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

[marsh]

Failing Leftist Coup Prompts Federation of State Governors

The flailing efforts of those controlling the Biden cabal to convince other nations that it is a "functional" entity are

conservativeplaybook.com

Failing Leftist Coup Prompts Federation Of State Governors
by Christopher G. Adamo
June 18, 2021

The flailing efforts of those controlling the Biden cabal to convince other nations that it is a “functional” entity are not working. The recent embarrassment of a “summit” with Russian President Vladimir Putin was only the latest example. The rest of the world is increasingly contemptuous towards a faux American “administration” that is clueless and hamstrung by the blinding arrogance and moral/intellectual rot of the leftist counterculture.

More significantly, Real America isn’t buying any of it either. After the four great years of prosperity and victory under President Trump, the people voted overwhelmingly last November for a continuation of his efforts to “Make America Great.” But what they received in response was flagrant election theft, with tampered voting machines, massive numbers of illegitimate ballots, and every conceivable form of chicanery.

Nevertheless, leftists presumed themselves to be fully in control. So they pressed forward at break-neck speed, crippling America’s energy industry and dealing a nearly fatal blow to the triumph of energy independence that had been achieved under President Trump. Meanwhile, leftist Democrat open borders policy, the quickest and surest path to uncontested Democrat dominance in future elections, has been implemented via “executive” order. Predictably, the results have been devastating for Americans at the border and increasingly, all across the land.

The facade of coherence and competence is increasingly difficult to maintain. In response, the current propaganda effort is to remain doggedly fixated on the January 6 event at the US Capitol which, we are told, was the single most violent and seditious action to ever occur within the boundaries of our nation. Invoking that brief incident on every possible occasion, leftist Democrats (with the backing of the usual RINO sycophants) are demanding virtual oaths of unquestioned “allegiance” to the leftist state from everyone, and on a scale never before seen outside of third world dictatorships.

Still, existential threats to the nation do exist. But those are of no consequence to the left. It is fully preoccupied with maintaining and solidifying its stranglehold on power at the highest levels. The harm suffered by people on “Main Street” is mere “collateral damage.” And its malignant anti-American allegiances mean the nation can only expect more of the same.

Thankfully, the American Spirit is still alive and kicking out in the Heartland.

Several recent events reflect a growing disconnect with the Washington Swamp.

And while this has the leftists inside the Beltway both outraged and fearful, it is only the beginning of the “push back” from a Nation that was born of freedom and the rule of law, and has no intention of ceding those things to a morally bankrupt leftist monster.

On Monday June 14, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich warned the US Department of “Justice” to stay out of Arizona, and not attempt any interference with the ongoing Arizona election audit. Leftist Democrats and RINOs have been working overtime to discredit and disrupt the audit, fearing its likely outcome will reveal massive fraud during the 2020 presidential election. Merrick Garland, appointed by Biden to head the DOJ, expressed hostility towards the audit, and threatened to intervene. Arizona AG Brnovich warned that Arizona would not “sit back and let the Biden Administration abuse its authority, refuse to uphold laws, or attempt to commandeer our State’s sovereignty.”

In Texas, Republican Governor Greg Abbott announced on June 11 that his state will fund the continuation of the American/Mexican border wall, which was begun by President Trump, but halted by the Biden cabal at its earliest opportunity. Governor Abbott stated that he has “had enough” of Biden’s “willful disregard for the rule of law, and the well-being of Texans and Americans.” So despite federal government assertions that it alone has jurisdiction over the border, Governor Abbott is defiantly upholding his oath to the people of his State by pressing forward with the completion of the wall.

Things get better still. In a brazen move, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced on June 17 that he is sending Florida law enforcement to both Texas and Arizona to help them cope with the illegal immigration crisis created at the border as a result of Biden policy. Operating under the “Emergency Management Assistance Compact,” DeSantis, Abbott, and Arizona Governor Doug Ducey are completely bypassing federal management of the situation, and dealing with matters on their own. DeSantis rightly explains that Florida has a vested interest in a secure border, as does every American State.

The combined significance of these events cannot be understated. According to the Declaration of Independence, legitimate government derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed.” In a stolen election of rampant cheating and lawlessness, the “consent of the governed” is the ultimate casualty. The “will of the people” is a mere distraction, and of no real consequence. The glaring incompetence of those claiming to be in power is actually a secondary concern, when compared to the dangers of unaccountability.

State governors who put the safety, security and Constitutional rights of their citizens as top priority are, at this juncture, courageously joining forces to do the job the corrupt federal government refuses to do. They are the best hope for a bright American future.

 

[marsh]

NY Times Freak Out: ‘Ultraconservative,’ ‘Right Wing’ Southern Baptists

At the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in Nashville this week, the denomination elected a politically “moderate” pastor, Ed Litton of Alabama, as its new president, heading off what the New York Times repeatedly referred to as the body’s ultraconservative, far-right wing.

www.newsbusters.org

NY Times Freak Out: ‘Ultraconservative,’ ‘Right Wing’ Southern Baptists

Clay Waters
June 18th, 2021 4:04 PM

At the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in Nashville this week, the denomination elected a politically “moderate” pastor, Ed Litton of Alabama, as its new president, heading off what the New York Times repeatedly referred to as the body’s ultraconservative, far-right wing.

The front page of Thursday’s Times featured “Southern Baptist Vote Hardens Split Over Culture War Issue,” by religion correspondent Ruth Graham, with lots of “ultraconservative” labeling about the conference. Graham actually penned three long stories from the SBC meeting over a week. Besides the usual aversion to religious fundamentalism, the most striking part of the unusually long series on religion was the hostile labelling pattern.

Don’t even bother tallying the endless “conservative” or “right-wing” labels, which are standard in the slanted Times: Graham felt the need to pump up the threat even further with labels like “ultraconservative,” and “far-right.” Keep in mind as you see the scary labels that the supposed extremist dangers are from figures who have no actual legal authority, only church authority:

This week at the Southern Baptist Convention’s first meeting in two years, establishment conservatives narrowly headed off an aggressive takeover attempt by an ascendant hard-right movement.
…
This differentiates them from the ultraconservatives who sought this week to capture control of the Southern Baptist Convention. Leaders of the insurgency characterize Mr. Greear and his newly elected successor, Ed Litton, as moderate, or even progressive — which they intend as slurs.

Graham condescended to define what “conservatism” actually means, the opinion of the Southern Baptist Convention notwithstanding, assuring Times readers:

In the broad spectrum of American Christian culture, Mr. Litton can only be described as conservative.

Meanwhile, Georgia pastor Mike Stone “has embraced the denomination’s combative conservative wing that wants to foreground culture war issues like critical race theory." And Atlanta pastor Josh Buice “is also the founder of a conference that attracts many ultraconservative Baptists.”

Graham even warned:

But ultraconservatives did not lose every fight….

Besides the four “ultraconservative” labels, there were also four “hard-right” labels in the story, including in the subhead.

Graham’s story from the previous day, which covered the actual SBC vote, was also riddled with hostile labels, as could be inferred from the online headline, "Southern Baptists Narrowly Head Off Ultraconservative Takeover."

Mike Stone was “an ultraconservative pastor,” and there was “a newly empowered ultraconservative faction in the already conservative denomination.” Meanwhile, “Mainstream Baptist churches and those on the far right agree that the convention’s results will serve as a referendum about the denomination’s priorities….”

In all, the story contained three “ultraconservative” labels, including the online headline, and two versions of “far right.”

An earlier table-setting story from Graham and Elizabeth Dias appeared under the online headline "'Take the Ship': Conservatives Aim to Commandeer Southern Baptists." Besides the usual dozen or so “conservative” labels, there was one “ultraconservative populist uprising of pastors from Louisiana to California threatening to overtake the country’s largest Protestant denomination.”

There was also a familiar-sounding warning about “a populist groundswell within the already conservative evangelical denomination is trying to install an anti-establishment leader who could wrench the church even further to the right….”

 

[marsh]

IRS Denies Christian Group Non-Profit Status, Claims Bible is Affiliated With Republicans - LifeNews.com

A top Internal Revenue Service official told a Christian group that “Bible teachings are typically affiliated” with the Republican Party as a rationale for denying its application for tax-exempt status. The Texas-based Christians Engaged filed an appeal on Wednesday to the IRS’ denial, objecting...

www.lifenews.com

IRS Denies Christian Group Non-Profit Status, Claims Bible is Affiliated With Republicans

National | Fred Lucas | Jun 18, 2021 | 2:56PM | Washington, DC

A top Internal Revenue Service official told a Christian group that “Bible teachings are typically affiliated” with the Republican Party as a rationale for denying its application for tax-exempt status.

The Texas-based Christians Engaged filed an appeal on Wednesday to the IRS’ denial, objecting to the tax agency’s assertion that it is partisan.

In a May 18 denial letter, IRS Exempt Organizations Director Stephen A. Martin said Christians Engaged is involved in “prohibited political campaign intervention” and “operate for a substantial non-exempt private purpose and for the private interests of the [Republican Party].”

A “legend” at the top of the letter shows nine letters of the alphabet being used as shorthand to represent something. In this letter’s example, oddly, “D” represented “Republican.”

“Specifically, you educate Christians on what the Bible says in areas where they can be instrumental, including the areas of sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, biblical justice, freedom of speech, defense, and borders and immigration, U.S. and Israel relations,” Martin wrote. “The Bible teachings are typically affiliated with the D party and candidates. This disqualifies you from exemption under lRS Section 50I(c)(3).”
Christians Engaged first applied for tax-exempt status in late 2019. First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom public interest law firm, is representing the Christian group in its appeal.

“We just want to encourage more people to vote and participate in the political process,” Christians Engaged President Bunni Pounds said in a statement. “How can anyone be against that?”

The IRS’ characterization of the Bible might be inconsistent with that of Democratic President Joe Biden, said Lea Patterson, counsel for First Liberty Institute.

“The IRS states in an official letter that Biblical values are exclusively Republican. That might be news to President Biden, who is often described as basing his political ideology on his religious beliefs,” Patterson said in a statement.

Patterson appeared to make a vague reference to the tax-exempt unit that was at the center of the IRS targeting scandal during the Obama administration. The ruling also comes amid Biden’s push for an $80 billion expansion of the IRS over 10 years, and the latter could be complicated if the tax agency appears to be more politicized.

“Only a politicized IRS could see Americans who pray for their nation, vote in every election, and work to engage others in the political process as a threat,” Patterson said. “The IRS violated its own regulations in denying tax-exempt status because Christians Engaged teaches biblical values.”

In its administrative appeal, Patterson contends the IRS made three legal errors:

By finding that Christians Engaged does not meet the operational test, Director Martin errs in three ways: 1) he invents a nonexistent requirement that exempt organizations be neutral on public policy issues; 2) he incorrectly concludes that Christians Engaged primarily serves private, nonexempt purposes, rather than public, exempt purposes because he thinks its beliefs overlap with the Republican Party’s policy positions; and 3) he violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech, and Free Exercise, and Establishment clauses by engaging in both viewpoint discrimination and religious discrimination.

 

[marsh]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1405622688740265989

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1405622688740265989
1:46 min

 

[marsh]

Dr. Shiva v Golaith: Our Government Is Using Big Tech To Launder Censorship

In Oct. 2020, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai posted four screenshots on Twitter from a collection of emails that allegedly showed Se...

uncoverdc.com

in Oct. 2020, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai posted four screenshots on Twitter from a collection of emails that allegedly showed Secretary of State William Francis Galvin and Elections Director Michelle Tassinari admitting that the state had deleted ballot images, violating federal law. According to the law in Massachusetts, those images should have been preserved for 22 months. As a result of Shiva’s post, he was suspended from Twitter and then ultimately banned permanently in February. On Nov. 20, Shiva filed a lawsuit and an emergency preliminary injunction against Secretary of State William Francis Galvin for deleting the ballot images.

This historic lawsuit has become a much bigger matter than deleted ballot images. Shiva had run in the primary with strong grassroots backing to the tune of $2 million for a U.S. Senate seat in September and lost. He maintains to this day that he should have won in a landslide. He has also filed a One Person, One Vote lawsuit, allegedly exposing computer algorithms used to steal the election from him.

Shiva won in the predominately hand-counted county, Franklin County; however, in every other county, he lost. During that time, he had been “hitting hard” on Twitter about election fraud, which he maintains he can prove, and none of his tweets were taken down. However, the minute he posted his first round of tweets about the deleted ballot images in October, he was suspended.

His second lawsuit is now a historic First Amendment case because, according to Shiva, the most important speech we have, political speech, has been—and is being—violated by the government of the United States through their social media proxies. He alleges that it wasn’t Twitter, a private entity, who took him down but, rather, it was the government who ordered Twitter to take Shiva off their platform.

Shiva declares, “We’ve been taught by media and, in fact, even politicians, that it is Big Tech or Twitter which independently throws people off their platforms. That’s been the narrative…and Twitter’s position is that they are a private actor and, as a private actor, they also have first amendment rights, so they have every right to throw people off because they are protected by Section 230.”

Shiva believes that his lawsuit will become the “lawsuit of the century” because he can prove that the government has violated his constitutional rights by colluding with Twitter to suppress his political speech—based on factual evidence of the deleted ballot images, not opinion, that Shiva posted on the platform. “Political speech,” Shiva says, “Is the most protected speech in the United States Constitution. I wasn’t just some random person,” he continued, “I was running for federal U.S. Senate seat at the time.”

No lawyer in the state of Massachusetts wanted to take his first amendment case on, so he filed the $1.2 billion case on his own in federal court with Judge Wolf presiding. Judge Wolf was the judge who “ordered the FBI to publicly disclose the bureau’s relationship with Bulger and Flemmi and to turn over its informant file.”

Shiva also filed an emergency preliminary injunction to request from the court a return to Twitter immediately. Shiva had used Twitter, a “primarily political” social media platform, to build his following organically to over 350,000 followers. He was effectively shut down, to his great detriment, during a period of time when he needed the platform most to communicate and raise money. The removal of Twitter from his use also shut off a primary platform from which Shiva could communicate his claims of election fraud to his fellow citizens.

