Why the Episcopal Church Rejects White South African Refugees

By Joe Schaeffer | May 18, 2025 | @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Illegal Immigration, Opinion

The progressive-dominated Episcopal Church has finally found a foreigner it doesn’t want resettled into the US. White South Africans fleeing oppression cannot be welcomed into America because, in the eyes of these religious leftists, that would help bolster a dominant and oppressive “lighter skin tone” (their words) social construct that must be destroyed.

For the progressive activist, the massive unchecked wave of Third World immigration into the West, both legal and illegal, was never about helping vulnerable refugees. It was always about enacting radical social transformation via rapid and undigestible demographic change. Genuine assimilation is the very last thing these people would have wanted. The reasons why should not be hard to grasp. Harmony is the enemy of the social revolutionary. Division and disorder are two of the very best of tools for those eager to topple a hated status quo.

Not the Right Face for a Refugee

“In a striking move that ends a nearly four-decades-old relationship between the federal government and the Episcopal Church, the denomination announced on [May 12] that it is terminating its partnership with the government to resettle refugees, citing moral opposition to resettling white Afrikaners from South Africa who have been classified as refugees by President Trump’s administration,” is how taxpayer-funded progressive NPR reported the news.

In what would seem to be a bizarre justification but in fact is nothing of the sort when one realizes its long-term goals, the Church invoked “racial justice” as a reason to reject the white South Africans.

“In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step,” a letter from the Most Rev. Sean W. Rowe, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, to members states.

The moral opposition goes far beyond 1980s-vintage multicultural rainbow daydreams that have turned into a bloodstained-machete disaster in modern South Africa. Social progressives will not allow themselves to believe that white Westerners can be victims of racial abuse. For this goes against their entire worldview that white racism is the original sin that must be wiped away in order to return Multicultural Humankind to the socially just Garden of Eden.

Episcopal Epistle on Sin and Skin

In a remarkable document some 20 years ahead of its time, the Episcopal Church House of Bishops in 1994 issued a pastoral letter on the “Sin of Racism.” Guess who the great transgressors were?

“In the United States our primary experience is one of white privilege, even in places where whites may be a minority in the surrounding population,” the bishops proclaimed. “This comes as a surprise to many white people, because they do not think of themselves as racist. They may even see themselves as victims of various violent reactions against the dominant culture.”

The next sentences are crucial to understanding why white South Africans cannot be allowed into the US.

“Questions abound. Can the old melting pot image of assimilation be replaced by a better metaphor that reflects the value of difference?” the pastoral letter asks. “How can the inherited privilege and unearned advantage of some people be used to bring about the reconciliation of all?… How can the Episcopal Church, which reflects the dominant culture, be a factor in changing destructive racial attitudes and behaviors?”

Helping to bring more whites into an America that they can easily assimilate into is anathema to these clerical revolutionaries because they believe it will strengthen a society that they have sworn to overthrow.

The Episcopal Church has openly stated that white skin perpetuates “the nature of racism” that has defined America since its founding.

“As it remains in the USA today, racism is a system of oppression grounded in visible physical differences, and is designed to perpetuate the belief that one ‘race’ – defined primarily by its lighter skin tone – is superior to all others,” a 2011 “Antiracism Training Manual of the Episcopal Church” declares. “What transforms it from a prejudice into an oppressive system is the reinforcement that it receives from the systemic exercise of collective power, culturally socialized and institutionally organized.”

That is from an official document of the Episcopal Church.

Mandatory Anti-Racism Training For Priests

Lest we be accused of cherry-picking years-old tracts, allow us to present the Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey’s “Anti-Racism Training 2025” seminar. It starts out with a quote from Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza stressing that “racism” is a “system of oppression” that serves as “a way of maintaining power for certain groups at the expense of others.”

For Discerning News Hounds

“Systemic racism in America began during the colonial period and continues today. One reason it’s been able to survive is because it’s kept hidden and denied,” the diocese states. Among the topics that make up its Anti-Racism Training Zoom classes are “Systemic Racism and White Privilege,” “Internalized Racism, “Settler Colonialism” and “Racism in Immigration and Naturalization.”

Now here’s the kicker. You can’t be a priest or lay leader in the Episcopal Church in New Jersey without submitting to this education.

“All lay and clergy who hold elected positions on commissions, committees and other bodies of the Diocese of New Jersey must take the training at least every three years,” the diocese orders. “In addition, all clergy new to the Diocese are required to take Anti-Racism within 12 months of their calling.”

Anti-white agitation is not some fringe spoke of the US Episcopal Church today. It is a defining marker. It should be a scandal of the first magnitude that the federal government lavished millions in taxpayer funds to help these cultural radicals pursue their toxic agenda via the NGO mass immigration pipeline.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Joe Schaeffer Political Columnist

Credentialed Leftists Fight to Keep Their Greatest Weapon

It’s an all-hands-on-deck fight to stop Trump from taking away their captive audiences.

 

By Joe Schaeffer | May 4, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags:  Articles, Opinion, Politics

A once greatly respected leading American literary organization founded in 1922 has become 100% controlled by radical activists. Americans may be onto it by now, but it is still vitally important to track the successful cultural Marxist “march through the institutions” infiltration of credentialed America. Still accorded status and influence within dominant media, Big Academia, corporate, and other circles today, PEN America has declared war against the Trump administration.

