GOV/MIL Leftists Call For New "Secret Police" Force To Spy On Trump Supporters (AN ABSOLUTELY MUST-READ THREAD)

155 arty

Veteran Member

A Nation Primed To See Racism In Everything Will Think Only About Race

Americans are now trained to see racism everywhere, even where it doesn't exist.

Tristan Justice

By Tristan Justice
APRIL 9, 2021

One high school in Oregon postponed a vote last week on whether to change its mascot from the Trojan to the Evergreens over concerns the imagery of lush timber was racist.

Ida B. Wells-Barnett High School, named after the prominent black activist and journalist who documented lynching in the post-Civil War era, was considering a mascot change to adopt a symbol more representative of its connection to the community. Board members complained, however, that evergreen trees would conjure up imagery invoking the brutal execution of African-Americans.

“I think everyone comes with blind spots and I think that might’ve been a really big blind spot,” said Director Michelle DePass at the school board meeting.

The episode is emblematic of how the country has come to see race, viewing minorities deemed oppressed by the woke left as fragile special-interest groups that Americans must hold a religious commitment to buttress in the moral righteousness of “antiracism.” Everywhere, Americans are explicitly reminded of the racial inequities among minority groups as evidence of their inherent racism and the nation’s irredeemably racist past — and present.

Starting at an early age, Americans are barraged with statistics and anecdotes, about everything from income to health status, that are always broken down by race to highlight disparities that victimize minorities and define their destiny as one determined by racist circumstance over personal responsibility. This ideology of abject victimhood taught in classrooms, newsrooms, and boardrooms after being bred for an entire generation on left-wing university campuses has now produced a nation dangerously constrained by a toxic obsession with race.

Under this doctrine, anything and everything must be vetted by 21st-century standards of cultural acceptance to root out the poisonous racism. This obsession, however, is the root of American demise. A nation primed to think only about race will only think about race.

Americans are now trained to see racism in everything, even where it doesn’t exist. Trees are racist. Hiking is racist. Your cereal box is racist. Your depictions of Santa Claus and Jesus are racist. Claiming otherwise to any of it is also racist.

Minorities are trained to see themselves as hopelessly oppressed and facing endless aggressions at every turn. Every slightest impolite infraction can earn the morally indignant condemnation as racist, wrecking the perpetrator as a villain responsible for deep personal trauma. The so-called trauma, however, is merely a preconception inculcated by years of woke indoctrination.

None of this is to say racism doesn’t exist. Americans can and should recognize there are racial tensions that need to be addressed. The radical obsession with defining every aspect of the modern culture through the exhaustive lens of “antiracism,” however, has only led tensions to new heights while deceiving millions of well-meaning Americans who are terrified of the racist label and roping them into the effort. And “antiracism,” weaponized by the political left to pursue political ends through intimidation of their opponents, has stifled debate, driven division, and merely created a different kind of racism.

The debate over voter ID requirements included in the recent Republican-passed Georgia voting bill provides a perfect illustration of today’s racism infecting woke corporatists and the Democratic Party, which claim — in the name of antiracism of course — that mandated identification requirements for ballot access are too difficult for minorities to comply with.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1379826356846882821
.5080 0min

And then there’s affirmative action and the push for reparations, endorsed by the Democratic Party, which claims minorities aren’t capable of achieving of the American dream without white saviors and billions in special assistance.

Race relations under the mandated lens of antiracism aren’t getting any better.

On that, nearly all Americans agree. According to Gallup, in 2008, the year Americans elected their first black president, 70 percent of white adults and 61 percent of black adults said race relations were either “very” or “somewhat good.” Only 46 percent of white adults and 36 percent of black adults said the same in 2020.

If last year’s radical acceleration of antiracism in the culture war has taught us nothing else, it’s that the colorblind approach was likely the right one. The opposite has shown to be an aggressive form of racism featuring the bigotry of low expectations cloaked in the moral righteousness of social justice.
Stupid white people!
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

BREAKING: CNN Director Caught on Hidden Camera Saying The Network is ‘Trying to Help’ BLM By Only Pushing Stories That Implicate White People

By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published April 15, 2021 at 11:21am
0-278.jpg


Project Veritas has released a third bombshell undercover video of CNN Director Charlie Chester admitting that the network is “trying to help” Black Lives Matter by protecting their narrative on race.


Chester admits that they have only been pushing stories that implicate white people, during a conversation with a Tinder date that ended up being a Project Veritas reporter.

Chester admitted that while researching Asian hate, they found that it is mostly black men attacking them — so they did not dig in deeper.

View: https://youtu.be/R7mdc1r5-vw
5:41 min

“I was trying to do some research on the Asian hate, like the people [who] are getting attacked and whatnot. A bunch of black men have been attacking Asians. I’m like ‘What are you doing? Like, we [CNN] are trying to help BLM.’”

Chester continued on to say, “The optics of that are not good. These [are] little things that are enough to set back movements, because the far left will start to latch on and create stories like ‘criminalizing an entire people,’ you know, just easier headlines that way, I guess.”

He told the Project Veritas journalist that they do not push stories unless they implicate white people.

“I haven’t seen anything about focusing on the color of people’s skin that aren’t white. They [CNN] just aren’t saying anything. You know what I mean?”

“You can shape an entire people’s perception about anything [depending] on how you do it,” Chester said.

On Wednesday night, the evening before this video was released, the CNN crew was attacked and chased out of Brooklyn Center by Black Lives Matter rioters.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1382497806624165897
1:06 min

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1382499532995444736
1:30 min

Project Veritas previously released a video of Chester admitting that CNN is using fearmongering about COVID to drive ratings.
 

155 arty

Veteran Member

BREAKING: CNN Director Caught on Hidden Camera Saying The Network is ‘Trying to Help’ BLM By Only Pushing Stories That Implicate White People

By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published April 15, 2021 at 11:21am
0-278.jpg


Project Veritas has released a third bombshell undercover video of CNN Director Charlie Chester admitting that the network is “trying to help” Black Lives Matter by protecting their narrative on race.


Chester admits that they have only been pushing stories that implicate white people, during a conversation with a Tinder date that ended up being a Project Veritas reporter.

Chester admitted that while researching Asian hate, they found that it is mostly black men attacking them — so they did not dig in deeper.

View: https://youtu.be/R7mdc1r5-vw
5:41 min

“I was trying to do some research on the Asian hate, like the people [who] are getting attacked and whatnot. A bunch of black men have been attacking Asians. I’m like ‘What are you doing? Like, we [CNN] are trying to help BLM.’”

Chester continued on to say, “The optics of that are not good. These [are] little things that are enough to set back movements, because the far left will start to latch on and create stories like ‘criminalizing an entire people,’ you know, just easier headlines that way, I guess.”

He told the Project Veritas journalist that they do not push stories unless they implicate white people.

“I haven’t seen anything about focusing on the color of people’s skin that aren’t white. They [CNN] just aren’t saying anything. You know what I mean?”

“You can shape an entire people’s perception about anything [depending] on how you do it,” Chester said.

On Wednesday night, the evening before this video was released, the CNN crew was attacked and chased out of Brooklyn Center by Black Lives Matter rioters.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1382497806624165897
1:06 min

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1382499532995444736
1:30 min

Project Veritas previously released a video of Chester admitting that CNN is using fearmongering about COVID to drive ratings.
When this shit breaks out ,I hope the first to go are these pieces of shit
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Republicans Unveil New Plan To Rein In Big Tech

THURSDAY, APR 15, 2021 - 12:50 PM
Following rumors that discussion of a new GOP push to regulate big tech dominated a recent gathering of party leaders at President Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, a memo describing a broad new push to regulate big tech, entitled the "Big Tech Accountability Platform", has leaked to CNBC and a handful of other media outlets on Thursday.

The platform aims to bring "much needed reform and oversight" to big tech - that is, firms earning more than $1 billion per year - and has been leaked to the press after being circulated among GOP staffers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee
Most critically, the memo - which is the first sign of a new GOP effort to take on big tech following the latest round of Congressional Hearings - calls for reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Measures discussed include scrapping its provisions entirely, or imposing a 5-year reauthorization period. It would also require social media companies responsible for moderating and "addressing" illegal drug sales, child exploitation, harassment, terrorism and counterfeit goods, with the risk of an FTC enforcement fine if they fail.


Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey

Though it's merely an outline from which staffers will ideally craft a full-fledged bill, it also marks the first action from GOP after lawmakers interrogated the CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter Inc in late March over misinformation on their platforms.

Among other measures, the memo calls for limiting the "right of exclusion" - that is, the ability of social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to ban users (with President Trump's still-ongoing social media ban still in effect). The measure would classify these companies as "places of public accommodation".

While the reform plan would make social media companies liable for content on their platforms, it also calls for plenty of wiggle room for big tech companies who do attempt to moderate users' content.

When big tech does target users, the law would require tech firms to allow unhappy users the ability to easily appeal decisions made to censor them.
Moving to the subject of transparency, the plan would require Big Tech firmsto submit a detailed description of their content management policies to the FTC, including information about how they were developed, any changes to such policies, the processes for making content decisions, and a clear and timely appeals process for challenging content that is flagged, removed, or altered.

Cooperation with law enforcement would be made mandatory for the tech firms.

Not only would the firms be responsible for creating easy to use resources for users to report potential safety threats, but the platforms would be made liable to report any criminal activity, or suspicions of criminal activity, to the company.

Readers can find the full memo below: (Scribd doc. on website}
1618522935474.png
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

51102889815_a68321ae35_c.jpeg

On Day 78 Biden Said: We’re Not Impinging On Your Rights, They’re Just Not Absolute.

Apparently, if you think your Second Amendment rights are at risk under Biden, you’re a “phony.” That’s according to Joe Biden, at least.
Gun Control Falsehoods Abound.


President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris delivered remarks Thursday on proposed gun control measures.

Seemingly to clear the air, Biden opened with, “Nothing—nothing I’m about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment. They’re phony, arguments suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake from what we’re talking about.”

He immediately added, “But no amendment—no amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech.”

The remarks that followed, detailing actions also published in a White House fact sheet on Wednesday, contained false and doubtful supporting claims, which were identified by FactCheck,org, Politifact.com, The Washington Post, and The New York Times.
  • On background checks: “You go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want and no background check.” (False; this is not the case for federal firearms dealers.)
  • On red flag laws: “States that have red flag laws have seen a reduction in the number of suicides in their states.” (The evidence for this claim is inconclusive.)
  • On gun manufacturer immunity: “The only industry in America—a billion-dollar industry—that can’t be sued—has exempt from being sued—are gun manufacturers. (There are exceptions to gun manufacturers’ protections from civil lawsuits.)
Biden’s comments led to a confusing attempt at clarification between press secretary Jen Psaki and reporters.

Q: Is it the President’s belief that you do not have to undergo a background check when you are at a gun show?

PSAKI: No, it’s not his belief. He believes that gun—that background checks should be universal.

Q: Right. But he says, “no background check.”

PSAKI: Well, we know what his position is—right? –so let me reiterate that—which is that background checks are something that should be universal. They’re supported by more than 80 percent of the public. He supported legislation, advocated for that, and advocated against loopholes as well.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Coming Backlash
Kurt  Schlichter

Kurt Schlichter

|Posted: Apr 15, 2021 12:01 AM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

The Coming Backlash

Source: AP Photo/John Raoux

So, a criminal with a warrant who resists arrest meets up with an incompetent government employee who can’t tell a Glock from a taser, then there are Democrat riots, and what’s the result? You must be disarmed.

If you’re looking for logical logic, keep on looking. If you understand the logic of power, you came to the right place.

Facts don’t matter.

Evidence is racist.

2+2=4 means you’re a transphobe.

This is about power, people. Their power over you.

Understand that you can’t reason your way out of this. We’re not going to explain to our enemies why it’s inefficient, ineffective, or unAmerican to do the things they are trying to do. You might as well try to teach your terrier particle physics with a thick, juicy ribeye in sitting his bowl in front of him.

Tangent: Pardon me for potentially misgendering your pooch.

Back to my point. There is no point, except power. They want to control you. If they can’t they want to destroy you. Everything – and I mean everything – is bent to that objective.

That’s why the media lies to you.

That’s why they selectively prosecute.

That’s why movie stars lecture you.

That’s why they want to take your guns.

That’s why they want to cheat in elections.

That’s why critical race theory is a thing.

You, disenfranchised.

You, despised.

You, a serf.

That’s it. That’s the goal. So, trying to reason your way out of it is useless.

It’s actually worse. It’s embarrassing. You look like a fool. Take Asa! Hutchinson, with his mush-mouthed palaver about “limited government” and citing Reagan to justify his spineless submission to the establishment. This guy literally would rather young children have their genitals mutilated than have to explain to his Walmart masters why he refused to go along with the scalpel zeitgeist.

He’s not just a weak person. He’s not just a stupid person. He’s an evil person.

And we know it. We see it. And we must speak it.

They want to blind us. They want to gag us. They want us tip-toeing through the PC minefield, afraid to take a step less we trigger a detonation of cancellation.

But have you noticed the rumblings of resistance?

Have you noticed the stirrings of pushback?

For a while we had Trump to do the pushing, but with him in Florida we can now see others stepping up. Ron DeSantis is banning critical racism. Brian Kemp found some vertebrae and he’s defying Delta, Coke, and "Major League Chinaball" to demand election integrity. The other night, Tucker Carlson charged into the “replacement theory” ambush where we are not supposed to say what the Democrats explicitly say, which is that they intend to import pliable foreign peasants to replace American citizens at the ballot box (of course, sensible Latinos had other ideas, coming around to Trump significantly in 2020). The garbage media and establishment announced that this fact must not be spoken and Tucker spoke the hell out of it.

The backlash begins.

Right now, it is mere stirrings. Americans are slow to anger, but they are mighty in their wrath. When woke bull-Schiff was confined to college campuses, we could live with it. We didn’t see it. It was not in our faces. But now it is. It’s everywhere in the institutions, and it’s filtering down to people in their jobs, on their televisions and even in their homed when young Kaden returns from Cornell as “Kasey” and informs xir parents they are committing literal violence on xim by not paying xir tuition anymore.

Do they imagine that people will just give up and give in?

Some will. The Fredocons did, of course, but they are weak.

But with Normal Americans, the risk is mistaking patience and restraint for weakness.

Think I’m wrong?

Go try to buy some 5.56mm rounds.

The backlash is building. The anger is real and rising. Yeah, everyone’s getting their .45s and AR15s, which is proper – an armed people is a free people – but the reality is we are unlikely to get to the kind of crisis where they come into active play. As much as some leftists salivate at the idea of declaring war on normal people (read their social media and tell me I’m wrong), there’s almost certainly not going to be civil conflict, though with cops as competent as Taser Girl and our broken military focused on pretending boys can turn into girls, I kind of like patriots’ odds against those few traitors who would not quit rather than suppress the American people for the benefit of their leftist masters. No, the violence will be limited to Democrat areas as Democrat voters burn Democrat cities ruled by Democrat politicians. Which would seem make it a Democrat problem.

But the backlash is coming, peaceful but unstoppable. First, you’ll see the social pushback. We will see brave pols like DeSantis and the newly-concervawoke Kemp. We’ll see conservative media figures refusing to honor the narrative guardrails of the lib-fascists, just like Tucker does.

Soon we’ll see comics attacking this garbage, then other artists joining in. Then more politicians, who will start passing laws banning these practices and gutting these woke corporations. Trust Busting. Banning Chinese collaboration. Regulating big tech.

And we’ll see normal people pushing back in their personal lives.

Of course, we’ll see latecomers like Nikki! and Kristi! who will try to pretend they always knew what time it is. But we’ll remember that when the fight, started these REMFs were cowering in the rear, afraid to offend the Chamber or the NCAA. And they will be ignored.

The 2022 election will be the key. We’re going to crush the left. Why? Because things will get worse, much worse. Crime. A wrecked economy. China will kick our woke military’s behind. Think Jimmy Carter in 1980, but without the competence and a lot more anti-Americanism.

This will be a tough fight, and it is only the beginning. Just do not fall into despair. Do not withdraw – they prefer you submit but they will settle for you giving up (for now – they’ll come for you eventually). Do not fear them.

Be part of the backlash. Get in now, at the beginning.

Conservatives Must Stand Together and Fight Against Biden and the Radical Left.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Merger of Big Corp and Big Law with Democrats Is Part of a Political Realignment

We’re seeing a realignment of the country, with once Republican-friendly large corporate America openly siding with Democrats and pushing progressive agendas.