Shiva Freedom of Speech Lawsuit
Judge Wolf wanted him to argue the Blum v Yaretzky test to prove that “state action took place.” In other words, did the government, not Twitter, take action against Shiva using Twitter as cover. During the hearing, the court was able to “elicit from the Communications Director from the government…that the government has a Trusted Twitter Partnership…it is like they have an AMEX Black Card, preferential treatment…and they have a portal that has been established for the government to report on people like me—people who supposedly spread ‘misinformation’.”

The government of Massachusetts had contacted Twitter directly as well as the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), which is also a state organization. Michelle Tassinari, the State Election Director, was also exposed by Shiva because she was about to become the President of the NASED. The NASED also contacted Twitter through their “Trusted Twitter Partnership.” In November, Judge Wolf ordered that the state of Massachusetts and the NASED should no longer contact Twitter and “if you have a problem with Dr. Shiva, you will rebut him on Twitter”—a huge win for freedom of speech.

Shiva was back on Twitter again with his email posts by December; however, by February, he was completely de-platformed permanently by Twitter for showing a video with screenshots of the emails. It was at that time Judge Wolf asked Shiva to enjoin Twitter in the case. The lawsuit that enjoins Twitter can be found here.

On May 20, Twitter brought in its “heavyweight” lawyers, and the government brought in theirs—as did NASED. So, now it was Shiva, who is not a lawyer, against Goliath.

In the process of fighting the government, Dr. Shiva became more curious about this “Trusted Twitter Partnership,” so he began to dig. It turns out there is a secret portal through which the government can communicate with Twitter to target and report people like Dr. Shiva who “spread political misinformation.”

Shiva found on the night before his court hearing on May 20, “a document written by the Twitter Legal Counsel in the UK about what is called a Partner Support Portal (PSP) to enable the government to report on potential threats to Twitter. That same infrastructure was deployed in India, in the recent election, and also deployed in Taiwan and Australia and was brought here in 2020,” according to Shiva. Importantly, “the PSP portal is ONLY for government officials—separate but unequal,” according to Shiva.

He also found a set of playbooks on a server called the “Election Influence Operations Playbooks” for state and local officials. “This,” Shiva claims, “is not just a document. This is a standard operating procedure of censorship, of government using Twitter so that the government can launder censorship.” Twitter Legal and Michelle Tassinari are chief architects of the playbooks.

Election Influence Operations Playbook/Dr. Shiva


In the playbooks, the authors identify as “‘influence operators—an IO’ anyone who criticizes the government, or a political official of corruption is branded as an influence operator in the manual,” according to Shiva. “Let that sink in,” said Shiva in his most recent YouTube Live on Tuesday

View: https://youtu.be/POhesSdjw_M
1:50:55 MIN

According to Shiva, Harvard had invited all of the Defendants in his case to come in to help develop language found in the playbooks. The Defendants have repeatedly maintained that they have no association but, Shiva proved it in his May 20 hearing.

The Playbook sounds the censorship alarm on many levels. For example, in order to target individuals on Twitter, severity levels are assigned. “A section of the document identifies a High-Level Influence Operator as someone who has a huge following, whose tweets get retweeted, and who has an established voice,” according to Shiva. “At that level, you are removed and then still continue to be monitored. This is a RICO operation between Twitter, the government, and NASED—to launder censorship.”

Shiva points out that Governor Ron DeSantis is going about his freedom of speech lawsuit in the wrong way and will lose. DeSantis just signed the Stop Social Media Censorship Act into law on Tuesday.

Shiva says DeSantis needs to go after this as a government censorship issue, not a private platform/Twitter censorship issue. The government is “doing all the work, branding people like Shiva” as disinformation actors deliberately. “My lawsuit is historic,” says Shiva, “The Government gives Section 230 to Twitter, and Twitter gives the government a portal through which they censor citizens.”

According to Shiva, Judge Wolf took his case home the night of May 19 and returned to court feeling very troubled by Shiva’s evidence. Judge Wolf even assigned Shiva a constitutional lawyer to help him defend his case, and the state will fully fund the lawyer. Judge Wolf believes that this lawsuit is so important, it will be taught in every constitutional exam law course around the country for decades to come.

 

[marsh]

Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed Against Democrats Over Censoring Americans' Election Tweets

The 2020 U.S. election was not only a pivotal moment in American history for the widespread adoption of unconstitutional election procedures in states across the country, but for the coordinated action between corporations and the state to "fortify" the election for the Democratic Party...

trendingpolitics.com

Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed Against Democrats Over Censoring Americans’ Election Tweets

by Kyle Beckerabout 17 hours agoupdated about 11 hours ago

The 2020 U.S. election was not only a pivotal moment in American history for the widespread adoption of unconstitutional election procedures in states across the country, but for the coordinated action between corporations and the state to “fortify” the election for the Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden.

In addition to private corporations like Facebook throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into “Zuckerberg boxes,” bags of difficult-to-trace absentee ballots were flooding into election headquarters across the country due to unprecedented changes to election laws allegedly justified by the pandemic.

When Americans began questioning what was going on in their democracy on social media, that’s when digital platforms began rolling out a bizarre and un-American censorship campaign to muzzle their dissent.

It went merely beyond liberal activist CEOs attempting to rig the election in their preferred direction, however; there is strong evidence of government collusion with these social media platforms to ensure those questioning the election would be suppressed or silenced.

A lawsuit has now been filed to hold government officials accountable for conspiring with private companies to achieve what is effectively a violation of First Amendment rights. The Center for American Liberty has just sued California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, his agents, and Twitter for their plot to stifle dissent during the 2020 election. Dhillon Law and Liberty Center founder Harmeet Dhillon announced the critical legal case on Thursday:


“We at [Liberty Center] just filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against former CA Secretary of State turned US Sen. Alex Padilla, #Twitter, and more for the Govt’s role in Twitter banning attorney Rogan O’Handley,” Dhillon notes.

In the Center for Liberty’s press release it points to the discriminatory practices brought against conservative commentator and lawyer Rogan Handley.

Like many expressing concerns over the 2020 election, Rogan found himself the target of the California Office of Elections Cybersecurity. From November 2020 to February 2021, Rogan tweeted a series of messages—calling for an audit of every California ballot, a commission to study the 2020 election results, and raising concern over voter fraud—only to be swiftly “flagged” by leftist operatives working as an agent of the California Secretary of State who in turn instructed Twitter to remove Rogan’s tweets.

But that is not the worst of it…

In February 2021, Twitter permanently suspended Rogan altogether for tweeting, “Most votes in American history.” This tweet proved too much for the snowflakes at Twitter who in turn permanently suspended his account for supposedly violating “rules about election integrity.”

The actions of then California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, his agents, and Twitter are outrageous. Government cannot censor speech on the basis of viewpoint, but that is exactly what happened here.

Documents that are part of a new lawsuit show that the State of California had a “rapid response team” that flagged election tweets for removal by Twitter.



“California Democrats have access to a rapid response team at Twitter, which takes down tweets at the request of Democrats,” Mike Cernovich pointed out.

How can Democrats square their support for “democracy” with government and corporations rigging the election process to stifle the dissent of their opponents?

This case is vital for a robust defense of free speech rights in the Information Age on digital platforms that have become the equivalent of the public square. If the California government can get away with working with corporations to censor Rogan Handley, then next it can censor you.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL0u8JmfRU0
6:44 min

DANGER! The Military Has Gone Woke!

•Jun 19, 2021


AwakenWithJP

 

[marsh]

Childless CNN Activist Don Lemon Says Parents Have to 'Stop Making It About You' When Their Children Are Taught Critical Race Theory (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald

CNN activist and host Don Lemon unloaded on parents who oppose the teaching of Critical Race Theory, demanding they need to stop “making it about you” when it comes to what their children are learning.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Childless CNN Activist Don Lemon Says Parents Have to ‘Stop Making It About You’ When Their Children Are Taught Critical Race Theory (VIDEO)

By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published June 19, 2021 at 3:30pm

CNN activist and host Don Lemon unloaded on parents who oppose the teaching of Critical Race Theory, demanding they need to stop “making it about you” when it comes to what their children are learning.

Lemon, of course, does not have any children — just big ideas about what should be taught to yours.

“That’s the whole thing about white privilege,” said Lemon during his nightly show handoff to Chris Cuomo. “People don’t like to have their pleasure interrupted, their peace interrupted. And so, people think that it should be the way it should be because they have been taught that in this country.”

“But, you know,” he continued, “telling people, having people come to the realization, especially ancestors [descendants] of slaves, that they were enslaved, and that they were beaten and they were sold, that they weren’t able to accrue wealth, they weren’t able to go to school, weren’t able to go vote … you think that makes them feel good?”

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1405833164564672518

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1405833164564672518
2:14 min

“So, the folks on the other side, stop making it about you. Be curious instead of judgmental, that’s all,” Lemon added.

Parents across the nation have been revolting against the divisive Marxist teachings being inserted into public schools, which seek to demonize white people — particularly white men and boys.

 

[marsh]

WATCH: Shrink Who Told Yale Students She Fantasizes About Shooting White People in the Head Doubles Down on Her Racism | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald

A New York-based psychiatrist who recently told a Yale audience that she fantasizes about shooting white people in the head, then claimed her comments were taken out of context, has now declared that all white people are psychopaths.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

WATCH: Shrink Who Told Yale Students She Fantasizes About Shooting White People in the Head Doubles Down on Her Racism

By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published June 19, 2021 at 3:00pm

A New York-based psychiatrist who recently told a Yale audience that she fantasizes about shooting white people in the head, then claimed her comments were taken out of context, has now declared that all white people are psychopaths.

Dr. Aruna Khilanani initially made waves when she said during a speech at Yale that she had fantasies of “unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way” – then burying their body with her bloody hands.

“I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a f*cking favor.”

“We keep forgetting that directly talking about race [with white people] is a waste of our breath,” Khilanani also said during the talk. “We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero to accept responsibility. It ain’t gonna happen. They have five holes in their brain. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall.”

Audio of Khilanani’s lecture dubbed, “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind” can be heard here.
Khilanani went on to claim that her statement was taken out of context.

However, she has now doubled down hard during an interview on Thursday with “Black News Tonight.” The host, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, is a Temple University professor who was fired by CNN for antisemitic remarks.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1405491706842292225

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1405491706842292225
2:02 min

“Would it be fair to say, based on your expertise, that white people are psychopathic?” Hill asked.

“I think so, yeah,” Khilanani answered. “I think that there’s many lies … the level of lying that white people do that has started since colonialism, we’re just used to it.”

She added, “every time that you steal a country, you loot, you say you’ve discovered something. I mean, this level of lies is actually part of history.”

“We don’t say that we killed all these people, we got rid of all the Native Americans, we say we discovered America. You don’t talk about the level of death. You don’t talk about the level of what actually occurred,” she continued. “You wipe the slate clean, you sanitize the violence – and you actually got lost along the way, trying to go to India — and then you say you discovered something. And this level of ‘discovery’ is everywhere. You discovered vegetarianism. You discovered yoga. You discovered — everything is a discovery and it’s all actually stolen.”

Khilanani also said during the interview that everyone is racist, ironically.

She stated that “people have this idea that racism is something if you are consciously racist or if you’re a Klan member. Racism is something that is unconscious and that it is in everyone. Everyone uses these words systemic, that [they] know racism is systemic. But when you call it out individually…people disown their own violence and racism.”

 

[marsh]

MUST SEE: Mom From Soviet Union Destroys Marxist Critical Race Theory: This "Equity For All" Propaganda "Quickly Ended With Nothing To Eat" | The Gateway Pundit | by Alicia Powe

A young mother born and raised in the Soviet Union blasted critical race theory during a Bedford Central, New York school board meeting — arguing that it is “actually a tyrannical Soviet ideology” that results in mass starvation and has killed millions of people worldwide.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

MUST SEE: Mom From Soviet Union Destroys Marxist Critical Race Theory: This “Equity For All” Propaganda “Quickly Ended With Nothing To Eat”

By Alicia Powe
Published June 19, 2021 at 9:48am

A young mother born and raised in the Soviet Union blasted critical race theory during a Bedford Central, New York school board meeting — arguing that it is “actually a tyrannical Soviet ideology” that results in mass starvation and has killed millions of people worldwide.

Under the guise of good intentions, compassion and love for minorities and those discriminated against, the Critical Race Theory and “equity for all” curriculum is marching society towards communism, the mother of three argued in a scathing 3-minute rebuke of the school board on Wednesday.

“The proposed ‘anti-racist program’ is just a prettier name for racial Marxist teaching. You don’t need to sugarcoat it for me. I lived it. Same methods, same vocabulary, same preferential treatment to certain groups,” she lamented. “That’s why equity is packed with good causes like ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion,’ so nobody can challenge it. But, I know.”

View: https://youtu.be/hs70QLpBBvo
2:47 min

When socialists refer to “equity for all” what they actually mean is equal impoverishment for all, the woman explained.

“Ask me how I know? I was born in Soviet Union and my family has seen it all. Suffering first from Nazi and then from tyrannical Soviet ideology. Back there, what started was ‘equity for all,’ quickly ended with nothing to eat for my people. And now my family is here because of it — because ‘equity’ does not work,” she said. “We did not come here for a blanketed synthetic equity. We had enough of that one. We came here for equal opportunity under the law and freedoms in this country. Soviets extinguished all the excellence and opportunity.”

The woman excoriated the board and student committee for their proposal to lower standards for students by assigning less homework and dismantling AP classes in the name of “fairness.”

“Equity” is code for communism and “mindboggling sameness,” she doubled down.

“They told us they were advocates for equity and enemies of privilege, people believed this, and we paid the awful price. This ideology killed millions of people worldwide. And now you’re bringing it here to indoctrinate our own children,” she said. “Equity was just a tool used by communists to make sure everyone was equally poorly educated so people didn’t question authority. While in definition it was about fairness, in reality, it means same outcome – nobody excels, mind-boggling sameness. The key tactic is to remove all the incentives and motivation to succeed for all the students.

“Is this why the Student Committee is proposing less homework and audit of AP classes? Why are you trying to demotivate students and lower the standards instead of directly helping underperforming students? That’s exactly what ‘equity’ means – in reality, making everyone mediocre.”

Switch the school district, but “never switch on the American dream,” she concluded.

“This is not a Bolshevik Central School district in Soviet Union. This is Bedford Central school district in the United States of America. I lived in Siberia. I switched continents because of equity. I can and I will switch the school district if the equity gets pushed,” she concluded. “But I will never switch on American dream and equal opportunity, the only system in the world, that lifts people up, gives second chances to people like me, motivates and brings the best in the people regardless of race and ethnicity. I lived it and you don’t need to tell me what is equity.”