On April 29, PEN released a hysteria-riddled document covering the first 100 days of the Trump administration, “which it views as a five-alarm fire for free speech, free expression, K-12 and higher education, the right to protest, and other basic rights, along with a war against ideas and language,” a lurid press release stated. The 26-page report is filled with the stale language of the Obama-Biden years, with countless references to attacks on “democracy.”

“No federal administration has moved as swiftly to exert broad new controls over what people can say, read, learn, research, and think,” the introduction states. “The heavy-handed imposition of government ideology and efforts to instill a culture of fear echo the tactics of repressive regimes, and they are having the intended effect. Across not just government agencies, but schools and universities, corporations, libraries, museums, and the media, there is already a pervasive sense that one must watch what one says in order to avoid government retaliation.”

Read that last sentence again, for it gives the game away. These people have a lot to lose, and they know it. Their decades-long unchecked cultural rot joyride across America’s social landscape is coming to an end.

The PEN report is as shrill as the most over-the-top social media posting by Star Wars alum Mark Hamill or Hollywood chum Rob Reiner, yet it is being made by a credentialed entity active in libraries, universities and government-funded media endeavors (PBS and NPR), where it wields genuine pull.

The report attacks the Trump administration across the line, including even its deportation policies, all in the name of protecting “free speech.” But given that this is a literary organization, we’ll focus on its opposition to “book bans” and other efforts to rein in leftist propaganda aimed at schoolchildren and other captive audiences.

Anti-White Drag Queen Warriors at Annapolis

PEN is especially outraged that “nearly 400 books were banned at the US Naval Academy – the first known college-level book banning since PEN America started tracking this campaign of censorship in 2021,” the report exclaims.

The group links to an extensive New York Times list of the books involved that does not help its case at all. Do America’s future commissioned Navy officers, being educated on the taxpayer’s dime, really need to have access to opuses such as Whiteness and Racialized Ethnic Groups in the United States: The Politics of Remembering?

Written by Sherrow O. Pinder, Professor of Political Science and Multicultural and Gender Studies at California State University, Chico, the tired tome is another angry treatise ladling out the racial obsessiveness that dominates the hardline political left. The book aims to “account for the never-ending discrimination toward racialized ethnic groups,” an Amazon.com listing explains. Perpetual white racism – this is a sitting US university professor’s main thesis.

When does such tripe cross over from being mere PC nonsense to abject racial hatred against white people? “[I]n order to construct a post-white identity, whiteness would have to be denormalized and freed of it of its presumptive hegemony,” the Amazon blurb continues.

A college professor author is promoting the eradication of “whiteness” in America. This is a book the banning of which, PEN America declares, is the hallmark of an “administration [that] is using the tools of the government to terrorize educators, students, and educational institutions.”

Other essential literary offerings PEN states are being cruelly denied to Annapolis midshipmen include The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, Feminism Is Queer: The Intimate Connection Between Queer and Feminist Theory and The Machinery of Whiteness: Studies in the Structure of Racialization.

You get the idea. A full-page thank you ad from concerned Americans opposed to the radical takeover of America’s institutions would be less effective than a close examination of the actual list of books removed from the US Naval Academy posted by The New York Times.

Credentialed to Indoctrinate Young Minds

But this is the world inhabited by committed social revolutionaries. We have repeatedly emphasized and we will not stop stressing that these cultural radicals have seized control of credentialed America in all its forms.

Jonathan Friedman is the “Sy Syms managing director of US free expression programs at PEN America,” his bio reads. He is a co-author of the Trump First 100 Days PEN report. In 2022 Liberty Nation News documented Friedman’s shockingly blunt declaration that is a duty of the modern American teacher to mold the thoughts of the youngsters in their charge.

Kick Back and Ditch the Matrix

“The [school] district has an obligation to open students’ minds to the difficult issues these books reckon with, not close them off to diverse lived experiences. After all, how can we expect young people to learn about diversity, if we do not expose them to diverse perspectives in literature?” he asserted while opposing efforts in Texas in 2021 to put a stop to leftist propaganda in the classroom.

Friedman explicitly stated that this “obligation” is more important than parental wishes or rights.

“Parent and community engagement matters in education, but it must not be the only principle that guides schools through our culture war controversies,” Friedman continued. “School leaders need to have a strong commitment to pedagogical principles, and to students’ rights to access literature and learn honest history. In states like Texas, where racial and ethnic diversity is accelerating, considerations of diversity and inclusion must also be part of the equation.”

This is the toxic worldview that the Trump administration is up against, and this is why the reaction against its efforts to cleanse the halls of education is so over-heated. Nobody is freely signing up for focus sessions on cleansing themselves of their hetero-dominant whiteness. Credentialed radical agitators desperately need to be able to tap into captive audiences in their revolutionary bid to “reach the masses.”

In taking that captive audience away from them, President Trump is dealing these pampered and credentialed leftists the cruelest blow possible.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Joe Schaeffer Political Columnist

Euthanasia Excess: In Ontario, You Can Plan to Expire in 24 Hours

The progressive state apparently considers individual human beings as a burden. 