Posted by William A. JacobsonTuesday, April 13, 2021 at 08:22pm44 Comments
James-Quincey-Coca-Cola-CEO.jpg

Something’s happening here, what it is is becoming clear.

We first noticed it when Big Tech began to silence Trump supporters on social media in an obvious attempt to sway the election for Joe Biden. And it worked.

While there’s no single factor that threw the election, the actions of Big Tech is quashing negative stories, such as Biden family influence peddling, were significant. Post-election, the same Big Tech that allowed Russia-collusion conspiracy theories to thrive for four years deplatformed people and even the President, for allegedly spreading election conspiracy theories.

Focusing on Big Tech was correct and understandable because Big Tech controls so much of our communications. But what has become clear is that the Big Tech problem was really a subset of a Big Woke Corp. problem.

Many of largest corporations, including household names like Coca-Cola and Delta, have thrown in with Democrats based on the Big Lie that modest changes to preserve voting integrity are “Jim Crow 2.0.” We covered recently how lies about the Georgia voter integrity laws caused corporations to become agents of Democrats, Over 100 Corporate Leaders Side With Democrats, Form Plan to Respond to Voting Laws.

But it’s more than that. Big Law, some of the largest law firms who represent Big Corp, are lending their legal weight to the effort:
A group of major law firms formed a coalition “to challenge voter suppression legislation.” ….
Also on the call was Brad Karp, the chairman of the law firm Paul Weiss. On Monday, Mr. Karp said he had organized the coalition of law firms, which also include Skadden; Cravath, Swaine & Moore; and Wachtell Lipton.

“It puts legislators on notice that if there are laws that are unconstitutional or illegal they will face pushback from the legal community,” said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, a New York think tank that is working with the coalition. “This is beyond the pale. You’re hearing that from the business community, and you’re hearing it from the legal community.”
The law firm Paul Weiss, which is among the most prestigious in the nation, has been touting this effort, referring to the new laws as “the rebirth of Jim Crow.”
This is bigger than Big Tech, as Dan McClaughlin points out at National Review, The Party in Power Is Directing a Corporate Conspiracy against Its Political Opposition:
The president, and his party’s lawyer, are urging multiple major corporations to combine to restrain trade for the purpose of making it harder for its political opposition to win elections, and using lies to restrict the president’s democratically elected critics from passing laws. If we saw this in another country, we would recognize it as a menacing step.
This is happening now, in the United States, in the fight over the Georgia election law. It appears likely to happen again in other states considering similar laws.
This is the big news. It’s not just Big Tech.

We’re seeing a realignment of the country, with once Republican-friendly large corporate America openly siding with Democrats and pushing progressive agendas.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

China’s Dystopian “New IP” Plan Shows Need for Renewed US Commitment to Internet Governance

by Mark Montgomery and Theo Lebryk
April 13, 2021

China released its 14th Five-Year plan for economic development last month, including its intended next steps in technology. The blueprint makes clear that, even before the ink is dry on many 5G contracts for broadband telecommunications, China and its networking giant Huawei are gearing up to ensure their vision of the internet goes global.

But Huawei’s plans for 6G and beyond make U.S. concerns over 5G look paltry: Huawei is proposing a fundamental internet redesign, which it calls “New IP,” designed to build “intrinsic security” into the web. Intrinsic security means that individuals must register to use the internet, and authorities can shut off an individual user’s internet access at any time. In short, Huawei is looking to integrate China’s “social credit,” surveillance, and censorship regimes into the internet’s architecture.

The New IP proposal itself rests on a flawed technical foundation that threatens to fragment the internet into a mess of less interoperable, less stable, and even less secure networks. To avoid scrutiny of New IP’s shortcomings, Huawei has circumvented international standards bodies where experts might challenge the technical shortcomings of the proposal. Instead, Huawei has worked through the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union (ITU), where Beijing holds more political sway.

The appropriate place for a review of the New IP concept would be the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The IETF and other standards bodies are examining most of the technical changes to internet infrastructure that make up the New IP proposal, and these bodies have said it is premature to make a dramatic change without more information and consensus. Huawei’s plan to rebuild the internet from the top-down based on speculative-use cases – uses of the internet that might one day exist as opposed to an established use that current users or businesses are already clamoring for – bucks the logic of internet governance, which postulates that change should be incremental and based on established needs.

Authoritarian Blocs

Huawei’s and the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) turn to the ITU is no surprise, even though the ITU’s jurisdiction does not include internet architecture. When it comes to internet governance, the CCP and other authoritarian regimes have long favored multilateral international institutions like the ITU over multistakeholder international institutions such as the IETF or the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Multistakeholder institutions are governed by a diverse array of representatives from industry, civil society, and government; multilateral institutions only provide voting power to national governments. In multistakeholder fora, civil society and industry representatives tend to favor a free and open internet, which dilutes the influence of national governments, many of whom are likely to favor a tightly regulated, censorable internet.

Authoritarian governments can marginalize private industry and citizens’ groups by working through multilateral fora such as the ITU, meaning the U.N. and the ITU will naturally be more receptive to proposals like New IP that grant national governments more control over the internet. In 2019, China and Russia leveraged a similar authoritarian bloc within the U.N. to pass a censorship-friendly cybercrime resolution. A comparable coalition of likeminded countries could help China push through the New IP proposal, shortcomings and all.

Circumventing conventional internet-governance institutions in favor of the ITU also sets a precedent for future internet governance-related proposals to go through the ITU instead of more-balanced multistakeholder institutions.

What’s more, China has held the top position in the ITU for the last seven years. During his tenure as secretary-general of the ITU, Houlin Zhao of China has encouraged the expansion of the ITU’s mandate from just a telecommunications agency to a “technology agency” by working on technology unrelated to telecommunications such as internet architecture, the internet of things (IoT), and artificial intelligence (AI).

Organizing the U.S. Government for Success

Because of limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ITU’s World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA-20), where New IP will be formally debated, has been delayed until February 2022. Therefore, Washington has time to prepare for, and confront, the first major referendum on New IP, even if it is in a less-desirable standards forum.

In its March 2020 report, the U.S. Cyberspace Solarium Commission (CSC) highlighted another issue, the disparity between how the U.S. government engages at international fora like the ITU and the effort China is willing to make.

In fact, New IP resulted in part from a previous U.S. abdication of presence and leadership, as the initial inquiry into the need for this new technology emerged out of a Huawei-dominated ITU focus group that lacked American input. This asymmetry in representation extends beyond that particular focus group. In the runup to the WTSA-20, China nominated representatives for management positions in virtually every ITU study group. Even when Chinese firms do not win leadership positions, China sends droves of meticulously prepared, synchronized delegations to push standards beneficial to Beijing and its national champions.

By contrast, U.S. representatives appear to be prepared in an ad-hoc manner. The United States is officially competing for one-fourth the number of chairmanships or vice chairmanships as China at WTSA-20.

In past meetings, the United States has endeavored to keep the ITU focused on its appropriate areas of expertise (telecommunications) and stay away from intervening on other issues (the internet, artificial intelligence, blockchain, etc.) better suited to other standards bodies. The United States is correct to oppose ITU mission creep on principle. However, simply voicing principled opposition by itself is not enough to contain Chinese efforts to push ITU mission creep.

The CSC recommended that the United States make a concerted effort to compete with China on internet governance, and articulated that this effort will require (1) getting the U.S. government organized for success, (2) building effective public and private buy-in, and (3) working with like-minded international allies and partners.

Organized to Compete in International Fora

The first step is to get the U.S. government organized and resourced to compete with China in these fora. This requires the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) at the Department of Commerce, as well as the State Department and sector-specific agencies to work together to develop a strategic approach to dealing with issues like New IP at international fora. This will require increased funding for NIST. The establishment of a State Department Bureau for Cyberspace Policy, as laid out in the Cyber Diplomacy Act of 2021, would provide much of the organizational reform required. However, the State Department will require increased funding and focus to coordinate action and address the challenge of declining U.S. influence in internet governance and international digital standards.

A good first objective should be electing an ITU secretary-general who will respect the limitations of the ITU’s mandate and who is less amenable to government control over the internet. A U.S. representative, Doreen Bogdan-Martin, is running for the position in 2022. Even if Bogdan-Martin does not win the election, the United States should work to ensure the eventual winner will discontinue Zhao’s policy of ITU mission creep into areas such as New IP.

The worst-case scenario would be for Russia’s candidate, Rashid Ismailov, to win the secretary-generalship. Ismailov leads a delegation that routinely attempts to enhance the ITU’s power over internet governance at the expense of multistakeholder institutions. Ismailov is personally on record advocating for “providing governments and non-profit organizations with an opportunity to control activities” of ICANN, one of the most important multistakeholder bodies in internet governance. Ensuring Ismailov or a like-minded candidate does not win should be a top priority for the United States.

The second step toward ensuring the United States can compete effectively with China on internet governance is determining the optimal mix of incentives and prodding to get American firms to more actively represent U.S. interests.

Historically, when the United States leaves engagement in international fora up to its private enterprises alone, American firms’ main incentive for participating becomes direct self-interest.

U.S. firms see limited incentives to make long-term commitments to slower-moving international fora such as the ITU’s standardization arm, the ITU-T. To put it another way, no firm wants to waste its resources playing defense against abstract, long-term threats such as Huawei’s plan to reinvent the internet. By contrast, Chinese firms receive financial incentives from the government to craft international standards and are publicly pressured into acting as a united front in these bodies.

This hands-off approach to public-private collaboration on the part of the United States is insufficient when it comes to international standard setting and is in part what allowed Huawei to assert influence in the standards bodies such as the ITU-T and 3GPP in recent years. U.S. government and industry must work together on the vast majority of issues where the two can agree and thus counter Chinese efforts.

Third, the United States needs to build coalitions of likeminded countries in internet-governance institutions. Strengthening ties and coordinating action with traditional allies is critical but insufficient. The United States also needs to find common ground with non-traditional partners that may not share U.S. values of an open internet but are also skeptical of a Chinese-led order. The 2019 Sino-Russian cybercrime resolution, which initiated the drafting process for a treaty that would enable governments to clamp down on free speech on the internet, passed in part because 34 countries abstained. Convincing countries like Mexico, Brazil, and the Philippines to oppose China’s power plays will be key to preventing initiatives like New IP from taking hold.

The United States cannot afford a similar failure to compete, as was the case in international fora associated with 5G development and international cybercrime.

Chinese dominance in standardization will cost American firms market share and can open the door for more Chinese backdoors around the globe. Huawei dominance on New IP and 6G would not only create a less free, less interoperable internet, it would pave the way for authoritarian governments to gain expanded say over future changes to the internet for years to come.

The Chinese New IP proposal can be successfully contested, but only if the United States rallies its private-industry partners and like-minded international democratic governments to the cause. They must all work together to collectively rein in the threat of authoritarian governments using multilateral institutions such as the ITU to export their vision of the internet worldwide before it is too late.
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Crisis of American Civilization
April 14, 2021
By Newt Gingrich

We are now in a crisis of American civilization fully as dangerous and real as the crisis of the US Civil War or World War II.

During both those crises, if America had lost, it would have ceased to be America – and the cause of freedom around the world would have been dramatically weakened.

Today, we face combined internal and external threats which are as great or greater.

Internationally, we face a surging China whose economic, scientific, and technological power is now fully competitive with the United States. The recent aggressiveness in the South China Sea, against Taiwan, and in domestic repression (including concentration camps and genocide against the Uyghurs, crushing Tibetan Buddhist culture, and repressing the freedom movement in Hong Kong) are all signs of the Chinese Communist Party’s self-confidence.

The announcement of a joint China-Russia moon project is an example of the collective authoritarian challenge to the American-led freedom coalition. Russia’s movement of military forces around the border of Ukraine is another signal of the potential aggressiveness of the authoritarian states.

However dangerous the foreign challenges are they fade away when compared with the domestic threats to American civilization.

Consider these indicators that our civilization is beginning to fall apart.

Several days of looting and rioting in Minnesota have occurred even as a trial of a former policeman is underway proving the rule of law works.

A policeman is killed during a car stop in New Mexico, and our elites ignore the murder. In fact, Mayor Mike Elliott of Brooklyn Center, Minneapolis said in the middle of the rioting: “I don’t believe that officers need to necessarily have weapons, you know, every time they—they’re—they’re making traffic stop or engaged in situations that don’t necessarily call for weapons.”

There is a war on police underway with 264 killed in 2020, a jump of 96 percent over the previous year. In New York City, hostile forces use Molotov cocktails to set police cars on fire. Murder rates are skyrocketing around the country with 2020 the biggest one-year jump in homicides in American history – 36.7 percent.

Faced with aggressive criminal behavior and violence against innocent people – including young children being killed – Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib calls for “no more policing, incarceration and militarization.” Ironically, Rep. Tlaib represents Detroit. According to the City of Detroit’s 2020 Crime Report, there were 327 homicides in 2020, up from 275 the previous year – a 19 percent increase. There were 1,173 non-fatal shootings in 2020. This is up from 767 the previous year, which is a 53 percent increase.

In Seattle, Portland, and Milwaukee, no-go zones similar to those in France have been created which are effectively localized secessions from the United States.
Portland continues to be attacked nightly by anarchists. Despite pious statements by public officials, no effective action is underway to restore law and order.

In San Francisco, the declaration by the communist district attorney that theft under $900 will not be prosecuted has led to so much shoplifting that Walgreens is closing all 10 of its drugstores in the city.

The threat to American civilization goes far beyond violence in the streets.
Woke CEOs who refuse to condemn genocide and police state tyranny in China are quick to attack Georgia – even though President Joe Biden was just plain wrong (perhaps lying) about the state’s new election law. Moving the All-Star Game from Georgia to Colorado hurts Black small businesses (there are eight times as many employees of Black-owned businesses in Georgia than in Colorado). Furthermore, Colorado’s current voting laws are stricter than Georgia’s new ones. For the woke, it is virtue signaling – not fact – which matters.

The television establishment systematically lied to defeat President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. CNN’s Charlie Chester recently asserted: “I came to CNN to be a part of that. Look what we did, we [CNN] got Trump out. I am 100 percent going to say it, and I 100 percent believe that if it wasn’t for CNN, I don’t know that Trump would have got voted out…I came to CNN because I wanted to be a part of that.”

Of course, The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC would dispute any CNN claim that it alone defeated Trump. The two papers won Pulitzer Prizes for lying about Trump.

Traditional media hostility and dishonesty are overshadowed by the internet giants, who are increasingly acting like Russian oligarchs. They are trying to erase a leader who was supported by more than 75 million Americans with a ruthlessness worthy of Soviet tyranny and the Chinese Communist Party.

Crony capitalism is becoming bolder as big government and big business reinforce each other at the country’s expense.

Overt racism through race-based reparations, school quotas, and anti-white and anti-male curricula are a return to government-fueled discrimination and segregation.

Finally, when the state of California is considering requiring students to chant every day to an Aztec god who was the center of a human sacrifice cult, there are sound reasons to believe American Civilization is in crisis.

If we are going to remain America, we must oppose the forces trying to destroy us.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Liberal Law Prof Calls Democrat Effort To Pack The U.S. Supreme Court A ‘Hostile Takeover’

By Mike LaChance
Published April 15, 2021 at 11:49pm
Jonathan-Turley-media.jpg

Democrats have truly gone too far. They are actively pushing to pack the United States Supreme Court with liberal judges.

People from all political backgrounds are calling them out.

Professor Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University even called it a hostile takeover.
He writes at his blog:
Hostile Takeover: Democrats To Introduce Bill To Pack The Supreme Court
We recently discussed the controversial commission created by President Joe Biden to discuss calls to pack the Supreme Court as well as a number of truly looney ideas for circumventing or reducing the authority of the Court’s conservative majority. Some members however decided not to wait even for a commission that is itself packed with liberal members.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-NY, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others will be announcing their plan to immediately add four new justices to the Court. The number is calculated purely to give liberals a 7-6 majority on the Court. It is about a subtle as a B-52 run.
Many of us have discussed the expansion of the Supreme Court through the years. Over 20 years ago, I recommended the expansion of the Court to 17 or 19 members. However, that recommendation would occur over many years and would not give advocates the short-term majority that they are seeking. That is the difference between reforming and packing the Court.
The bill today strips away any pretense of principle. It is pure unadulterated court packing.
Watch Jerry Nadler make a total jackass out of himself claiming that this is not packing, it’s unpacking:

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1382723734872674311
.04 min

And here’s a Dem rep from New York saying that expanding the court is infrastructure. This isn’t parody, he’s serious…

The Democrats are clowns. If they pull the trigger on this, they will pay a price for it.