A growing number of parents, like the Soviet Union-born mother in New York, are banding together to finally put stop to it. The woman’s comments came just days after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis successfully lobbied the board to block critical race theory from schools.

North Korean defector Yeonmi Park, who attended Columbia University after she escaped North Korea where she was sold into sex slavery, warned on Monday the communist indoctrination transpiring within the Ivy League university is worse than the anti-American, communist propaganda she heard in North Korea.

The anti-Western civilization “Critical Race Theory,” a “multicultural” curriculum that alleges white people are oppressors and to blame in perpetuity for racism, sexism, homophobia, environmental destruction, and segregation has been taught in classrooms for a long time.

But now, as debilitating “woke” political correctness sweeps the nation, teachers are more forthright about what is being taught, rather than subtly indoctrinating the kids with communist propaganda. Insidious CRT training has not just become mandatory training in public schools. It has managed to sneak its way into the U.S. federal government, military, and corporate training programs.

Hundreds of military whistleblowers say they are being forced to receive “anti-American indoctrination” training, including critical race theory. Last month, A U.S. Space Force commanding officer was removed from his post after publishing a book that warned of the spread of Marxism and critical race theory in the military

 

[marsh]

MUST WATCH: 9-Year-Old Minnesota Girl Obliterates School Board Over BLM Posters | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald

A 9-year-old elementary student absolutely obliterated her local school board over Black Lives Matter posters that were placed around her campus.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

MUST WATCH: 9-Year-Old Minnesota Girl Obliterates School Board Over BLM Posters

By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published June 19, 2021 at 8:00am

A 9-year-old elementary student absolutely obliterated her local school board over Black Lives Matter posters that were placed around her campus.

In Lakeville, Minnesota there has been a heated debate about Black Lives Matter posters in the schools for months.

The board initially ruled that BLM posters were political and said that they must be removed after students and parents complained. However, the board ended up not complying with their own determination and placed two posters up in Lakeview Elementary School as part of an “Inclusive Poster Series.”

“The poster series includes two that say ‘Black lives matter,’ which the district has said stands for the social justice movement, but those in opposition say it reflects the views of the Black Lives Matter Global Network, which they said stands for political positions. Opponents maintain any poster with that name on it should be banned by policy,” the local news reported.

The BLM posters with a black background and white block lettering were banned in September 2020, but the school board simply created new ones with different colors. None of the other posters mention any race or political group.

During a school board meeting on June 8, a student at the school went off on the members for their dishonest actions.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1406023260786003968

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1406023260786003968
2:18 min

“The other day I was walking down the hallway at Lakeview Elementary School to give a teacher a retiring gift. I looked up on to the wall and saw a BLM poster and an Amanda Gorman poster. In case you don’t know who that chick is, she’s some girl who did a poem for Biden’s so-called inauguration. I was so mad,” the child began. “I was told two weeks ago at this very meeting spot, no politics in school. I believed what you said at this meeting, so at lunch I went up to the principal to tell him about the BLM poster and that I wanted it down.”

The fiery little girl went on to say that the principal told her they would not be coming down and that the school board are the ones who made them.

“I was stunned. When I was here two weeks ago, you told us to report any BLM in our schools. Apparently, you know they’re in our schools because you made the signs.”

The brave little girl went on to demand that she doesn’t see people’s skin colors and has friends of all shades, before blasting the heck out of the board once again.

“You have lied to me and I am very disappointed in all of you,” she said. “You can’t even follow your own rules. If you’re going to do that, why do we follow any rules we deem unfit or ridiculous? I’m not following your mask rule anymore then.”

She concluded, “get the posters out of our schools. Courage is contagious, so be courageous.”

Superintendent Michael Baumann said in a statement about the poster Series that they are there “to affirm our unwavering commitment to and in support of our Black students and staff, this series includes two Black lives matter posters. While the district has not changed its position that the Black Lives Matter Global Network is a political organization, we recognize there is a non-political social justice movement represented by the statement ‘Black lives matter.’ Lakeville Area Schools-branded Black lives matter posters are permissible under Policy 535; we ask staff who want to put up Black lives matter posters in their classroom or work space to use those from this poster series.”

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

NSA Agrees To Release Records On FBI's Improper Spying On 16,000 Americans

SATURDAY, JUN 19, 2021 - 03:30 PM
Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The National Security Agency (NSA) has agreed to release records on the FBI’s improper spying on thousands of Americans, the secretive agency disclosed in a recent letter.



The agreement may signal a rift between the NSA and the FBI, according to attorney Ty Clevenger.
Clevenger last year filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on behalf of The Transparency Project, a Texas nonprofit, seeking information on the FBI’s improper searches of intelligence databases for information on 16,000 Americans.

The searches violated rules governing how to use the U.S. government’s foreign intelligence information trove, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama nominee who currently presides over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, wrote in a 2019 memorandum and order that was declassified last year.

The FBI insisted that the queries for all 16,000 people “were reasonably likely to return foreign-intelligence information or evidence of a crime because [redacted],” Boasberg wrote. But the judge found that position “unsupportable,” apart from searches on just seven of the people.

Still, Boasberg allowed the data collection to continue, prompting Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, to lament that court’s decision on the data collection program, authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), “is even more inexplicable given that the opinion was issued shortly after the government reported submitting FISA applications riddled with errors and omissions in the Carter Page investigation.”

Page was a campaign associate of then-candidate Donald Trump who was illegally surveilled by the FBI.
After the judge’s order was made public, Clevenger filed FOIA requests for information on the improper searches with both the FBI and the NSA.

The FBI rejected the request.
In a February letter (pdf), an official told Clevenger that the letter he wrote “does not contain enough descriptive information to permit a search of our records.”

The NSA initially declined the request as well, but later granted an appeal of the decision, Linda Kiyosaki, an NSA official, said in a letter (pdf) this month.

“You had requested all documents, records, and other tangible evidence reflecting the improper surveillance of 16,000 individuals described in a 6 December, 2019, FISC Opinion,” Kiyosaki wrote.

Clevenger believes the NSA’s new position signals a rift between the two agencies, potentially because the FBI has repeatedly abused rules governing searches of the intelligence databases while the NSA has largely not.

“There’s been a battle between them, for example, Mike Rogers tried to shut off FBI access to the NSA database back in 2016,” Clevenger told The Epoch Times, referring to how Adm. Mike Rogers, the former NSA director, cut out FBI agents from using the databases in 2016.

“And so there’s been some history of the NSA trying to limit the FBI’s access because they know that the FBI is misusing the data intercepts,” he added.

The NSA and FBI did not respond to requests for comment.

 

[marsh]

The IRS Is At It Again

No sooner have the Democrats retaken the White House than the IRS again feels free to use its power to advance partisan interests. This actually happened in May, but it is just now hitting the news: the IRS denied 501(c)(3) nonprofit status to an organization called Christians Engaged. The IRS...

www.powerlineblog.com

POSTED ON JUNE 19, 2021 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN IRS

THE IRS IS AT IT AGAIN
No sooner have the Democrats retaken the White House than the IRS again feels free to use its power to advance partisan interests. This actually happened in May, but it is just now hitting the news: the IRS denied 501(c)(3) nonprofit status to an organization called Christians Engaged. The IRS explained that Christian doctrines are Republican:

You also educate believers on issues that are central to their belief in the Bible as the inerrant M. [The writer of the letter weirdly encodes certain words and phrases, and provides a key. M means “word of God.”] You educate Christians in areas where they can be instrumental as in areas of the sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, biblical justice, laws vs. lawlessness, freedom of speech, religious liberty, government and business ethics, human trafficking, fiscal responsibility in government budgeting, defense, borders and immigration, U.S. and Israel relations.

How Republican can you get?

[Y]ou are serving the private interests of the D party [D means Republican] more than incidentally in contravention to Treas. Reg. Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)1(ii) as well as serving a substantial nonexempt private purpose. For example, you educate Christians on what the bible says in areas where they can be instrumental including the areas of sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, biblical justice, freedom of speech, defense, and borders and immigration, U.S. and Israel relations. The bible teachings are typically affiliated with the D party [Republican] and candidates. This disqualifies you from exemption under IRC Section 501(c)(3).

It is quite remarkable to see an agency of the federal government publicly take the position that freedom of speech and national defense are Republican values. That is what I always thought, but I didn’t expect the IRS to admit it.

Of course, if this logic were applied evenhandedly, a great many nonprofits would be out of business, starting with Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club. But the IRS has no intention of being consistent.

Christians Engaged has gone to court to overturn the IRS ruling. I assume they will win, unless the facts are a lot more compelling than anything set out in the IRS letter, which is embedded below.

View this document on Scribd(doc on website)



https://www.reddit.com/submit?url=h...m_source=reddit&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw

 

[Walrus Whisperer]

Yet another nutter accusing others of what she herself is doing.

 

[marsh]

White House releases a 'fascist' document on defeating domestic terrorism (video)

We have posted several articles on figurehead Joe Biden’s national strategy to defeat so-called domestic terrorism, but it was also discussed succinctly with an assistant professor on Tucker last night. The plan is fascist and terrifying. It is the Biden government’s second war on terror...

www.independentsentinel.com

White House releases a ‘fascist’ document on defeating domestic terrorism (video)
By
M. Dowling
-June 19, 2021

We have posted several articles on figurehead Joe Biden’s national strategy to defeat so-called domestic terrorism, but it was also discussed succinctly with an assistant professor on Tucker last night. The plan is fascist and terrifying.

It is the Biden government’s second war on terror according to Glenn Greenwald who sees the January 6th riot as the false premise upon which to declare war on conservatives. The government is going after political opponents and it is a threat to democracy.

The Biden administration released the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism plan which you can read yourself below and you should listen to the professor in the clip below who read it.

Assistant Professor at Suffolk Community College and host of the PAs Report, Nicholas Giordano, studied the document and appeared on Tucker last night to outline it.

He said political appointees obviously wrote the document to push an agenda. It’s literally a manual for attacking political opponents.

It is “one of the most concerning documents” by government officials he has ever read.

The document lists three areas of concern.

The first is racism but they never define it except for white supremacy. These are the people who believe you are born racist. If you are born racist, are you born a domestic terrorist, he asks?

The document then talks about anti-authority sentiment which they seem to think is criticism of the government.

Thirdly, the report says incitement to violence is a threat and the government will decide what that is. They say questioning the election or COV restrictions could incite terrorism.

The Sentinel posted information on this link about how the plan talks of going after hate speech. And, here on this link, we talked about the government encouraging people to turn in family and friends.

Vague terms are used throughout that can mean anything, the assistant professor told Tucker.

Then, he said, the document talks about the four pillars and a partnership with Big Tech to censor and obtain private information. It talks about families and friends ratting out their family members and friends. It also pushes so-called gun violence and equity.

It is a totally fascist document.

Must-Watch:
Rumble video on website 4:44 min

Read It Yourself Below

National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism on Scribd (scribd doc. on website)

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Bovard Blasts Biden's Buffoonish War On Extremism

SATURDAY, JUN 19, 2021 - 11:30 PM
Authored by James Bovard via JimBovard.com,

The Biden administration revealed on Tuesday that guys who can’t get laid may be terrorist threats due to “involuntary celibate–violent extremism.” That revelation is part of a new crackdown that identifies legions of potential “domestic terrorists” that the feds can castigate and investigate. But there is no reason to expect Biden administration anti-terrorism and anti-extremism efforts to be less of a farce and menace than similar post-9/11 campaigns.



Since the French Revolution, politicians have defined terrorism to stigmatize their opponents, a precedent followed by the Biden administration’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. The report labels the January 6 clash at the Capitol as a “domestic terrorism” incident but fails to mention it spurred a mushroom cloud of increasingly far-fetched official accusations. Capitol Police acting Chief Yogananda Pittman told Congress that January 6 was “a terrorist attack by tens of thousands of insurrectionists.” Less than a thousand protestors entered the Capitol that day but apparently any Trump supporter who hustled down the Mall towards the Capitol became the legal equivalent of Osama Bin Laden. Unfortunately, this “seen walking in the same zip code” standard for guilt could be the prototype for Biden era domestic terrorist prosecutions.

The Biden report did not bestow the same “terrorist” label on the mobs who burned U.S. post offices in Minneapolis or assailed a federal courthouse in Portland last year. In its litany of terrorist incidents, the report cites “the vehicular killing of a peaceful protestor in Charlottesville” at the 2017 Unite the Right ruckus but omits the 49 people killed in 2016 by a Muslim enraged by U.S. foreign policy at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. Maybe that case was excluded because the murderer was the protected son of a long-term FBI informant and FBI falsehoods derailed the subsequent trial of his widow. Nor did the report mention the worst terrorist incident since 9/11—the Las Vegas bloodbath where a single shooter killed 58 people and injured 900 others. The FBI claimed it could never find a motive for that slaughter and its “final report” on the incident was only three pages long. Never mind.

The White House claims its new war on terrorism and extremism is “carefully tailored to address violence and reduce the factors that… infringe on the free expression of ideas.” But the prerogative to define extremism includes the power to attempt to banish certain ideas from acceptable discourse. The report warns that “narratives of fraud in the recent general election… will almost certainly spur some [Domestic Violent Extremists] to try to engage in violence this year.” If accusations of 2020 electoral shenanigans are formally labeled as extremist threats, that could result in far more repression (aided by Facebook and Twitter) of dissenting voices. How will this work out any better than the concerted campaign by the media and Big Tech last fall to suppress all information about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the election?

The Biden administration is revving up for a war against an enemy which the feds have chosen to never explicitly define. According to a March report by Biden’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “domestic violent extremists” include individuals who “take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the U.S. government in support of their belief that the U.S. government is purposely exceeding its Constitutional authority.” But that was the same belief that many Biden voters had regarding the Trump administration. Does the definition of extremism depend solely on which party captured the White House?

The report notes that the “Department of Defense is reviewing and updating its definition of prohibited extremist activities among uniformed military personnel.” Bishop Garrison, the chief of the Pentagon’s new Countering Extremism Working Group, is Exhibit A for the follies of extremist crackdowns on extremism. In a series of 2019 tweets, Garrison, a former aide to Hillary Clinton, denounced all Trump supporters as “racists.”

