theamericanconservative--2020-01-29--The Talented Mr. Epstein

The Talented Mr. Epstein

Questions about the late sex offender and his sidekick blackmailing and spying for the U.S. and Israel have gone unanswered .
Why ?
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell attend a fundraiser on March 15 , 2005 in New York City .
( Photo by Joe Schildhorn/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images ) Jeffrey Epstein was the talented Mr. Ripley of shadowy sexual predators .
With a mind-numbing contact list , from Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton to Prince Andrew and Mohammad bin Salman , the leering billionaire financier and alleged eugenics enthusiast evaded real punishment for almost his entire life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was finally apprehended and facing the music for his sexual abuse and extensive trafficking ring , when he was snuffed out like a cheap cigarette .
What becomes of the case now ?
Victim Courtney Wild ’ s attempts to unseal records in court that would reveal co-conspirators and hold the government responsible is ongoing , but the case seems largely dead in the water , particularly as Epstein ’ s procurer and occasional sex abuse co-participant Ghislaine Maxwell has disappeared from the scene .
Maxwell has reportedly fled to Israel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unspecified countries where she ’ s being protected by “ powerful contacts.
” The media and Hollywood—despite Ricky Gervais ’ recent remarks at the Golden Globes—remain largely uninterested in this massive story .
Epstein ’ s Hollywood connections are numerous , including disgraced actor Kevin Spacey , who flew on Epstein ’ s jet to his pedophile island various times , and Harvey Weinstein , who ’ s currently on trial for his alleged sexual abuses .
( It ’ s hard to forget the 2006 photo in which Weinstein is standing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s party . )
What about # MeToo or # TimesUp ?
Do such movements not apply to a pedophile like Epstein who raped and psychologically tortured preteens for decades ?
So many details of Epstein ’ s abuses and sex trafficking operations remain unknown , as do numerous aspects of his close associates , potential connections with various intelligence agencies , and where and exactly how he obtained his copious amounts of money .
The disturbing accounts of his victims and his years of being shepherded away from punishment indicate that Epstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who knew he was protected at the highest levels .
In fact , reports from the Virgin Islands allege that Epstein was trafficking 12-year-old girls to his private island of Little St. James as recently as 2018 .
Epstein victim Virginia Guiffre—who has faced credible death threats for coming forward about her past abuse , allegedly at the hands of Prince Andrew—put it this way as she was walking past Epstein ’ s vacant Manhattan palace with a reporter : “ Being a kid I didn ’ t even really realize what world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was abused by people that I can ’ t even mention here .
There ’ s a lot of scars hidden behind those walls .
It should be ripped down .
It should be burned to the ground.
” Maxwell and Epstein would often specifically target children in lower-income neighborhoods for grooming , offering kids a wonderful life serving Epstein with all the money , education , and adventures they could hope for .
Epstein sexually molested numerous young girls and reportedly demanded sex three times a day from whoever was on hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commission if they found more girls for him , with a premium placed on those who were a younger age .
Around half of Americans polled believe Epstein was murdered .
But apart from that , who was Epstein ?
Who was he working for and why exactly ?
Epstein ’ s Israel connections are extensive .
He was reportedly tied to former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak who received millions from an Epstein-funded organization created to support Jewish and Israeli professional successes .
Barak ’ s services that led to the payoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say anything apart from claiming they were “ research-related ” ( although Barak did threaten to sue media organizations that reported the story ) .
After photos surfaced of Barak entering Epstein ’ s house in 2016 with his face hidden , he scoffed at allegations of wrongdoing , saying he was there for “ lunch or a chat.
” How did Epstein get rich ?
Money laundering via hedge funds and other methods ?
Spying for Israel , Saudi Arabia , and possibly certain American interests ?
Or direct funding from Victoria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For his part , Trump ’ s former labor secretary Alexander Acosta—who says he was ordered by unspecified higher-ups to give Epstein a slap on the wrist while serving as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida—claimed he was told at the time that Epstein “ belongs to intelligence , leave him alone.
” Journalist Vicky Ward said Epstein “ definitely trades in the knowledge he has over the rich and famous , and uses it for leverage .
He also introduces rich and famous people , like Bill Clinton , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ routinely bragged about his tight friendship with Jamal Khashoggi-chopping madman Mohammad bin Salman , the crown prince of Saudi Arabia , and had a wide circle of associates , many of whom are notable for their fondness or policy flexibility towards Israel and Israeli interests .
Maxwell ’ s press baron father Robert was himself reportedly a spook .
He died in 1991 on his Lady Ghislaine yacht near the Canary Islands , shortly after it was revealed that he was allegedly spying for Israel .
Maxwell was given a state funeral befitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel , with then-prime minister Yitzhak Shamir stating that Maxwell “ has done more for Israel than can today be said.
” Incidentally , Shamir ’ s spokesman at the time , Ehud Gol , dismissed claims that Maxwell had been with Mossad as leveled by Seymour Hersh as “ nonsense.
” Regardless of whether he was conducting espionage or not , Maxwell was one of the most important supporters Israel has ever had and was even key in Israel gaining air superiority among their hostile Arab neighbors by turning post-war Czech factories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts .
Could these allegations , if true , help explain why Ghislaine Maxwell is reportedly being protected by Israel ?
Was Epstein a Mossad honeypot to get blackmail kompromat on everyone from Bill Clinton to the Saudis or just a freelancer ?
Former business associate and scam partner in a massive Ponzi scheme Steven Hoffenberg has written a book claiming that Epstein was in fact a top Mossad spy and was taken out precisely because he was becoming too much of a liability .
The claims that Epstein and Maxwell ran a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spy Ari Ben Menashe ’ s book , which says the two blackmailed politicians for info on behalf of Mossad .
He also claims that Epstein was introduced to working with Israel by Robert Maxwell prior to Epstein ’ s meeting and partnership with Ghislaine Maxwell , and that Maxwell wanted to bring Epstein into the weapons dealing on the Iran Contra scheme ( with which Ben Menashe was reportedly involved ) .
The Epstein case should be important to everyone who cares about the truth because it marks the dividing line between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter how disgusting or who they might implicate .
The Epstein case and the cast of depraved vampires surrounding it may involve espionage , blackmail , money laundering , and many other sick things that attended the trafficking of teenage girls , but it is also characterized by a brazen dismissal of the law .
If those at the top are exempt from the rules , society will eventually collapse and vigilantism will become the norm .
Elites engaging in abuse and exploitation is nothing new , from the ancient Mayans to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medieval times .
But in today ’ s flagrantly self-righteous # MeToo environment , it is particularly important that the establishment and liberal culture faces up to the monsters it has in its midst—and has arguably helped create by accepting their money and support .
Paul Brian is a freelance journalist .
He has reported for the BBC , Reuters , and Foreign Policy , and contributed to The Week , The Federalist , and others .
You can follow him on Twitter @ paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com .

Jeffrey Epstein was the talented Mr. Ripley of shadowy sexual predators.
With a mind-numbing contact list, from Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton to Prince Andrew and Mohammad bin Salman, the leering billionaire financier and alleged eugenics enthusiast evaded real punishment for almost his entire life. One might say this continued even after he was finally apprehended and facing the music for his sexual abuse and extensive trafficking ring, when he was snuffed out like a cheap cigarette.
What becomes of the case now? Victim Courtney Wild’s attempts to unseal records in court that would reveal co-conspirators and hold the government responsible is ongoing, but the case seems largely dead in the water, particularly as Epstein’s procurer and occasional sex abuse co-participant Ghislaine Maxwell has disappeared from the scene. Maxwell has reportedly fled to Israel and is now shuttling between there and other unspecified countries where she’s being protected by “powerful contacts.”
The media and Hollywood—despite Ricky Gervais’ recent remarks at the Golden Globes—remain largely uninterested in this massive story. Epstein’s Hollywood connections are numerous, including disgraced actor Kevin Spacey, who flew on Epstein’s jet to his pedophile island various times, and Harvey Weinstein, who’s currently on trial for his alleged sexual abuses. (It’s hard to forget the 2006 photo in which Weinstein is standing with Epstein and Maxwell at Prince Andrew’s party.) What about #MeToo or #TimesUp? Do such movements not apply to a pedophile like Epstein who raped and psychologically tortured preteens for decades?
So many details of Epstein’s abuses and sex trafficking operations remain unknown, as do numerous aspects of his close associates, potential connections with various intelligence agencies, and where and exactly how he obtained his copious amounts of money. The disturbing accounts of his victims and his years of being shepherded away from punishment indicate that Epstein was a man of limitless arrogance—a man who knew he was protected at the highest levels. In fact, reports from the Virgin Islands allege that Epstein was trafficking 12-year-old girls to his private island of Little St. James as recently as 2018.