 By Joe Schaeffer Apr 16, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

The grisly machinery of euthanasia continues to expand beyond all promised safeguards directly north of the United States. A “member of Ontario’s MAiD [Medical Assistance in Dying] Death Review Committee” wrote that citizens are being ushered into the Great Beyond in Canada’s largest province by population despite not being irreversibly ill and amid evidence of a “lack of thorough capacity assessments and concerns that individuals may not have freely chosen” to die.

“Despite its compassionate framing, investigative journalists and government reports reveal troubling patterns where inadequate exploration of reversible suffering – such as lack of access to medical treatments, poverty, loneliness, and feelings of being a burden – have driven Canadians to choose death,” Dr. Ramona Coelho, a longtime MAiD critic, stated April 7 in an eye-opening article for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a public policy think tank based in Ottawa.

Liberty Nation depends on the support of our readers. Donate now!

The snowball-rolling-down-a-hill increase in MAiD can be directly attributed to a government health care system focused on economic priorities as well as a modern culture in which family and community ties have been frayed (or is demolished a better word?) and individuals increasingly feel detached from the greater whole.

Dead Before Dawn

What was once pledged to be a carefully thought-out process is rapidly becoming a drive-thru for death. Canadians can become eligible for state-practiced euthanasia in as little as 24 hours. Coelho references a report from the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General’s Office of the Chief Coroner titled “Navigating Complex Issues within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions,” which “includes cases where MAiD was provided on the same day or the day after it was requested.”

These rush-job deaths involve so-called Track 1 MAiD candidates, who are identified as facing a reasonably foreseeable natural death. But the optics of Canadians going from inquiring about MAiD to being dead before the next sunrise are problematic.

“Some members familiar with MAiD practice identified a possible pattern where the exploration of MAiD starts much earlier than the formal assessment process,” the Ontario Chief Coroner’s report asserted. “Persons often wish to delay their formal request until they are closer to their decision to access MAiD. In many of these cases, the relationship and assessment for MAiD has begun long before the formal written request.”

That is how easy it is for Ontario to extinguish you in less time than it takes to get your Amazon Prime package delivered. Using medically meaningless words like “some,” “possible,” and “often” allows authorities to diagnose you as being fully informed about and disposed toward the ending of your existence.

Coelho highlighted the alarming power over life and death being wielded by MAiD staffers and how casually it is applied:

“In the same-day or next-day MAiD report, Mr. C, diagnosed with metastatic cancer, initially expressed interest in MAiD but then experienced cognitive decline and became delirious. He was sedated for pain management. Despite the treating team confirming that capacity was no longer present, a MAiD practitioner arrived and withheld sedation, attempting to rouse him.

“It was documented that the patient mouthed ‘yes’ and nodded and blinked in response to questions. Based on this interaction, the MAiD provider deemed the patient to have capacity. The MAiD practitioner then facilitated a virtual second assessment, and MAiD was administered.”

Then there is the Track 2 pool of MAiD candidates. This would be Canadians diagnosed as having a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” whose “natural deaths are not reasonably foreseeable.” While still a statistically small number overall, not surprisingly, these euthanasia fatalities are on the rise.

Euthanasia in the Big City

“To compare to previous years, between 2021 and 2022, the number of Track 2 MAiD provisions doubled (from 223 provisions in 2021 to 463 provisions in 2022),” the Canadian government’s Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, which covers 2023, stated. “The increase between 2022 and 2023 was comparatively smaller, with 34% more Track 2 MAiD cases reported.”

A look at these Canadians choosing to die when not suffering from a terminal illness is disheartening. “Track 2 recipients were more commonly women (60 percent). No matter the age at which they sought medical assistance in dying, Track 2 recipients were more likely to live alone,” the CBC reported in October.

“Ninety percent of Track 1 recipients provided a family member as next of kin, compared to 73 percent of Track 2 recipients. Track 2 recipients were more likely to provide a friend, extended family member, case worker, lawyer or doctor as their next of kin … Track 2 recipients were more likely to live in areas of the province with high levels of marginalization.”

Does the urbanized lifestyle favored by the progressive left play a part in all this? “Geographic clustering, particularly in Western Ontario, where same-day and next-day MAiD deaths occur most frequently, raises concerns that some MAiD providers may be predisposed to rapidly approve patients for quick death rather than ensuring patients have access to adequate care or exploring if suffering is remediable,” Coelho wrote.

‘You May Be Eligible’

Above all, one sees the predictable pattern of endless enlargement of the state-controlled euthanasia machinery. The wording used by the Canadian government on its official website to explain MAiD Track 2 eligibility evokes just such a feeling.

Skip the Scrolling – Head to Roku!

“You do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying,” the government informs its citizens. The word “not” is in bold. “If your only medical condition is a mental illness, you are not eligible for medical assistance in dying until March 17, 2027,” the website advises. It goes on to say, “If you have a mental illness along with other medical conditions, you may be eligible for medical assistance in dying.” Check with us, we might be able to speed up the process.

This may be expected in growing materialistic societies that reduce human beings to economic units:  Death is offered up as a transactional experience akin to buying a burger from the menu of a fast-food restaurant.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Joe Schaeffer Political Columnist

Saudi Arabia, China, and the Harvard Endowment Connection

Who cares about human rights when the money’s right? 