Cross posted from American Lookout.
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

BLM Activist Calls ‘Rioting & Looting’ ‘Legitimate’ Response to ‘State Violence’
98
NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JUNE 2: A New York City police officer stands guard in a looted souvenir and electronics shop near Times Square after a night of protests and vandalism over the death of George Floyd early June 2, 2020 in New York City. Protesters took to the …
John Moore/Getty Images
PENNY STARR16 Apr 2021373

Bree Newsome, a longtime activist and Black Lives Matter supporter, is condoning rioting and looting as a ‘legitimate’ response to what she claims is ‘state violence’ against blacks and other minorities.

Newsome gained the national spotlight in 2015 for scaling the flag pole at the South Carolina Statehouse to cut down a Confederate flag and now posts her radical ideas daily on Twitter where she goes by the handle Defund & Abolish Police.

“I’m definitely in the camp of defending rioting & looting as a legitimate, politically-informed response to state violence,’ Newsome tweeted Tuesday. ‘I’ve tweeted on this topic many times & I’m always willing to engage people in good faith discussion of why I hold that position.”

“Far from making the argument people think it does, the hand-wringing over property damage & looting in situations like this only highlights how this society treats Black people as less than human,” Newsome tweeted.

“No one has difficulty understanding targeted property damage as a political act when it’s white ppl,” Newsome wrote. “Depicting Blk &/or poor ppl as mindlessly looting just to ‘take advantage’ of social unrest [fostered by actions of the police] serves a racist fantasy of Black ppl being lawless.”

“The whole function of the focus on looting is to say, ‘look— this is why we need police even if they frequently murder people'”, Newsome wrote. “Black ppl are just waiting for any opportunity to steal & the police are the only ones protecting the property.”

“That offends many people’s sensibilities b/c people are so fully indoctrinated into white supremacy that they’ve never interrogated who is allowed to damage property & why,” Newsome tweeted. “The police are simultaneously damaging property during a riot they incited but that is deemed acceptable.”

“Half of the political establishment continues to defend the actions of the 1/6 riot, arguing that the people who damaged property that day were justifiably outraged,” Newsome tweeted. “The Boston Tea Party is also framed as a justified political act. It’s only Black ppl who must protest quietly.”

1618610210941.png

The UK Daily Mail reported on Newsome’s commentary:
Her impassioned remarks come in the midst of the trial of the former police officer who killed George Floyd in Minneapolis last year, and days after another Minnesota cop fatally shot 20-year-old Daunte Wright.
Newsome is outspoken about her belief that racial injustice in policing cannot be resolved with reforms to the current system, and that police departments should be abolished, defunded and the funds redirected to community services.
Her remarks in defense of rioting and looting drew strong criticism from conservative commentators, including Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
“BLM leader Bree Newsome no longer talks about ‘peaceful protests.’ She doesn’t want those any more,” Carlson said of her recent tweets.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

California Weighs ‘Equitable Math’: Goal of Obtaining Correct Answer Is Racist
9,189
math classroom
Max Fischer/Pexels
DR. SUSAN BERRY15 Apr 20216,489

The California education department is considering implementing a statewide math framework that promotes the concept that working to figure out a correct answer in math is an example of racism and white supremacy invading the classroom.

The framework, titled “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction: Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction,” is intended to be “exercises for educators to reflect on their own biases to transform their instructional practice.”

The “Equitable Math” website states its training manual was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the primary private source of funding for the Common Core State Standards.

“White supremacy culture infiltrates math classrooms in everyday teacher actions,” the document states. “Coupled with the beliefs that underlie these actions, they perpetuate educational harm on Black, Latinx, and multilingual students, denying them full access to the world of mathematics.”

The proposed California framework provides examples of how “white supremacy culture” has infiltrated math classes in schools:
Additionally, the document asserts the means by which teachers assess student learning in math is based on white supremacy culture, as demonstrated by:
The proposed California framework continues:
These common practices that perpetuate white supremacy culture create and sustain institutional and systemic barriers to equity for Black, Latinx, and Multilingual students. In order to dismantle these barriers, we must identify what it means to be an antiracist math educator.
In order to embody antiracist math education, teachers must engage in critical praxis that interrogates the ways in which they perpetuate white supremacy culture in their own classrooms, and develop a plan toward antiracist math education to address issues of equity for Black, Latinx, and multilingual students.
In the section that criticizes the concept of “getting the ‘right’ answer” in math, the document states:
The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so. Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity [sic] as well as fear of open conflict [sic].
Some in the education field are sounding the alarm about the “Equitable Math” framework.

According to Fox News, Lori Meyers, co-founder of Educators for Quality and Equality, said her organization sent a letter to California education officials, expressing its members are “deeply concerned about the draft 2021 CA Mathematics Framework, which contains discriminatory and divisive content that will impede us from accomplishing” important goals in math instruction.

“We ask that the state provide us with a mathematics framework that reflects sound, research-based practices over political ideology,” Meyers’ group added.
In February, the Oregon Department of Education defended its instruction of teachers via the “Equitable Math” training manual in how to teach mathematics by dismantling as “racist” the longstanding view of objectivity in math, as exemplified by the idea that one must obtain a correct answer to a math problem.

Breitbart News reported on the same “Equitable Math” manual:
The manual enumerates signs of “white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom,” which include a focus on “getting the right answer,” an emphasis on “real-world math,” teaching math in a “linear fashion,” students being required to “show their work,” and grading students based on their demonstrated knowledge of the material.
“In order to embody antiracist math education, teachers must engage in critical praxis that interrogates the ways in which they perpetuate white supremacy culture in their own classrooms,” the manual declares, “and develop a plan toward antiracist math education to address issues of equity for Black, Latinx, and multilingual students.”

[COMMENT: So much for Science based, Evidence based and Fact based. The Age of Enlightenment has been kicked to the curb.]
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

print-icon

Rule By Fiat: When The Government Does Whatever It Wants

THURSDAY, APR 15, 2021 - 11:50 PM
Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
- Ayn Rand
Rule by brute force.

That’s about as good a description as you’ll find for the sorry state of our nation.

SWAT teams crashing through doors. Militarized police shooting unarmed citizens. Traffic cops tasering old men and pregnant women for not complying fast enough with an order. Resource officers shackling children for acting like children. Homeowners finding their homes under siege by police out to confiscate lawfully-owned guns. Drivers having their cash seized under the pretext that they might have done something wrong.

The list of abuses being perpetrated against the American people by their government is growing rapidly.

We are approaching critical mass.

The groundwork has been laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.
In effect, you will disappear.

Our freedoms are already being made to disappear.

We have seen this come to pass under past presidents with their use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements.

President Biden’s long list of executive orders, executive actions, proclamations and directives is just more of the same: rule by fiat.

Now the Biden Administration is setting its sights on gun control.

Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people “suspected” of being threats, will become yet another means by which to subvert the Constitution and sabotage the rights of the people.

These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.

Nineteen states and Washington DC have red flag laws on their books.
That number is growing.

As The Washington Post reports, these laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.

In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings (the statistics suggest otherwise), these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.

Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.

Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.

With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”

While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

We’ve been down this road before.

Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

Let that sink in a moment.

Now consider the ramifications of giving police that kind of authority: to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat.

It’s a powder keg waiting for a lit match.

Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.

At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.

Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.

So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?

According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”

Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and acted like battle-crazed warriors.

This is the blowback from all that military weaponry flowing to domestic police departments.

This is what happens when you use SWAT teams to carry out routine search warrants.

This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, which Maryland did in 2018, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.

Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.

Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.

All you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.

Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

You will be tracked wherever you go.

You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.


The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

To that noxious mix, add in a proposal introduced under the Trump Administration and being considered by Biden for a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

Part 1 of 2
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Part 2 of 2


If you’re not scared yet, you should be.



Connect the dots.
Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata. Finally, add in the local police agencies and SWAT teams that are being “gifted” military-grade weaponry and equipment designed for the battlefield and trained in the tactics of war.

It all adds up to a terrifying package of brute force coupled with invasive technology and totalitarian tactics.

This brings me back to those red flag gun laws.

In the short term, these gun confiscation laws may serve to temporarily delay or discourage those wishing to inflict violence on others, but it will not resolve whatever madness or hate or instability therein that causes someone to pull a trigger or launch a bomb or unleash violence on another.

Indeed, those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives.

Nor will these laws save us from government-instigated and directed violence at the hands of the militarized police state or the blowback from the war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military industrial complex, both of which remain largely overlooked and underestimated pieces of the discussion on gun violence in America.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, in the long term, all these gun confiscation laws will do is ensure that when the police state finally cracks down, “we the people” are defenseless in the face of the government’s arsenal of weapons.

No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes. In this way, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.

The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

Red flag laws and gun control legislation are no less a threat to our freedoms.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

'Fed up' conservatives fight corporations' woke activism: 'Just get the hell out of politics'
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., listens during a virtual Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing, Tuesday, May 12, 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington.  (Toni L. Sandys/The Washington Post via AP, Pool)
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., listens during a virtual Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing, Tuesday, May 12, 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Toni L. Sandys/The Washington Post via AP, Pool)

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Thursday, April 15, 2021
Time was when conservatives and corporate America were on the same side, but the rise of woke companies acting at the behest of leftist advocacy groups has ignited a backlash on the right aimed at getting business out of the activism business.

The corporate uprising against Georgia’s new election law has acted as a catalyst, prompting boycott calls from top Republicans such as former President Donald Trump and Sen. Rand Paul, as well as the launch of conservative campaigns aimed at persuading CEOs to cut the cultural and political agitating.

“What I’m hearing is that people are just fed up,” said Alfredo Ortiz, president of the Job Creators Network. “I think people are finally saying, ‘You know what? Enough is enough. We don’t want politics in our sports, we don’t think there should be politics in the boardroom.’”

The American Conservative Union (ACU), which hosts the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, announced this week a campaign to push back against the “leftward lurch of U.S. corporations,” saying it would demand meetings with CEOs and warning of consequences for those who stay on the woke path.

“This is a fight we never expected to have to wage against entities that usually have been allies in economic battles, but we will wage it with all of our resources and talents,” the ACU said in a statement.

Last week saw the launch of Stop Corporate Tyranny, a center-right coalition that bills itself as “a one-stop shop that will reveal the Left’s takeover of corporate America and provide resources for hard-working Americans to fight back.”

“We’ve watched with growing concern the left’s efforts to infiltrate corporate boardrooms and use that power to force their agenda on Americans everywhere,” said Justin Danhof, general counsel of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “We are drawing a line.”

A well-known activist investor, Mr. Danhof co-founded the coalition with Stephen R. Soukup, publisher of the Political Forum and author of “The Dictatorship of Woke Capital: How Political Correctness Captured Big Business” (Encounter Books), which was released in February.

The group is promoting two petition campaigns: One urging Facebook and Twitter to “stay out of politics,” the other telling Amazon to stop funding Black Lives Matter.

Scott Walter, president of the conservative Capital Research Center, described Stop Tyranny Now as an effort to take a page from the left’s playbook by building coalitions to influence corporations, with one big difference: the goal is for companies to do less — a lot less — not more.

“The left has a very specific agenda, and they want you checking every single box on that agenda, and they’re going to hammer you if you don’t,” Mr. Walter said. “What we should be demanding, as far as business is concerned, is, just get the hell out of politics.”

For years, free-market conservatives have watched uneasily as left-wing activist groups cajole and hound corporate boards and executives to support a host of policy stances, but the overwhelming business antipathy to the Georgia bill came for many on the right as a wake-up call.

Not only did Major League Baseball pull its All-Star Game out of Atlanta in a show of opposition to measure, but hundreds of business leaders signed a letter Wednesday denouncing “discriminatory legislation” restricting voting rights.

Republicans sounded the boycott cry after the MLB move amid a flood of opposition to the Georgia law from companies including Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, Cisco, UPS, Citigroup and ViacomCBS.

“If they want to boycott us why don’t we boycott them?” Mr. Paul said in an April 6 interview on Fox News. “This is the only thing that will teach them a lesson. If Coca-Cola wants to only operate in Democrat states and have only Democrats drink them, God love ’em, we’ll see how well they do when half the country quits drinking Coca-Cola.”

Mr. Trump issued a statement April 3 in favor of a boycott, saying it was “finally time for Republicans and Conservatives to fight back … Don’t go back to their products until they relent. We can play a better game than them.”

Not everyone is convinced. While progressives have had success with national boycotts, including the 2016 North Carolina campaign over the transgender “bathroom bill,” Mr. Walter said the right has a “terrible track record” on the boycott front.

“Name me a successful conservative boycott. Name me a second one,” Mr. Walter said. “It’s almost unheard-of for them to succeed. I get the anger, and it is a battle that needs to be fought, but we have to fight for the long run, and we have to find new and better ways to fight. The quick fix of a boycott makes us feel good, but it’s not likely to succeed.”

One problem is that the large number of woke corporations makes it nearly impossible to find politically neutral alternatives.

“If you’re angry at Coke, what, are you going to drink Pepsi?” he said. “They’ve been horribly left-wing for decades.”

The business embrace of left-wing policy positions comes as corporations increasingly move away from economist Milton Friedman’s 1970 doctrine that the “social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.”

Mr. Soukup traced the progression from the SRI [socially responsible investing] movement of the late 1970s, highlighted by the South Africa divestment campaign, to more confrontational ESG approach adopted in the last decade by activist shareholders and organizations.

“What you’d have is these activists who were trying to change corporations, and that’s the line of demarcation” between SRI and ESG, Mr. Soukup said. “The goal of the first was to assuage your conscience. The goal of the second was to compel companies to behave in a manner that the activists see fit.”

Today, however, the activists aren’t the only ones touting ESG. The “big three” asset managers — BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street — increasingly are embracing the strategy, and among them they control $20 trillion in assets.

Last year, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink made history when he told CEOs in a letter that the firm would prioritize sustainability and climate change in its investment decisions. BlackRock controls $9 trillion in assets.

“You’ve got this enormously powerful company with an enormous amount of wealth behind it actively seeking to pressure companies to focus not on their day to day making of widgets, but focus instead on how they’re going to make the transition to a carbon-free economy, and that’s an enormous shift,” Mr. Soukup said in an interview with Capital Research Center.

The cards currently are stacked against foes of woke investing. “I will be the first to admit that it is definitely an uphill battle,” he said. “We’re not only outmanned, we’re outgunned considerably.”

Ultimately, Mr. Soukup predicted that the market would self-correct in reaction to such a “misallocation of resources,” but that small investors would bear the brunt of such a correction.

“My preference would be for investors and consumers to learn what’s going on, to make themselves aware of how it’s happening and why it’s happening, and to push back before the market self-corrects, because when the market self-corrects, a lot of people are going to get hurt,” he said. “But I believe in the end, the markets will self-correct.”

The irony is that many if not most companies would go out of business if they followed the left-wing economic prescriptions of the Democratic Party’s left wing, the ACU said.

The group said it would expose corporate leaders who are “publicly embracing and funding the Left while running companies that would cease to exist if the full extent of the Democrat’s leftist economic policies were implemented.”

“Our goal is to encourage the CEOs and directors of these companies to go back to running their businesses,” the ACU said.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Lawyer takes on critical race theory in California

by Joseph Simonson, Political Reporter |
| April 16, 2021 06:50 AM

Critical race theory training for California's state employees has led to widespread discrimination, according to a class-action lawsuit led by attorney David Pivtorak.

"The basics of the lawsuit in its most simplest terms is that some of California’s agencies, specifically the California Natural Resources Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, essentially started implementing what would constitute racial quotas into their hiring decisions, promotions, and training," he told the Washington Examiner.

Pivtorak, who usually practices as a personal injury lawyer, said the "onslaught" of critical race training throughout the country's institutions inspired him to take on the case last October.

Court proceedings for the lawsuit have been delayed due to COVID-19 restrictions in California.

According to the lawsuit, the California agencies began implementing critical race training shortly after the death of George Floyd last May.

The two agencies began disseminating emails to employees alleging that "America is a systemically racist country and that white employees are all collectively guilty of perpetuating the violence of the system," according to the lawsuit.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Charlton Bonham then announced he had been making "structural changes ... to embed racial equity actions into department culture, policies, and practices."

Those changes, the plaintiffs allege, violate both state and federal law, which bars discrimination based on race, gender, or religion.