Epstein victim Virginia Guiffre—who has faced credible death threats for coming forward about her past abuse, allegedly at the hands of Prince Andrew—put it this way as she was walking past Epstein’s vacant Manhattan palace with a reporter: “Being a kid I didn’t even really realize what world I was being brought into. I was abused by people that I can’t even mention here. There’s a lot of scars hidden behind those walls. It should be ripped down. It should be burned to the ground.”
Maxwell and Epstein would often specifically target children in lower-income neighborhoods for grooming, offering kids a wonderful life serving Epstein with all the money, education, and adventures they could hope for. Epstein sexually molested numerous young girls and reportedly demanded sex three times a day from whoever was on hand. He also paid his victims a commission if they found more girls for him, with a premium placed on those who were a younger age.
Around half of Americans polled believe Epstein was murdered. But apart from that, who was Epstein? Who was he working for and why exactly? Epstein’s Israel connections are extensive. He was reportedly tied to former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak who received millions from an Epstein-funded organization created to support Jewish and Israeli professional successes. Barak’s services that led to the payoff are unknown and he won’t say anything apart from claiming they were “research-related” (although Barak did threaten to sue media organizations that reported the story). After photos surfaced of Barak entering Epstein’s house in 2016 with his face hidden, he scoffed at allegations of wrongdoing, saying he was there for “lunch or a chat.”
How did Epstein get rich? Money laundering via hedge funds and other methods? Spying for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and possibly certain American interests? Or direct funding from Victoria’s Secret billionaire Les Wexner? For his part, Trump’s former labor secretary Alexander Acosta—who says he was ordered by unspecified higher-ups to give Epstein a slap on the wrist while serving as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida—claimed he was told at the time that Epstein “belongs to intelligence, leave him alone.” Journalist Vicky Ward said Epstein “definitely trades in the knowledge he has over the rich and famous, and uses it for leverage. He also introduces rich and famous people, like Bill Clinton, like Donald Trump, to girls.”
Epstein routinely bragged about his tight friendship with Jamal Khashoggi-chopping madman Mohammad bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, and had a wide circle of associates, many of whom are notable for their fondness or policy flexibility towards Israel and Israeli interests. Maxwell’s press baron father Robert was himself reportedly a spook. He died in 1991 on his Lady Ghislaine yacht near the Canary Islands, shortly after it was revealed that he was allegedly spying for Israel. Maxwell was given a state funeral befitting a national hero before being buried in Israel, with then-prime minister Yitzhak Shamir stating that Maxwell “has done more for Israel than can today be said.”
Incidentally, Shamir’s spokesman at the time, Ehud Gol, dismissed claims that Maxwell had been with Mossad as leveled by Seymour Hersh as “nonsense.” Regardless of whether he was conducting espionage or not, Maxwell was one of the most important supporters Israel has ever had and was even key in Israel gaining air superiority among their hostile Arab neighbors by turning post-war Czech factories into production facilities for Israeli fighter jet parts.
Could these allegations, if true, help explain why Ghislaine Maxwell is reportedly being protected by Israel?
Was Epstein a Mossad honeypot to get blackmail kompromat on everyone from Bill Clinton to the Saudis or just a freelancer? Former business associate and scam partner in a massive Ponzi scheme Steven Hoffenberg is quoted in a new book, by Dylan Howard, Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales, claiming that Epstein was in fact a top Mossad spy and was taken out precisely because he was becoming too much of a liability. The claims that Epstein and Maxwell ran a Mossad honeypot are echoed by former Israeli spy Ari Ben Menashe in the same book, saying the two blackmailed politicians for info on behalf of Mossad. ***
Menashe also claims that Epstein was introduced to the idea of working with Israel by Robert Maxwell prior to Epstein’s meeting and partnership with Ghislaine Maxwell, and that Maxwell wanted to bring Epstein into the weapons dealing on the Iran Contra scheme (with which Menashe was reportedly involved).
The Epstein case should be important to everyone who cares about the truth because it marks the dividing line between cynical resignation and uncovering the facts no matter how disgusting or who they might implicate. The Epstein case and the cast of depraved vampires surrounding it may involve espionage, blackmail, money laundering, and many other sick things that attended the trafficking of teenage girls, but it is also characterized by a brazen dismissal of the law. If those at the top are exempt from the rules, society will eventually collapse and vigilantism will become the norm. Elites engaging in abuse and exploitation is nothing new, from the ancient Mayans to the Romans to the European ruling class of medieval times. But in today’s flagrantly self-righteous #MeToo environment, it is particularly important that the establishment and liberal culture faces up to the monsters it has in its midst—and has arguably helped create by accepting their money and support.
***Editor’s Note: The story has been modified to clarify that Hoffenberg and Menasche were both quoted in the Dylan Howard book.
Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for the BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to The Week, The Federalist, and others. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-29--Modern Feminism’s Hated Enemy: Womanhood

Women across the West are under attack .
Our enemy is not the infamous “ patriarchy , ” allegedly scheming to undermine us at every turn .
Nor is it pregnancy , with its physical discomforts and emotional tribulations .
Even children are blameless here , no matter how much their arrival can shift careers or thwart travel plans .
No , the culprit is progressive feminism , a movement whose very existence depends on holding women in contempt .
Modern-day feminism has succeeded in a spectacular charade , masquerading as a great champion for women while spewing antipathy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children .
But at its core , its real hatred is for womanhood itself .
According to the narrative that has dominated feminist discourse since the 1960s , women are weak until we strike out every feminine trait that distinguishes us from men .
This message has been repeated with increasing volume for decades , echoing from the studios in Hollywood to the ivory towers of higher education , chanted by the women in white at the 2019 State of the Union Address .
Behind every iteration is a reminder that women are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women that we can “ have it all ” and “ be anything we want , ” we are told we will remain powerless until we cease to behave like women and instead become like men .
Traditionally feminine virtues of modesty and chastity are flagged as signs of repression .
We must subvert our natural ability to bring forth new life if we want to achieve anything substantive in our lives .
Most of all , we must have the ability to destroy our own children or we will never succeed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Williams sparked controversy when she credited her professional success to her ability to “ employ a woman ’ s right to choose.
” She did not specify whether this meant she had utilized contraception or ended an unborn child ’ s life , or both .
However , her point was clear : children are obstacles to achievement , and women must be able to prevent their creation and dispose of them as needed .
Applause greeted Williams ’ passionate advocacy for the war against motherhood and fertility that is euphemistically called “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room , showing glittering starlets openly weeping at Williams ’ bravery as she praised the sundering of the sacred relationship between mother and child .
Williams ’ blithe reference to the destruction of children was nothing less than horrifying .
But it was also revealing of what has become the central pillar of progressive feminism : a woman ’ s success depends entirely on her ability to root out the essence of what separates her from men , her ability to sustain and nourish new life .
This is not to say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true women.
” However , throughout human history , women have traditionally adopted the role of caretakers and nurturers while men have served as providers .
This is not a mere social construct , conceived of by men determined to suppress their wives and daughters , but a natural expression of the biological differences between men and women .
Of course , there have been men throughout history who have exploited this as a means of relegating women to subservience .
However , the answer provided by modern feminism is to deny that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inform any woman who dissents that they are victims of men ’ s manipulation .
Writing in First Things in 1994 , Kari Jenson Gold noted : “ When we see ourselves as victims of nature rather than blessed participants , as victims of men rather than partners in life ’ s complex tale , we harm only ourselves .
Convinced of our own inferiority , we strive neither for virtue nor for love , neither for great deeds nor for caring families , but only for that empty substance , ‘ empowerment.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no power speak of being ‘ empowered.
’ ” Gold ’ s article , prompted by what her adolescent stepdaughter was learning about women ’ s rights in school , elucidates the inherent flaw within the feminist ideology : it is built upon the belief that women are indeed inferior to men , until they eschew anything that might actually mark them as women .
“ But wait !
” Defenders of feminism cry .
“ We want women to be able to choose how they pursue fulfillment .
We want them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to work or be mothers.
” This defense has proven effective at silencing many would-be critics of feminism .
No one—least of all a man !
—wants to suggest that women should remain in traditional roles .
Alas , the protestations are a lie .
Modern feminism does not want a choice for women , because then women might choose the “ wrong ” thing .
The celebrated feminist Simone de Beauvoir famously told Betty Friedan , “ No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not have that choice , precisely because if there is such a choice , too many women will make that one.
” Feminism can only survive if women continue to hate the very elements of their nature that differentiate them from men .
If women are excited to bring new children into the world , and even worse , if they choose to step away from their careers to raise said children , how will they ever muster enough self-loathing to force themselves to become more like men ?
It is this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to demean and deride all women who refuse to play along .