By Joe Schaeffer | Mar 23, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, | Articles, Opinion, Politics

 

Harvard enjoys a massive endowment of over $53 billion – but there’s a dark side to all that wealth. On March 5, Harvard Management Company, which runs the famed university’s endowment, named a new member to its board of directors, and he’s a top executive at a company with deep ties to China and Saudi Arabia, two nations notorious for human rights violations.

As always, the watchword should be follow the money. Martin Escobari, co-president and head of “Global Growth Equity” at General Atlantic, one of the largest private equity firms in the world, is the newest member of the board at Harvard Management Co., which oversees the vast treasure chest. General Atlantic’s business vision just happens to dovetail perfectly with Harvard’s funding and international partnerships. It’s all one ecosystem.

Mideast Money Pipeline

“Harvard received more than $100 million in contributions from government sources in the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bangladesh in the last four years, according to data released by the Department of Education,” The Harvard Crimson, a student newspaper, reported on February 28.

General Atlantic is right there with them.

“In a groundbreaking expansion, General Atlantic … has chosen Saudi Arabia as the location for its first office in the Middle East,” R Consultancy Group reported in November of 2024. “This strategic move underscores the firm’s commitment to the region and highlights the growing appeal of Middle Eastern markets, especially Saudi Arabia, to international investors.”

R Consultancy is a British firm that “specializes in helping international companies expand into Saudi Arabia and the UAE.”

“An essential factor in General Atlantic’s move is the sheer size and influence of Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds, which collectively hold more than $4 trillion in assets,” R Consultancy stressed. “These funds, particularly from Saudi Arabia, have become substantial sources of capital for global fund managers.”

Then there’s the country overwhelmingly identified as the leading geopolitical foe of the United States today.

Harvard, a Private Equity CEO, and a Chinese University

“Harvard received the most non-governmental funding from England, Switzerland, China and Hong Kong,” The Harvard Crimson report continued. As Liberty Nation News documented in 2024, American universities are deeply tied to Chinese money via lucrative “academic research” and “training expertise” contracts with the Asian communist superpower and the various companies and organizations it controls.

Harvard’s connection to the Beijing regime is too exhaustive to list in one article.

“Hosted within the Harvard Kennedy School, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation is funded by several Chinese Communist Party-backed entities. Among its donors are China Southern Power Grid Corp, whose management is ‘directly appointed by China’s central government,’” The National Pulse reported in 2021.

Liberty Nation depends on the support of our readers. Donate now!

Oh, but it gets worse. The Harvard Kennedy School’s Rajawali Foundation Institute For Asia actually helps train Chinese regime apparatchiks.

“Established in 2001, China’s Leaders in Development program was widely recognized by the Chinese government as one of the best overseas training programs for government officials,” the institute boasts at its portal on the Harvard website. “Taught both at Tsinghua University, China and Harvard Kennedy School, this multi-week training program was specifically designed to help prepare senior local and central Chinese government officials to more effectively address the ongoing challenges of China’s national reforms.”

In March 2024, Chinese President Xi Jinping met “with representatives from American business, strategic and academic communities,” state-run media outlet China Daily reported. The meeting “is widely considered as a significant step China has taken to stabilize the expectations of foreign investors with regard to the Chinese market.”

Harvard was on hand to represent US academia.

Bored? Check This Out!

“Evan G. Greenberg, chair of the Board of Directors of the National Committee on US-China Relations, Stephen A. Schwarzman, chairman and CEO of Blackstone, Cristiano R. Amon, president and CEO of Qualcomm, Graham Allison, founding dean of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Craig Allen, president of the US-China Business Council, spoke at the meeting,” China Daily related.

Harvard professors and staffers have frequently associated with the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR), which made headlines in Nov. 2023 when it co-hosted an infamous dinner in honor of Xi along with the US Chamber of Commerce as the Chinese head of state visited San Francisco. But guess who else is attached to this rabidly pro-China group? “The National Committee on U.S.-China Relations held our annual black-tie Gala Dinner on Tuesday, October 15 2024,” a post on the NCUSCR website proclaims. “This year, we celebrated William E. Ford, chairman and chief executive officer of General Atlantic, for his enormous contributions to constructive Sino-American relations.”

Ford has been intimately involved with the group for years.

“Mr. Ford has been a board member of the National Committee for almost a decade and strongly supports our mission to promote forthright dialogue, mutual understanding, and cooperation between the United States and China,” the organization states. This is the CEO of the private equity giant that helps manage Harvard’s endowment.

General Atlantic’s ties to China are indeed prolific. The company has invested in 56 Chinese companies, including ByteDance, the controversial owner of TikTok.

“Ford currently serves on the board of BlackRock [and] ByteDance,” his bio at Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum reveals. “He is also involved with several educational and not-for-profit organizations including The Rockefeller University … the Council on Foreign Relations and Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management.” Tsinghua is the Chinese university that partners with Harvard to train Beijing government officials. See how it all ties together?