California Natural Resources Agency Secretary Wade Crowfoot then held a conference during work hours titled "What We Can Learn From Our Past to Move Toward an Equitable Future," during which speakers called "for the dismantling of race-neutral employment practices and for the establishment of a [critical race theory] ... based system that uses race as the primary criterion in recruiting, hiring promotion and other conditions of employment."

The plaintiffs in the case, who filed the suit under a pseudonym, allege the implicit bias seminars they attended violated their First Amendment rights. They also allege "racial discrimination, intimidation, and violations of [the California Constitution]," which prohibits the state from discriminating or giving preferential treatment to "any individual or group on the basis of race ... in the operation of public employment."

The case largely deals with alleged violations against California law, although Pivtorak said the conduct of the state agencies runs afoul of federal civil rights law as well.

"There are claims under federal civil rights law [that] essentially codify the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause," he said. "Critical race training is one of the biggest existential threats facing our country right now."

Pivtorak's clients are seeking financial relief for these alleged civil rights violations, as well the end of "implicit bias trainings ... and other terms and conditions of employment that requires employees to state any race is inherently racist, or to utter any other statement that amounts to racial scapegoating or stereotyping."

The California case is the first of what many legal observers believe will be a series of lawsuits directed at both state governments and private corporations over mandated critical race theory training.

Last month, the Washington Examiner exposed hiring and training practices at the healthcare provider Cigna, which some employees said were hostile and discriminatory.

The company has since taken down some of its implicit bias training lessons, including a slide on "inclusive language," which recommended employees avoid terms like "brown bag lunch."

Pivtorak said employees from companies around the country have approached him since the lawsuit was filed. The state of California is currently attempting to get the case thrown out under an anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation law.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Left’s Inability To Take A Joke Is Emotionally Crippling Our Culture

The consequence of the crusade of stifle all teasing has resulted in a generation of emotionally and intellectually underdeveloped whiners.


Casey Chalk

By Casey Chalk
APRIL 16, 2021

Legacy media doesn’t like to be joked with. The New York Times recently accused satirical website The Babylon Bee of having “sometimes trafficked in misinformation under the guise of satire.” Last year, CNN reporter Donie O’Sullivan made a similar allegation about the website:
Having a disclaimer buried somewhere on your site that says it’s ‘satire’ seems like a good way to get around a lot of the changes Facebook has made to reduce the spread of clickbait and misinformation.
To their credit, The Babylon Bee has responded to these attacks with more of the same hilarious jabbing, including articles with titles like: “New York Times Attacks Babylon Bee For Being More Accurate Than They Are,” and “CNN Attacks Babylon Bee: ‘The Internet Is Only Big Enough For One Fake News Site.’”

Of course, those like me, who believe the NYT, CNN, and other similar ideological and partisan outlets have abandoned any pretense at objectivity, might respond to the Bee’s teasing headlines in the words of Homer Simpson: “It’s funny ‘cause it’s true.”

Many Americans have gotten good at caustic ridicule. We know how to level the most searing barbs at our opponents on social media or the website combox, a weapon made all the more effective by our ability to carefully refine our language on our smartphone or laptop before clicking “send.”

Cancel culture takes many forms, but certainly one of them is the ease with which people can be labeled racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, Karens, you name it, often with social or professional costs. At the same time, however, we’re increasingly disconnected from the art of teasing.

Of course, The Babylon Bee engages in satire — defined as the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize others’ hypocrisy or stupidity — but it is a satire that is intended as playful and good-hearted rather than vicious. In this sense, much of what it engages in — contrary to the more predictable and haughty satire one sees from, say, “Saturday Night Live” or the Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri — can be characterized as teasing.

Consider headlines like “Report: Guy With Pronouns In His Bio Doesn’t Think The Babylon Bee Is Funny,” or “Biden Bans High-Capacity Assault Stairs.” Such satire is hardly motivated by animus. Neither is the good kind of teasing.

Dacher Keltner, a psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley and a prominent researcher on teasing, defines it as “an intentional provocation accompanied by playful off-record markers that together comment on something relevant to the target.” Teasing can be verbal or non-verbal, is intentionally light-hearted, and comments on or draws attention to something regarding the person being teased. Psychologists acknowledge that teasing can serve valuable functions in society.

Of course, humans knew this long before professional scientists and academics began labeling and studying it. If you’ve seen a war movie or read a book on the subject, you know that soldiers are constantly poking at each other, giving each other unflattering nicknames, and insulting their female relatives.

As an officer and friend of mine in the Air Force explained to me, teasing, whether on the practice field or during training, is an important social ritual. For one, players (or soldiers) are part of a team. Whatever their abilities, they must recognize that those talents are to support something larger than themselves.

Teasing helps temper egos that can ruin a play or get someone killed.

Alternatively, teasing fosters humility and equalizes the group. If everyone possesses some trait or personality quirk that is worthy of mockery, then we are all in at least one sense equal. Nobody is allowed to remain aloof and detached.

As an extension of that, teasing also helps build unit cohesion by building trust among its members. You make fun of me, I make fun of you, and we develop a rapport in the process. Teasing, done properly, is a form of acceptance, notes psychologist Peter Gray, because it shows the recipient that he or she is considered part of the group.

Teasing also reinforces natural hierarchies based on competency and experience. Even if you’re the brilliant new kid who is more intelligent or skilled than the aged veteran, there are lessons — and traditions — that are learned only through “time on target.” This reinforces humility, but it also keeps the pecking order explicit.

If teasing is stifled or prohibited, those hierarchies don’t go away. Rather, those hierarchies will go underground, or people will act out in problematic ways that undermine the group and amplify tensions.

Unfortunately, our hyper-sensitive culture is aggravating this problem in our institutions. Human Resources departments and woke activists warn of “patriarchal norms,” “toxic masculinity,” and “mansplaining” that encourage people to aggressively police each other’s (and especially men’s) behavior. They promote “safe spaces” and deride “micro-aggressions” so no one gets hurt or offended. Ironically (and sadly), this can result in punishing those who question such pseudo-science, like University of Virginia medical student Kieran Bhattacharya.

Yet it is precisely in pain and suffering that virtues like trust, sacrifice, and camaraderie are fashioned. Ending nuanced behaviors like these eradicates social rites that mature us in favor of those that coddle and infantilize. The consequence is a generation of emotionally and intellectually underdeveloped (and malformed) whiners.

Of course, teasing can be taken to extremes, manifested in bullying that is aggressive, mean-spirited, and dehumanizing. We all know about cases of hazing where abuse crossed lines and led people into depression, self-hatred, and even sometimes death. The goal of such behavior isn’t to foster cohesion and build virtue, but to exclude and weaken. There were, and unfortunately remain, toxic “good old boys” clubs. I have no interest in defending any of that.

I was bullied a fair share as a kid. I had a funny last name, was short, and had bad acne. I was also smarter than most of my classmates, which made me an easy target. Sure, some of the teasing hurt. But a lot of it was formative, toughening me up for greater challenges and obstacles in my adult life. It’s hard to mature if everything you experience is warm, affectionate affirmation.

Ultimately, I’m grateful for learning to absorb teasing during my first tour in Afghanistan, when I spent a lot of time with the same people in close quarters. I was ribbed for being more introverted, bookish, and innocent than my peers (I was at the time a young, devout evangelical who mostly stayed on the straight and narrow). I knew barely anyone meant any real harm by it. In time, I learned to give as good as I got.

But more deeply, I knew that we were part of the same team, with the same mission, and could count on one another. That means a lot when you’re periodically experiencing incoming rockets and small-arms fire.

Even in less dramatic life scenarios, the give-and-take of teasing means a lot when you’re just trying to live in the world with people who are different from you. If you can’t suffer a little good-natured ribbing, how will you manage the real crises and losses of life?

Perhaps that’s a question our vain, dangerously fragile culture — who kvetch even over an older man harmlessly and good-humoredly calling a younger woman “kiddo“ — should consider.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Big Business Joins the Other Crumbling Pillars of Society

As with all the other pillars of traditional America, business has gone horribly wrong.

By Conrad Black
conradblack-160x160.jpg

April 15, 2021
What a pitiful trajectory the woke leaders of large American corporations have traced as American business, once a pillar of American society and political science, has crumbled along with other pillars as if in a choreographed sequence.

The senior levels of national intelligence and the Justice Department were tainted in the nonsense about collusion between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia in 2016. Academia, apparently down to kindergarten, largely has been transformed into a massive brainwashing operation to convince the country’s youth that the United States is hateful and racist. The national political media have failed catastrophically and all surveys show that over 80 percent of Americans don’t believe a word they read or hear from that source. Any sector of American society which has done such savage violence to its own franchise will pay dearly for it commercially.

Owners of major sports franchises roll over like poodles in perfect conformity with the league commissioners, as players prostrate themselves before the totalitarian authorities of China, denigrating the flag and national anthem. Team revenues have suffered, but the insolent players have not—yet.

Critical race theory may confidently be assumed to be undermining the morale and motivation of the Armed Forces. This disruption of the command chain was evident when Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, apostatized and denounced President Trump when he led a number of high officials—including them—from the White House to St. John’s Church, the “presidents’ church,” which the attorney general had been instrumental in saving from mob arson.

That two such senior officials would accompany the president and many other senior administration figures on this unexceptionable demonstration that the U.S. government would not tolerate acts of arson against historic monuments adjacent to the White House, and then renounce their actions, indicates a level of insubordination in the senior ranks of the Pentagon with no surpassing precedent since Benedict Arnold. General Douglas MacArthur’s public insubordination toward President Truman, though intolerable, was strategically well-founded and was the act of one of America’s greatest soldiers, and was not remotely as outrageous as the conduct of Esper and Milley (who labor happily on under the new regime).

Private and Public Interests
The national political media have been generally liberal since the Great Depression 90 years ago, and were always comfortable wallowing in their income and influence while putting up a diverting masquerade of being champions of the little people. The complacent hypocrisy of limousine liberals has given way to a rabidly self-righteous loathing of much of America, and pompous self-justification for reducing all reporting to tendentious comment.

They have destroyed their craft and made a roaring bonfire of their credibility. It will be a long road back, and they haven’t started on it yet.

All these separate but complementary groups, essential to a vital society, have broken and crumpled, squandered their credibility, and incinerated the goodwill that they had built up over generations.

Now comes 21st-century American big business. Apart from complicated and occasionally corrupt arrangements such as bedeviled the post-presidential life of General Ulysses S. Grant, great American capitalists kept relatively clear of politics. “The public be damned!” said William Henry Vanderbilt. J. Pierpont Morgan was more upbeat and invited President Theodore Roosevelt in the financial crisis of 1906-1907 to “send your man to meet my man,” and they would work it out. Roosevelt indicted Morgan’s corporation for monopolistic practices, but he did produce the sportsmanlike gesture of naming one of Morgan’s junior partners, Robert Bacon, as his final secretary of state.

In the unambiguously conservative Republican administrations of the 1920s, the leading figures were three giants of the American private sector: international engineer and distributor of relief in Europe at the end of World War I, Herbert Hoover; America’s greatest steel magnate and three-term tax-cutting Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, and the Chicago utilities executive and banker, Vice President Charles G. Dawes.

Franklin D. Roosevelt at first brought to Washington only a few comparatively progressive supporters such as Joseph Kennedy and Averell Harriman. But once the war clouds darkened, he moved steadily towards a national unity government which eventually included the chairman of U.S. Steel, Edward Stettinius, Jr., (Secretary of State) and the publisher of the Republican Chicago Daily News Frank Knox (Navy Secretary).

Corporate America’s intimacy with the federal government reached its flood tide with the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Among the prominent businessmen who were in his cabinet were iron ore executive George M. Humphrey, General Electric chairman Charles E. Wilson, and Colgate-Palmolive chief Neil McElroy. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon continued such associations, with such prominent business figures as Douglas Dillon (Treasury), Robert McNamara (Defense), David Kennedy (Treasury), and George Romney (Housing, but he had also been governor of Michigan).

A Half-Century of Decay
There was a very honorable basis for the association between big business and government, perhaps best encapsulated in the longest-serving head of General Motors Corporation, Alfred P. Sloan’s statement to President Roosevelt and a room full of other prominent executives shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor: “Mr. President, tell us what you need and General Motors will supply five percent of it.”

Business was essentially Republican, conservative, in favor of low taxes, and resistant to aggressive collective bargaining by unions. But it was unambiguously patriotic, always ready to cooperate to the utmost in a national emergency, and generally behaved responsibly in all public policy areas, though these standards evolved somewhat, especially in environmental matters.

American big business was a subject of national pride and it came to penetrate world markets and was a mighty engine of employment and income distribution through wages and salaries, procurement and fabrication, equity market capital appreciation, and dividends.

As with all these other pillars of traditional America, it has gone horribly wrong. For more than 50 years, American business leaders pretended that business was an academic subject and poured billions of their shareholders’ and their own money into business schools. Almost anyone who has succeeded in business knows the best method of learning about it is to do it rather than to study it academically.

Corporations and executives sustained the legal cartel and its exorbitant fee structure and felt diminished by the condescensions of a learned profession that they fed. Then with the tremendous breakthroughs into high-tech instant wealth, the traditional business ethic disintegrated: it was no longer a matter of Harvard Business School’s critical path. A garage and an idea would do it and very young people of colossal wealth suddenly sprouted up, full of opinions and socially and politically aggressive.

Like these other pillars of traditional American social strength, old business crumbled. It doesn’t believe in anything. JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon simply folded (proudly) before Obama Attorney General Eric Holder and handed over billions in reparations for his own management group’s errors. Ed Bastian can’t provide snacks on Delta Airlines, but he is an instant expert on the need to eliminate any system of verification of all votes. General Motors, long the world’s greatest corporation, then a spectacular bankruptcy, has come snorting into the public square like a great pterodactyl to demand that all votes be counted under all circumstances.

It is all nonsense; these people are poltroons and posturers. Each of these pillars has crumbled and each will be rebuilt and the era of flabby, overpaid executives telling America how to run its elections will be soon looked back upon with disdain and incredulity.
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city

California Weighs ‘Equitable Math’: Goal of Obtaining Correct Answer Is Racist
9,189
math classroom
Max Fischer/Pexels
DR. SUSAN BERRY15 Apr 20216,489

The California education department is considering implementing a statewide math framework that promotes the concept that working to figure out a correct answer in math is an example of racism and white supremacy invading the classroom.

The framework, titled “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction: Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction,” is intended to be “exercises for educators to reflect on their own biases to transform their instructional practice.”

The “Equitable Math” website states its training manual was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the primary private source of funding for the Common Core State Standards.

“White supremacy culture infiltrates math classrooms in everyday teacher actions,” the document states. “Coupled with the beliefs that underlie these actions, they perpetuate educational harm on Black, Latinx, and multilingual students, denying them full access to the world of mathematics.”

The proposed California framework provides examples of how “white supremacy culture” has infiltrated math classes in schools:




Additionally, the document asserts the means by which teachers assess student learning in math is based on white supremacy culture, as demonstrated by:


The proposed California framework continues:


In the section that criticizes the concept of “getting the ‘right’ answer” in math, the document states:

Some in the education field are sounding the alarm about the “Equitable Math” framework.

According to Fox News, Lori Meyers, co-founder of Educators for Quality and Equality, said her organization sent a letter to California education officials, expressing its members are “deeply concerned about the draft 2021 CA Mathematics Framework, which contains discriminatory and divisive content that will impede us from accomplishing” important goals in math instruction.

“We ask that the state provide us with a mathematics framework that reflects sound, research-based practices over political ideology,” Meyers’ group added.
In February, the Oregon Department of Education defended its instruction of teachers via the “Equitable Math” training manual in how to teach mathematics by dismantling as “racist” the longstanding view of objectivity in math, as exemplified by the idea that one must obtain a correct answer to a math problem.

Breitbart News reported on the same “Equitable Math” manual:

“In order to embody antiracist math education, teachers must engage in critical praxis that interrogates the ways in which they perpetuate white supremacy culture in their own classrooms,” the manual declares, “and develop a plan toward antiracist math education to address issues of equity for Black, Latinx, and multilingual students.”

[COMMENT: So much for Science based, Evidence based and Fact based. The Age of Enlightenment has been kicked to the curb.]


This needs its own thread.

Wonder how many bridges are going to fail............buildings fall...........dams collapse........nuclear plants go critical............because some kid never learned that "racist" math......................
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Liberal Media FREAKS OUT Over News of ‘America First Caucus’ Forming Among House Republicans

Shane Trejo
Apr 16, 2021

Left-wing news reporters are freaking out over news of the formation of an America First Caucus in Congress, led by Reps. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), that will maintain Trump’s momentum in the GOP and carry it forward in the legislature.