Following President Trump ’ s election in 2016 , First Lady Michelle Obama rebuked women who did not vote for Hillary Clinton , saying they had “ voted against their own voice.
” After delivering her endorsement of unfettered abortion access , Williams finished her speech with a flourish , calling on all women to “ vote in their self-interest ” and oust pro-life politicians .
The assembled crowd roared in approval as she instructed her fellow women to put others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
Feminists can not afford dissent .
They can not afford for women to willingly choose to elect someone who values the unborn life in the womb .
Feminism can not tolerate the woman who bases her choice at the ballot box upon merit rather than anatomy .
In short , modern feminism hates nothing more than the woman who is content in her femininity .
Feminism seeks to supplant the patriarchy , but in reality it can only achieve its objective by destroying the woman .
It is this critical flaw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modern feminism—though we have no way of knowing how much societal damage it will inflict before it collapses .
Thus far it has racked up a devastating death toll of 55 million children .
Feminists will not fail because conservative women will out-procreate them , although that seems likely to happen as well .
Feminism will fail because no movement can survive when its success is dependent on the destruction of the group it claims to champion .
But doubtless those are my husband ’ s ideas talking .
Kelly Marcum studied International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Foreign Service , and received her M.A .
from the War Studies Department at King ’ s College London .
She lives with her husband and children in Northern Virginia .

Women across the West are under attack. Our enemy is not the infamous “patriarchy,” allegedly scheming to undermine us at every turn. Nor is it pregnancy, with its physical discomforts and emotional tribulations. Even children are blameless here, no matter how much their arrival can shift careers or thwart travel plans.
No, the culprit is progressive feminism, a movement whose very existence depends on holding women in contempt. Modern-day feminism has succeeded in a spectacular charade, masquerading as a great champion for women while spewing antipathy for men and groaning over the burden of children. But at its core, its real hatred is for womanhood itself.
According to the narrative that has dominated feminist discourse since the 1960s, women are weak until we strike out every feminine trait that distinguishes us from men.
This message has been repeated with increasing volume for decades, echoing from the studios in Hollywood to the ivory towers of higher education, chanted by the women in white at the 2019 State of the Union Address. Behind every iteration is a reminder that women are always victims. Even as feminism promises women that we can “have it all” and “be anything we want,” we are told we will remain powerless until we cease to behave like women and instead become like men. Traditionally feminine virtues of modesty and chastity are flagged as signs of repression. We must subvert our natural ability to bring forth new life if we want to achieve anything substantive in our lives. Most of all, we must have the ability to destroy our own children or we will never succeed.
During the recent Golden Globes, Michelle Williams sparked controversy when she credited her professional success to her ability to “employ a woman’s right to choose.” She did not specify whether this meant she had utilized contraception or ended an unborn child’s life, or both. However, her point was clear: children are obstacles to achievement, and women must be able to prevent their creation and dispose of them as needed.
Applause greeted Williams’ passionate advocacy for the war against motherhood and fertility that is euphemistically called “reproductive rights.” The camera panned the room, showing glittering starlets openly weeping at Williams’ bravery as she praised the sundering of the sacred relationship between mother and child.
Williams’ blithe reference to the destruction of children was nothing less than horrifying. But it was also revealing of what has become the central pillar of progressive feminism: a woman’s success depends entirely on her ability to root out the essence of what separates her from men, her ability to sustain and nourish new life.
This is not to say that only women who bear children are “true women.” However, throughout human history, women have traditionally adopted the role of caretakers and nurturers while men have served as providers. This is not a mere social construct, conceived of by men determined to suppress their wives and daughters, but a natural expression of the biological differences between men and women. Of course, there have been men throughout history who have exploited this as a means of relegating women to subservience. However, the answer provided by modern feminism is to deny that any distinction exists at all, and inform any woman who dissents that they are victims of men’s manipulation.
Writing in First Things in 1994, Kari Jenson Gold noted: “When we see ourselves as victims of nature rather than blessed participants, as victims of men rather than partners in life’s complex tale, we harm only ourselves. Convinced of our own inferiority, we strive neither for virtue nor for love, neither for great deeds nor for caring families, but only for that empty substance, ‘empowerment.’ Only those who believe they truly have no power speak of being ‘empowered.’”
Gold’s article, prompted by what her adolescent stepdaughter was learning about women’s rights in school, elucidates the inherent flaw within the feminist ideology: it is built upon the belief that women are indeed inferior to men, until they eschew anything that might actually mark them as women.
“But wait!” Defenders of feminism cry. “We want women to be able to choose how they pursue fulfillment. We want them to be able to choose whether they want to work or be mothers.” This defense has proven effective at silencing many would-be critics of feminism. No one—least of all a man!—wants to suggest that women should remain in traditional roles. Alas, the protestations are a lie.
Modern feminism does not want a choice for women, because then women might choose the “wrong” thing. The celebrated feminist Simone de Beauvoir famously told Betty Friedan, “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
Feminism can only survive if women continue to hate the very elements of their nature that differentiate them from men. If women are excited to bring new children into the world, and even worse, if they choose to step away from their careers to raise said children, how will they ever muster enough self-loathing to force themselves to become more like men?
It is this contempt for womanhood that causes modern feminists to demean and deride all women who refuse to play along.
Following President Trump’s election in 2016, First Lady Michelle Obama rebuked women who did not vote for Hillary Clinton, saying they had “voted against their own voice.”
After delivering her endorsement of unfettered abortion access, Williams finished her speech with a flourish, calling on all women to “vote in their self-interest” and oust pro-life politicians. The assembled crowd roared in approval as she instructed her fellow women to put others who “look like us” into office.
Feminists cannot afford dissent. They cannot afford for women to willingly choose to elect someone who values the unborn life in the womb. Feminism cannot tolerate the woman who bases her choice at the ballot box upon merit rather than anatomy.
In short, modern feminism hates nothing more than the woman who is content in her femininity. Feminism seeks to supplant the patriarchy, but in reality it can only achieve its objective by destroying the woman.
It is this critical flaw that will ensure the eventual demise of modern feminism—though we have no way of knowing how much societal damage it will inflict before it collapses. Thus far it has racked up a devastating death toll of 55 million children. Feminists will not fail because conservative women will out-procreate them, although that seems likely to happen as well. Feminism will fail because no movement can survive when its success is dependent on the destruction of the group it claims to champion.
But doubtless those are my husband’s ideas talking.
Kelly Marcum studied International Politics at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, and received her M.A. from the War Studies Department at King’s College London. She lives with her husband and children in Northern Virginia.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-05--De-Transitioners Inspire States to Fight Child Sex Surgeries

Lilly Curran ( far right ) , aged 11 , s transgender and is part of a group of male to female trans kids living in the Austin area .
Photographed with trans friends Zuri Jones ( 2nd left ) , Fiana McKillop ( 2nd left ) , and Ruby Ryan ( not trans - 2nd right ) on July 07 , 2018 , in Round Rock , Texas .
( Adam Gray / Barcroft Media via Getty Images / Barcroft Media via Getty Images ) Bills are pending in statehouses all over the country that would make it a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transition .
The lines are clearly drawn , with support for the legislation coming from gender critical feminist groups and conservatives , and opposition being waged by trans rights activists and the mainstream media .
While Republican lawmakers in South Dakota , Colorado , Missouri , Florida , Illinois , Oklahoma , South Carolina , and Kentucky work to criminalize and ban the surgical and medical sterilization of minors , they are being vilified in the press , their motives reframed as bigoted and hateful .
What these brave legislators have done , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who have undergone transitions before reaching a mature developmental age .
In some cases , these victims of trans advocacy in medicine opted for surgery and drugs to alter their brains , bodies , and appearances before going through puberty .
The Washington Post writes , “ The debate mirrored the nation ’ s culture wars , with Republican and Democratic lawmakers disputing not just medical facts , but also morality , parenting and the role of doctors in American life.
” But this is not about ideology ; it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmed under the guise of a solution .
Gender dysphoria has become the only psychological condition that ’ s routinely treated with millions of dollars in surgeries and drugs that prevent human development .
Vox put it this way : “ should any of the bills become law , they would effectively cut off many adolescents from medically necessary and , often , lifesaving treatment for gender dysphoria.
” It goes on to frame this as a debate over culture : “ Bills banning trans care for kids are the new bathroom bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war against trans people .
Conservative media and politicians have been fanning the flames for this fight for years in hopes of rallying the base over a nonexistent threat—a threat that only puts trans lives…in danger.
” Lawmakers argue that it is these children ’ s lives they ’ re trying to save .
For its part , the ACLU vows to fight the South Dakota bill if it ’ s enacted into law .
And The New York Times notes , “ Medical professionals who treat transgender youth said that the medicines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anxiety , depression and suicidal behavior .