Garrison’s working group will “specifically define what constitutes extremist behavior” for American soldiers. If Garrison purges Trump supporters from the military, the Pentagon would be unable to conquer the island of Grenada. Biden policymakers also intend to create an “anti-radicalization” program for individuals departing the military service. This initiative will likely produce plenty of leaks and embarrassing disclosures in the coming months and years.

The Biden report is spooked by the existence of militia groups and flirts with the fantasy of outlawing them across the land. The report promises to explore “how to make better use of laws that already exist in all fifty states prohibiting certain private ‘militia’ activity, including…state statutes prohibiting groups of people from organizing as private military units without the authorization of the state government, and state statutes that criminalize certain paramilitary activity.” Most of the private militia groups are guilty of nothing more than bluster and braggadocio. Besides, many of them are already overstocked with government informants who are counting on Uncle Sam for regular paychecks.

As part of its anti-extremism arsenal, DHS is financing programs for “enhancing media literacy and critical thinking skills” and helping internet users avoid “vulnerability to…harmful content deliberately disseminated by malicious actors online.” Do the feds have inside information about another Hunter Biden laptop turning up, or what? The Biden administration intends to bolster Americans’ defenses against extremism by developing “interactive online resources such as skills-enhancing online games.” If the games are as stupefying as this report, nobody will play them.

The Biden report stresses that federal law enforcement agencies “play a critical role in responding to reports of criminal and otherwise concerning activity.” “Otherwise concerning activity”? This is the same standard that turned prior anti-terrorist efforts into laughingstocks.

Fusion Centers are not mentioned in the Biden report but they are a federal-state-local law enforcement partnership launched after 9/11 to vacuum up reports of suspicious activity. Seventy Fusion Centers rely on the same standard—“If you see something, say something”—that a senior administration official invoked in a background call on Monday for the new Biden initiative. The Los Angeles Police Department encouraged citizens to snitch on “individuals who stay at bus or train stops for extended periods while buses and trains come and go,” “individuals who carry on long conversations on pay or cellular telephones,” and “joggers who stand and stretch for an inordinate amount of time.” The Kentucky Office of Homeland Security recommended the reporting of “people avoiding eye contact,” “people in places they don’t belong,” or homes or apartments that have numerous visitors “arriving and leaving at unusual hours,” PBS’s Frontline reported. Colorado’s Fusion Center “produced a fear-mongering public service announcement asking the public to report innocuous behaviors such as photography, note-taking, drawing and collecting money for charity as ‘warning signs’ of terrorism,” the ACLU complained.

Various other Fusion Centers have attached warning labels to gun-rights activists, anti-immigration zealots, and individuals and groups “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority.” A 2012 Homeland Security report stated that being “reverent of individual liberty” is one of the traits of potential right-wing terrorists. The Constitution Project concluded in a 2012 report that DHS Fusion Centers “pose serious risks to civil liberties, including rights of free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, racial and religious equality, privacy, and the right to be free from unnecessary government intrusion.” Fusion Centers continue to be bankrolled by DHS despite their dismal record.

The Biden report promises that the FBI and DHS will soon be releasing “a new edition of the Federal Government’s Mobilization Indicators booklet that will include for the first time potential indicators of domestic terrorism–related mobilization.” Will this latest publication be as boneheaded as the similar 2014 report by the National Counterterrorism Center entitled “Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts”?

As the Intercept summarized, that report “suggests that police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as ‘Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility,’ … and ‘Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity)’ … to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies.” The report recommended judging families by their level of “Parent-Child Bonding” and rating localities on the basis in part of the “presence of ideologues or recruiters.” Former FBI agent Mike German commented, “The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical, and social-service employees to rate the communities, individuals, and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face.”

The Biden administration presumes that bloating the definition of extremists is the surest way to achieve domestic tranquility. In this area, as in so many others, Biden’s team learned nothing from the follies of the Obama administration. No one in D.C. apparently recalls that President Obama perennially denounced extremism and summoned the United Nations in 2014 to join his “campaign against extremism.” Under Obama, the National Security Agency presumed that “someone searching the Web for suspicious stuff” was a suspected extremist who forfeited all constitutional rights to privacy. Obama’s Transportation Security Administration relied on ludicrous terrorist profiles that targeted American travelers who were yawning, hand wringing, gazing down, swallowing suspiciously, sweating, or making “excessive complaints about the [TSA] screening process.”

Will the Biden crackdown on extremists end as ignominiously as Nixon’s crackdown almost 50 years earlier? Nixon White House aide Tom Charles Huston explained that the FBI’s COINTELPRO program continually stretched its target list “from the kid with a bomb to the kid with a picket sign, and from the kid with the picket sign to the kid with the bumper sticker of the opposing candidate. And you just keep going down the line.” At some point, surveillance became more intent on spurring fear than on gathering information.

FBI agents were encouraged to conduct interviews with anti-war protesters to “enhance the paranoia endemic in these circles and further serve to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox,” as a 1970 FBI memo noted. Is the Biden castigation campaign an attempt to make its opponents fear that the feds are tracking their every email and website click?

Biden’s new terrorism policy has evoked plenty of cheers from his Fourth Estate lapdogs. But a Washington Post article fretted that the administration’s report did not endorse enacting “new legal authority to successfully hunt down, prosecute, and imprison homegrown extremists.” Does the D.C. media elite want to see every anti-Biden scoffer in the land put behind bars? This is typical of the switcheroo that politicians and the media play with the terms “terrorists” and “extremists.” Regardless of paranoia inside the Beltway, MAGA hats are not as dangerous as pipe bombs.

The Biden report concludes that “enhancing faith in American democracy” requires “finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories.” But permitting politicians to blacklist any ideas they disapprove won’t “restore faith in democracy.” Extremism has always been a flag of political convenience, and the Biden team, the FBI, and their media allies will fan fears to sanctify any and every government crackdown. But what if government is the most dangerous extremist of them all?

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Buchanan: Who Is Really Killing American Democracy?

SATURDAY, JUN 19, 2021 - 07:30 PM
Authored by Pat Buchanan,

By a vote of 30-1 in the House, with unanimous support in the Senate, Juneteenth, June 19, which commemorates the day in 1865 when news of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation reached Texas, has been declared a federal holiday

It is to be called Juneteenth Independence Day.



Prediction: This will become yet another source of societal division as many Black folks celebrate their special Independence Day, and the rest of America continues to celebrate July 4 as Independence Day two weeks later.

Why the pessimism? Consider.

Days before Congress acted, the Randolph, New Jersey, board of education voted to change Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day.

A backlash ensued, and the board quickly voted to rescind its decision.

Still under fire, the board voted to drop all designated holidays from the school calendar and replace them with the simple notation “Day Off.”

The school board had surrendered, punted, given up on trying to find holidays that the citizens of Randolph might celebrate together.

But the “day off” mandate created another firestorm, and the board is now restoring all the previous holidays, including that of Columbus.

The point: If we Americans cannot even agree on which heroes and holidays are to be celebrated together, does that not tell us something about whether we are really, any longer, one country and one people?

Do we still meet in any way the designation and description of us as the “one united people” that John Jay rendered in The Federalist Papers:

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”

Does that depiction remotely resemble America in 2021?

Today, we don’t even agree on whether Providence exists.

We hear constant worries these days about a clear and present danger to “our democracy” itself. And if democracy requires, as a precondition, a community, a commonality, of religious, cultural, social and moral beliefs, we have to ask whether these necessary ingredients of a democracy still exist in 21st-century America.

Consider what has happened to the holidays that united Americans of the Greatest and Silent Generations.

Christmas and Easter, the great Christian Holy Days and holidays of that era, were expunged a half-century ago from the public schools and the public square - replaced by winter break and spring break.

The Bible, the cross and the Ten Commandments were all expelled as contradicting the secularist commands of our Constitution.

Traditional Christian teachings about homosexuality and abortion, reflected in public law, are now regarded as hallmarks of homophobia, bigotry, sexism and misogyny — i.e., of moral and mental sickness.

Not only do Americans’ views on religion and morality collide, but we also seem ever more rancorously divided now on matters of history and race.

Was Christopher Columbus a heroic navigator and explorer who “discovered” America — or a genocidal racist? Was the colonization of America a great leap forward for civilization and mankind, or the monstrous crime of technically superior European peoples who came to brutally impose their religion, race and rule upon indigenous peoples?

Three of the six Founding Fathers and most of the presidents of the first 60 years of our republic were slave owners: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James Polk and Zachary Taylor, as well as the legendary senators Henry Clay and John Calhoun.

A number of Americans now believe that Washington and Jefferson should be dynamited off Mount Rushmore at the same time the visages of the three great Confederates — Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Stonewall Jackson and Confederate President Jefferson Davis — are dynamited off Stone Mountain, Georgia.

From all this comes a fundamental question.

Is the left itself — as its cultural and racial revolution dethrones the icons of America’s past, who are still cherished by a majority — irreparably fracturing that national community upon which depends the survival of the democracy they profess to cherish?

Are they themselves imperiling the political system at whose altar they worship?

The country is not the polity. The nation is not the state. Force Americans to choose between the claims of God, faith, family, tribe and country — and the demands of democracy — and you may not like the outcome.

A question needs to be put to the left in America.

If your adversaries in politics are indeed fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes and bigots, as you describe them, why would, or should, such people accept and embrace your rule over them — simply because you managed to rack up a plurality of ballots in an election?

Free elections to decide who governs are, it is said, the central sacrament of democracy. But why should people who are described with every synonym for “deplorable” not reject the politics of compromise and instead work constantly to overthrow the rule of people who so detest them?

Winston Churchill called democracy “the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried”

Are both sides sticking with democracy — for lack of an alternative?

 

[marsh]

The ‘Defund the Police’ Movement Has a Broader Agenda and It’s Not to Stop the Killing of Black People: Brandon Tatum

www.theepochtimes.com

The ‘Defund the Police’ Movement Has a Broader Agenda and Its Not to Stop the Killing of Black People: Brandon Tatum
BY MASOOMA HAQ AND JAN JEKIELEK

June 19, 2021 Updated: June 19, 2021

“Defund the police” has become a popular phrase among leftist activists, gaining momentum during a rash of Black Lives Matter protests and riots last summer following the police-custody death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020.

As news of these protests spread through the media, local governments across the country quickly started acquiescing to the demand. Cities such as New York and Los Angeles significantly cut cut funding for their police departments, while Minneapolis City Council went further, introducing a measure to try and outright abolish and replace its police department.

According to former Arizona police officer Brandon Tatum, author of the upcoming book, “Beaten Black and Blue: Being a Black Cop in an America Under Siege,” there is a broader agenda behind the “Defund the Police” movement.

Black Lives Matter protesters march through a downtown street in Seattle, Wash. on June 14, 2020. (David Ryder/Getty Images)

“I believe it’s an agenda to completely destroy and dismantle local police departments so that the government can have control of law enforcement in this country and push a nationwide agenda,” Tatum told Jan Jekielek, host of EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program.

Tatum explained that if law enforcement is federalized and there are unconstitutional mandates or restrictions, such as those involving vaccines or guns, the federal government will be able to enforce those directives more easily.

“I believe that the government has a lot more leverage federalizing these agencies, and that’s the end goal,” he added. “I don’t believe it has anything to do with racism, police brutality … That is a talking point to push an even bigger agenda.”

It is this agenda, he said, that “is really the cause of a lot of turmoil that we see in law enforcement and the crime rate that we see spiking around the country.”

According to the National Fraternal Order of Police, murder rates over the past year have skyrocketed in cities where police departments have been defunded. As of May 25, the murder rates in New York City and Chicago year on year were up 22 percent, in Los Angeles 27 percent, in Washington D.C. 35 percent, in Philadelphia 40 percent, in Minneapolis 56 percent, and in Portland a staggering 800 percent.

A member of the Baltimore Police Department removes crime scene tape on July 30, 2015, from a corner where a victim of a shooting was discovered in Baltimore. (Patrick Semansky/AP Photo)

Tatum, who grew up in an inner-city in Texas, said the real issue for the black community is the homicide rates in the inner cities, where black people are primarily being killed by other black people.

“You know, police brutality is a small fraction of the drama, chaos, and confusion that goes on in the inner city. So, if they are pushing this as is as if it’s a pandemic or epidemic, then they are already being deceptive from the beginning,” he said.

The former police officer and cofounder of the BLEXIT movement said one need not be a conspiracy theorist to understand this. Statistics show that twice as many unarmed whites are shot by the police each year than unarmed blacks.

In 2018, the most recent year for which data on this is available, blacks made up 53 percent of homicide offenders in the United States and committed about 60 percent of robberies, while only making up 13 percent of the population.

The BLEXIT Foundation’s goal is to rectify the narrative of victimhood that permeates American minorities, particularly in the African-American community.

Tatum said his grandmother and those prior to her had just cause to point to racism and inequality because they actually faced slavery, segregation, and racism.

“However, that pain and suffering and that mistrust for white Americans has been passed down unjustifiably to next generations, later generations, and we don’t deal with those things,” Tatum said. “And when you have that, and you have a political climate where a certain particular party that wants your vote, they’re going to tell you what you want to hear and try to play this savior to an invisible problem, you know, they are going to push an agenda.”


A “Black Lives Matter” mural was painted on 5th Avenue in New York City, on July 13, 2020. (David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

Tatum went on to explain that the real violent crime problem facing African-Americans is outside the leftist mainstream media narrative.

“You know, they are going to push an agenda and that causes a lot of pain, hurt—real pain and hurt, lump on top of that confusion. You have this delusional state in the inner city. And then when your father is in prison, or your father has been murdered by another black man, it creates a level of hatred towards other black people,” Tatum added.

Tatum said the solution to violence and death in black communities is to focus on the facts, help heal past hurts, and rebuild families.

“The solution is to not politicize anything, this just should not be about politics—Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, libertarian—it should have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with real people that are being hurt in this country.”

Having a strong father growing up, Tatum knows how important fathers are to children, especially in black communities.

“You need a dad,” he said. “I don’t care what nobody says, I don’t care what any psychologists want to put out there and make up a myth on—you need your father. And the reason why I’m here today is because I had a strong Father.”

The Heritage Foundation cited a major 1988 study finding that “the percentage of single-parent households with children between the ages of 12 and 20 is significantly associated with rates of violent crime and burglary.” It noted that race was not a factor, only that the family was not intact.

