeted Harassment”….hmm.
So, who am I targeting? Mod bots? Or maybe it’s the trolls showing up who call those who disagree with them MAGAts, Trumpers, commies, and assorted personal insults? As I say in the screencap, they are following the same tactics Media Mattress-trained trolls did eight years ago.
It’s strange how all those OP’s and comments attacking Trump (and conservatives in general) are fine and dandy with the Gods of Disqus.
Pud, aka The Coconut Whisperer, seems to be window-dressing to fool conservatives. He doesn’t seem to have any real power that Disqus can’t override without reason or explanation.
Remember when the original (and promotedby Disqus) NEWS VIEWS was the #1 channel — despite banning hundreds of unwary newbieswho posted the wrong opinion there?
I do. I was one of them. This raises the specter of the same censorship starting all over again.
Share the post "SSDD Part Two: Disqus channels are selectively censoring again."