For many transgender teenagers , the development of their bodies during puberty—particularly the growth of breasts—can deepen their psychological stress.
” But of course it can : puberty is stressful .
Every human being who has reached the age of maturity knows this .
It ’ s a stress we must all learn to cope with so that we can become adults , not ignore it—or cut it out—so we can keep our children ’ s bodies forever .
“ Trans affirming care ” could just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where kids who fear adulthood in their own God-given bodies can be medically prevented from ever having to grow up .
Natasha Chart , board chair of the Women ’ s Liberation Front ( WoLF ) , testified before the South Dakota House , which just passed HB1057 , a ban on minor transition surgery .
“ We can all be sure that humanity hasn ’ t suddenly developed a new type of child that needs their sexual function removed before adulthood , ” Chart said .
“ Though sadly , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage of girls who sound much like I was , saying they want to be boys , and damaging their bodies to prove it .
Doctors shouldn ’ t help kids take out their sadness and anger on the only bodies we can ever have.
” She urged lawmakers to vote yes to “ forbid the sterilization of these young people.
” An attorney who was formerly with the ACLU and is now with WoLF testified as well , taking the constitutional approach .
“ If this bill is enacted into law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional grounds , ” Dansky posited , “ one question will be whether the law is protecting a legitimate state interest .
In other words , does South Dakota have a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the bodies of minors ?
And the answer must be that of course it does.
” Trans activists countered by stating their own personal preferences : It ’ s clear , however , that Annie on Twitter is interested only in becoming her own avatar .
It ’ s not so much about becoming female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal creation of your own making .
This is a project that any adult is welcome to undertake , but one that should not be medically available to children .
Sterilizing surgery and drugs should not be anything like standard practice for kids .
The procedures being promoted look like a parade of horribles .
For girls who transition to present as male , the pharmaceutical intervention involves puberty blockers , which prevent gonadal development , resulting in early menopause and sterilization , along with uterine atrophy , leading to a need for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touted as merely pressing pause on puberty .
But the truth is that puberty is a once in a lifetime event , and if the body misses its window , it doesn ’ t come back .
These drugs do not delay puberty ; they stop it .
There ’ s a case in the UK where the mother of a transitioned young person is suing the Tavistock gender clinic , saying that children were fast-tracked into treatment for which they were not adequately able to consent .
Psychotherapist Marcus Evans , writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate of fear surrounding the debate is a problem that is getting in the way of care .
When people are afraid they will be called hateful and bigoted simply for raising concerns , they don ’ t raise them .
“ Those who advocate an unquestioning ‘ affirmation ’ -based approach to trans-identified children often will claim that any delay or hesitation in assisting a child ’ s desired gender transition may cause irreparable psychological harm , and possibly even lead to suicide , ” Evans writes .
“ They also typically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a child who transitions can expect higher levels of psychological health and life satisfaction .
None of these claims align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area .
Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.
” Detransitioners are out there , and they are telling their stories .
While trans advocates have tried to silence them , saying that those who detransition were never really trans in the first place , their stories show why a practice of “ watchful waiting ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross sex hormones and surgically butchers healthy bodies .
Blair White , a trans woman and YouTuber who writes for The Post Millennial , recently spoke to a detransitioned young woman .
“ My puberty was medicalized , ” states Elle .
“ From a young age , I dealt with mental health problems that ultimately put me on a path of trying to fix myself to figure out what was wrong with me.
” She goes on to cite the deepening of her voice and growth of facial hair as huge regrets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testosterone .
The Pique Resilience Project in the United States is getting the word out that trans-affirming care is not the magic cure-all that so many want us to believe : In the UK , meanwhile , Charlie Evans founded the Detransition Advocacy Network to bring together young people who regret their transitions .
There are more people reaching out to her than she has the bandwidth to cope with : So why does Elizabeth Warren believe the next education secretary should be vetted by a nine-year-old trans child ?
Does she have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about ?
Guidelines are now being drafted as to how to take kids away from their parents if the parents are not on board with transitioning .
These offer “ three potential avenues for providing gender-affirming care over parental disagreement : legal carve-outs to parental consent , the mature minor doctrine and state intervention for neglect.
” They were drafted by medical professionals who are affiliated with New York University , University of Michigan School of Medicine , University of Washington School of Medicine , Callen-Lorde Community Health Center , and the Seattle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good friend ’ s daughter is currently transitioning .
It was a surprise for my friend , because her daughter had always been at ease with herself , happy to climb trees and read and play with dolls and play video games .
It was the onset of puberty that made her child feel disquieted in her body .
With very little therapy , she was prescribed testosterone injections .
My friend had concerns , but was convinced by her daughter ’ s therapist that suicide was a certainty if she didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s wishes .
After a while , my friend ’ s child stopped taking her injections .
The more people become aware of the adverse effects of transitioning youth , the more they will oppose it .
Trans should be considered an adult condition .
Now that lawmakers are becoming aware of just how severe the medically prescribed treatment for this psychological condition is , they have an obligation to protect the children .
Libby Emmons is a playwright living in Brooklyn , New York .
She has written for The Federalist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other publications .
You can follow her on Twitter @ li88yinc .

Bills are pending in statehouses all over the country that would make it a felony for minors to undergo a medical transition.
The lines are clearly drawn, with support for the legislation coming from gender critical feminist groups and conservatives, and opposition being waged by trans rights activists and the mainstream media. While Republican lawmakers in South Dakota, Colorado, Missouri, Florida, Illinois, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Kentucky work to criminalize and ban the surgical and medical sterilization of minors, they are being vilified in the press, their motives reframed as bigoted and hateful.
What these brave legislators have done, however, is to actually listen to those who have undergone transitions before reaching a mature developmental age. In some cases, these victims of trans advocacy in medicine opted for surgery and drugs to alter their brains, bodies, and appearances before going through puberty.
The Washington Post writes, “The debate mirrored the nation’s culture wars, with Republican and Democratic lawmakers disputing not just medical facts, but also morality, parenting and the role of doctors in American life.” But this is not about ideology; it’s about children whose bodies are being intentionally harmed under the guise of a solution. Gender dysphoria has become the only psychological condition that’s routinely treated with millions of dollars in surgeries and drugs that prevent human development.
Vox put it this way: “should any of the bills become law, they would effectively cut off many adolescents from medically necessary and, often, lifesaving treatment for gender dysphoria.” It goes on to frame this as a debate over culture: “Bills banning trans care for kids are the new bathroom bills, part of conservatives’ larger culture war against trans people. Conservative media and politicians have been fanning the flames for this fight for years in hopes of rallying the base over a nonexistent threat—a threat that only puts trans lives…in danger.” Lawmakers argue that it is these children’s lives they’re trying to save.
For its part, the ACLU vows to fight the South Dakota bill if it’s enacted into law.
ATTN South Dakota lawmakers: If this bill passes, we will see you in court. https://t.co/fOPEUswxza — ACLU (@ACLU) January 27, 2020
And The New York Times notes, “Medical professionals who treat transgender youth said that the medicines could be lifesaving, helping to diminish anxiety, depression and suicidal behavior. For many transgender teenagers, the development of their bodies during puberty—particularly the growth of breasts—can deepen their psychological stress.”
But of course it can: puberty is stressful. Every human being who has reached the age of maturity knows this. It’s a stress we must all learn to cope with so that we can become adults, not ignore it—or cut it out—so we can keep our children’s bodies forever. “Trans affirming care” could just as easily be called Peter Pan care, where kids who fear adulthood in their own God-given bodies can be medically prevented from ever having to grow up.
Natasha Chart, board chair of the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), testified before the South Dakota House, which just passed HB1057, a ban on minor transition surgery.
“We can all be sure that humanity hasn’t suddenly developed a new type of child that needs their sexual function removed before adulthood,” Chart said. “Though sadly, I’ve now seen years of press coverage of girls who sound much like I was, saying they want to be boys, and damaging their bodies to prove it. Doctors shouldn’t help kids take out their sadness and anger on the only bodies we can ever have.” She urged lawmakers to vote yes to “forbid the sterilization of these young people.”
An attorney who was formerly with the ACLU and is now with WoLF testified as well, taking the constitutional approach. “If this bill is enacted into law, and if it is ever challenged on constitutional grounds,” Dansky posited, “one question will be whether the law is protecting a legitimate state interest. In other words, does South Dakota have a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the bodies of minors? And the answer must be that of course it does.”
Trans activists countered by stating their own personal preferences:
Nothing makes me angrier than when woke liberals argue that puberty blockers is child abuse. I knew at a young age, and if i had the knowledge of it i would've 100% taken it. Why cant we just trust trans kids? If you are cis you will NEVER know what's best for us. sit tf down. — Annie (@Annie_Dro) January 27, 2020
It’s clear, however, that Annie on Twitter is interested only in becoming her own avatar. It’s not so much about becoming female as it is about morphing into a personal creation of your own making. This is a project that any adult is welcome to undertake, but one that should not be medically available to children. Sterilizing surgery and drugs should not be anything like standard practice for kids.