Punchbowl News is particularly troubled by the revelations:
NEW In @PunchbowlNews Midday

A new America First Caucus — led by @mtgreenee and @RepGosar — is recruiting people to join based on “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” architectural style that “befits the progeny of European architecture”

Some of the most nativist stuff we’ve seen pic.twitter.com/diPDItUt2V
— Punchbowl News (@PunchbowlNews) April 16, 2021
“We’ve been covering Congress for a long time, and this is some of the most nakedly nativist rhetoric we’ve ever seen,” Punchbowl News said of the America First Caucus.

They pointed to talking points from the Caucus that they are highlighting in order to paint the patriotic endeavor as some kind of nefarious operation.

“America is a nation with a border, and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions,” one quote states.

“The America First Caucus will work towards an infrastructure that reflects the architectural, engineering and aesthetic value that befits the progeny of European architecture, whereby public infrastructure must be utilitarian as well as stunningly, classically beautiful, befitting a world power and a source of freedom,” the infrastructure plank of the caucus states.

“Our education has worked to actively undermine pride in America’s great history and is actively hostile to the civic and cultural assimilation necessary for a strong nation,” their platform continues.

Big League Politics has reported on the rise of the America First sentiment within the GOP, which is gaining momentum rapidly with Trump leaving office and the majority of Republicans rolling over for electoral fraud:

The second annual America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC) took place Friday night in Orlando, Florida, the same city where CPAC has been holding its own conference.

The speakers at AFPAC included political commentator Vincent James, reporter Jon Miller, bestselling author and columnist Michelle Malkin, former congressman Steve King, sitting congressman Rep. Paul Gosar, and political commentator and activist Nick Fuentes.

AFPAC is a conference specifically for the dissident wing of conservative politics known as the America First movement. The movement held its first political action conference last year in Washington DC as an invitation only event, but this year’s event opened to the public and sold tickets on a first-come, first-served basis…

In his speech Rep. Paul Gosar mentioned how President Trump signed into law seven of his bills, making him one of the most effective members of Congress, and he credits his success to putting his constituents and his country first. He also stated that the US’ generous immigration system and accommodation of Big Tech have been abused and are no longer working in the interests of the American people. He believes the Republican Party can run and win on an America First agenda—and that it desperately needs to.

“The choice is clear: America First or American decline,” Gosar said.


The liberals are scared, and perhaps they should be. The new vanguard on the right-wing is not likely to roll over to leftist dominance like previous generations have done. The days of Republicans being the Washington Generals to the Democrats’ Harlem Globetrotters are over.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

House Judiciary Committee approves plan to put Big Tech in check
“Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook each hold monopoly power over significant sectors of our economy. This monopoly moment must end."

House Judiciary Committee approves plan to put Big Tech in check


James AnthonyThe Post Millennial

April 15, 2021 3:24 PM1 Mins Reading

The Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives on Thursday released a statement saying that a report has convinced them that Big Tech companies have been engaging in trust-like behavior.

Companies mentioned in the report, which was first released in October, include Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple.

According to Reuters, the report further recommended overhauling the current antitrust laws, which were first enacted over a century ago, using dozens of examples of behaviour by Big Tech companies that, while legal, is not necessarily ethical.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) 's spokesperson said in the Thursday statement:

“Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook each hold monopoly power over significant sectors of our economy. This monopoly moment must end."

"Now that the Judiciary Committee has formally adopted our findings, I look forward to crafting legislation that addresses the significant concerns we have raised."

The report contains a wide range of recommended changes to laws, ranging from increasing the budgets of antitrust agencies to specifically limiting the scope of countries such as Amazon.

Also mentioned in the report was the possibility of strengthening smaller companies' negotiating power before the Big Tech giants by allowing and encouraging them to form syndicates for collective bargaining purposes.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Commentary: Who Funds the Riotous American Left and Why?

1618631489056.png

by Dr. Michael Rectenwald

Why do giant corporations and billionaires fund Black Lives Matter and Antifa, both avowed socialist groups? And why do the leftists accept their aid? They both want a kind of socialism, but only one of them could get their way.

If you’re at all familiar with the corporate and billionaire funding sources behind Black Lives Matter and Antifa and the socialist commitments of these groups and their leaders, you’ve probably wondered why the ‘capitalist class’ would support a movement whose doctrine is apparently antithetical to their own interests. Aren’t these funders capitalists after all, and don’t capitalists naturally oppose socialism?

And why do American leftists dance like marionettes attached to strings pulled by globalist billionaires? Don’t they understand that they’re actually serving the masters they claim to oppose?

The answer is not so simple as the World Socialist Website suggests: “The aims of the Black Lives Matter movement are aligned with those of Wall Street and the US government.” Nor is the answer that BLM/Antifa have merely ‘sold out’ to capitalists. Nor is the donor class making a mistake, or merely interested in racial equality. The answer is that the corporate and billionaire elites prefer a kind of socialism—namely, ‘corporate socialism.’

Corporate socialism
And what is corporate socialism? Corporate socialism is not merely government bailouts for corporations. It is a two-tiered system of ‘actually-existing socialism’ on the ground, paralleled by a set of corporate monopolies on top. (‘Actually-existing socialism’ is a pejorative term used mostly by dissidents in socialist countries to refer to what life was really like under socialism, rather than in the perfidious books of Marx and his epigones.)

Wealth for the few, ‘economic equality,’ under reduced conditions, for the many—corporate socialism is a form of neo-feudalism.

In Wall Street and FDR, historian Anthony C Sutton described corporate socialism, as developed in the 19th century, and distinguished it from state socialism, as follows: “[The] robber baron schema is also, under different labels, the socialist plan. The difference between a corporate state monopoly and a socialist state monopoly is essentially only the identity of the group controlling the power structure. The essence of socialism is monopoly control by the state using hired planners and academic sponges. On the other hand, Rockefeller, Morgan, and their corporate friends aimed to acquire and control their monopoly and to maximize its profits through influence in the state political apparatus; this, while it still needs hired planners and academic sponges, is a discreet and far more subtle process than outright state ownership under socialism…We call this phenomenon of corporate legal monopoly—market control acquired by using political influence—by the name of corporate socialism.”

What Sutton calls corporate socialism might otherwise be called ‘corporate-run socialism’ or ‘socialist capitalism.’

For both state socialists and corporate socialists, the free market is the enemy. They both seek to eliminate it. The free market threatens the system of state control in the case of state socialism. In the case of corporate socialism, the free market represents an impediment to the unhampered accumulation of wealth. The corporate socialists do not mean to eliminate profit. Quite to the contrary, they mean to increase it and keep it all to themselves.

To ensure and appreciate profits to the fullest, corporate socialists seek to eliminate competition and the free market. As Sutton wrote, for the 19th-century corporate socialists: “The only sure road to the acquisition of massive wealth was monopoly: drive out your competitors, reduce competition, eliminate laissez-faire, and above all get state protection for your industry through compliant politicians and government regulation.”

The difference between state socialism and corporate-run socialism, then, is merely that a different set of monopolists are in control. Under state socialism, the monopoly is held by the state. Under corporate socialism, the monopolists are giant corporations. But both political economies are characterized by monopoly.

And both systems use socialist-communist ideology—or the recent incarnations, ‘social justice’ or ‘woke’ ideology—to advance their agendas. For corporate socialists, corporate monopoly is the desired end and socialist ideology is among the means.

Socialist ideology works to the benefit of corporate socialists because it demonizes competition and the free market in an effort to eliminate them. This explains why capitalist corporations like Amazon and mega-wealthy capitalist donors like George , Soros and Tom Steyer actually fund organizations with explicitly socialist agendas, like Black Lives Matter, and why Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other internet giants apparently favor leftist and even socialist over ‘rightwing’ content and users.

Corporate socialism, the coronavirus lockdowns, and the riots
We can see the corporate socialist plan in action with the Covid-19 lockdowns and the Black Lives Matter/Antifa riots. The draconian lockdown measures employed by Democratic governors and mayors and the destruction perpetrated by the rioters are doing the work that corporate socialists want done. Is it any wonder that corporate elites favor leftist politics? In addition to destabilizing the nation state, leftist politics are helping to destroy small businesses, thus eliminating competitors.

As the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) points out, the lockdowns and riots have combined to level a one-two punch that is knocking out millions of small businesses—“the backbone of the American economy”—all across America.

FEE reported that “…7.5 million small businesses in America are at risk of closing their doors for good. A more recent survey showed that even with federal loans, close to half of all small business owners say they’ll have to shut down for good. The toll has already been severe. In New York alone, stay-at-home orders have forced the permanent closure of more than 100,000 small businesses.”

Moreover, minority-owned businesses are the most at-risk. Even New York Governor Andrew Cuomo agrees: “They are 90 percent of New York’s businesses and they’re facing the toughest challenges.”

Meanwhile, as FEE also notes, there is no evidence that the lockdowns have done anything to slow the spread of the virus. Likewise, there is no evidence that Black Lives Matter has done anything to help black lives. If anything, the riotous and murderous campaigns of Black Lives Matter and Antifa have proven that black lives do not matter to Black Lives Matter. In addition to murdering black people, the Black Lives Matter and Antifa protest riots have done enormous damage to black businesses and neighborhoods, and thus, to black lives.

As small businesses have been crushed by the combination of draconian lockdowns and riotous lunacy, corporate giants like Amazon have thrived like never before. The two developments ‘just so happen’ to move us closer to corporate-run socialism.

As BBC News noted, at least three of the tech giants—Amazon, Apple, and Facebook—have appreciated massive gains during the lockdowns, gains which were no doubt abetted by riots that cost 1 to 2 billion in property damages.

During the three months ending with June, Amazon’s “quarterly profit of $5.2bn (£4bn) was the biggest since the company’s start in 1994 and came despite heavy spending on protective gear and other measures due to the virus.”

Amazon’s sales rose by 40 percent in the three months ending in June. As reported by TechCrunch.com, Facebook and its WhatsApp and Instagram platforms saw a 15 percent rise in users, which brought revenues to a grand total of $17.74 billion in the first quarter.

Facebook’s total users climbed to 3 billion internet users in March, or two-thirds of the world’s internet users, a record. Apple’s revenues soared during the same period, with quarterly earnings rising 11% year-on-year to $59.7 billion.

Walmart, the country’s largest grocer, said profits rose 4 percent, to $3.99 billion,” during the first quarter of 2020, as reported by the Washington Post.

These same corporations are also major supporters of Black Lives Matter and affiliated groups. As cnet.com reported, “Google has committed $12 million, while both Facebook and Amazon are donating $10 million to various groups that fight against racial injustice. Apple is pledging a whopping $100 million for a new Racial Equity and Justice Initiative that will ‘challenge the systemic barriers to opportunity and dignity that exist for communities of color, and particularly for the black community’ according to Apple CEO Tim Cook.”

Is it just a coincidence that the number of small businesses have been nearly cut in half by the Covid-19 lockdowns and the Black Lives Matter/Antifa riots, while the corporate giants have consolidated their grip on the economy, as well as their power over individual expression on the internet and beyond? Or, do the lockdowns and the riots prove that corporate socialism is afoot? And is “woke capitalism” merely a concerted PR campaign for appeasing activists and black people in order to curry favor and avoid cancel culture? Or, does woke capitalism actually express globalist, corporate socialist interests? What would a politics that serves such interests look like?

Corporate socialism and contemporary leftism
To benefit the globalist agenda of corporate socialists, those of monopolies or near monopolies, a political creed would likely promote the free movement of labor across national borders and thus would be internationalist rather than nationalist.

The global corporate monopolies or would-be monopolies would likely benefit from the creation of utterly new identity types for new niche markets, and thus would welcome and encourage gender pluralism, transgenderism and other identity morphisms. The disruption of stable gender identity categories erodes and contributes to the dismantling of the family, or the last bastion of influence between the masses and corporate power.

Ultimately, the global capitalist corporation would benefit from a singular globalized governmental monopoly with one set of laws, and thus would promote a borderless internationalism under a global government, preferably under their complete control, otherwise known as globalism. And the corporate socialists would benefit from the elimination of small businesses.

How does this line up with contemporary leftism? It has the same objectives.

Leftism encourages unfettered immigration. It encourages gender pluralism and transgenderism and openly calls for the dissolution of the family. It seeks to destroy historical memory, inherited culture, Christianity, and the nation state. It aims at a one-world monopoly of government. And it despises small business and free enterprise.

Thus, leftist politics align perfectly with the globalist interests of monopolistic corporations. And corporate socialists are the beneficiaries of their ‘activism.’
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar to launch 'America First Caucus' that praises 'Anglo-Saxon political traditions'


by Emily Brooks, Political Reporter |
April 16, 2021 05:03 PM

Firebrand right-wing Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar reportedly plan to start an "America First Caucus" in the House that asserts the United States is "strengthened by a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions."

"History has shown that societal trust and political unity are threatened when foreign citizens are imported en-masse into a country, particularly without institutional support for assimilation and an expansive welfare state to bail them out should they fail to contribute positively to the country," says the draft policy platform obtained by Punchbowl News.

Another part of the proposal praises classical architecture. "As the Romans demonstrated with aqueducts, walls and roads, function and beauty are not at odds. Federally funded infrastructure, including roads, buildings, airports, seaports, bridges, should demonstrate a pride of workmanship," it says.

The caucus is set to be a gathering of high-profile and bombastic Republicans.

Greene was removed from her committee assignments earlier this year over her past incendiary statements, support for conspiracy theories, and social media interactions. Gosar recently took heat for speaking at an alternative to the Conservative Political Action Conference that was hosted by Nick Fuentes, who has entertained apparent Holocaust denialism and downplayed Jim Crow laws.

Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who is being investigated by the Department of Justice over whether he had sex with a 17-year-old or paid for prostitutes (allegations that he denies), signaled his support for the caucus in a tweet on Friday.

The praise for "Anglo-Saxon" traditions, opposition to mass immigration, and praise of classic architectural features of Roman aqueducts and roads are prompting criticism, with some saying that the language is racist.

"Take your nativist crap and shove it," tweeted California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu.

"Let’s just call this America First Caucus what it is: the White Power Caucus," tweeted former California Democratic Rep. Katie Hill.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Gaslighting of the American People
By Jackie Cushman
April 15, 2021 5 Min Read

This week, Project Veritas released a video of Charlie Chester, a CNN technical director, talking to a woman who recorded him during what he thought were "dates"; she had purposely targeted him and videoed him surreptitiously. While you might not agree with her tactics, her videos reveal that CNN was involved in what proved to be a successful media campaign to control the political process.

"Look what we did, we got Trump out. I am 100% going to say it, and I 100% believe that, if it wasn't for CNN, I don't know that Trump would have got voted out," Chester said. "Our focus was to get Trump out of office, right? Without saying it, that's what it was."

Part of the process within CNN, according to the tapes, was to highlight anything negative against then-President Donald Trump. If Trump's "hand was shaking or whatever, I think. We brought in so many medical people to all tell a story that was all speculation — that he was neurologically damaged, and he was losing it," said Chester. "We were creating a story there that we didn't know anything about. That's what — I think, that's propaganda."

The opposite tack was taken with Biden, according to Chester. "We would always show shots of him jogging and that 'I'm healthy,' you know ... and him in his aviator shades," he said. "Like you paint him as a young geriatric." Looking at the coverage during the campaign, it was clear that Trump was treated poorly while Biden and his team were covered in glowing terms. The same is true in many other media outlets in different political environments.

For over a year, we have been told that the number of COVID-19 deaths is astronomical; this information has led to policy decisions including lockdowns, vaccines and social isolation. This week, the National News in the United Kingdom published a story written by Brodie Owen that said, "One in four 'Covid-19 deaths' in UK not caused by the disease." The story revealed that COVID-19 deaths in the United Kingdom have been grossly over-reported.

"The latest Office for National Statistics data shows that 23 per cent of coronavirus deaths registered in the UK were among those who died with the virus rather than from the illness," Owen wrote, "meaning Covid-19 was not the primary cause of death." This should be a front-page story everywhere, with the follow-up question of: How much are the numbers overinflated in other countries?

But we all know that fear sells news and empowers other people to control our actions by making us afraid and unsure — even when the facts might not justify those feelings.

There is always a quest by media to cover something fearful. "I think there's a COVID fatigue," said Chester. Referring to CNN, he said that "So, like whenever a new story comes up, they're going to latch onto it. They've already announced in our office that once the public is — will be open to it — we're going to start focusing mainly on climate ... Climate change can take years, so they'll probably be able to milk that quite a bit."