General Atlantic currently lists online fashion retailer Shein as part of its China portfolio on its website. That corporation is in the news today as it faces numerous accusations of selling products manufactured by Uyghur slave labor. Forget the human rights posturing by campus radicals – the bottom line at Harvard is being steered by “globalist” international finance concerns. And morality does not reign supreme in that coldly calculating milieu.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Joe Schaeffer Political Columnist

 

A Last-Second Biden Pardon Hints at Who Wielded the WH Auto Pen

Obscure illegal alien activist had a big-money monolith backing him all the way.

by Joe Schaeffer | Mar 11, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

As AutopenGate threatens to raise grave questions about the final days of the Joe Biden presidency, a last-second pardon issued to a pro-illegal alien activist seems to provide revealing clues about just who was running the White House.

“There are profound reasons to suspect that Biden’s staff and political allies exploited his mental decline to issue purported presidential orders without his knowing approval,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey wrote in an explosive March 4 letter to Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz.

“Bailey’s primary concern … is that, shortly before leaving office, Biden granted a great many pardons or commutations for violent criminals,” Liberty Nation News’s Graham Noble noted.

Conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation has reported that the autopen was ubiquitous in Biden’s White House. “We gathered every document we could find with Biden’s signature over the course of his presidency,” Heritage’s Oversight Project stated. “All used the same autopen signature except for the announcement that the former president was dropping out of the race last year.”

Road Map to a Biden Pardon?

Ravi Ragbir is not a violent criminal. But his pardon in the final moments of the Biden administration is a window into something far larger than himself. Ragbir is wholly plugged into a big-money machine funding radical social causes that critics have long contended wielded inordinate sway over Democrat policymaking during the Barack Obama and Joe Biden presidencies.

He was going to be deported because of his criminal past. “Ragbir, a US green card holder who moved from Trinidad, faced legal troubles after a 2001 mortgage fraud conviction,” The Gothamist reported in January. “His role as executive director of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City brought him national attention, especially following [President Donald] Trump’s election in 2016. In 2018, his detention during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in at the Federal Building in Lower Manhattan led to street protests, with 18 of his supporters arrested outside. “

More on that street agitation theater below. As we will see, it was far from organic.

Ragbir co-founded the New Sanctuary Coalition in 2007, one year after an immigration judge had ordered that he be deported. “Ragbir has been seeking ever since to vacate his felony conviction,” leftist media outlet Religion News Service reported in January days before the surprising Biden pardon was issued.

This was a priority to someone, but whom?

“Pardoning Mr. Ragbir sends an important message about the constitutional legitimacy of his advocacy and the illegitimacy of targeting immigrants like him based on their criticism of government policy,” Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute, gushed after hearing of the pardon.

The institute was directly involved in defending Ragbir as he faced deportation.

“In 2018, the Knight Institute, Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP), and the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Ragbir, arguing that the US government’s retaliation against him and other immigrant-rights activists violated the First Amendment,” the organization stated.

Who are they?

The Knight First Amendment Institute “was established in 2016 by Columbia University and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,” its website states. The Knight Foundation, which dates to 1940, is yet another lavishly endowed philanthropy founded in the first half of the last century by wealthy conservative businessmen that has been hijacked and repurposed to serve a leftist cultural agenda today. The Ford Foundation, created by Ford Motor Company founder Henry Ford’s son Edsel in 1936, and the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, started by the devoutly Catholic founder of the Hilton hotel chain in 1944, are two classic examples.

As of the end of 2023, the Knight Foundation had assets totaling more than $2 billion. Ragbir had some powerful allies in his corner during his uphill fight to remain in America.

Liberty Nation depends on the support of our readers. Donate now!

Among other donors to the Knight Institute are numerous familiar names in the world of high-dollar progressive “philanthropy,” including Arnold Ventures, the Ford Foundation, dark money activist network the Media Democracy Fund, the Omidyar Group (left-wing eBay founder Pierre Omidyar), and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

The New Sanctuary Coalition does not list any financial statements on its website, but a search of the Ford Foundation’s grant history shows it has donated at least $350,000 to the organization since 2018.

Bankrolling Street Protests

It is crucial to note that there is nothing grassroots about Ragbir’s work on behalf of illegal aliens. It’s all made possible by the leftist big-money spider web. City Journal in 2019 published an investigative report on New York taxpayer funding for leftist activist organizations that shows how it works.

The article featured a group called Make the Road New York, which “receives about $9 million annually,” author Seth Barron wrote. Make the Road Action in turn financially supported other leftist groups.

Your News – How You Like It!

“New York Communities for Change, the successor organization to the disgraced Acorn, also receives money from Make the Road,” Barron related. Make the Road founders Andrew Friedman and Oona Chatterjee “spun off a larger national organization, the Center for Popular Democracy, which receives millions of dollars in donations from the Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, organized labor, and the Rockefeller Foundation – and which operates from the same street address as Make the Road Action, with which it shares overlapping leadership,” Barron stated.

When ICE took Ragbir into custody to be deported in 2018, “New York’s social-justice protest complex swung into action,” the article continued. “Make the Road [and other leftist groups] issued immediate calls for action, and protesters, including elected officials, caused a melee on lower Broadway, blocking emergency vehicles.”

This is the power structure driving the Democratic Party today. Could this be the hand that controlled the White House auto signature pen for four full years? Perhaps a cognitively impaired Joe Biden had no say in the matter at all.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Joe Schaeffer Political Columnist

The Wall Street Journal Completes Its ‘Woke’ Transition

Trump Derangement Syndrome causes another publication to lose all the marbles it was built upon.