The procedures being promoted look like a parade of horribles. For girls who transition to present as male, the pharmaceutical intervention involves puberty blockers, which prevent gonadal development, resulting in early menopause and sterilization, along with uterine atrophy, leading to a need for a hysterectomy.
Puberty blockers are often touted as merely pressing pause on puberty. But the truth is that puberty is a once in a lifetime event, and if the body misses its window, it doesn’t come back. These drugs do not delay puberty; they stop it.
There’s a case in the UK where the mother of a transitioned young person is suing the Tavistock gender clinic, saying that children were fast-tracked into treatment for which they were not adequately able to consent. Psychotherapist Marcus Evans, writing for Quillette, says that the current climate of fear surrounding the debate is a problem that is getting in the way of care. When people are afraid they will be called hateful and bigoted simply for raising concerns, they don’t raise them.
“Those who advocate an unquestioning ‘affirmation’-based approach to trans-identified children often will claim that any delay or hesitation in assisting a child’s desired gender transition may cause irreparable psychological harm, and possibly even lead to suicide,” Evans writes. “They also typically will cite research purporting to prove that a child who transitions can expect higher levels of psychological health and life satisfaction. None of these claims align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.”
Detransitioners are out there, and they are telling their stories. While trans advocates have tried to silence them, saying that those who detransition were never really trans in the first place, their stories show why a practice of “watchful waiting” is far superior to one that injects cross sex hormones and surgically butchers healthy bodies.
Blair White, a trans woman and YouTuber who writes for The Post Millennial, recently spoke to a detransitioned young woman. “My puberty was medicalized,” states Elle. “From a young age, I dealt with mental health problems that ultimately put me on a path of trying to fix myself to figure out what was wrong with me.” She goes on to cite the deepening of her voice and growth of facial hair as huge regrets that came as a result of taking testosterone.
The Pique Resilience Project in the United States is getting the word out that trans-affirming care is not the magic cure-all that so many want us to believe:
Tired of feeling silenced? We're calling out to detransitioners, desisters, or anyone else who has something important to say about detransition and trans issues for an opportunity to be interviewed on our channel! pic.twitter.com/eTY1cDymER — Pique Resilience Project (@PiqueResProject) November 3, 2019
In the UK, meanwhile, Charlie Evans founded the Detransition Advocacy Network to bring together young people who regret their transitions. There are more people reaching out to her than she has the bandwidth to cope with:
There are so many new voices speaking about their experience detransitioning that I'm struggling to keep up with everyone. Please please reach out if there's anything I (and @DetransAdNet) can do to support you. Or even just to be in touch. There's a community behind you ? — Charlie Evans (@charlie_sci) January 23, 2020
So why does Elizabeth Warren believe the next education secretary should be vetted by a nine-year-old trans child? Does she have any idea what she’s talking about?
Warren says that she will have a "young trans person" interview her future Secretary of Education and only hire this future secretary if the young trans person approves. This in reference to a question about sex education/LGBTQ history in public schools. pic.twitter.com/txyt6OI6FX — Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) January 30, 2020
Guidelines are now being drafted as to how to take kids away from their parents if the parents are not on board with transitioning. These offer “three potential avenues for providing gender-affirming care over parental disagreement: legal carve-outs to parental consent, the mature minor doctrine and state intervention for neglect.” They were drafted by medical professionals who are affiliated with New York University, University of Michigan School of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Callen-Lorde Community Health Center, and the Seattle Children’s Gender Clinic.
My good friend’s daughter is currently transitioning. It was a surprise for my friend, because her daughter had always been at ease with herself, happy to climb trees and read and play with dolls and play video games. It was the onset of puberty that made her child feel disquieted in her body. With very little therapy, she was prescribed testosterone injections. My friend had concerns, but was convinced by her daughter’s therapist that suicide was a certainty if she didn’t go along with her daughter’s wishes.
After a while, my friend’s child stopped taking her injections.
The more people become aware of the adverse effects of transitioning youth, the more they will oppose it. Trans should be considered an adult condition. Now that lawmakers are becoming aware of just how severe the medically prescribed treatment for this psychological condition is, they have an obligation to protect the children.
Libby Emmons is a playwright living in Brooklyn, New York. She has written for The Federalist, Quillette, and Arc Digital, among other publications. You can follow her on Twitter @li88yinc.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-05--The Hillary Minions Behind the Iowa App Disaster

The machinations of the old Democratic establishment are now beyond parody .
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to the audience at the annual convention of the American Federation of Teachers Friday , July 13 , 2018 in Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania .
( Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images ) If a fiction writer approached an editor with the story of what just happened in Iowa , he would be summarily dismissed for absurdity .
Yet here we are .
The machinations of the DNC are now beyond parody .
For the first time ever , the Iowa caucuses failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day they occurred , as the app that was used to count the results failed due to a “ coding issue.
” The Iowa Democratic Party ( IDP ) allegedly found “ inconsistencies ” in the three sets of results it had promised to deliver , and then announced that it needed time to conduct “ quality control.
” Iowa Democrats refused an offer from the Department of Homeland Security to test the app and ensure its security before the caucuses , even after they were warned by local officials last week that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app.
” The board of the company that developed the app ( un-ironically titled Shadow , Inc. ) is packed with Democratic establishment figures and the CEO of the company is a Pete Buttigieg supporter .
Buttigieg was the only candidate who confidently declared victory Monday night , even after a poll conducted beforehand showed him losing in Iowa .
The candidate who was the winner in that poll , Bernie Sanders , has been notoriously shunned by the Democratic establishment .
Leaked emails showed that the DNC favored Hillary Clinton over Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Clinton somehow managed to win all six of her Iowa caucus coin tosses .
After the numbers from the 2020 Iowa caucuses were not available Monday night , the party announced that 62 percent of precincts at 5 p.m.—as for the other half , well , state party chairman Troy Price declined to provide any timeline at all .
On Tuesday morning , these hashtags were trending on Twitter : # rigged , # RiggedElection , # TomPerezResign , # DNCRigging , # DNCisCorrupt , # CIAPete , and # MayorCheat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in precincts across his county , including his own , that the mobile app was “ a mess , ” and when precinct leaders called Democratic Party headquarters , “ they weren ’ t answering the phones.
” “ We had had so many complaints about the app that we started telling our chairs that if they were having problems with the app then you should call in the results , ” Sean Bagniewski , chairman of the Polk County Democratic Party , told The Washington Post .
But “ officials reportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the app , struggled to download it or log in , and were placed on hold for as long as two hours when they tried to call the result in via a hotline when the app failed.
” Jonathan Green , who chaired a precinct in Lone Tree , said when he tried to put the results into the reporting app , he kept getting an error message .
He ultimately gave up and tried to call the results in , but like the others , was put on hold .
It “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small site , ” reports The Washington Post .
In frustration , one precinct captain posted the results on Twitter ; another waited for over an hour on hold , only to be hung up on by the party on live television as CNN listened in to the call .
After Buttigieg finished what sounded like a victory speech Monday night in Iowa and the Iowa Democratic Party announced it wouldn ’ t release results until Tuesday , a frustrated Bernie Sanders campaign decided to release the numbers it had collected from nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign organizers .
Its internal polling showed Sanders receiving 29.7 percent of the vote , followed by Buttigieg at 24.6 percent , Senator Elizabeth Warren at 21.2 percent , and former vice president Joe Biden a distant fourth at 12.4 percent .
Naturally , questions abound about the app and the company behind its development .
The Iowa Democratic Party would not confirm who developed the app , and at first the Nevada Democratic Party followed suit .
But assiduous reporters discovered from FEC filings that it was created by the secretive Shadow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by veterans of Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 presidential campaign .
“ Shadow started out as Groundbase , a tech developer co-founded by Gerard Niemira and Krista Davis , who worked for the tech team on Clinton ’ s campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination , ” reports the LA Times .
Gerard Niemira , CEO of Shadow Inc. , was previously the head of product for the Hillary for America campaign and also the previous CTO for ACRONYM , a Democratic nonprofit founded in 2017 “ to educate , inspire , register @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its website .
Shadow Inc. “ is an appendage of ‘ dark money ’ group ACRONYM and has ‘ other private investors , ' ” Anna Massoglia at Open Secrets notes .
Former Obama advisor David Plouffe sits on ACRONYM ’ s board , and Hillary Clinton praised the company three months ago .
Campaign finance records show that the Iowa Democratic Party paid $ 63,000 to Shadow Inc. in late 2019 , and the Nevada state party paid them $ 58,000 in August .