According to Psychology Today, "Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter's manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth."

If this definition makes you think that the American people are being gaslit, you might be right. The next campaign? Climate change.

This Monday, Scientific American published "We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We're Going to Say So," by senior editor Mark Fischetti. "Why 'emergency'? Because words matter," Fischetti wrote. "To preserve a livable planet, humanity must take action immediately. Failure to slash the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make the extraordinary heat, storms, wildfires and ice melt of 2020 routine. ...The media's response to COVID-19 provides a useful model," he added. "Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devasting impacts, called out disinformation and told audiences how to protect themselves (with masks and social distancing, for example)."

We know now that, at least in the UK (and probably everywhere), the COVID-19 death numbers were vastly over-reported. What the media does is focus on churning out stories that create fear and controversy, which feels an awful lot like the gaslighting of the American people in order to control the political process.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

GOP Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene Forms “America First Caucus” — Will Take On Voter Fraud, Big Tech

By ProTrumpNews Staff
Published April 17, 2021 at 9:42am
marjorie-taylor-greene-presser.jpg

Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) continues to shine.

According to a document that has surfaced, Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene is forming an “America First Caucus”.

From the document:
The America First Caucus (AFC) exists to promote Congressional policies that are to the long-term benefit of the American nation. The North Star of any policy proposal will be that which serves the American people, and any consequential analysis of policy platforms must be based on this first principle.
Here are the main political issues the caucus will focus on:
Election Fraud, Sovereignty, Big Tech, Immigration, Infrastructure, Foreign Aid, National Security, Trade, Environment, Energy, Protecting the Value of American Savings, America First Education, The Chinese Communist Party
Click here to read their full platform

A spokesperson for Marjorie Taylor Greene confirmed to CNN that the group is real and is being formed. The spokesperson also pointed out that someone leaked the draft for the caucus to the press.

Far-left CNN reported:
A spokesperson for Greene, Nick Dyer, complained about the initial draft of the flier being leaked but confirmed to CNN in a statement that plans were in the works to form the group, which will be, “announced to the public very soon.”
Trump Ally Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) took to Twitter to announce he was “proud” to join the America First Caucus.

1618690570869.png
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

“CNN Doesn’t Mind Being Racist” – Rep. Louie Gohmert Cites Gateway Pundit Report on House Floor – Goes Off on Racist CNN (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published April 17, 2021 at 10:17am
louie-gohmert-house-tgp.jpg

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) spoke out on Friday on the floor of the House of Representatives about the recent exposé by Project Veritas on the CNN lies and omissions.

Earlier this week James O’Keefe and Project Veritas dropped video of CNN director Charlie Chester admitting the news channel uses fearmongering and racist propaganda to drive ratings.

1618690848572.png

On Friday Louie Gohmert addressed this explosive report on the House floor.

Gohmert calls out CNN for being racist in their news coverage.
He’s right.

Rep. Louie Gohmert: CNN sees fear as the best way to increase ratings. So another article from “Gateway Pundit,” CNN director caught on hidden camera saying the network is trying to help BLM by only pushing stories that implicate white people. Well, that’s unfortunate. What that shows is that CNN doesn’t mind being racist. It’s very unfortunate we would stir up that kind of animosity. (We) have a major news network or what used to be a major news network, CNN, pushing racist divides.
Video via CSPAN on website 1:10 min
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Woke Capital Is Destined To Become A Relic

SATURDAY, APR 17, 2021 - 04:20 PM
Authored by Peter Earle via The American Institute for Economic Research,

In a market economy, consumers vote with their dollars. The survival and growth of a business depends pivotally upon how effectively they convince customers to buy their products over those of their competitors. But recently, consumers seem to expect a new product in addition to what they were already purchasing from firms: corporate consciousness. In particular, a decidedly left-leaning consciousness.

But it’s not entirely accurate to claim that consumers have compelled businesses to “get with the times;” more precisely, the sensibilities of the public, have mostly through the media and polling, bled into corporate board rooms. Big businesses have in turn doled out value statements; some are praised, others pilloried. It’s a chicken-or-egg case: did the consumer demand woke capital, or has the corporatist, desperate to maintain market share and boost public perception of their firm, made woke capital the law of the American economy?



A New Twist on an Old Saw
In reality, woke capital is nothing new - though it has undergone many transformations and changes of name over the years. On the individual level, early industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller engaged in corporate philanthropy, donating large shares of their fortunes to charity. In the 1940s, businesses themselves started supporting charitable causes.

The idea of corporate social responsibility entered the mainstream in the 1970s when the Committee for Economic Development pushed the “social contract” model, stating that businesses function as a result of public “consent,” thus leading to an obligation to serve societal needs. (This also ties to the rise and spread of stakeholder theories, which today no MBA program would dare omit.)

That same model outlined three duties of businesses: providing jobs and economic growth, fair and honest treatment of workers and customers, and improving the conditions of the surrounding community.

The present ascendance of woke capital, then, has been less of a rise and more of a continuation––a twist, really––on existing tendencies. The contemporary culture war has only served as a catalyst. A 2020 Spectator piece reads,
As the Democratic party and cultural elites have lurched left on cultural issues, corporate America has lurched along with them. America’s ‘reckoning with racial injustice’ in the past three months was enthusiastically endorsed by major corporations, often even as their physical outlets were plundered by the ‘mostly peaceful’ activists on the street….As capital aligns with the cultural left, it is now extracting its concessions.
It wouldn’t be so unpalatable if it weren’t rife with hypocrisy. This, ultimately, is the cardinal sin of woke capital: lofty moral standards, selectively applied. In one of the earlier discussions of the woke capital phenomenon, which appeared in The New York Times back in 2018, columnist Ross Douthat pointed out the folly in Apple’s value statements:
It’s worth noting, for instance, how Tim Cook’s willingness to play the social justice warrior when the target is a few random Indiana restaurants that might not want to host hypothetical same-sex weddings does not extend to reconsidering Apple’s relationship with the many countries around the world where human rights are rather more in jeopardy than they are in the American Midwest.
Douthat’s concerns proved prescient as the turmoil of last summer––largely centered on the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and the ensuing Black Lives Matter protests––came to a head. In 2020, no less than two-thirds of S&P 500 companies released statements of solidarity with the movement; a smaller share, 36 percent, contributed funds to racial justice organizations.

S&P 500 ESG Index (5 yrs)

(Source: Bloomberg Finance, LP)

Nike and The Washington Post, among other employers, gave workers Juneteenth off as a paid holiday. Companies participated in #BlackOutTuesday, posting just a black square to their social media accounts. Managers assigned left-wing political texts to employees. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon dropped by a Chase branch to take a knee with staff in support of racial justice protests (and, it seems, could not resist taking advantage of the photo opportunity).

The immediate aftermath of these actions was characterized by confusion and skepticism alike. Black employees of many companies that had sprung into activist action found the messaging inconsistent with their personal experiences, speaking to poor racial climates and difficulty in climbing the career ladder.

Nearly one year later, investor groups are still pressuring banks and industry giants to support shareholder resolutions that will hold them to proof of progress measures. Though Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) disagrees with the premise of “woke capital,” it nonetheless concedes that “many corporate overtures to diversity, racial justice and progress are marketing gimmicks that don’t actually address structural economic inequality, and, at worst, are meant to distract from any kind of class reckoning.”

Stunts and Missteps
One such blunder came in the form of the McCann ad agency’s Black Lives Matter blunder. In early June, the firm asked artist Shantell Martin to paint a BLM mural on the storefront of McCann’s client Microsoft. The email specifically requested that Martin finish the piece within a few days, “while the protests are still relevant.” Martin teamed up with other black artists who had been approached by McCann, eviscerating the agency in a letter that decried the disingenuity of activism with an expiration date.

With all that in mind, it must be said that not every business simply postures for the sake of posturing. In the early days of corporate social responsibility, Milton Hershey of The Hershey Company built far more than just production facilities in Hershey, Pennsylvania; he built civic centers and cultural institutions that continue to support the community to this day. And in the woke capital era, plenty of organizations have taken up the helm of well-intentioned, effective societal change. Chobani, a leading Greek yogurt brand, has made tangible steps toward social responsibility––from actively seeking to hire refugees to investing in social entrepreneurs in order to encourage innovating for the greater good, Chobani’s impact statements are far more than just platitudes.

Yet these examples are, in many ways, the exceptions rather than the rule. Far-reaching social and political turmoil has prompted businesses to feel as though they must comment on current issues, but that talk has hardly translated into any meaningful change. Social change is expensive––and woke capital is difficult to back––and as such, few businesses have put their money where their mouth is. That voluntary, cooperative commercial engagement is a center of gravity for civilization itself has not occurred to them, or doesn’t make for a flashy enough campaign.

SunSuper Socially Conscious Balanced Fund (AU)

(Source: Bloomberg Finance, LP)

Economic Calculation with Woke Capital
An issue with decidedly larger implications is whether or to what extent corporate management decisions made along political lines will impact potential uses of capital. Ludwig von Mises, in his writings about economic calculation, noted that private property in the means of production, and subsequently money prices established for those capital goods,
provide…a guide amid the bewildering throng of economic possibilities. [They] enable us to extend judgement of value which apply directly only to consumption goods––or at best to production goods of the lowest order––to all goods of higher orders. Without it, all production by lengthy and roundabout processes would be so many steps in the dark.
A large number of economically significant firms deciding to sell important assets, engage in select transactions, or limit their investments exclusively to projects managed by and firms owned by minority citizens or women may seem innocuous. And in some cases, it likely is. But to the extent that such transactions are appreciable and done in ways which preempt or confound market processes (which is to say, if they are done at prices which do not reflect the actual subjective valuation of market participants at a point in time) they will likely result in less rational allocations and overall losses of efficiency in the economy at large.

Fad or Principle?
Though consumers seem on balance to prefer activist firms, companies largely miss the mark. A 2018 survey covering 35 countries showed that 64 percent of consumers would gladly reward firms engaged in activism of some type––proving that corporate consciousness has become an essential part of many companies’ bottom lines. However, a 2020 opinion poll conducted by Gallup in the United States indicated that public confidence in big business was laughably low. Only 19 percent of respondents reported having a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in large firms. Sentiments have been tepid for decades now, with confidence lingering around the 20 percent mark since the early 2000s. And the leftward shift of business has especially alienated Republicans, with their satisfaction with big business falling to 31 percent––a 26-point decline since 2020.

Whether corporate America’s commitment to woke capital will last remains to be seen, but one questions who truly prefers this state of affairs. Companies feel obligated to offer value statements to their customers, despite often having records of conduct contrary to the socially acceptable view; consumers sense the game being played and accordingly, chafe. Structural changes, most of which involve more opportunities and less state interference, are desirable and attainable, and the lack of genuineness here suggests unsustainability. Rather than a sign of the times, the embracing of woke capital may simply come to be a relic of the times.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The CIA Used To Infiltrate The Media... Now The CIA Is The Media

FRIDAY, APR 16, 2021 - 09:00 PM
Authored by Caitlin Johnstone,

Back in the good old days, when things were more innocent and simple, the psychopathic Central Intelligence Agency had to covertly infiltrate the news media to manipulate the information Americans were consuming about their nation and the world. Nowadays, there is no meaningful separation between the news media and the CIA at all.


Journalist Glenn Greenwald just highlighted an interesting point about the reporting by The New York Times on the so-called “Bountygate” story the outlet broke in June of last year about the Russian government trying to pay Taliban-linked fighters to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan.
“One of the NYT reporters who originally broke the Russia bounty story (originally attributed to unnamed ‘intelligence officials’) say today that it was a CIA claim,” Greenwald tweeted.
“So media outlets - again - repeated CIA stories with no questioning: congrats to all.”
Indeed, NYT’s original story made no mention of CIA involvement in the narrative, citing only “officials,” yet this latest article speaks as though it had been informing its readers of the story’s roots in the lying, torturing, drug-running, warmongering Central Intelligence Agency from the very beginning. The author even writes “The New York Times first reported last summer the existence of the C.I.A.’s assessment,” with the hyperlink leading to the initial article which made no mention of the CIA. It wasn’t until later that The New York Times began reporting that the CIA was looking into the Russian bounties allegations at all.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1382783284564926475
.46 min

1618705945397.png

This would be the same “Russian bounties” narrative which was discredited all the way back in September when the top US military official in Afghanistan said no satisfactory evidence had surfaced for the allegations, which was further discredited today with a new article by The Daily Beast titled “U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops”.

The Daily Beast, which has itself uncritically published many articles promoting the CIA “Bountygate” narrative, reports the following:
It was a blockbuster story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great Game” in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.
But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven — and possibly untrue.
1618705892429.png

So the mass media aggressively promoted a CIA narrative that none of them ever saw proof of, because there was no proof, because it was an entirely unfounded claim from the very beginning. They quite literally ran a CIA press release and disguised it as a news story.


This allowed the CIA to throw shade and inertia on Trump’s proposed troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Germany, and to continue ramping up anti-Russia sentiments on the world stage, and may well have contributed to the fact that the agency will officially be among those who are exempt from Biden’s performative Afghanistan “withdrawal”.

In totalitarian dictatorships, the government spy agency tells the news media what stories to run, and the news media unquestioningly publish it. In free democracies, the government spy agency says “Hoo buddy, have I got a scoop for you!” and the news media unquestioningly publish it.

In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled “The CIA and the Media” reporting that the CIA had covertly infiltrated America’s most influential news outlets and had over 400 reporters who it considered assets in a program known as Operation Mockingbird. It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media is meant to report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the agendas of spooks and warmongers.

Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and people are too propagandized to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like The New York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news pundits. The sole owner of The Washington Post is a CIA contractor, and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on US intelligence agencies per standard journalistic protocol. Mass media outlets now openly employ intelligence agency veterans like John Brennan, James Clapper, Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash, Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known CIA assets like NBC’s Ken Dilanian, as are CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like Tucker Carlson.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1382777804014641152
2;46 min

This isn’t Operation Mockingbird. It’s so much worse. Operation Mockingbird was the CIA doing something to the media. What we are seeing now is the CIA openly acting as the media. Any separation between the CIA and the news media, indeed even any pretence of separation, has been dropped.

This is bad. This is very, very bad. Democracy has no meaningful existence if people’s votes aren’t being cast with a clear understanding of what’s happening in their nation and their world, and if their understanding is being shaped to suit the agendas of the very government they’re meant to be influencing with their votes, what you have is the most powerful military and economic force in the history of civilization with no accountability to the electorate whatsoever. It’s just an immense globe-spanning power structure, doing whatever it wants to whoever it wants. A totalitarian dictatorship in disguise.

And the CIA is the very worst institution that could possibly be spearheading the movements of that dictatorship. A little research into the many, many horrific things the CIA has done over the years will quickly show you that this is true; hell, just a glance at what the CIA was up to with the Phoenix Program in Vietnam will.

1618705783577.png

There’s a common delusion in our society that depraved government agencies who are known to have done evil things in the past have simply stopped doing evil things for some reason. This belief is backed by zero evidence, and is contradicted by mountains of evidence to the contrary. It’s believed because it is comfortable, and for literally no other reason.

The CIA should not exist at all, let alone control the news media, much less the movements of the US empire. May we one day know a humanity that is entirely free from the rule of psychopaths, from our total planetary behavior as a collective, all the way down to the thoughts we think in our own heads.

May we extract their horrible fingers from every aspect of our being.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

"I Object..." - Is This The Start Of The Turn Against 'Woke Tyranny'?

SATURDAY, APR 17, 2021 - 06:00 PM
Authored by Andrea Widburg via AmericanThinker.com,

For three days, I've had sitting on my virtual spindle a post that Bari Weiss, formerly of the New York Times, posted on her Substack page. It's entitled "I Refuse to Stand by while My Students Are Indoctrinated."

The author isn't Weiss but is, instead, Paul Rossi, a math teacher at Grace Church High School in Manhattan (annual tuition: $57,330).

On Friday, Weiss added another open letter, this from Andrew Gutmann, a parent who had just pulled his daughter out of Brearley, another expensive private school (annual tuition: $54,000).

Both are horrifying exposés of, and attacks against, the woke culture saturating these institutions.


Both letters are long and don't yield easily to a brief summary. I'll quote a few select paragraphs from each, but you must read them to get the full flavor of the Maoist madness at these institutions.

Paul Rossi, the teacher, writes that Grace Church is focused on "'antiracism' training and pedagogy that I believe is deeply harmful to [my students] and to any person who seeks to nurture the virtues of curiosity, empathy and understanding."