According to a report by the Brookings Institute, in 1965, less than a quarter of black infants and just over 3 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990, the rate of infants born to single unmarried mothers had risen to 64 percent for blacks and 18 percent for whites, with the percentage remaining similar today.

Tatum said Black Lives Matter—a quasi-Marxist organization that has become a household name, is endorsed by major corporations, and has raised millions of dollars—has done nothing to uplift the black community, because that is not truly its goal.

“But to the unsuspecting person that seems very bizarre that the founding of Black Lives Matter is to do the very thing that has damaged the black community the most. And that’s to believe in the absence of the father, they want to destroy the nuclear family.”

“I’m just here to be a messenger of things that I know and I have experienced and researched. But I think it’s invaluable for us to empower ourselves with knowledge. And everybody should do their own research to prove that whatever you hear from me, from anybody else, is true and it’s factual.”

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Why Big Business Ends Up Supporting The Regime

SUNDAY, JUN 20, 2021 - 01:30 PM
Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Policymakers know they hold immense power to regulate and punish firms that don’t play ball. Industry leaders know this too. So it’s likely both sides will indeed end up “playing ball."


The Democrats in Congress want comprehensive regulation of social media which will ultimately allow regime regulators to decide what is and what is not “disinformation.” This has become very clear as Congress has held a series of Congressional hearings designed to pressure tech leaders into doing even more to silence critics of the regime and its preferred center-left narratives.

Back in February, for instance, Glen Greenwald reported:

For the third time in less than five months, the U.S. Congress has summoned the CEOs of social media companies to appear before them, with the explicit intent to pressure and coerce them to censor more content from their platforms.

House Democrats have made no secret of their ultimate goal with this hearing: to exert control over the content on these online platforms. “Industry self-regulation has failed,” they said, and therefore “we must begin the work of changing incentives driving social media companies to allow and even promote misinformation and disinformation.” In other words, they intend to use state power to influence and coerce these companies to change which content they do and do not allow to be published.

(The February hearing wasn’t even the end of it. Big Tech was summoned yet again on March 25.)
Greenwald is probably right. The end game here is likely to create a permanent “partnership” between big tech in which government regulators will ultimately decide just how much these platforms will deplatform user and delete content that run afoul of the regime’s messaging.

It might strike many readers as odd that this should even be necessary. It’s already become quite clear that Big Social Media is hardly an enemy of mainstream proregime forces in Washington. Quite the opposite.
Jack Dorsey, for instance, is exactly the sort of partisan regime apparatchik one expects out of today’s Silicon Valley. For example, during October of last year, Twitter locked down the account of the New York Post, because the Post reported a story on Hunter Biden that threatened to hurt Biden’s chances for election. Over 90 percent of political donation money coming out of Facebook and Twitter goes to Democrats.

Yet, it’s important to keep in mind that this isn't going to be enough to convince politicians to pack up and decide to leave social media companies alone. The regime is unlikely to be satisfied with anything other than full state control of social media through permanent regulatory bodies that can ultimately bring the industry to heel. Regardless of the ideological leanings of the industry players involved, they're likely to see the writing on the wall. As with any regime where the regulators and legislators hold immense power—as is the case in Washington today—the regime will generally be able to win the “cooperation” of industry leaders who will end up taking a “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” position.

Silicon Valley Is Ideologically Allied with the Regime. But That's Not Enough.
It’s been abundantly clear for at least a decade that ideologically speaking, Silicon Valley is as politically mainstream as it gets. The old early-2000s notion that Silicon Valley harbors secret libertarian, antiestablishment leanings has been disproven dozens of times over.

Moreover, Washington has a long history of co-opting tech “geniuses” to serve the whims of the regime. Even back in 2013 Julian Assange already saw the “ever closer union” between government agents and Silicon Valley. Assange saw how federal agencies were hiring Silicon Valley workers as "consultants" and saw where the "partnership" was headed. He concluded “The advance of information technology epitomized by Google heralds the death of privacy for most people and shifts the world toward authoritarianism.”

But even if Silicon Valley is packed full of stooges for the NSA—as appears to be the case—this still doesn’t mean that Silicon Valley firms are willing to happily hand over their property to the federal government. After all, Silicon Valley CEOs, managers, and stockholders are all still at least partly in it for the money. All else being equal, they prefer profit to loss, and they want freedom to make decisions free of regulatory control. They probably don’t care about freedom in the abstract, but they care about it for themselves.

The Threat of Regulation Creates Support for the Regime
On the other hand, once federal policymakers and regulators start making threats, the game changes entirely. All of a sudden, it makes a lot of sense to pursue “friendly” relations with the state as a matter of self-preservation. If Washington has the ability to destroy your business—and if it has become impossible to “fly under the radar”—then it makes a lot of sense to make Washington your friend.

Under these circumstances, there’s little to be gained from blanket opposition to federal regulation, and a lot to be gained from embracing regulation while merely working to ensure that regulation benefits you and your friends.

Big Business versus Small Business
So, it should never surprise us when big business ultimately ends up siding with the regime. It would be folly not to, especially if one has the means to hire lobbyists, attorneys, and PR consultants which can help Big Business negotiate effectively with regulators. Needless to say, the outcomes of these negotiations are likely to end up helping the big players at the expense of smaller ones who aren't even present at the negotiating table.

For small firms that have little hope of influencing federal policy, it still makes sense to simply oppose federal activism altogether and hope for the best. But if your firm manages to get a seat "at the table" it's best to seize the opportunity. To quote an old saying among lobbyists: "if you're not at the table, you're on the menu."

But let us not forget that even when private firms can bring immense amounts of resources to bear for purposes of influencing public policy and negotiating with bureaucrats: the regime itself ultimately holds the advantage. No private firm in the world has the resources to ignore or veto the wishes of the regime's army of regulatory, prosecutors, and tax collectors. No private firm enjoys anything approaching the coercive monopoly power of the state.

But this doesn't mean those firms can't share in this power. And that's very often what happens. Faced with a "join us or be destroyed" ultimatum from federal regulators or lawmakers, most private firms choose the "join us" option. Of course, many smaller firms aren't even offered the choice.

 

[marsh]

Radical Ilhan Omar Denies Schools Are Teaching Critical Race Theory

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) denied Saturday that schools are teaching Critical Race Theory (CRT).

www.breitbart.com

Radical Ilhan Omar Denies Schools Are Teaching Critical Race Theory
962

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
WENDELL HUSEBØ20 Jun 20211,318

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) denied Saturday that schools are teaching Critical Race Theory (CRT).

“Republicans love to create outrage over things that aren’t actually happening. People should be asking them, what elementary, middle and high school is teaching Critical Race Theory and why they are spinning false narratives,” she tweeted.

Meanwhile, on June 18, Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) introduced legislation to ban the teaching of CRT in Washington, D.C., public schools.

“How can we expect any child to succeed in life when we teach them that the deck is stacked against them and that they will forever be held back by racist oppressors,” Grothman asked rhetorically in a statement.

“The purpose of this retelling of American history is to try to set American against American. Rather than share the wonderful gift we all have, to live the American Dream if we work for it, the goal of CRT is to make Americans bitter and angry with each other.”

Omar’s denial that CRT is being taught in schools also comes after the establishment media took to attacking parents battling its implementation.

An NBC News produced a hit piece entitled “Critical Race Theory Battle Invades School Boards — with Help from Conservative Groups” with the story including a description of CRT, “the academic study of racism’s pervasive impact.”

CRT aims to push two main premises:

1. “Racism is ordinary, not aberrational.”
2. “Our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.”

Breitbart News reported on the history of CRT, as “an intellectual development in the late 1970s and early 1980s in which some scholars… began to doubt that the constitutional and legal system itself had the capacity for change.”

 

[marsh]

Justice Alito’s Defense of Religious Freedom - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Religious freedom, in the words of Justice Samuel Alito, is increasingly “disfavored” under modern jurisprudence.

spectator.org

Justice Alito’s Defense of Religious Freedom
He calls for a restoration of the First Amendment.

by GEORGE NEUMAYR
June 20, 2021, 12:01 AM

Justice Samuel Alito addresses the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention, November 25, 2020 (YouTube screenshot)

The Founding Fathers established the First Amendment as a protection for religion. But today’s secularists, including President Biden, reject that view and feel the need to protect Americans against religion. They have turned the First Amendment on its head. Consequently, religious freedom, in the words of Justice Samuel Alito, is increasingly “disfavored” under modern jurisprudence.

Secularism’s spurious view of “rights” is based upon coercing the religious into fulfilling them. Hence, secularists can’t abide the Little Sisters of the Poor, who decline to pay for the contraceptives and abortifacients of their employees. Nor can secularists tolerate bakers who don’t want to make cakes for gay weddings or Catholic adoption agencies faithful to perennial moral teaching.

The violation of religious freedom is central to the agenda of modern liberalism for the simple reason that its goals can’t be fulfilled unless the religious are forced to enact them. On the Left’s collective, no one is free to leave. Of course, secularists rarely put the matter this bluntly. Joe Biden prefers to describe the coercion of the religious in euphemistic terms. He says that he will not allow “discrimination.” He is opposed to “broad exemptions” and so forth. The upshot of these comments is that wherever religious freedom and liberalism conflict, Biden favors the suppression of religious freedom.

His parsimonious view of the First Amendment is completely at odds with the vision of the Founding Fathers. They emphasized the “free exercise” of religion and feared an overweening federal government that might swoop down and crush it at the state level. The states would never have ratified the Constitution without the First Amendment’s strong protection of religion.

It was the French, not the American, revolution that viewed Christianity as a barrier to progress. The idea that the state has a “compelling government interest” to force Christians to violate the historic tenets of their faith would have been anathema to the Founding Fathers. They considered the preservation of Christianity essential to virtuous self-government. Biden’s plans to force the religious to perform transgender surgeries in the name of “nondiscrimination” is really no different than the thugs of the French Revolution demanding Christians bow before the “goddess of reason.”

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court appeared to offer a mild rebuke to secularists in the Philadelphia city government who refused to place children with a Catholic adoption agency unless it opened up its services to homosexuals. Unfortunately, the unanimous ruling carries little significance, says Justice Samuel Alito, who noted that the ruling rested on narrow and technical reasoning. (The city, the court ruled, had failed to observe its own exemption-making power, which it denied to Catholic Social Services.) Alito had hoped the court would defend the Catholic adoption agency on originalist First Amendment grounds.

“This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops,” Alito wrote. “The City has been adamant about pressuring CSS [Catholic Social Services] to give in, and if the City wants to get around today’s decision, it can simply eliminate the never-used exemption power. If it does that, then, voila, today’s decision will vanish — and the parties will be back where they started…. What is the point of going around in this circle?”

He continued, “The Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state. Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed — as am I.”

Alito is correct. The justices would rather nibble at the edges of these cases than reaffirm the robust view of religious freedom contained in the First Amendment. These cases will multiply until that originalist understanding is restored. As Alito argues in his lengthy opinion, the Founding Fathers had an expansive view of the free exercise of religion. That expansive view has been replaced by a “crabbed” one.

Until recent decades, it would have been unthinkable for government officials to decree that Christians must pay for abortion and contraceptives, perform transgender surgeries, and the like. These are obvious violations of the First Amendment and can only be explained by the rejection of the moral and political philosophy that informed the American founding. We are now living under a new moral and political philosophy, one that twists the non-participation of the religious in the fulfillment of invented liberal rights into constitutionally impermissible “harm” and “offense.” Imagine explaining that to John Adams, who said the Constitution could only survive in the hands of a Christian people.

The spitefulness of secularism has never been clearer. Alito wonders “whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate those with unpopular religious beliefs.” Secularism’s answer is no, as it displays the very intolerance it claims to see in religion. To stop this juggernaut, the justices must follow Alito’s lead and treat religious liberty once again as what he rightly calls a “fundamental freedom.”

 

[marsh]

Wokeness warriors take over the Pentagon

Wokeness warriors take over the Pentagon
Mike Berry 1 day ago

246 years after the U.S. Army was established, today’s Department of Defense appears to be distracted from its national defense mission. Media commentators and service members alike have lamented the military’s drift toward becoming a testing ground for social policy experimentation.

© Provided by Washington Examiner
As perhaps the only conservative participant on the Pentagon’s newly formed Countering Extremism Working Group, I can confirm the Pentagon's full embrace of "wokeism."

For starters, President Joe Biden recently declared that white supremacy poses the greatest threat to America’s national security. The Pentagon is taking the commander in chief at his word. Instead of monitoring external threats, the Pentagon is on a mission to identify and remove whomever it labels as extremists from America’s armed forces. Ironically, the CEWG has yet to define what it means by "extremism." Extremism is usually defined as the threat or use of violence to achieve an ideological agenda. But the Pentagon is now poised to expand upon that definition to include constitutionally protected speech. In other words, sticks and stones may break our bones, but words are the biggest threat.

This should be alarming to everyone, no matter their political persuasion. If the Constitution no longer presents an impediment to appeasing the woke commissars on the far Left, it won’t be long before speech that has always been protected by the First Amendment suddenly becomes criminal. My law firm, First Liberty Institute, is already seeing some disturbing signs.

An Army chaplain used his personal social media account to express support for then-existing policy banning those who identify as transgender from serving in the military. The Army relieved him of duty and accused him of "illegal discrimination." Meanwhile, service members publicly protested that same policy, in uniform, and nothing happened. If the CEWG does not adequately account for service members' constitutional rights, we can expect many more struggle sessions to follow.

That’s right, the American government now monitors social media activity in order to ensure service members don’t post, share, or like something "extreme." If this sounds eerily familiar, it’s because China has been doing it for years.

Eradicating the scourge of actual extremism is a noble undertaking. But instead of focusing on what divides us, the Biden administration should focus on what unites the public. Instead of sending the message that conservatives, evangelicals, and Catholics are unwelcome in the military, we should reinforce to America’s young men and women what makes America exceptional. The values that drove me to join the Marine Corps many years ago were love of country, pride in service, and respect for selfless service and sacrifice.

Those are the timeless principles upon which America was built. Or so I thought. Sadly, adherence to those principles is more likely to get me and others labeled as extremists and kicked out of today’s military.