Oh , and also , Pete Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July .
That ’ s important , because despite being behind in the polls , Buttigieg was the only candidate to confidently declare victory Monday night .
And Buttigieg strategist Michael Halle is married to the head of ACRONYM , former Obama campaign worker Tara McGowan .
Late Tuesday afternoon , the Daily Beast tried to do damage control , dismissing such criticism as “ conspiracy theories.
” The Buttigieg campaign claims that , like the Biden campaign , it paid Shadow for “ text messaging services , ” reports the Beast .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1,225 ; Buttigieg paid over 34 times that .
And Shadow and ACRONYM have changed how they described their working partnership , and that their website had deleted a list of investors and portfolio companies overnight , as the The Daily Beast also noted .
After all these shenanigans , it ’ s hard to believe that many Democrats will accept the eventual tally out of Iowa , especially given that it will be proffered by the same people who spent the last three and a half years blaming Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @

If a fiction writer approached an editor with the story of what just happened in Iowa, he would be summarily dismissed for absurdity. Yet here we are. The machinations of the DNC are now beyond parody.
For the first time ever, the Iowa caucuses failed to yield any kind of tally the day they occurred, as the app that was used to count the results failed due to a “coding issue.” The Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) allegedly found “inconsistencies” in the three sets of results it had promised to deliver, and then announced that it needed time to conduct “quality control.” Iowa Democrats refused an offer from the Department of Homeland Security to test the app and ensure its security before the caucuses, even after they were warned by local officials last week that there were “serious problems with the app.”
The board of the company that developed the app (un-ironically titled Shadow, Inc.) is packed with Democratic establishment figures and the CEO of the company is a Pete Buttigieg supporter. Buttigieg was the only candidate who confidently declared victory Monday night, even after a poll conducted beforehand showed him losing in Iowa.
The candidate who was the winner in that poll, Bernie Sanders, has been notoriously shunned by the Democratic establishment. Leaked emails showed that the DNC favored Hillary Clinton over Sanders during the 2016 contest. Back then, Clinton somehow managed to win all six of her Iowa caucus coin tosses.
After the numbers from the 2020 Iowa caucuses were not available Monday night, the party announced that 62 percent of precincts at 5 p.m.—as for the other half, well, state party chairman Troy Price declined to provide any timeline at all.
On Tuesday morning, these hashtags were trending on Twitter: #rigged, #RiggedElection, #TomPerezResign, #DNCRigging, #DNCisCorrupt, #CIAPete, and #MayorCheat.
Des Moines County Democratic Chairman Tom Courtney said in precincts across his county, including his own, that the mobile app was “a mess,” and when precinct leaders called Democratic Party headquarters, “they weren’t answering the phones.”
“We had had so many complaints about the app that we started telling our chairs that if they were having problems with the app then you should call in the results,” Sean Bagniewski, chairman of the Polk County Democratic Party, told The Washington Post. But “officials reportedly received no training on how to use the app, struggled to download it or log in, and were placed on hold for as long as two hours when they tried to call the result in via a hotline when the app failed.”
Jonathan Green, who chaired a precinct in Lone Tree, said when he tried to put the results into the reporting app, he kept getting an error message. He ultimately gave up and tried to call the results in, but like the others, was put on hold. It “took hours to report results from his small site,” reports The Washington Post.
In frustration, one precinct captain posted the results on Twitter; another waited for over an hour on hold, only to be hung up on by the party on live television as CNN listened in to the call.
After Buttigieg finished what sounded like a victory speech Monday night in Iowa and the Iowa Democratic Party announced it wouldn’t release results until Tuesday, a frustrated Bernie Sanders campaign decided to release the numbers it had collected from nearly 40 percent of precincts, tabulated by campaign organizers. Its internal polling showed Sanders receiving 29.7 percent of the vote, followed by Buttigieg at 24.6 percent, Senator Elizabeth Warren at 21.2 percent, and former vice president Joe Biden a distant fourth at 12.4 percent.
Naturally, questions abound about the app and the company behind its development. The Iowa Democratic Party would not confirm who developed the app, and at first the Nevada Democratic Party followed suit. But assiduous reporters discovered from FEC filings that it was created by the secretive Shadow, Inc., a tech firm run by veterans of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
“Shadow started out as Groundbase, a tech developer co-founded by Gerard Niemira and Krista Davis, who worked for the tech team on Clinton’s campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination,” reports the LA Times. Gerard Niemira, CEO of Shadow Inc., was previously the head of product for the Hillary for America campaign and also the previous CTO for ACRONYM, a Democratic nonprofit founded in 2017 “to educate, inspire, register, and mobilize voters,” according to its website.
Shadow Inc. “is an appendage of ‘dark money’ group ACRONYM and has ‘other private investors,'” Anna Massoglia at Open Secrets notes.
Former Obama advisor David Plouffe sits on ACRONYM’s board, and Hillary Clinton praised the company three months ago.
Campaign finance records show that the Iowa Democratic Party paid $63,000 to Shadow Inc. in late 2019, and the Nevada state party paid them $58,000 in August. Oh, and also, Pete Buttigieg contributed $42,500 to Shadow Inc. in July.
That’s important, because despite being behind in the polls, Buttigieg was the only candidate to confidently declare victory Monday night. And Buttigieg strategist Michael Halle is married to the head of ACRONYM, former Obama campaign worker Tara McGowan.
Bernie Sanders surrogate Shaun King tweeted:
This right? The poll that has been released right before the election in Iowa for 76 years straight was scrapped because Pete’s team complained. And Pete’s team funded the company that built the failed election app in Iowa. And Pete declared victory before results released?
Late Tuesday afternoon, the Daily Beast tried to do damage control, dismissing such criticism as “conspiracy theories.” The Buttigieg campaign claims that, like the Biden campaign, it paid Shadow for “text messaging services,” reports the Beast.
But the Biden campaign only paid Shadow $1,225; Buttigieg paid over 34 times that.
And Shadow and ACRONYM have changed how they described their working partnership, and that their website had deleted a list of investors and portfolio companies overnight, as the The Daily Beast also noted.
After all these shenanigans, it’s hard to believe that many Democrats will accept the eventual tally out of Iowa, especially given that it will be proffered by the same people who spent the last three and a half years blaming Trump’s win in 2016 on Russian interference.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-05--Out of the Chaos, Let a Thousand Conspiracies Bloom

Time to ask who stands to benefit from what could be a real Democratic Party dumpster fire .
NEW YORK , NEW YORK - OCTOBER 17 : Honoree Michael Bloomberg speaks onstage during the Hudson River Park Annual Gala at Cipriani South Street on October 17 , 2019 in New York City .
( Photo by Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Hudson River Park ) When facts are few , opinion looms large—and sometimes , conspiracy-theorizing looms larger .
And the weedy results from the Iowa Democratic presidential caucus seem destined to be one of those moments when conspiracy theories grow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eye .
As of this writing , late in the day on February 4—nearly a full 24 hours after the caucuses—it appears that Pete Buttigieg is slightly ahead in delegates , while Bernie Sanders leads , barely , in the popular vote .
So now , every curious political reporter is going to be scrutinizing the tangled relationship between the Iowa caucus-counters , the online app that did the counting , and people who made , and paid for , the app .
That app was created by a for-profit technology company called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at discouraging conspiracy-mongers—which , in turn , is owned by a big-bucks non-profit called Acronym .
Oh , and Shadow , Inc. was also hired by the Buttigieg campaign .
Interestingly , Buttigieg , being a diverse and well-credentialed young meritocrat , is the preferred candidate of many Silicon Valley tech types , including Reed Hastings of Netflix , and family members of Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt of Google , as well as Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook .
So yes , it ’ s interesting that the Shadow-y app showed Buttigieg doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are many—wonder why Iowa Democrats suddenly needed this app .
The Iowa caucuses had been doing well enough , after all , for half a century , using just pencils , chalkboards , and calculators .
And yet now they started using an app that hasn ’ t been tested anywhere ?
Couldn ’ t Democrats have field-tested it in some aldermanic election ?
A headline in Vice captured prevailing lefty-snarky sentiment : “ The Democrats Screwed America With an App No One Asked For.
” Surveying Shadow , Inc. and Acronym @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meantime , the Sanders campaign , which had the big mo going into Monday night , has been dissed—and it ’ s miffed .
As Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota , a Sanders supporter , tweeted , “ democracy dies in the darkness.
” Pro-Sanders blogger Matt Stoller delved deeper into the Pete B.-Big Tech entente , writing , “ The key validator for Acronym is board member David Plouffe , the former campaign manager for Barack Obama.
” We can quickly observe that today , many Sanders fans see the 44th present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stooge for Silicon Valley and Wall Street .