Rossi perfectly describes the self-hatred, mental repression, cognitive dissonance, and pure racism this training inculcates into young minds:
My school, like so many others, induces students via shame and sophistry to identify primarily with their race before their individual identities are fully formed. Students are pressured to conform their opinions to those broadly associated with their race and gender and to minimize or dismiss individual experiences that don't match those assumptions. The morally compromised status of "oppressor" is assigned to one group of students based on their immutable characteristics. In the meantime, dependency, resentment and moral superiority are cultivated in students considered "oppressed."
Rossi describes how, during a segregated "whites only" student and faculty Zoom meeting, he spoke out, inspiring the students to speak out, too. This was a bad thing.
I was informed by the head of the high school that my philosophical challenges had caused "harm" to students, given that these topics were "life and death matters, about people's flesh and blood and bone." I was reprimanded for "acting like an independent agent of a set of principles or ideas or beliefs." And I was told that by doing so, I failed to serve the "greater good and the higher truth."

He further informed me that I had created "dissonance for vulnerable and unformed thinkers" and "neurological disturbance in students' beings and systems." The school's director of studies added that my remarks could even constitute harassment.
Rossi was then denounced over the school announcement system. There's more. Read it all, because it's important.

The letter that Andrew Gutmann sent to fellow parents after he pulled his daughter out of Brearley is, if anything, even more horrifying:
It cannot be stated strongly enough that Brearley's obsession with race must stop. It should be abundantly clear to any thinking parent that Brearley has completely lost its way. The administration and the Board of Trustees have displayed a cowardly and appalling lack of leadership by appeasing an anti-intellectual, illiberal mob, and then allowing the school to be captured by that same mob.
To give context to his scathing attack on the school, Gutmann describes actual systemic racism as things such as the real Jim Crow, Jewish genocide, and the Democrats' decision in 1942 to lock up all their Japanese-American citizens.

And then he's off:
I object to a definition of systemic racism, apparently supported by Brearley, that any educational, professional, or societal outcome where Blacks are underrepresented is prima facie evidence of the aforementioned systemic racism, or of white supremacy and oppression.
...
I object to the idea that Blacks are unable to succeed in this country without aid from government or from whites.
...
I object to mandatory anti-racism training for parents, especially when presented by the rent-seeking charlatans of Pollyanna.
...
I object to Brearley's vacuous, inappropriate, and fanatical use of words such as "equity," "diversity" and "inclusiveness."
...
l object to Brearley's advocacy for groups and movements such as Black Lives Matter, a Marxist, anti family, heterophobic, anti-Asian and anti-Semitic organization that neither speaks for the majority of the Black community in this country, nor in any way, shape or form, represents their best interests.
As with Rossi's letter, there's more, much more, including all the material I snipped out. And as with Rossi's letter, you must read the whole thing.

A couple of years ago, ensconced in a Senate chamber in which almost half of the senators and all the national media agreed with him, and lying about violating Senate rules, Sen. Cory Booker made the ridiculous claim that he was having his "I am Spartacus moment."

View: https://youtu.be/FKCmyiljKo0
2:16 min

In fact, what we're seeing from Rossi and Gutmann, in the belly of the beast that is true-blue New York, should be the start of a true Spartacus moment. We must join together to defeat the racist Critical Race Theory and other maddened toxins oozing from leftists.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Pinkerton: If Red States Don’t Hang Together Against Woke Corporatism, They Will All Hang Separately
331
woke-corporatism-logos

JAMES P. PINKERTON17 Apr 20211,330

Isolation Is Weakness; Strength Is in Numbers
Legend has it that back in 1776, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, Ben Franklin quipped to his fellow revolutionaries, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” That is, if the patriots didn’t stay together and fight for independence as a group, the British would win and then hang them all, one by one.

Fortunately, there’s strength in unity. George Washington kept the army of the 13 colonies intact, and so, after five arduous years of fighting, he won a decisive victory at Yorktown. To this day, the success of the American Revolution stands as an inspiring saga of purposeful teamwork; the Americans hung together—and were not hanged.

Yet of course, there’s no such thing as a final victory; anything that humans have done can be undone, and anything—including independence and sovereignty—can be lost.

Now today, defenders of American state sovereignty are at risk of losing the federal rights that were enshrined in the Constitution and in subsequent laws. So, this article is a discussion of what to do about it.
640px-Benjamin_Franklin_-_Join_or_Die.jpg

In this 1754 political cartoon, Benjamin Franklin emphasized the need for unity among the colonies if they were to be successful in achieving independence from Great Britain. (Wikimedia Commons)

The Campaign to Squash the Peach
Every Breitbart News reader knows about what’s been happening in Georgia, as Democrats have recruited allies—including Big Media, Big Culture, and, most interestingly, Big Business—to join them in an attempt to bludgeon the Peach State into changing its just-changed voting laws.

Democrats have reason to hope that their effort to beat down Georgia will succeed; after all, four years ago, a similar beat-down effort succeeded in North Carolina. Back in March 2016, the Tarheel State enacted the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, the so-called “bathroom bill,” which sought to enforce uniform state standards for restrooms. But then came a storm of criticism, led by the Democratic president, Barack Obama, followed by threats of pullouts and boycotts. Later that year, the Republican governor who signed the bill, Pat McCrory, was defeated, and the year after that, the “bathroom bill” was repealed. (Breitbart News covered the story extensively.)

So now today, Democrats are orchestrating the same sort of criticism against Georgia. Once again, a Democratic president is taking the lead, and the same playbook—threats, pullouts, boycotts—is being played. Already, we have seen Major League Baseball pull the All-Star Game from Atlanta, and actor Will Smith announced that he was pulling a movie production from Georgia; many other punishments are planned. Breitbart News has covered this story extensively; sample headline, just from April 14: “Hundreds of Corporations, Including Starbucks, Netflix, Sign Letter Opposing Election Integrity Laws.” That is, election integrity laws everywhere.
GettyImages-1215022121.jpg

A fan looks through the locked gates of Truist Park, home of the Atlanta Braves, in Atlanta, Georgia. Major League Baseball decided to move the All-Star Game from Atlanta in protest of the Georgia’s election reform legislation. (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

Democrats wish to make Georgia into a second North Carolina, and then make Texas into a third North Carolina, then maybe Arkansas a fourth, and on and on, till nothing is left standing.

That’s the plan: defeat each state, one by one. We can add that the military phrase for an operation in which isolated foes are crushed like this is “defeated in detail.” Or, as Franklin might have put it, hanged separately.

And the woke corporate signers of that letter included Bank of America, Amazon, Estée Lauder, Eventbrite, General Motors, Netflix, Starbucks, Synchrony, Nordstrom, PayPal, Peloton, Pinterest, United Airlines, Twitter, Under Armour, and more.

And in the meantime, there’s more power massing. On April 12, CBS News reported on an extraordinary conclave:
First-of-its-kind call between more than 100 top corporate leaders on Saturday focused on how to respond to proposed changes in state voting laws. Participants included top leaders of airlines, media, law, investment.
The piece quoted one participant as saying, “The gathering was an enthusiastic voluntary statement of defiance against threats of reprisals for exercising their patriotic voices.” So far at least, we don’t know what course of action, if any, was decided upon, but whatever comes, it’s not likely that most Republicans will like it.

Then, on April 13, the New York Times reported that some 60 law firms have banded together, in association with the left-wing Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, to fight GOP-instigated voting-law changes in court.

In the face of all this financial and legal firepower, there’s only thing for the right to do: organize.

For Inspiration, Look to U.S. History
As we have seen, the founding of the United States is a lesson in the importance of rallying together. So now today, for those who care about the rights of the states, the same rallying is needed. Republicans and conservatives should see that the fight in Georgia is not just Georgia’s fight; it’s the proper fight of every American who cares about ballot integrity and honest elections. And so it’s time to revive the spirit of Ben Franklin: We must all hang together.

Happily, U.S. history, treasure trove that it is, can provide us with further inspiration as to the value of banding together. Indeed, we can even point to a moment in our past when states banded together to push back on corporate economic encroachment.

That historic pushback came around the turn of the last century. In those days, two severe economic crises—the Panic of 1893 and the Panic of 1907—convinced most observers that the U.S. needed a modern national, or central, bank. After all, as the U.S. was now a major industrial power, it needed a sophisticated banking system that could backstop its economy. In the words of economic historian Allan Meltzer:
Recessions in 1893-94, 1895-97, 1899-1900, 1902-04, 1907-08, and 1910-12 averaged nineteen months … In all, there were 113 months of recession from January 1893 to January 1912—55 percent of the time.
Without a doubt, that was a sorry economic record. And since the central banks of other industrialized countries were helping to smooth out their business cycles, leaders in America thought Uncle Sam needed the same sort of tool.

Yet while there was a broad consensus that the U.S. needed a new national banking institution, the details of the proposal were debated by various factions.
John_D._Rockefeller_1911_cph.3b08969.jpg

John D. Rockefeller, circa 1911. (Library of Congress)

The leading faction was led by Sen. Nelson Aldrich (R-RI), brother-in-law to uber-tycoon John D. Rockefeller. Aldrich championed a central bank that was truly centralized; that is, it would be run out of New York City. Indeed, Aldrich and his allies wanted this bank to be publicly established, but privately owned—the ultimate in crony capitalism.

However, not everyone agreed with Aldrich. Other factions feared that a central bank run out of New York would be run for the benefit of New York bankers, and not for the help of the nation as a whole.

In fact, the nature of the new bank was a hot issue in the 1912 presidential election. Democrat Woodrow Wilson campaigned against the Aldrich faction, sounding strong populist notes in his party’s platform:
Banks exist for the accommodation of the public, and not for the control of business. All legislation on the subject of banking and currency should have for its purpose the securing of these accommodations on terms of absolute security to the public and of complete protection from the misuse of the power that wealth gives to those who possess it.
Part 1 of 2
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Part 2 of 2


In this 1906 Puck cartoon captioned “Killed in committee,” Sen. Nelson Aldrich was lambasted for blocking reform legislation disliked by big businesses like Standard Oil. (Wikimedia Commons)

Campaigning on this plank of “complete protection from the misuse of the power,” Wilson won the 1912 election. And once he was in the White House, the 28th president joined with two like-minded figures on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Rep. Carter Glass (D-VA) and Sen. Robert Owen (D-OK), each of whom chairing the banking committee in their respective chambers.

Wilson, Glass, and Owen agreed on the need for a national bank, but they didn’t like the central part of it. Instead, they wanted a federal national bank—that is, a bank that had national power, but with that power distributed across the country, such that each regional bank was protected by a legal firewall, and thus was free to tailor policies specific to its region.

In his memoir, Owen recalled his thinking; in opposition to Aldrich and his cronies, he favored public accountability and decentralization:
There was very resolute opposition in Congress toward turning over the entire control of the credit system of the United States to private hands … the most serious objections were … The entire banking powers of the United States were to be concentrated in the executive officers (private persons), who would be located in New York City, and this power would be sufficient to coerce every member bank and large business in America.
So we can see: True to his Great Plains origins, Owen did not want a central bank in faraway New York City wielding the power to “coerce” folks in places such as Oklahoma. Continuing, he added:
It was desirable, on the contrary, that the control of the system should be … distributed and not concentrated in any one city where a small clique could control the system.
Determined to write the principle of “distributed” power into guiding law, Owen teamed up with Glass to write the Federal Reserve Act, establishing 12 regional banks across the country. President Wilson signed the bill into law on December 23, 1913.
ipiccy_image.jpg

Robert Owen (L) circa 1910, and Carter Glass (R) circa 1919. (Library of Congress/The World’s Work)

To put it mildly, the Federal Reserve System had, and has, plenty of critics, and yet in its 108-year history, nobody has come up with a better replacement model.

Indeed, we can say that one inarguable strength of the Fed is that it is decentralized. Another name, of course, for decentralization is federalism. And there’s Madisonian genius there: to make American institutions representative of, and accountable to, all of America, including its regions and states.

Yet any good idea, including federalism, needs to be tweaked from time to time. And that’s the case today, as unfortunately, the greatest power at the Fed has been allowed to cluster in just one of its dozen districts, New York. Why is that? Because New York is where the money is. For instance, Manhattan is home to BlackRock, the $9 trillion investment behemoth.

As Breitbart News’ John Carney has detailed, BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, epitomizes “woke capitalism”—that is, the hegemonic desire to use financial power to dictate left-wing goals to everyone else. Indeed, BlackRock is so huge that it can influence just about every company, wherever it might be headquartered—including, of course, Atlanta. And while BlackRock might be the biggest woke outfit, it is hardly alone in this pressure campaign.
AP_17020401061568.jpg

Larry Fink, Chairman and CEO of BlackRock Inc., speaks at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 20, 2017. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

In the meantime in Georgia itself, left-wing activists are cheering on the national pressure. Here, for instance, is Stacey Abrams telling the New York Times that woke companies should keep up the pressure: “Companies don’t exist in a vacuum. It’s going to take a national response by corporations to stop what happened in Georgia from happening in other states.”

We might pause over that telling phrase from Abrams: “national response.” For sure, the left is counting on BlackRock & Co. to keep pressuring Georgia until it caves.

Interestingly, Abrams seems to have since concluded that she herself is at risk, politically, if Georgians blame her for that “national response.” Eyeing her own likely second bid for the governorship of Georgia, Abrams is now saying that companies should not boycott, but rather, “stay and fight.” In other words, Abrams wants to have it both ways: She has summoned that “national response,” and she wants to avoid blame for damaging her state’s economy.

So what, in the meantime, should Republicans do? Here’s one answer: Pass a new law or at least update an old law. That is, update the Federal Reserve Act such that applies to 21st-century concerns about geographic diversity, just as much as it applied to the 20th-century concerns of Glass and Owen. We can recall that the law was written back in 1913 to guarantee geographic decentralization—to stop, say, New York City from dictating to the rest of the country. That was a good idea then, and it’s a good idea now.

Moreover, the Act was written to help stabilize the financial system, protecting it from wild swings. In their day, Owen and Glass were thinking mostly about insulating the nation from economic panics, and yet we can see that their wisdom—make sure power is distributed—also provides a potential insulation against woke moral panics. If the wokesters are seeking to dictate from New York City (including, of course, corporate media), then it’s best to compartmentalize, insulating the rest of the country from hysterical lefty financial pressure.

And so now today, if that insulation has worn thin, then maybe we need a revised law to rebuild the insulating safeguards.

Rallying the Red States
Fortunately, Republicans are now pushing back hard against the wokesters. It’s not surprising that Georgia Republicans, such as Rep. Buddy Carter, have taken a strong stand against the boycotters. Nor is it a shock that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is out front. However, it was an eyebrow-raiser when, on April 5, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell issued an extraordinary statement denouncing corporate wokeism:
Our private sector must stop taking cues from the Outrage-Industrial Complex. From election law to environmentalism to radical social agendas to the Second Amendment, parts of the private sector keep dabbling in behaving like a woke parallel government.
With these sharp words, McConnell–always even-keeled and usually pro-business–was putting the woke corporatists on warning.

So what specific actions could the powerful Kentuckian ask the Senate to take to restrain woke capitalism? For one thing, he might look to the Federal Reserve, which has enormous sway over the operations of banks and financial institutions. If BlackRock’s Fink, for instance, knew that Federal Reserve officials were scrutinizing his actions—that is, if regulators were mindful of their mandate to protect the integrity and autonomy of each of the dozen Fed regions—he would be less eager to issue demands from atop his Manhattan high-rise.

Unfortunately, McConnell is not in a great position, right now, to apply such pressure on the Fed—let alone to enact new legislation. Why? Because Democrats won last year, and earlier this year as well, when too many conservatives didn’t bother to vote.

Yet if Americans grow angry at the attempted rule by the woken–and a new poll verifies that anger–then GOP fortunes could change in 2022 and 2024. And if so, then Republicans could write in new protections for the states if they are threatened by hegemonic woke capital.

That is, today’s GOP could build on the federalist vision of Owen and Glass–who, after all, represented areas that are now solidly Republican–updating that vision for the 21st century. A new law–or a new and stricter interpretation of existing law–could make it plain that the Fed looks askance at Big Money muscling corporations to advance exotic social goals.

And that’s just a start.

There are plenty of other actions that the GOP could take, all of which would remind the Manhattan moguls that not every American sees things the way they do–and that all Americans, and the states in which they live, have rights that should be honored and safeguarded.