By Joe Schaeffer Feb 23, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: | Articles, Media, Opinion

 

Another once-respected American newspaper appears bent on setting its reputation aflame in an attempt to oppose President Donald Trump’s agenda any way it can. Standing out in the case of The Wall Street Journal is the publication’s seamless transition from stuffy numbers-crunching to leftist-style emotional blog blather.

As with its flailing peers, such as The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, The WSJ routinely sees its impartiality and professionalism questioned when reporting on Trump. The latest egregious example came on Feb. 14. “Exclusive: [Vice President JD] Vance pledged to hit Russia with sanctions and potentially military action if [President Vladimir] Putin won’t agree to a peace deal that guarantees Ukraine’s independence,” the paper exclaimed in social media posts promoting its interview with Trump’s second in command.

Baking the News

It was a neoconservative fantasy determined to deny reality. The WSJ framed the interview around daydreams of the US backing Ukraine’s admittance to NATO – something Trump does not support – and the possibility of American soldiers being deployed to Ukraine. When Vance innocently stated that “everything is on the table” for Trump when he enters a negotiation, the paper seized on that elastic quote to buttress its belligerent pro-Ukraine tone.

This goes beyond bad journalism ethics. Attempting to bully an administration with clearly defined foreign policy beliefs into acquiescing to a newspaper’s agenda is just plain silly.

Earlier in February, a WSJ reporter doxxed Marko Elez, a 25-year-old member of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team, revealing him to be the operator of an anonymous social media account spiked with politically incorrect posts.

The “journalist,” Katherine Long, came to the paper from Business Insider. Before that, she had worked at Vox, a leftist news site more akin to HuffPost‘s emotive blogging than professional reporting. Interestingly, The Wall Street Journal has a striking number of Vox alums in key positions on its news staff.

While at Business Insider, Long apparently practiced the same style of personal “gotcha” journalism that The WSJ now embraces. A populist-right X poster using the moniker Raw Egg Nationalist, who has 274,000 followers, tells a remarkable tale of his experience with Long last summer.

“Long sent an email to one of my local farm shops, asking the owner to give her my personal details,” Raw Egg Nationalist states in a Feb. 7 post. He quoted the email Long sent to the farm. “Do you or any of your staff know of a man who regularly buys large quantities of eggs and milk?” she asked. “If so, I would be very grateful if you could pass along his name. I am happy to keep our conversation confidential, i.e. I would never tell anyone how I had learned his name.”

A few months later, Long was hired by The Wall Street Journal.

Leftist Embeds at The Wall Street Journal

Did you know WSJ has an official “climate finance reporter”? His name is Amrith Ramkumar, and he “covers how investors are paying for the transition to clean energy,” his newspaper bio states.

Your News – How You Like It!

Let’s get to that Vox pipeline.

Alexander Ward “is a national security reporter covering the White House and State Department,” his WSJ bio declares. Before being hired, Ward worked for Swamp-connected Politico and Vox. He’s a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations and a former employee of arch-globalist DC think tank the Atlantic Council, and he authored a 2024 book titled The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump. It focused on key Biden foreign policy officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the man he covered as part of his WSJ beat.

So we have a Council on Foreign Relations member reporting on the foreign policy doings of another CFR member, Blinken, and it’s all being done under The Wall Street Journal banner.

Michelle Hackman is a reporter in the paper’s Washington bureau, “where she covers US immigration policy.” Hackman was hired in June 2016. What made her a must-get?

Perhaps it was an article she co-wrote for Vox three months earlier on how conservative college students were embarrassed by the rise of Trump. “The young conservatives say they already faced an uphill battle in trying to convince a mostly liberal campus that their views are not motivated by racism or homophobia,” the article states. “Trump’s rise has made this problem much more difficult to overcome.”

Hackman is writing these same types of articles for The Wall Street Journal today. “Trump Has Made America More Hostile to Immigrants. He Isn’t Done Yet” is the headline of a Feb. 3 piece.

Then there is Isabella Simonetti, “a reporter covering the business of television and streaming.” In 2020, while interning at Vox, the University of Pennsylvania student scolded whites for taking so long to get on the Black Lives Matter train. “And yet systemic racism has been ingrained in the fabric of America since its founding, police violence against Black Americans dates back to when slavery was legal, and the Black Lives Matter movement has existed since 2013. Why did they choose to get involved now?” she asked.

Dominique Mosbergen is a “medical science reporter” at The WSJ’s Health and Science bureau. She has been active of late, filing one article after another portraying Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a dire health care threat.

Mosbergen isn’t another Vox hire. She came straight from HuffPost, where she worked for “a decade,” her WSJ bio states. While there, she regularly wrote about climate change in the hysterical tones one would expect from that outlet. “Climate Change Is Melting ‘The Roof Of The World,’” the headline of her Dec. 2016 article pronounces. “We Need A President Who Will Continue Obama’s Climate Legacy – Not Destroy It,” her Oct. 2016 piece is titled.

This is how one becomes a medical science reporter for The Wall Street Journal. And this is how fake news operates.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Joe Schaeffer Political Columnist

How Compromised are DC Think Tanks?