Stoller adds , “ Plouffe is also the head of policy and advocacy for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative ” —and that , of course , is the philanthropy financed by Mark Zuckerberg .
And lefties ( among others ) have plenty of opinions about the Facebook founder ; it ’ s also not forgotten that back in 2017 , Zuckerberg visited Buttigieg in South Bend , Indiana .
Stoller continues , “ Plouffe unlocks the trust of the entire Democratic operative class ” —and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , whom the insurgent Sandersistas despise the most .
And now , lo and behold , Sanders seems to have lost to them and their app .
We might also add that the right , too , is on the hunt for a conspiracy that seems to have been hiding in plain sight ; the conservative watchdog group Capital Research Center adds valuable information on Acronym , Shadow , Inc. , as well as Acronym ’ s superpac , Pacronym .
For sure , these seem to be names out of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s SMERSH and SPECTRE ?
In the meantime , looming over all , is the , uh , specter of Michael Bloomberg and his money—which currently clocks in at $ 61 billion .
We can note that Bloomberg ’ s balance is up ten billion in the last year or so .
In other words , during the time that Bloomberg has been plotting his run for president , his wealth has been increasing exponentially .
That ’ s the power of compound interest , or , more to the point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways of plutocracy , now come to politics .
So we can see : It ’ s easy for Bloomberg to spend many hundreds of millions of dollars on his campaign—and , if he wanted to do so , spend many billions .
Indeed , Bloomberg seems to smell blood in the political water , and that has him at least scratching the surface of his principal .
Hence the headline atop The New York Times mid-day on February 4 : “ Bloomberg Plans to Double Ad Spending After Iowa Caucus Problem.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome ” —hmmm .
It doesn ’ t take much of a conspiracy theorist to ask the classic question , cui bono ?
As veteran journo Josh Kraushaar wrote in The National Journal on February 4 , Bloomberg is “ one of the biggest beneficiaries from the confusion.
” For his part , Kraushaar still sees Bloomberg as unlikely actually to win the Democratic nomination , although he does allow that Bloomberg “ could become a kingmaker in the event of a contested convention.
” Of course , those of a more conspiratorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg , a contested Democratic convention in Milwaukee could be more—much more—than a king-making opportunity .
After all , given the laxity of campaign-finance laws—or , come to think of it , any sort of law , since party-politicking is a constitutionally protected legal category—one wonders if the king-maker at the convention couldn ’ t simply buy the crown for himself .
( And if that were to happen , then cascades of conspiratorialism , clotted with packets of justified paranoia , would go pouring into the mainstream , there to eddy forever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be sure , even if Bloomberg were to enthrone himself this July , it ’ s a long throw to the November election .
The Sanders people , most obviously , won ’ t be happy to see their man bested twice in a row by Wall Street money—first indirectly through Hillary Clinton , then directly from Mayor Mike .
So Bloomberg and his billions would have to find a way , if they could , to bandage up those intra-party wounds .
Yet of course , even the most embittered progressives often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing of walking-around money .
Still , standing athwart Bloomberg ’ s path to the White House , there ’ s Republican Donald Trump—and he ’ s no pushover .
So we can only guess at how much Bloomberg , if he were to get that far , would be willing to spend in his big push to Pennsylvania Avenue .
Can we count that high ?
If not , maybe we ’ d have to learn .
In the meantime , this author will stand by what he wrote on November 13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We must recognize an eternal truth : When it really puts its mind to it , more often than not , Capital wins .
”

When facts are few, opinion looms large—and sometimes, conspiracy-theorizing looms larger. And the weedy results from the Iowa Democratic presidential caucus seem destined to be one of those moments when conspiracy theories grow as high as an elephant’s eye.
As of this writing, late in the day on February 4—nearly a full 24 hours after the caucuses—it appears that Pete Buttigieg is slightly ahead in delegates, while Bernie Sanders leads, barely, in the popular vote.
So now, every curious political reporter is going to be scrutinizing the tangled relationship between the Iowa caucus-counters, the online app that did the counting, and people who made, and paid for, the app.
That app was created by a for-profit technology company called Shadow, Inc.—not exactly a name aimed at discouraging conspiracy-mongers—which, in turn, is owned by a big-bucks non-profit called Acronym. Oh, and Shadow, Inc. was also hired by the Buttigieg campaign.
Interestingly, Buttigieg, being a diverse and well-credentialed young meritocrat, is the preferred candidate of many Silicon Valley tech types, including Reed Hastings of Netflix, and family members of Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt of Google, as well as Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook. So yes, it’s interesting that the Shadow-y app showed Buttigieg doing so well in Iowa.
Critics—of whom there are many—wonder why Iowa Democrats suddenly needed this app. The Iowa caucuses had been doing well enough, after all, for half a century, using just pencils, chalkboards, and calculators. And yet now they started using an app that hasn’t been tested anywhere? Couldn’t Democrats have field-tested it in some aldermanic election?
A headline in Vice captured prevailing lefty-snarky sentiment: “The Democrats Screwed America With an App No One Asked For.” Surveying Shadow, Inc. and Acronym, the piece declared,
There’s enough going on with these two operations to launch a thousand conspiracy theories, and that’s probably what will happen. A few examples: Gerard Niemira, CEO of Shadow and formerly COO and CTO of Acronym, once contributed to a project to generate “fake data such as names, addresses, and phone numbers”; Pete Buttigieg’s national organizing director, Greta Carnes, came directly from Acronym.
In the meantime, the Sanders campaign, which had the big mo going into Monday night, has been dissed—and it’s miffed. As Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a Sanders supporter, tweeted, “democracy dies in the darkness.”
Pro-Sanders blogger Matt Stoller delved deeper into the Pete B.-Big Tech entente, writing, “The key validator for Acronym is board member David Plouffe, the former campaign manager for Barack Obama.” We can quickly observe that today, many Sanders fans see the 44th present in strikingly harsh terms, as just a stooge for Silicon Valley and Wall Street.
Stoller adds, “Plouffe is also the head of policy and advocacy for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative”—and that, of course, is the philanthropy financed by Mark Zuckerberg. And lefties (among others) have plenty of opinions about the Facebook founder; it’s also not forgotten that back in 2017, Zuckerberg visited Buttigieg in South Bend, Indiana. Stoller continues, “Plouffe unlocks the trust of the entire Democratic operative class”—and those are the very people, of course, whom the insurgent Sandersistas despise the most. And now, lo and behold, Sanders seems to have lost to them and their app.
We might also add that the right, too, is on the hunt for a conspiracy that seems to have been hiding in plain sight; the conservative watchdog group Capital Research Center adds valuable information on Acronym, Shadow, Inc., as well as Acronym’s superpac, Pacronym. For sure, these seem to be names out of a James Bond movie—and so now, where’s SMERSH and SPECTRE?
In the meantime, looming over all, is the, uh, specter of Michael Bloomberg and his money—which currently clocks in at $61 billion. We can note that Bloomberg’s balance is up ten billion in the last year or so. In other words, during the time that Bloomberg has been plotting his run for president, his wealth has been increasing exponentially. That’s the power of compound interest, or, more to the point, of capital gains. Such are the ways of plutocracy, now come to politics.
So we can see: It’s easy for Bloomberg to spend many hundreds of millions of dollars on his campaign—and, if he wanted to do so, spend many billions.
Indeed, Bloomberg seems to smell blood in the political water, and that has him at least scratching the surface of his principal. Hence the headline atop The New York Times mid-day on February 4: “Bloomberg Plans to Double Ad Spending After Iowa Caucus Problem.” As the Times explained,
Bloomberg’s presidential campaign moved on Tuesday to exploit the chaotic outcome of the Iowa caucuses, escalating an already massive campaign of television advertising and publicly making the case that a messy outcome in the early states opened the way for Mr. Bloomberg.
“Messy outcome”—hmmm. It doesn’t take much of a conspiracy theorist to ask the classic question, cui bono? As veteran journo Josh Kraushaar wrote in The National Journal on February 4, Bloomberg is “one of the biggest beneficiaries from the confusion.”
For his part, Kraushaar still sees Bloomberg as unlikely actually to win the Democratic nomination, although he does allow that Bloomberg “could become a kingmaker in the event of a contested convention.”
Of course, those of a more conspiratorial turn of mind might think that for Bloomberg, a contested Democratic convention in Milwaukee could be more—much more—than a king-making opportunity.
After all, given the laxity of campaign-finance laws—or, come to think of it, any sort of law, since party-politicking is a constitutionally protected legal category—one wonders if the king-maker at the convention couldn’t simply buy the crown for himself. (And if that were to happen, then cascades of conspiratorialism, clotted with packets of justified paranoia, would go pouring into the mainstream, there to eddy forever in the public consciousness.)