For instance, to further defend Georgia, more Republicans could join Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who has long demanded that the federal government enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. That venerable law, which was the hammer that broke up Rockefeller’s Standard Oil in 1911, has been amended and updated many times over the last 13 decades, and yet the principle point of the statute–restraint of trade is illegal–is as true and valid as ever. And that’s exactly what the wokesters are doing: restraining trade. Indeed, just about every day now, the elites are actively bragging about their activities, taking credit with the MSM; hence a typical headline: “Hundreds of Companies, CEOs Band Together on Voting Access.” We might pause over that wording: “band together.” Does that suggest collusion?

On April 13, Sen. Hawley joined with Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) to propose legislation that would undo Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption. In addition, it’s worth noting that it’s not just the feds that can file antitrust suits; the states can, and so can private individuals.

Also, Republicans could demand that the feds enforce laws against punitive boycotts, since boycotts are the weapon of choice for the wokesters. Anti-boycott laws are little known today, but they are still on the books and could be revived.

In addition, the GOP could look to the many federal laws requiring that corporate executives look first to their fiduciary duty to shareholders; that is, executives are in violation of the law if they purposefully do things in bad faith that cost shareholders money. For starters, it’s obvious that cancelling the Atlanta All-Star Game on short notice is going to be costly for Major League Baseball; all those broken contracts must be paid off, and new contracts for Denver to be written on short notice. That right there is an an obvious abrogation of fiduciary duty.

Yet for the time being, states under attack will have to defend themselves without help from Washington; as we know, the Biden administration is actively with the wokesters.

So for now, the red states are going to be tested: Can they hang together? As we have seen, Georgia, led by Gov. Brian Kemp, needs help right now.

Fortunately, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas is already helping; Breitbart News reported on April 5 that in response to baseball’s pulling the All-Star Game from Georgia, the Texas chief executive is refusing to have anything to do with Major League Baseball, including throwing out the ceremonial first pitch for the Rangers’ home opener in Dallas. And on April 6, Abbott said on Fox News that corporations should “stay out of politics, especially when they have no clue what they’re talking about.”
Texas Governor Greg Abbott holds a roundtable discussion with victims, family, and friends affected by the Santa Fe, Texas school shooting at the state capital on May 24, 2018 in Austin, Texas. Representatives from Sutherland Springs, Alpine, and Killeen were also invited and address the governor. (Photo by Drew Anthony Smith/Getty Images). Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp speaks at a news conference about the state's new Election Integrity Law that passed this week at AJ’s Famous Seafood and Poboys on April 10, 2021 in Marietta, Georgia. Major League Baseball announced it would move the All-Star Game out of Georgia in response to the election bill, which opponents claim will negatively affect the minority population's ability to vote. There is also a concern for the economic impact this will have on the state following the MLB's decision. The bill's passage follows the Governor's decision to lift many of the restrictions in place for protection from COVID-19. (Photo by Megan Varner/Getty Images)
Texas Governor Greg Abbott (L) and Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (R). (Drew Anthony Smith/Getty Images; Megan Varner/Getty Images)

Given that Texas has not just one, but two MLB teams, that’s a gutsy move by Abbott. And so Republicans and conservatives—in Texas and everywhere else—should be applauding Abbott.

Hopefully, other Republican governors, including those with major-league sports teams in their states, will join in to defend their brethren in Georgia and Texas.

Indeed, perhaps conservatives in all the states should convene to map out a coordinated response to the relentless attacks of the woken. That’s what’s needed: A red-state bloc to demand the protection of decentralized federalist principles to check the woke power flowing out of New York City, as well as other blue dots.

If such a red bloc could be established, the shades of Robert Owen and Carter Glass would love it. In their time, they built their careers around the proposition that the whole country matters, not just its financialist elite. And so today, such a red-state alliance—the threatened states hanging together—would be a righteous vindication of their federalist vision.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

WATCH: BLM Activist Asks When People ‘Ready to Get Blood on Their Hands?’
Matt Perdie

Video on website 1;30 min

BOB PRICE16 Apr 202111,712

An activist speaking at Black Lives Matter Plaza asked how long before “people are really ready to get blood on their hands” to make change happen. His call to action came during a “Jail Killer Cops” rally in Washington, DC, on Friday evening.

“Voting is not gonna bring us this (change),” Rahim B., a 21-year-old activist, said during a “Jail Killer Cops” rally held Friday night in the nation’s capital. “We voted in the new president, Joe Biden, but I told folks straight up — Joe Biden ain’t gonna do nothing for us because Joe Biden was in office as the vice-president when the Black Lives Matter movement started and ain’t nothing changed.”

“We’ve been protesting for a really long time,” Rahim continued. “How much longer can we protest and march in the streets before we are ready, really ready, to get blood on their hands because one of these days, it’s going to have to come to that.”

Earlier in his speech, Rahim said he was ready to “dedicate my life to change.”

“Bringing about that change is not going to always be pretty, and it’s not going to be peaceful,” he predicted. “I don’t condemn who loot, I support them for looting. I support people who take matters in their own hands. If you want to set something on fire, go do that.”

Rahim said fathers are not in people’s lives because the system is killing them.

“The system is killing people every single day,” he explained. “In the courtroom, you got people locked up doing 20 years, facing life sentences, for crimes they didn’t commit.”

“How far are you willing to go for this justice?” Rahim asked.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

1618708007335.png
The definitive list of left-wing companies that you should boycott

Once upon a time, the Cardinal rule of business was to never even discuss politics, yet nowadays, more and more large comporations are brazenly chosing to alienate half of the country by taking sides against Donald Trump, against Republicans, by attacking voting integrity laws, by pushing for censorship of conservative speech, and/or by reinforcing the Democrat's toxic culture war, including pushing the false and racist narrative of systemic racism. These left-wing companies are like a "woke parallel government" that threaten our country and our freedoms.

Many companies have been threatened by radical activists into supporting the Marxist hate group Black Lives Matter, and other race-mongering groups such as the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Out of fear, some companies have surrendered by posting a quick tweet or burying a pandering web page, while others have clearly gone above and beyond a little lip service to appease the angry mob, by making huge donations to go along with vitriolic rhetoric. In order to get on this boycott list, a company had to do more than just post a quick statement. You might say, the squeakiest wheel gets the grease!

Many companies on this list are run by or employ rabid Democrats who have smeared Trump and/or have donated heavily to Democrats. Some have pulled advertising from FOX network shows, are anti-2nd Amendment, anti-1st Amendment, have furthered anthropogenic global warming hysteria, are pushing to tear down gender constructs, etc. Some companies have pushed for the right to vote without an ID, thus encouraging fraud, and thus helping Democrats win elections, all while parroting the false and inflammatory lie that requiring an ID is a "return to Jim Crow."

Our freedoms are under assault by these powerful companies. This is why we MUST take action. Show them what 74 million + consumers can do to their profit margins. It's your patriotic duty. And be sure to let them know why you cancelled them! The founder of Gab says that we must create our own economy. Our boycotts matter and they have impact. Just ask Super Bowl advertisers, Gillette, Goodyear or Walmart.

What can you do to resist (where applicable)?

1)
Call and email them to let them know that you do not support their left-wing agendas! Hound them to support good causes, such as the American Center for Law and Justice, Gun Owners of America, the Heritage Foundation, the America First Policy Institute, the NRA, the RNC, and to advertise on and support the good media outlets.

2) Support other companies instead, in particular, smaller, regional or local ones, especially those headquartered in Republican dominated cities or states. If you can't boycott all of these companies, then take note of our "WORST" in category companies. If a large company is not mentioned on this page, then there's a good chance that they are apolitical and thus can be supported. IMPORTANT: When faced with a choice of companies that are all on this list (for example, major credit card companies), pick the one that you find least offensive that we have not targeted as "WORST" in category. Also, keep in mind that there are ways to partially boycott a company. Examples: Do not buy food, drinks or NFL attire if you attend NFL, NBA or MLB games. Sneak your own food and drinks onto flights with airlines on this list. Buy personal care items, vitamins, etc from good online retailers instead of our boycotted grocery stores. Use open source software instead of Microsoft software. Feel free to liberally demand refunds, discounts, and return of products bought from these left-wing companies.

3) Let us know if we're missing a large company that fits our criteria to be on this evergrowing list. Provide article links if possible. Also let us know about the good companies. We depend on your research.

4) Look the other way if you see their stores being looted and destroyed by BLM and ANTIFA -- Don't call the police! In most states, mere failure to report a crime isn't a crime in itself. However, there are some exceptions. Don't feel sorry for these companies. Most of these companies have cheered on and/or financed the mobs that continue to loot and ransack their stores, and through advertising dollars, they continue to financially support the media that lovingly justifies the riots.

5) Sell any individual stock that you may own in these left-wing companies, or if you continue to hold shares, then at least vote against all leftist board members, and spread the word on social media to other shareholders.

6) Consider the content on this page as public domain. On your own website, blog or social media page, 1) Copy and repost this list, 2) Or post a link to this page, 3) Or post a link to these older archived pages (in case this page is ever down). Just keep in mind that this page is constantly being updated, usually on a daily basis. Sometimes companies flip on us, as was the case with L.L. Bean and Goya Foods. Follow us on Minds or Gab to track the most important updates. Oh, and if you're a coder then create an app for conservative shoppers!

7) "Cut the cable" or at least scale back your cable TV package! Stop supporting the propaganda networks: MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, HBO, TBS, Comedy Central, ESPN, etc.

8) Join the movement away from Big Tech. Support alt-tech news, social media and browser.

...rest on website
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Published 2 hours ago
Chris Cuomo says there won’t be police reform until ‘White people’s kids start getting killed’

'What’s going on with these police? Maybe we shouldn’t even have police' Cuomo said, pretending to be a White parent
By Morgan Phillips | Fox News

CNN’s Chris Cuomo Friday during "Cuomo Primetime" said that police and gun reform won’t happen until "White people’s kids start getting killed."

"Shootings, gun laws, access to weapons. Oh, I know when they’ll change," said the anchor. "[When] your kids start getting killed. White people’s kids start getting killed."

Cuomo put on a hypothetical accent and pretended to be a White parent.

"What’s going on with these police? Maybe we shouldn’t even have police," he said.

"That kind of madness. That kind of mania. That will be you. That will be the majority. Because it’s your people," Cuomo said, apparently directed at the White members of his audience.

"How many more?" Cuomo asked. "Die of the pandemic, dying from police shootings. George Floyd, Daunte Wright. I wonder if you'll remember their names six months from now because they'll be replaced by so many others."

Cuomo pointed out that some focus on the past of the victims in police shootings.

"Why do that? Because you wanna make the problem them," he said. "Takes the onus off the idea that you're wrong about policing needing to change."

"Forget that police are trained to deal with non-compliance with force that is not lethal. Hey, comply or die," Cuomo said.

The U.S. has faced multiple major shootings over the past month, most recently in Indianapolis where a gunman opened fire at a FedEx facility, killing eight.

At the same time, tensions have reached new heights in some areas of the country where protesters and rioters are on edge as they await the verdict of the Derek Chauvin trial and demand justice in the police-involved killing of Daunte Wright in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and 13-year-old Adam Toledo in Chicago, among others.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Nunes Warns Spy Agencies Against Targeting Americans, ‘Particularly Republicans’

by Jonathan Davisa day ago

Devin_Nunes-758x465.jpeg


House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes knows his way around Congress and the deep state, and what’s more, the California Republican isn’t afraid to call balls and strikes like he sees them.

As such, he made it plain this week that under Joe Biden, the intelligence community can’t go back being weaponized like it was during Biden’s VP days, under the ‘tutelage of Barack Obama, when only Republicans (and lefty media types who asked to many questions) were ‘targets of interest.’

The Washington Times reports:

Republicans are putting the Biden intelligence chiefs on notice that their agencies are moving dangerously close to spying on Americans in the U.S.

They raised concerns on Thursday at a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hearing featuring President Biden’s five top intelligence officials, including Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray.

The fears stem from both the past and the present.


The most egregious example of the abuse of our intelligence community was Obama’s deployment of ‘assets’ against the 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton’s rival, Donald Trump. There should have been multiple arrests and imprisonment over that outrage, but even Trump couldn’t get the cogs of justice to move for him, so the guilty remain free.

Which brings us full circle back to Nunes: He’s seen that movie already and he doesn’t want to watch it again.

“The Democrats see political benefits in characterizing wide swaths of American citizens particularly Republicans and conservatives as politically suspect, politically violent and deserving of government surveillance,” Nunes said during Thursday’s hearings. “However, I will remind those assembled here today that our intelligence community exists solely to counteract foreign threats.

“As for the leaders of the intelligence community, I hope you plan on spending a reasonable amount of time in upcoming years on activities other than investigating conservatives and spying on Republican presidential campaigns,” he added.

Recall that the FBI targeted then-Trump campaign aide Carter Page and also went after then-National Security Adviser-incoming Michael Flynn, neither with good cause. Lies were told to secure FISA warrants for Page; lies were told to justify the roll-up of Flynn and resulting prosecution. Lies that amounted to felonies; and yet, no one paid a legal price for any of it.

In fact, many of the key players were rewarded.

Fired FBI Director James Comey got a lucrative book deal, speaking gigs, and free air to breathe. His deputy, Andrew McCabe, a book deal and a network gig with MSNBC. Others have kept security clearances and are still feted by the intel and diplomatic communities while collecting fat taxpayer-paid pensions.

Nunes was the tip of the spear for Trump during his term. When he controlled the House Intelligence Committee, it did yeoman’s work uncovering the stinking filth of corruption Obama had to have known about and approved. It’s because of him and his GOP investigators we even know what we know about ‘Russiagate.’

So if anything, Nunes is ‘on to’ Biden and his handlers: He’s been there before, he’s seen the nastiness up close and personal, and he knows how the game is played.

“Republicans feel like they’ve been targeted, and you hear that every single day when we’re out with our constituents,” he said at the hearings.

He’s right. They are.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

CBS splices gun in Adam Toledo’s hand out of police shooting video

Mainstream media is utter garbage. That's it. That's the message.

by JD Rucker
April 16, 2021

CBS splices gun in Adam Toledo's hand out of police shooting video

The entire purpose of a free press is to allow the truth to come out. In modern day America, mainstream media works against this notion and proactively works to subvert the truth with their reporting. In the case of CBS News coverage of the police shooting of 13-year-old Adam Toledo, the dishonesty on their part is striking.

They intentionally edited out the part of the video that shows a gun in Toledo’s hand just prior to being shot. We know it was intentional because the rest of the video edit kept Toledo in best view, but the split second in which the gun can be seen, they conveniently pulled the edit to the left to keep him hidden before panning back to show him getting shot.

Based on the video, many on both sides of the political aisle were outraged at what appears to be a teen boy stopping and raising his hands as ordered before getting shot. But the gun in his hand a split second before adds brand new context that makes the split second decision more understandable, though clearly still wrong on the police officer’s part.

Social media was outraged by CBS News’ editing:

Ryan Saavedra said, “This video is deceptively edited and cuts out the portion of the police officer’s body camera footage that showed that the suspect was holding a gun.”

Brodie’sBurner said, “Regardless of how anyone feels about this shooting. Right or wrong. Justified or not. EVERYONE should be outraged that it was purposefully edited to elicit a desired response from us. If we don’t wake up to what they’re doing, we’re gonna tear ourselves apart. Smarten TF up.”

Terry Cooper Brown asked, “Why is CBS deceptively editing videos??”

Steven Boots noted the outrage many felt before seeing the full video. “I was so appalled at this video when I first saw it… then remembered this is CBS and low and behold the video has been edited. The right side of the screen has been narrowed ever since [sic] slightly.. in the unedited Version this man has a gun in his right hand.”

According to The Post Millennial:

The graphic footage showed a Chicago police officer chasing two people, one of whom appeared to be Toledo. During the pursuit, Toledo stopped and turned toward the officer, at which point the cop ordered him to show his hands.

In the video, Toledo appeared to have his hands up when he is shot once in the chest. Also seen in the footage is Toledo holding a gun, which he allegedly threw away before the fatal shot was fired. The video also showed officers attempting to resuscitate Toledo.

CBS is already being accused of behaving like activists, rather than journalists, by running a story with the headline, “3 ways companies can help fight Georgia’s restrictive new voting law,” which was designed to put pressure on Georgia in response to their new voter laws. CBS eventually scrubbed the tweet containing the article and edited the headline.

Why does CBS News feel they must reframe a story the way they want it to be told instead of just reporting the facts? This deceptive practice has become standard operating procedure like it was in the Soviet Union or now in Communist China.
 
Top