Follow the money to find out.

by Joe Schaeffer | Jan 17, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

Foreign money, much of it dark, dominates the Swamp. And the big money think tanks are prime examples of this, according to a new report. A January paper issued by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft spells out details of a dirty secret uber-connected establishment organizations – such as the Atlantic Council, Aspen Institute, and the Brookings Institution – don’t want Americans to wonder about.

“Think tanks are increasingly reliant on special interests and governments – both the US and foreign governments – for funding,” the executive summary to the Quincy report states. “A growing body of evidence suggests that funding often comes with strings attached, leading to censorship, perspective filtering and, in rare cases, even outright pay-for-research arrangements with donors.”

One Way to Gain Access

It’s a deliberate intent to influence policymakers in Washington, Quincy emphasizes. “As one internal report from a foreign government noted: ‘Funding powerful think tanks is one way to gain such access, and some think tanks in Washington are openly conveying that they can service only those foreign governments that provide funding.’”

The dollar amounts are substantial.

“In the past five years, foreign governments and foreign government-owned entities donated more than $110 million to the top 50 think tanks in the United States,” the report continues. “The most generous donor countries were the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and Qatar, which contributed $16.7 million, $15.5 million, and $9.1 million to U.S. think tanks, respectively.”

“The Atlantic Council, Brookings Institution, and German Marshall Fund received the most money from foreign governments since 2019: $20.8 million, $17.1 million, and $16.1 million, respectively,” Quincy relates. Surely it’s just a coincidence that the top recipients of this green avalanche happen to be three entities overwhelmingly committed to supporting geopolitical globalism, i.e., “the rules-based international order.”

Ready for a chuckle? In 2018, Facebook “partnered” with the Atlantic Council on a censorship campaign ostensibly aimed at reducing foreign “misinformation” meant to interfere with US elections. Yes, the think tank that has raked in $20.8 million from foreign governments over the past half-decade and still lists Burisma, the Ukrainian company that infamously “employed” Hunter Biden, on its “honor roll of contributors” on its website, was extremely concerned about undue influence on American governance from abroad.

As with the ever-growing number of big-box media outlets that take money from partisan donors that they also report on, progressive establishment powerhouse the Brookings Institution seeks to make any hint of grave compromise magically disappear by means of disclaimer.

“Brookings and all its personnel are governed by robust policies on research independence that do not permit outside parties to undermine or compromise the independence of Brookings’s research or its recommendations,” a FAQ page “about Brookings’s approach to foreign funding” declares. “As a globally-oriented nonprofit, Brookings is grateful for support from a diverse network of funders outside the United States who appreciate Brookings’s mission and value our approach to trusted, independent analyses.”

They wrote it, so it must be true.

Think Tanks in a Company Town

Much of the foreign money is not publicly accounted for. “Out of the 50 think tanks analyzed in this paper, 18 of them are almost entirely opaque when it comes to donors and received a score of zero,” Quincy reveals. “[T]hink tanks are not obligated to publicly identify the sources of donations, which typically make up the vast majority of their funding.”

What makes all this so disturbing is the close working relationship these think tanks have with institutional power in America today. NBC News has an open partnership with The Aspen Institute, and its star anchors regularly “moderate” Aspen events. And what of congressional hearings, which often lean on the testimony of readily available DC think tank “experts”?

“Between 2021 and 2024, 34 percent of all think tank witnesses before [the House Foreign Affairs Committee] came from dark money think tanks,” the report relates. “For example, 11 analysts from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which does not disclose any information about its donors, testified to HFAC during that period.”

It gets more alarming than that.

 “Private funders paid for a member of the US House of Representatives or their staff to travel overseas more than 4,000 times in the past decade,” Capital News Service reported in September. “The bill for the vast majority of those trips was footed by nonprofit organizations, including prestigious think tanks such as the Aspen Institute and German Marshall Fund, according to an analysis of House travel disclosures by the University of Maryland’s Howard Center for Investigative Journalism.”

In essence, DC think tanks can act as a valuable buffer for foreign governments courting US elected officials with enticing luxury vacations.

“When a foreign government funds a trip, there may be more perceived risk of the lawmaker or congressional staffer appearing to be unduly influenced by foreign interests,” Anna Massoglia, editorial and investigations manager at campaign finance watchdog site OpenSecrets, told CNS. “Travel sponsored by a think tank can give more of an appearance of independence and objectivity, which may help avoid any negative associations with direct funding from foreign governments.”

It appears American lawmakers are fully aware of this advantage.

Ditch the Diatribe – Try This!

“The Howard Center analysis found a House member or staff member reported taking an international trip funded directly by foreign governments approximately 270 times from 2012 through 2022,” Capital News Service writes. “They took nearly four times as many foreign trips, just over 1,000, that were sponsored by think tanks that disclosed on their websites that they received foreign government funding.”