To be sure, even if Bloomberg were to enthrone himself this July, it’s a long throw to the November election. The Sanders people, most obviously, won’t be happy to see their man bested twice in a row by Wall Street money—first indirectly through Hillary Clinton, then directly from Mayor Mike. So Bloomberg and his billions would have to find a way, if they could, to bandage up those intra-party wounds. Yet of course, even the most embittered progressives often yearn for get-out-the-vote money, to say nothing of walking-around money.
Still, standing athwart Bloomberg’s path to the White House, there’s Republican Donald Trump—and he’s no pushover. So we can only guess at how much Bloomberg, if he were to get that far, would be willing to spend in his big push to Pennsylvania Avenue. Can we count that high? If not, maybe we’d have to learn.
In the meantime, this author will stand by what he wrote on November 13, when Bloomberg announced his candidacy: “We must recognize an eternal truth: When it really puts its mind to it, more often than not, Capital wins.”


theamericanconservative--2020-02-05--On Child Care, the Democrats Have It All Wrong

The problem is n't that moms ca n't afford to work ; it 's that they ca n't afford to stay at home .
In the most recent Democratic presidential debate , the candidates made the case for a massive new policy initiative : government-run universal child care .
Elizabeth Warren , for instance , argued that “ too many mamas and daddies today are getting knocked off the track and never get back on ” because of the burdensome imposition of newborn children .
Pete Buttigieg piled on , insisting that when a mother leaves the workforce for “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at serious risk .
For progressives , universal child care is the logical solution to the difficult task of raising kids .
But although such proposals are presumably well-intentioned , voters should be skeptical of attempts to replace traditional parenting obligations with the hollow imitations of faceless government employees .
As the Democratic Party increasingly becomes the home of upwardly mobile elite progressives , its political priorities and worldview are morphing to reflect that electoral shift .
This change portends a decline in concerns over traditional family life , which exerts little pull @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s no surprise that the party now supports outsourcing child-rearing duties to the state .
Progressives claim these initiatives would increase economic productivity .
But are children merely obstacles to the financial success of their parents ?
And is the true measure of a person their contribution to national GDP growth ?
These assumptions seem to be implicit in the rhetoric of politicians like Warren and Buttigieg , who justify their plans by harping on the economic cost of natalism .
Ironically enough , despite their persistent denunciations of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive champions of universal child care seem surprisingly willing to trade parenthood for financial gain .
Those who value the social and civic role of the family should eye such proposals with deep suspicion .
Wrote the late Roger Scruton : If one holds that the maximization of individual economic and career potential is the highest good humans can achieve—as many proponents of government-funded universal child care seem to—core institutions like the family , which serve as crucial civic progenitors of moral constraint and social responsibility , disintegrate .
But the sacred task @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burden that ought to be sloughed off onto the state .
Some things are more important than career advancement .
Having a child is no easy task , to be sure .
But shouldn ’ t adults enter parenthood understanding the responsibilities and obligations that it entails ?
Bringing new life into this world requires significant sacrifice , something a majority of Americans seem to understand .
In fact , the progressive attempt to usher more parents into the workforce is significantly out of step with national public opinion .
As John Hirschauer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60 percent of Americans – and a majority of both registered Republicans and registered Democrats – believe that children are better off with one parent at home than they would be in a day-care arrangement.
” Vox ’ s Matthew Yglesias concurs , writing , “ women dropping out of the workforce because they can ’ t afford child care may be a less common scenario than it seems .
More common is probably the reverse…a parent who might prefer to stay home full time or part time but can ’ t afford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this assertion—according to a 2015 Gallup poll , 56 percent of women and 26 percent of men with children younger than 18 “ would ideally like to stay home and care for their house and family.
” Luckily , there are alternative policy options that can help relieve the financial stress that children can bring without forcing the dissolution of the family .
One particularly successful example is an expansion of the Child Tax Credit , which offers struggling low-income families tax breaks based on the number of children they have .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 , and the returns on this policy have exceeded even the most optimistic predictions—according to a recent Niskanen Center report , the expansion of the CTC lifted more than 750,000 Americans out of poverty in 2018 .
And almost half of them were children .
Perhaps most significant of all , this was not accomplished by pushing parents out of their homes and alienating them from their children .
Rather , it simply made it easier for them to perform their essential parenting duties by leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the CTC demonstrate that raising a child doesn ’ t have to be antithetical to financial stability , despite progressive claims to the contrary .
Children shouldn ’ t be viewed as a barrier to career advancement , but rather as a gift to be cherished .
This is a view that seems to be foreign to the Democratic candidates , who lament the lost economic opportunities incurred by stay-at-home parents .
But human dignity transcends market value .
And children deserve parents who are present and invested .
Nate Hochman is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow him on Twitter @ njhochman .

In the most recent Democratic presidential debate, the candidates made the case for a massive new policy initiative: government-run universal child care. Elizabeth Warren, for instance, argued that “too many mamas and daddies today are getting knocked off the track and never get back on” because of the burdensome imposition of newborn children. Pete Buttigieg piled on, insisting that when a mother leaves the workforce for “that reason,” her career is at serious risk.
For progressives, universal child care is the logical solution to the difficult task of raising kids. But although such proposals are presumably well-intentioned, voters should be skeptical of attempts to replace traditional parenting obligations with the hollow imitations of faceless government employees.
As the Democratic Party increasingly becomes the home of upwardly mobile elite progressives, its political priorities and worldview are morphing to reflect that electoral shift. This change portends a decline in concerns over traditional family life, which exerts little pull for ambitious young coastal professionals. Consequently, it’s no surprise that the party now supports outsourcing child-rearing duties to the state.
Progressives claim these initiatives would increase economic productivity. But are children merely obstacles to the financial success of their parents? And is the true measure of a person their contribution to national GDP growth? These assumptions seem to be implicit in the rhetoric of politicians like Warren and Buttigieg, who justify their plans by harping on the economic cost of natalism.
Ironically enough, despite their persistent denunciations of the “neoliberal” market economy, the progressive champions of universal child care seem surprisingly willing to trade parenthood for financial gain. Those who value the social and civic role of the family should eye such proposals with deep suspicion. Wrote the late Roger Scruton:
A free society is a community of free beings, bound by the laws of sympathy and by the laws of family love. It is not a society of people released from all moral constraint – for that is precisely the opposite of a society. Without moral constraint there can be no cooperation, no family commitment, no long-term prospects, no hope of economic, let alone social, order.
If one holds that the maximization of individual economic and career potential is the highest good humans can achieve—as many proponents of government-funded universal child care seem to—core institutions like the family, which serve as crucial civic progenitors of moral constraint and social responsibility, disintegrate.
But the sacred task of raising a child is not a burden that ought to be sloughed off onto the state. Some things are more important than career advancement.
Having a child is no easy task, to be sure. But shouldn’t adults enter parenthood understanding the responsibilities and obligations that it entails?
Bringing new life into this world requires significant sacrifice, something a majority of Americans seem to understand. In fact, the progressive attempt to usher more parents into the workforce is significantly out of step with national public opinion. As John Hirschauer writes in National Review, “nearly 60 percent of Americans – and a majority of both registered Republicans and registered Democrats – believe that children are better off with one parent at home than they would be in a day-care arrangement.”
Vox’s Matthew Yglesias concurs, writing, “women dropping out of the workforce because they can’t afford child care may be a less common scenario than it seems. More common is probably the reverse…a parent who might prefer to stay home full time or part time but can’t afford to.” Polling data seems to support this assertion—according to a 2015 Gallup poll, 56 percent of women and 26 percent of men with children younger than 18 “would ideally like to stay home and care for their house and family.”
Luckily, there are alternative policy options that can help relieve the financial stress that children can bring without forcing the dissolution of the family. One particularly successful example is an expansion of the Child Tax Credit, which offers struggling low-income families tax breaks based on the number of children they have. The CTC received a massive expansion under the Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017, and the returns on this policy have exceeded even the most optimistic predictions—according to a recent Niskanen Center report, the expansion of the CTC lifted more than 750,000 Americans out of poverty in 2018. And almost half of them were children.
Perhaps most significant of all, this was not accomplished by pushing parents out of their homes and alienating them from their children. Rather, it simply made it easier for them to perform their essential parenting duties by leaving more money in their pockets.
Policies like the CTC demonstrate that raising a child doesn’t have to be antithetical to financial stability, despite progressive claims to the contrary. Children shouldn’t be viewed as a barrier to career advancement, but rather as a gift to be cherished. This is a view that seems to be foreign to the Democratic candidates, who lament the lost economic opportunities incurred by stay-at-home parents. But human dignity transcends market value. And children deserve parents who are present and invested.
Nate Hochman is a Young Voices contributor. You can follow him on Twitter @njhochman.