Several years ago, the Department of Defense produced a document that labeled those who believe in "states' rights, individual liberties, and how to make the world a better place" as potential extremists. Apparently, I was mistaken for thinking those were the things I was defending as a Marine. And despite data showing that religious people are the most likely to serve, we are now declaring them undesirable extremists.

All of this is a recipe for disaster. America has real enemies who seek to harm us, and those enemies are likely giddy with every woke pronouncement that America will continue to pour yet more valuable time, energy, and resources into its cold civil war.

Some have warned me that simply writing this article will likely result in my removal from the CEWG, or possibly even the Marine Corps, in which I continue to proudly serve as a reservist. But I love my country too much not to sound the alarm. And if my love of America is what leads to my removal, then so be it, as long as my discharge papers state "discharged for love of country."

Mike Berry is general counsel at First Liberty Institute and a former active duty U.S. Marine Corps officer. To learn more, please visit www.firstliberty.org.

 

[marsh]

Coca-Cola warned its woke policy would violate anti-discrimination law

On June 11, the American Civil Rights Project (ACRP) sent a warning letter to the Coca-Cola company, alleging that the beverage corporation’s new diversity policy would require contracted law firms to violate anti-discrimination law.

thepostmillennial.com

Jun 19, 2021 12:31 PM EST

Coca-Cola warned its woke policy would violate anti-discrimination law
On June 11, the American Civil Rights Project (ACRP) sent a warning letter to the Coca-Cola company, alleging that the beverage corporation's new diversity policy would require contracted law firms to violate anti-discrimination law.

ADVERTISEMENT

James AnthonyThe Post Millennial
June 19, 2021 12:31 PM1 Mins Reading

On June 11, the American Civil Rights Project (ACRP) sent a warning letter to the Coca-Cola company, alleging that the beverage corporation's new diversity policy would require contracted law firms to violate anti-discrimination law.

The letter asks the recently-beleaguered company to either "publicly retract the discriminatory outside-counsel policies it announced in January" or, otherwise, "provide access to the corporate records related to the decision of Coca-Cola’s officers and directors to adopt and retain those illegal policies."

Further down in the letter, the memo talks about the mega soft drink company's new policy "of contracting, refusing to contract, and altering the terms of signed contracts on the basis of the race of Coke’s counterparties, the [directors] have exposed Coke and its shareholders to material risk of liability."

The letter goes on to cite existing anti-discrimination laws, which it alleges that the new hiring policy violates: "These conditional threats are textbook violations of Section 1981. By adopting Policies of contracting, refusing to contract, and altering the terms of signed contraction on the basis of the race of Coke’s counterparties, the Coke D&O have exposed Coke and its shareholders to material risk of liability."

The current "diversity" policy in place at Coca-Cola requires that the company "commit that at least 30% of each of billed associate and partner time will be from diverse attorneys, and of such amounts at least half will be from black attorneys."

The Coca Cola company has been steering itself in a "woke" direction, which has drawn widespread criticism from its shareholders and from the public in general.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBULS_t0XDs
3:07 min

Here's How to Explain the LIES of 'Anti-Racism' to Your Kids

•Jun 20, 2021

SHARE


Glenn Beck

Several months ago, during the heat of the BLM riots, Glenn's daughter said to him that it's 'not enough' simply to be against racism. You have to actively be an 'anti-racist,' instead. Now, our kids are learning this same toxic critical race theory-based idea in their schools. So, how do we explain to them that 'anti-racism' is the exact OPPOSITE of what it sounds like? Former pastor and professor Voddie Bauchum laid it all out in his new book, 'Fault Lines.' He joined Glenn on a recent episode of the Glenn Beck Podcast to explain..

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Why Americans Overwhelmingly Reject Critical Race Theory

SUNDAY, JUN 20, 2021 - 07:30 PM
Authored by Mark Glennon via Wirepoints.org,

Stories across Illinois and most of America now report furious parents standing up against what’s bundled under the term “Critical Race Theory,” or CRT, widely taught in K-12 schools.

Those who know what CRT is don’t like it. A new Economist/YouGov poll found opposition beating support by 58% to 38%. And opponents feel strongly. Those with “very unfavorable” views of CRT outnumber those with “very favorable” views” by 53% to 25%. Opposition is even more intense when specific tenets of CRT are polled.


What is CRT? Why the intense opposition? Does only the “right wing” oppose its teachings, as Gov. JB Pritzker claimed on Wednesday?

Call it “antiracism,” “culturally responsive teaching,” “equity” or “wokeness” if you want; dissecting the differences would be quibbling.

Here are the specific teachings they have mostly in common that are generating the rage:

• Individuals are forever defined by race, not character. CRT expressly rejects notions of color blindness and the melting pot.
• America is systemically racist and all whites are racists or at least implicitly biased.
• The Constitution and the American system of government were designed to perpetuate slavery and oppression.
• Equality of opportunity means nothing; only equality of results matters.
• Individuals are either oppressors or victims; there’s nothing in between.
• America’s true history is told by “The 1619 Project,” which holds that America’s real birth date was 1619 when the first slaves arrived, and that it is “out of slavery – and the anti‐black racism it required” – that “nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional” grew.
• Capitalism is evil. “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anticapitalist,” says Ibram X. Kendi, a leading CRT proponent.

That’s probably enough to insult the core values and common sense of most Americans, but three overarching themes in CRT add to the fury.

First it’s taught as incontrovertible truth.

“This is not teaching about critical race theory; it is teaching in critical race theory,” an important distinction Andrew Sullivan describes in a superb, new article.

“And this is why — crucially — it will suppress any other way of seeing the world — because any other way, by definition, is merely perpetuating oppression,” Sullivan wrote. “As Kendi constantly reminds us, it is either/or. An antiracist cannot exist with a liberalism that perpetuates racism. And it’s always the liberalism that has to go.”


CRT champion Ibram X. Kendi

Second, it is Marxist in its roots and a broad assault on most everything about classical liberalism.
“Critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law,” says a detailed look at CRT’s origins.

Third, there’s little hope for rational debate with CRT supporters.
Their standard claim is that opposition means refusal to recognize racism and the history of slavery. There would be no controversy if that were true, and the polls demolish claims like Pritzker’s that only the “right wing” is opposed, or “ultra-conservatives” as NBC and many others have claimed.

The Illinois State Board of Education was particularly deceitful in defending its “culturally responsive” teaching standards. “The standards do not impact teachers licensure or evaluation,” it wrote, yet that’s precisely the object of its new rule. And its standards aren’t about curriculum, ISBE falsely claimed.

The national press, as you’d expect, suppresses opinion opposed to CRT. Take a look at the ever-growing compendium of black scholars and activists who hold different views, compiled at FreeBlackThought.com. They are dead to the world as most of the MSM sees things.
* * *
Illinois is where the first skirmish occurred in a school in what is now a national battle. Four years ago, a rather small group of parents objected to the narrow, radical curriculum of New Trier High School’s “Seminar Day” on race – “Racial Indoctrination Day,” as the Wall Street Journal called it. That was before terms like “woke” became a thing and before Critical Race Theory became the commonly used label, but the issues were largely the same as today: Dissenting parents objected to what they saw as authoritarianism in the school’s exclusion of alternate viewpoints.

The parents lost. New Trier refused to include those alternate viewpoints.

They lost, in part, because many angry parents were afraid to speak up. They feared retribution from those who labeled all critics as racists.

But national coverage of that story and more alarming ones ensued. Having seen the reality of what CRT means to classrooms, its critics are now the majority.

Gone is any excuse for silence. CRT is in our schools due only to a loud and aggressive minority concentrated in today’s political, educational and media establishments. It will be driven into the obscurity it deserves if the majority continues to speak up.

 

[marsh]

WaPo tells white people to hate themselves…

This is from the Washington Post homepage.

citizenfreepress.com

WaPo tells white people to hate themselves…
Posted by Kane on June 21, 2021 4:10 pm

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1406960015907373059

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1406960015907373059
5:23 min

This is from the Washington Post homepage.

 

[marsh]

Australian Senate Bans Marxist Critical Race Theory from Aussie Classrooms | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

The Australian Senate voted on Monday to ban the Marxist Critical Race Theory from classrooms Down Under.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

l
Australian Senate Bans Marxist Critical Race Theory from Aussie Classrooms

By Jim Hoft
Published June 21, 2021 at 9:10pm

The Australian Senate voted on Monday to ban the Marxist Critical Race Theory from classrooms Down Under.

The bill passed 30-28. There were 28 senators who believe the Marxist and racist indoctrination of children is totally acceptable.

Liberalism is a disease.



The Daily Telegraph reported:

The Senate voted Monday night to call on the federal government to keep contentious “critical race theory” doctrines out of the national curriculum.

By a vote of 30-28, the Senate supported a notice of motion put forward by One Nation leader Pauline Hanson calling “on the federal government to reject critical race theory from the national curriculum.”

Critical race theory is a contentious set of doctrines with roots in academia that believes societies like Australia are built on structural racism and that people can be divided into categories of “oppressor” or “oppressed” based on their race, gender, or ethnicity.

A proposed revised version of the Australian Curriculum came under fire earlier this year when critics claimed that it was introducing critical race theory concepts into the classroom and downgrading Australia’s British and Judeo-Christian heritage.

View: https://youtu.be/iyx2xcbMNl0
17:08 min

 

[marsh]

Colorado Mayor Bans Pledge Of Allegiance At Board Meetings -- Then Gets Triggered After Members Recite It Anyway, Threatens To Remove Them (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Colorado Mayor Shane Fuhrman banned the Pledge Of Allegiance At Board Meetings.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Colorado Mayor Bans Pledge Of Allegiance At Board Meetings — Gets Triggered After Members Recite It Anyway, Threatens To Remove Them (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published June 21, 2021 at 9:57pm

Colorado Mayor Shane Fuhrman banned the Pledge Of Allegiance At Board Meetings. So members recite it anyway.

Then the mayor loses it and threatens to remove them from the meeting!

Silverton, Colorado Mayor Shane Fuhrman unilaterally suspended the practice of saying the Pledge of Allegiance during board meetings last week. Fuhrman made the decision without a vote by the board members. Town Trustee Molly Barela questioned his power to make that change during the public meeting that was livestreamed on the internet.

Fuhrman told the board members and attendees, “Due to direct and indirect threats, inappropriate comments in and out of public meetings, and the general divisiveness this is creating in our community, we will not be doing the Pledge of Allegiance during town of Silverton board of trustee meetings.”
The mayor did not provide any specific information about the alleged threats and comments. That was just likely his excuse to be an authoritarian.

During the meeting several attendees and board members stood and recited The Pledge of Allegiance. That’s when the mayor got triggered and threatened to remove them all from the city meeting.

Wow!

Local CBS reported:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBHxFsfuDdA&feature=emb_rel_end
1; 09 min

Here’s an extended version of the video with the mayor threatening the attendees after they recite The Pledge of Allegiance!

 

[marsh]

There Is No Way to Co-exist With the Left - MAGA Institute

Decades ago, I leaned Left on nearly all issues of the day. Today, I find virtually every Liberal or Leftist viewpoint–from no need for voter ID to restrictions on the First Amendment–to be harmful to society. The now-questionable lockdown over COVID-19, and their willingness to overlook street...

magainstitute.com

There Is No Way to Co-exist With the Left

ByJeff Davidson
21 June 2021



Decades ago, I leaned Left on nearly all issues of the day. Today, I find virtually every Liberal or Leftist viewpoint–from no need for voter ID to restrictions on the First Amendment–to be harmful to society. The now-questionable lockdown over COVID-19, and their willingness to overlook street violence, further exacerbates my feeling that that Left loves the idea of total authority and of imposing its will on all of us, forevermore.

Not Feasible, Now or Ever
Do you believe, as Leftists do, for example, that children may choose their gender? Is it okay to teach children that there are more than 50 genders? Do you think that cross-dressers should be reading to children at story hour? Should mathematics, the sciences, and other core academic disciplines be taught to accommodate ‘politically diverse’ points of view?

Should entire college curricula be redesigned because most of the great works of literature throughout history have been written by white males? Are you fine with colleges holding separate graduation exercises and celebrations for different ethnic minorities?

Commiecrats Hate America and American Values

Are you upset when conservative speakers on campus are disrupted from speaking, or are banned altogether from campus? Should colleges set up safe spaces? Curiously, can a university promise students an unbiased education when 97% of college professors’ political donations go to Democrats? Should all student loan debt be exonerated?

Malarkey Unrestrained
Is late-trimester abortion acceptable? After a baby is born, is it the right of the mother and the doctor to choose whether or not that person will continue to live?

Should Medicare be provided for all and, if so, how do you pay for it?

Do you care about the issue, or do you only get riled up when the mainstream media stokes your emotions?

Are illegal immigrants to be given free healthcare the moment they cross the border, as all Democrat presidential contenders stated on live television in 2020? Indeed, should we have open borders and let in anybody who wants to come here? Are sanctuary cities a good idea, and do they support the lives and aspirations of actual American citizens?

When newspaper headlines scream about gun violence, is wringing your hands over the issue any solace for families in Chicago or Baltimore ghetto communities who experience gun violence on a daily basis? Do you care about the issue, or do you only get riled up when the mainstream media stokes your emotions?

Is calling others racist acceptable when, in your own heart, you know that you are biased at times against this group or that? Is a comment made by a movie star or celebrity–or a politician, for that matter–30 or 40 years ago enough to cancel his or her career? Tell me, is virtue-signaling an acceptable form of social participation, or should one actually take appropriate, non-violent action to address a wrong?

Radical Groups
Is the Marxist ideology of BLM acceptable to you? Are the goals and violent tactics of Antifa acceptable to you? If they’re proud of what they stand for and forthright in their actions, why do they wear ski masks? Appearing in selected cities in time to cause trouble, and leading the turmoil following the death of George Floyd, how many of them actually hold jobs?

How many pay for their transportation and housing costs? If they do not pay for themselves, who is paying? Most curiously, why do they often go after the most vulnerable people they can find in any gathering? Is it okay when law enforcement stands down in the face of violence committed by those on the Left?

It would be nice to be able to reach consensus in some way with those on the Left, however my sensibilities cry out and say that would be cultural and national suicide.

The Left now embraces mass insanity and it’s getting more absurd by the week. The 14-month lockdown has given us all a taste of what socialism would be like. What’s more, I don’t think that they understand the magnitude and ramifications of many of their political and social views. The Left’s agenda would destroy our civilization in less than a year or two.