This is how the game is played in Washington, DC. The money is always moving around, but ultimately it’s locked into one gigantic establishment trough that all connected mouths get to feed on.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Joe Schaeffer Political Columnist

Fact-Checkers Heading Down Same Black Hole as CNN, MSNBC

Mark Zuckerberg disbands his army of ‘truth tellers’ who are shocked, shocked at their dismissal.

by Joe Schaeffer | Jan 15, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

(Photo by Lori Van Buren/Albany Times Union via Getty Images)

A self-anointed coterie of journalists that has forfeited the public’s trust with repeated, egregious displays of personal bias is astounded that it can’t skate by on credentialism any longer. Where have we seen that before? The gravy train for fact-checkers appears to be grinding to a halt, and all the muttering in the world about “codes of principles” and “identifying truth” won’t be able to save another crumbling annex of the big-box media edifice from fading into irrelevance on a CNN or MSNBC scale.

On Jan. 7, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to end the “fact-checking” programs at his company’s major social media sites, which include Facebook and Instagram. The reaction of the fact-checkers to this unexpected move reveals the full extent of their disconnect from the vast majority of Americans who do not share the basic assumptions of their urbanite progressive mindset.

Fact-Checkers Not Biased But ‘Why Does Trump Lie So Much?’

Writing about itself in a “why I’m important” manner, the woefully compromised Poynter Institute conveyed the deep distress felt by staffers at its International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which has partnered with Meta.

“The fact-checkers used by Meta follow a Code of Principles requiring nonpartisanship and transparency,” IFCN Director Angie Drobnic Holan is quoted by her employer as saying. “It’s unfortunate that this decision comes in the wake of extreme political pressure from a new administration and its supporters. Fact-checkers have not been biased in their work – that attack line comes from those who feel they should be able to exaggerate and lie without rebuttal or contradiction.”

She doesn’t even realize she’s doing it. Drobnic Holan, former editor-in-chief of Poynter’s flagship PolitiFact fact-checking site, couldn’t resist taking a loaded shot at President-elect Donald Trump while earnestly stressing her professional evenhandedness.

It’s a question often asked of the Ivory Tower leftists: Do they not realize that the plebes have access to the Internet now? We can fact-check the fact-checkers. It’s quick, it’s easy, and the results speak louder than the canned jargon of dominant media journalists. Attempting to control online platforms only makes Americans more determined to dig beyond the duplicitous surface.

“It’s astounding even now, two years into Donald Trump’s presidency, how many things he says on a daily basis that just aren’t true.” That’s the lead sentence of Drobnic Holan’s 2019 essay in progressive establishment magazine The Atlantic titled “Why Trump Is the Most Fact-Checked President.”

“Why does Trump lie so much? Only he can answer that question, but it’s certainly a long-standing behavior that dates back to his time in luxury real estate and reality television,” the self-proclaimed transparently nonpartisan Drobnic Holan continues.

She’s not an exception.

‘There’s a Lot More to Fact-Check on the Right’

“We heard the news [of being dropped by Facebook] just like everyone else,” Alan Duke, co-founder and editor-in-chief of Lead Stories, mournfully related to Wired.com. “No advance notice.” Lead Stories began fact-checking for Meta in 2019.

Locked into his pre-conceived biases, Duke never saw the ax coming.

“We don’t have anything against anybody. We don’t have an agenda. We are looking for facts and we fact-check the right and the left,” Duke, a former CNN employee, told the network in an article published Oct. 29, 2020, less than a week before the presidential election. “It just so happens that there’s a lot more to fact check on the right. It’s just mathematical.”

See how he assumes everyone would readily understand such faulty logic?

Science Feedback is another Meta fact-check partner about to lose its sweet gig. It, too, was featured in multiple big-box media accounts of Zuckerberg’s surprising move. “Science Feedback is a left-of-center publishing organization that operates the blogs Climate Feedback and Health Feedback,” watchdog website Influence Watch states. “Both websites publish opinion articles claiming to assess the scientific merit of popular media articles and scientific claims.”

Want a sample of their work? “Tire fires in Kuwait have a much smaller climate influence than methane emissions from cows, contrary to claims,” a Jan. 6 post on the group’s site proclaims.

Here’s another: “No, marine emissions study didn’t find that climate change is ‘greatly overestimated,’ contrary to recent claims,” a Dec. 20 post reads.

This is what Facebook users will be missing out on now that Zuckerberg has pulled the rug from under the fact-checkers.

And what a cozy carpet it was.

“Meta has provided millions of dollars to fact checkers all over the world that has enabled fact checkers not just to provide fact checking for Facebook and Instagram, but also to raise the visibility of fact checking and to enable fact checkers to hold public officials accountable for what they say. That’s huge,” PolitiFact founder Bill Adair sighed to a sympathetic NPR on Jan. 10.

For Discerning News Hounds

Poynter will manage to survive for some time. It receives funding from several well-heeled sources, “including corporate partners, philanthropic foundations, government agencies and individual donors.”

NPR is listed among those entities, “[p]artnering through the shared values of truth and public accountability for a unique, multi-year contract in which Poynter senior vice president Kelly McBride serves as the NPR Public Editor,” as Poynter put it.

Fact-check: This relationship is not disclosed in the NPR article lamenting the demise of the Facebook fact-checkers.

“Fact checkers worry about the viability of their industry without Meta’s support,” the NPR piece lamented. But are they worrying about the right thing? Sugar daddies can be extremely valuable, but a tottering big-box media is learning the hard way that integrity in the public eye, once destroyed, is usually irretrievable.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Joe Schaeffer Political Columnist