One Generation Away
Ronald Reagan said it best, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men [and women] were free.”

It would be nice to be able to reach consensus in some way with those on the Left, however my sensibilities cry out and say that would be cultural and national suicide.
- Advertisement -

 

[marsh]

Who Is a “Terrorist” in Biden’s America?

Biden’s new “domestic terror” strategy targets those who oppose US government overreach and those who oppose capitalism and/or globalization.

www.thelastamericanvagabond.com

Who Is A “Terrorist” In Biden’s America?
Posted on June 18, 2021 AuthorWhitney WebbComments(7)

Far from being a war against “white supremacy,” the Biden administration’s new “domestic terror” strategy clearly targets primarily those who oppose US government overreach and those who oppose capitalism and/or globalization.

In the latest sign that the US government’s War on Domestic Terror is growing in scope and scale, the White House on Tuesday revealed the nation’s first ever government-wide strategy for confronting domestic terrorism. While cloaked in language about stemming racially motivated violence, the strategy places those deemed “anti-government” or “anti-authority” on a par with racist extremists and charts out policies that could easily be abused to silence or even criminalize online criticism of the government.

Even more disturbing is the call to essentially fuse intelligence agencies, law enforcement, Silicon Valley, and “community” and “faith-based” organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, as well as unspecified foreign governments, as partners in this “war,” which the strategy makes clear will rely heavily on a pre-crime orientation focused largely on what is said on social media and encrypted platforms.

Though the strategy claims that the government will “shield free speech and civil liberties” in implementing this policy, its contents reveal that it is poised to gut both.

Indeed, while framed publicly as chiefly targeting “right-wing white supremacists,” the strategy itself makes it clear that the government does not plan to focus on the Right but instead will pursue “domestic terrorists” in “an ideologically neutral, threat-driven manner,” as the law “makes no distinction based on political view—left, right or center.” It also states that a key goal of this strategic framework is to ensure “that there is simply no governmental tolerance . . . of violence as an acceptable mode of seeking political or social change,” regardless of a perpetrator’s political affiliation.

Considering that the main cheerleaders for the War on Domestic Terror exist mainly in establishment left circles, such individuals should rethink their support for this new policy given that the above statements could easily come to encompass Black Lives Matter–related protests, such as those that transpired last summer, depending on which political party is in power.

Once the new infrastructure is in place, it will remain there and will be open to the same abuses perpetrated by both political parties in the US during the lengthy War on Terror following September 11, 2001. The history of this new “domestic terror” policy, including its origins in the Trump administration, makes this clear.

It’s Never Been Easier to Be a “Terrorist”
In introducing the strategy, the Biden administration cites “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” as a key reason for the new policy and a main justification for the War on Domestic Terror in general. This was most recently demonstrated Tuesday in Attorney General Merrick Garland’s statement announcing this new strategy. However, the document itself puts “anti-government” or “anti-authority” “extremists” in the same category as violent white supremacists in terms of being a threat to the homeland. The strategy’s characterization of such individuals is unsettling.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1404828495818235908

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1404828495818235908
.36 min

For instance, those who “violently oppose” “all forms of capitalism” or “corporate globalization” are listed under this less-discussed category of “domestic terrorist.” This highlights how people on the left, many of whom have called for capitalism to be dismantled or replaced in the US in recent years, could easily be targeted in this new “war” that many self-proclaimed leftists are currently supporting. Similarly, “environmentally-motivated extremists,” a category in which groups such as Extinction Rebellion could easily fall, are also included.

In addition, the phrasing indicates that it could easily include as “terrorists” those who oppose the World Economic Forum’s vision for global “stakeholder capitalism,” as that form of “capitalism” involves corporations and their main “stakeholders” creating a new global economic and governance system. The WEF’s stakeholder capitalism thus involves both “capitalism” and “corporate globalization.”

The strategy also includes those who “take steps to violently resist government authority . . . based on perceived overreach.” This, of course, creates a dangerous situation in which the government could, purposely or otherwise, implement a policy that is an obvious overreach and/or blatantly unconstitutional and then label those who resist it “domestic terrorists” and deal with them as such—well before the overreach can be challenged in court.

Another telling addition to this group of potential “terrorists” is “any other individual or group who engages in violence—or incites imminent violence—in opposition to legislative, regulatory or other actions taken by the government.” Thus, if the government implements a policy that a large swath of the population finds abhorrent, such as launching a new, unpopular war abroad, those deemed to be “inciting” resistance to the action online could be considered domestic terrorists.

Such scenarios are not unrealistic, given the loose way in which the government and the media have defined things like “incitement” and even “violence” (e. g., “hate speech” is a form of violence) in the recent past. The situation is ripe for manipulation and abuse. To think the federal government (including the Biden administration and subsequent administrations) would not abuse such power reflects an ignorance of US political history, particularly when the main forces behind most terrorist incidents in the nation are actually US government institutions like the FBI (more FBI examples here, here, here, and here).
Furthermore, the original plans for the detention of American dissidents in the event of a national emergency, drawn up during the Reagan era as part of its “continuity of government” contingency, cited popular nonviolent opposition to US intervention in Latin America as a potential “emergency” that could trigger the activation of those plans. Many of those “continuity of government” protocols remain on the books today and can be triggered, depending on the whims of those in power. It is unlikely that this new domestic terror framework will be any different regarding nonviolent protest and demonstrations.

Yet another passage in this section of the strategy states that “domestic terrorists” can, “in some instances, connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation.” It adds that the proliferation of such “dangerous” information “on Internet-based communications platforms such as social media, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety.”

Thus, the presence of “conspiracy theories” and information deemed by the government to be “misinformation” online is itself framed as threatening public safety, a claim made more than once in this policy document. Given that a major “pillar” of the strategy involves eliminating online material that promotes “domestic terrorist” ideologies, it seems inevitable that such efforts will also “connect and intersect” with the censorship of “conspiracy theories” and narratives that the establishment finds inconvenient or threatening for any reason.

Pillars of Tyranny
The strategy notes in several places that this new domestic-terror policy will involve a variety of public-private partnerships in order to “build a community to address domestic terrorism that extends not only across the Federal Government but also to critical partners.” It adds, “That includes state, local, tribal and territorial governments, as well as foreign allies and partners, civil society, the technology sector, academic, and more.”

The mention of foreign allies and partners is important as it suggests a multinational approach to what is supposedly a US “domestic” issue and is yet another step toward a transnational security-state apparatus. A similar multinational approach was used to devastating effect during the CIA-developed Operation Condor, which was used to target and “disappear” domestic dissidents in South America in the 1970s and 1980s. The foreign allies mentioned in the Biden administration’s strategy are left unspecified, but it seems likely that such allies would include the rest of the Five Eyes alliance (the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and Israel, all of which already have well-established information-sharing agreements with the US for signals intelligence.

The new domestic-terror strategy has four main “pillars,” which can be summarized as (1) understanding and sharing domestic terrorism-related information, including with foreign governments and private tech companies; (2) preventing domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence; (3) disrupting and deterring domestic terrorism activity; and (4) confronting long-term contributors to domestic terrorism.

The first pillar involves the mass accumulation of data through new information-sharing partnerships and the deepening of existing ones. Much of this information sharing will involve increased data mining and analysis of statements made openly on the internet, particularly on social media, something already done by US intelligence contractors such as Palantir. While the gathering of such information has been ongoing for years, this policy allows even more to be shared and legally used to make cases against individuals deemed to have made threats or expressed “dangerous” opinions online.

Included in the first pillar is the need to increase engagement with financial institutions concerning the financing of “domestic terrorists.” US banks, such as Bank of America, have already gone quite far in this regard, leading to accusations that it has begun acting like an intelligence agency. Such claims were made after it was revealed that the BofA had passed to the government the private banking information of over two hundred people that the bank deemed as pointing to involvement in the events of January 6, 2021. It seems likely, given this passage in the strategy, that such behavior by banks will soon become the norm, rather than an outlier, in the United States.

The second pillar is ostensibly focused on preventing the online recruitment of domestic terrorists and online content that leads to the “mobilization of violence.” The strategy notes that this pillar “means reducing both supply and demand of recruitment materials by limiting widespread availability online and bolstering resilience to it by those who nonetheless encounter it.“ The strategy states that such government efforts in the past have a “mixed record,” but it goes on to claim that trampling on civil liberties will be avoided because the government is “consulting extensively” with unspecified “stakeholders” nationwide.

Regarding recruitment, the strategy states that “these activities are increasingly happening on Internet-based communications platforms, including social media, online gaming platforms, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, even as those products and services frequently offer other important benefits.” It adds that “the widespread availability of domestic terrorist recruitment material online is a national security threat whose front lines are overwhelmingly private-sector online platforms.”

The US government plans to provide “information to assist online platforms with their own initiatives to enforce their own terms of service that prohibits the use of their platforms for domestic terrorist activities” as well as to “facilitate more robust efforts outside the government to counter terrorists’ abuse of Internet-based communications platforms.”

Given the wider definition of “domestic terrorist” that now includes those who oppose capitalism and corporate globalization as well as those who resist government overreach, online content discussing these and other “anti-government” and “anti-authority” ideas could soon be treated in the same way as online Al Qaeda or ISIS propaganda. Efforts, however, are unlikely to remain focused on these topics. As Unlimited Hangout reported last November, both UK intelligence and the US national-security state were developing plans to treat critical reporting on the COVID-19 vaccines as “extremist” propaganda.

Another key part of this pillar is the need to “increase digital literacy” among the American public, while censoring “harmful content” disseminated by “terrorists” as well as by “hostile foreign powers seeking to undermine American democracy.” The latter is a clear reference to the claim that critical reporting of US government policy, particularly its military and intelligence activities abroad, was the product of “Russian disinformation,” a now discredited claim that was used to heavily censor independent media. This new government strategy appears to promise more of this sort of thing.

It also notes that “digital literacy” education for a domestic audience is being developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Such a policy would have previously violated US law until the Obama administration worked with Congress to repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, thus lifting the ban on the government directing propaganda at domestic audiences.

The third pillar of the strategy seeks to increase the number of federal prosecutors investigating and trying domestic-terror cases. Their numbers are likely to jump as the definition of “domestic terrorist” is expanded. It also seeks to explore whether “legislative reforms could meaningfully and materially increase our ability to protect Americans from acts of domestic terrorism while simultaneously guarding against potential abuse of overreach.” In contrast to past public statements on police reform by those in the Biden administration, the strategy calls to “empower” state and local law enforcement to tackle domestic terrorism, including with increased access to “intelligence” on citizens deemed dangerous or subversive for any number of reasons.

Part 1 of 2

 

[marsh]

Part 2 Of 2

To that effect, the strategy states the following (p. 24):

“The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Department of Homeland Security, with support from the National Counterterrorism Center [part of the intelligence community], are incorporating an increased focus on domestic terrorism into current intelligence products and leveraging current mechanisms of information and intelligence sharing to improve the sharing of domestic terrorism-related content and indicators with non-Federal partners. These agencies are also improving the usability of their existing information-sharing platforms, including through the development of mobile applications designed to provide a broader reach to non-Federal law enforcement partners, while simultaneously refining that support based on partner feedback.”

Such an intelligence tool could easily be, for example, Palantir, which is already used by the intelligence agencies, the DHS, and several US police departments for “predictive policing,” that is, pre-crime actions. Notably, Palantir has long included a “subversive” label for individuals included on government and law enforcement databases, a parallel with the controversial and highly secretive Main Core database of US dissidents.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the “pre-crime” element of the new domestic terror strategy explicit on Tuesday when he said in a statement that DHS would continue “developing key partnerships with local stakeholders through the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) to identify potential threats and prevent terrorism.” CP3, which replaced DHS’ Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention this past May, officially “supports communities across the United States to prevent individuals from radicalizing to violence and intervene when individuals have already radicalized to violence.”

The fourth pillar of the strategy is by far the most opaque and cryptic, while also the most far-reaching. It aims to address the sources that cause “terrorists” to mobilize “towards violence.” This requires “tackling racism in America,” a lofty goal for an administration headed by the man who controversially eulogized Congress’ most ardent segregationist and who was a key architect of the 1994 crime bill. As well, it provides for “early intervention and appropriate care for those who pose a danger to themselves or others.”

In regard to the latter proposal, the Trump administration, in a bid to “stop mass shootings before they occur,” considered a proposal to create a “health DARPA” or “HARPA” that would monitor the online communications of everyday Americans for “neuropsychiatric” warning signs that someone might be “mobilizing towards violence.” While the Trump administration did not create HARPA or adopt this policy, the Biden administration has recently announced plans to do so.

Finally, the strategy indicates that this fourth pillar is part of a “broader priority”: “enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.” In other words, fostering trust in government while simultaneously censoring “polarizing” voices who distrust or criticize the government is a key policy goal behind the Biden administration’s new domestic-terror strategy.

Calling Their Shots?
While this is a new strategy, its origins lie in the Trump administration. In October 2019, Trump’s attorney general William Barr formally announced in a memorandum that a new “national disruption and early engagement program” aimed at detecting those “mobilizing towards violence” before they commit any crime would launch in the coming months. That program, known as DEEP (Disruption and Early Engagement Program), is now active and has involved the Department of Justice, the FBI, and “private sector partners” since its creation.

Barr’s announcement of DEEP followed his unsettling “prediction” in July 2019 that “a major incident may occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues.” Not long after that speech, a spate of mass shootings occurred, including the El Paso Walmart shooting, which killed twenty-three and about which many questions remain unanswered regarding the FBI’s apparent foreknowledge of the event. After these events took place in 2019, Trump called for the creation of a government backdoor into encryption and the very pre-crime system that Barr announced shortly thereafter in October 2019. The Biden administration, in publishing this strategy, is merely finishing what Barr started.

Indeed, a “prediction” like Barr’s in 2019 was offered by the DHS’ Elizabeth Neumann during a Congressional hearing in late February 2020. That hearing was largely ignored by the media as it coincided with an international rise of concern regarding COVID-19. At the hearing, Neumann, who previously coordinated the development of the government’s post-9/11 terrorism information sharing strategies and policies and worked closely with the intelligence community, gave the following warning about an imminent “domestic terror” event in the United States:

“And every counterterrorism professional I speak to in the federal government and overseas feels like we are at the doorstep of another 9/11, maybe not something that catastrophic in terms of the visual or the numbers, but that we can see it building and we don’t quite know how to stop it.”

Video Player on website 2:11 Min

This “another 9/11” emerged on January 6, 2021, as the events of that day in the Capitol were quickly labeled as such by both the media and prominent politicians, while also inspiring calls from the White House and the Democrats for a “9/11-style commission” to investigate the incident. This event, of course, figures prominently in the justification for the new domestic-terror strategy, despite the considerable video and other evidence that shows that Capitol law enforcement, and potentially the FBI, were directly involved in facilitating the breach of the Capitol. In addition, when one considers that the QAnon movement, which had a clear role in the events of January 6, was itself likely a government-orchestrated psyop, the government hand in creating this situation seems clear.

It goes without saying that the official reasons offered for these militaristic “domestic terror” policies, which the US has already implemented abroad—causing much more terror than it has prevented—does not justify the creation of a massive new national-security infrastructure that aims to criminalize and censor online speech. Yet the admission that this new strategy, as part of a broader effort to “enhance faith in government,” combines domestic propaganda campaigns with the censorship and pursuit of those who distrust government heralds the end of even the illusion of democracy in the United States.


(Report on website)

 

[marsh]

AMERICAN NEWS Jun 21, 2021 7:47 AM EST

WATCH: Dan Bongino talks about the origins of critical race theory with Dr. Carol Swain

"Critical race theory," Swain said, "argues that white people are oppressors, that all people with white skin are privileged, they have a property interest in their whiteness, and that racism is permanent."

Libby EmmonsBrooklyn, NY
June 21, 2021 7:47 AM2 Mins Reading

Dan Bongino tackled the increasing problem of indoctrination of children in American schools on his latest episode of Fox Nation's The Dan Bongino Show. Bongino talked to Dr. Carol Swain, who was part of President Trump's 1776 Commission, about just how long critical race theory, and critical theory in general, has been coming down the pike.

Rumble video on website 3:52 min

Swain noted that it has been in the universities since the 1970s, beginning at the prestigious Harvard University. "It escaped the university campuses," Swain said, "and it's now infecting K-12 education at public and private schools. Christian as well as secular schools, and every sector of our society including the US military."

"Critical race theory," Swain said, "argues that white people are oppressors, that all people with white skin are privileged, they have a property interest in their whiteness, and that racism is permanent."

"And that minorities, especially blacks, because blacks are being used to advance the agenda, that blacks are victims and they need white people to liberate them by becoming antiracist. But only white people are expected to be antiracist. You never hear that all people should be antiracist," Swain said.

"Did you notice that the advocates of critical race theory—which is racist," he replied, "and I'm sorry, if you support it," he told viewers, "you're a racist too. Suggesting we judge people by their skin color is the essence of racism. But did you notice they live in euphemisms?" He asked Swain.

"And they play these games, these obfuscation games. They can never describe exactly what they're talking about," Bongino said, bringing up Ibram X. Kendi's definition of racism.

Kendi defined racism as "a collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1400093048529330176

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1400093048529330176
1:01 min

Bongino said that this is not isolated to Kendi, and that when he asks for a definition of systemic racism, he finds that most of the systems that are being discussed "are in fact run by liberals."

"The problem is," Swain replied, "it's indoctrination that they memorize these concepts and they have no clue what it means." She said this is now through kindergarten up through the university level. "No critical thinking is taking place," she said, "and they don't have to define their terms unless they are asked by a conservative, and none of them can."

"Critical race theory is racist," Swain said, "and I see it as the civil rights issue of our time. I'm proud of President Trump for leading the battle, because he does have a big platform."

Swain noted the executive order that Trump signed in September 2020, that banned critical race theory in government agencies and for companies that contract with the federal government. Biden overturned the order as soon as he stepped into the Oval Office in January.

"Critical race theory runs contrary to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, our civil rights laws, our constitution's equal protection clause, and just how we treat other Americans. We don't shame and bully and intimidate people because of the color of their skin or their nationality or whether they are male or female," Swain said.

"Critical theory encourages us to divide and to really hate each other and to fight over things we really should not be fighting over. It dumbs down education and it hurts minorities the most," she concluded.
"It's grotesque," Bongino said, "I couldn't agree more."

 

[marsh]

A Racist Training Program for the U.S. Navy | Frontpage Mag

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic

www.frontpagemag.com

A Racist Training Program for the U.S. Navy
Forget fighting China, confess your white privilege.

Mon Jun 21, 2021
Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

As he assumed the office of Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday announced that he wanted to change the Navy. While the title of his remarks in the video you see here below was: "One Team, One Navy," its actual message was racist and divisive. His bottom line: only "conversations" about race would help. The “conversations” he referred to were in fact a lecture from America’s most popular and fact-challenged racist du jour, Ibram X. Kendi.

View: https://youtu.be/flDygEOZCbk
11:00 min

The “conversation" included "shared" videos of naval personnel claiming that America was racist and that they were angry. “Being African-American in America is not fun,” an aviation technician claimed, especially no doubt for a two-term African-American president who pocketed $100 million for the skillful exploitation of his public office.

There was no word on whether being African in Somalia, Sudan, and Nigeria is any more “fun” than being black in America or whether being a Somalian hater of Jews and America might put you on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and get you protected by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the leadership of the Democrat Party.

In keeping with Gilday’s efforts to divide the Navy by race, an official Navy video endorsed the Marxist organization Black Lives Matter and denounced police for the death of drug-dealer-accomplice Breonna Taylor, who was shot resisting arrest when her boyfriend triggered a hailstorm of bullets after shooting and wounding a police officer doing his job. Bottom line of the video: naval recruits and officers need to hate their “white supremacist” country and question their service.

In the video, a lieutenant commander claimed that he had experienced "systemic racism" and "implicit bias" – note, not actual bias. A white corpsman urged that "we can stand up for change" and then, mouthing the standard Marxist line, declared that "tomorrow's Navy will finally stand on the right side of history when we realize that black lives matter."

"I have become very aware of my privilege as a white person," a female musician confessed. Then she claimed that "this country has a history of systemic racism." [FACT: systemic racism was outlawed nearly 60 years ago by the Civil Rights Act]. She called for creating a "country that is more equitable and just." How this was to be accomplished by repeating racist tropes about white people – guilty because of their skin color -- she didn’t bother to explain.

The video closed with Gilday vowing to eliminate “systemic racism” with a new task force.

This dangerous farce wasn’t taking place under the Obama or Biden administrations. No one from above was forcing Gilday to undermine national security or attack the foundations of this country. The year was 2020 and the Chief of Naval Operations was doing it entirely of his own accord.

Gilday, a naval mediocrity, got to his position at the top of the Navy leadership because a new political environment made better men fearful of taking it.

Normally, it’s not a job for vice admirals. The virtually unprecedented promotion happened after President Trump’s original nominee, Admiral Bill Moran, was kneecapped by a politically-motivated, phony scandal.

Moran, a talented leader, was pushed out and forced to retire because he had emailed a former staff officer who had been accused of misbehaving at a Christmas party back in 2016.

The Pentagon probe pushed by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand ended Moran’s career.

Navy Secretary Richard Spencer claimed that Moran maintaining a friendship with a former officer who had misbehaved, "caused me to call his judgment into question" and suggested it was at odds with treating "every person with dignity and respect."

Moran’s purge wasn’t isolated. Democrat politicians, the media, and Pentagon bureaucrats had made a point of coming after virtually any Trump nominee. Their agenda was to cripple the administration and cancel its America First policies. These tactics endangered national security and weakened the military, and carried on the political agendas of the Obama-Biden administration. Under this onslaught, few leaders wanted to take a top job because they risked being destroyed on the thinnest pretext.

Navy Secretary Richard Spencer would later be fired over the witch-hunt against Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, after which he denounced President Trump and endorsed Democrat presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg. Spencer had already shown that he wouldn’t stand behind a Chief of Naval Operations under leftist attack. So Gilday, a vice admiral, was suddenly given a job no one qualified wanted.

This was bad news for the Navy and for America’s security.

Gilday was nominated because he was “progressive” enough or could play that part. He would not be a candidate for a witch-hunt. While Admiral Moran had stood up for his people, Gilday began pushing racial campaigns before Biden occupied the White House.

In the summer of 2020, Gilday began mandating his "conversations" about race, which insisted that the Navy was racist. The infamous video was one of the most public of these “conversations.”

Rear Admiral Alvin Holsey, one of the few black admirals, headed Task Force One Navy whose report swapped out traditional naval tradition for fighting "racism, sexism, ableism and other structural and interpersonal biases." TF1N members vowed to advocate for "all lived experiences and intersectional identities of every sailor."

Officers were told that it was their job to “advocate for change.”

The new “One Navy” was a college campus whose focus wasn’t fending off China, but recruiting activists for leftist causes. Its guidelines drew heavily on “white privilege” materials, warning officers to “actively listen and do not be defensive.” In other words, if you criticize the racist propaganda we offer that in itself proves you’re a racist.

The report also proposed fighting “systemic racism” by removing “problematic” language. It dismantled uniform and grooming standards. Even the term "good taste" was banned.

But there were more ominous proposals like including bias awareness training or so-called “implicit bias” (and what might that be?) which would force Navy leadership into critical race theory sessions.

Gilday was overseeing the transformation of the Navy into a leftist indoctrination machine.

The same month that the report was released, Gilday had a whole new list of reading materials for the fleet. While Gilday has since tried to portray the Professional Reading Program as an optional hobby, it’s understood that these books convey the thinking of the brass. Reading and absorbing their concepts makes officers a good fit for the culture and helps their careers.

While these books had been generally about the military with a focus on leadership, the list sharply diverged with The New Jim Crow which claimed preposterously that America is based on a "racial caste" system (tell that to Barack and Michelle Obama), and Ibram X. Kendi's How To Be An Anti-Racist.

The leftist texts not only violated the military’s non-partisan role in protecting a diverse democratic society, they were racist texts that divided people by color and undermined the Navy’s mission and morale.

Kendi's anti-racism message is that you either agree with his political “solutions” -- or you’re a racist.
“There is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and antiracist ideas,” he preaches. The title of this text Gilday is recommending is a thesis that you’re either a left-wing activist or a racist. Either you support and will work to achieve Kendi’s leftist political objectives or you’re a bigot.

According to Kendi, discrimination can be a good thing. “If discrimination is creating equity [like giving benefits to people who are not white], then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity [for anyone but white people], then it is racist.”

To Kendi everything is transmuted into racism. Even the weather. “Do-nothing climate policy is racist policy,” he argues, “since the predominantly non-White global south is being victimized by climate change more than the Whiter global north.” But of course, the chief global polluters, China, Pakistan, and India, are nations “of color” who have refused to change their climate policies, while the biggest pusher of climate change alarmism is the long-time white racist now-president of the “white supremacist” United States.

Kendi’s is not your garden variety racism. It’s argued on the same level as the sermons of the long-defeated Ku Klux Klan – in reverse. In college, Kendi wrote that "Europeans are simply a different breed of human” who are "facing extinction" because of their "recessive genes" and are trying to "level the playing field with the AIDS virus." His presentation since then has grown slicker without varying from the same premise that white people are innately racist and the aggressors in an endless struggle to suppress black people.

This racist worldview, promoted by Gilday and the Democrat leadership, and funded by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, is fundamentally no different from Louis Farrakhan’s blue-eyed-devil explanation of everything that’s wrong with Western history and its civilization. Forget the fact that there is still black slavery in Africa and brown slavery in China, and that America and the British Empire led the world in freeing black slaves.

Kendi sees everything through the lens of racial hatred. He even denounced Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a "white colonizer" because she adopted two Haitian children. This is the Navy’s new race guide.

The oath of enlistment for naval recruits pledges them to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and its elected officials. But its race guru Ibram Kendi wants to replace all of that with a Department of Anti-racism (DOA) that would have total authority over all "local, state and federal public policies" and given "disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.”

Forget the oath of enlistment; this attack on the Constitution is what Chief of Naval Operations Gilday has twisted the Navy into endorsing.

Rep. Jim Banks, a Navy reservist who served in Afghanistan, asked Gilday at a hearing about his endorsement for Kendi's racist views. Instead of condemning Kendi's racist idea that white people aren't human and created AIDS to kill black people, Gilday argued that these were "cherry-picked quotes” and went on defending the legitimacy of pushing Kendi’s noxious agendas.

“What this is really about is trying to paint the United States military, and in this case, the United States Navy as weak, as woke,” Gilday complained. “We are not weak.”

Sorry but the Navy is on a path to becoming as weak as it is woke.

If Gilday weren’t weak, he wouldn’t be occupying his current position over the heads of more qualified admirals. And if those admirals had shown a willingness to stand up to the purgers, then the entire Navy wouldn’t be subjected to woke witch-hunts and what the Chinese Communists refer to as “struggle sessions.”

Even before the Navy confronts Communist China or Jihadist Iran, it’s under attack from their anti-American leftist allies in this country. The enemy is inside the military and waging psychological war on its own country.

Gilday, like the rest of the woke military leaders, is a pathetic figure who has dispensed with his oath of allegiance and has sworn a woke oath to anti-white race theory. He has pledged his service to racist ideas, like those of Ibram X. Kendi, who will forever despise him on account of his skin color.

And as a reward for his treason, he hopes to be left alone long enough to retire as a lobbyist.

 

[marsh]

Candace Owens: Democrats are trying to federalize police: AIR.TV R/T 3:31 min

 

[thompson]

He is a COMMUNIST WEASEL (spit)

VIDEO at the link..

Navy Chief Dodges Tom Cotton Question on If Capitalism Is Racist

Gilday would not say whether he thought capitalism was racist during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday.

www.breitbart.com

Navy Chief of Operations Dodges Tom Cotton Question on If Capitalism Is Racist

Kristina Wong 22 Jun 2021

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday would not say whether he thought capitalism was racist during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) questioned Gilday about adding Ibram X. Kendi’s book, How to Be an Antiracist, on the recommended reading list for every sailor, and asked Gilday if he agreed with its primary assumptions, including that capitalism is racist.

Cotton said: “You’re saying as a senior leader of the Navy that you want 18-year-old sailors and 22-year-old ensigns to read a book that asserts that capitalism is essentially racist. Do you agree that capitalism is essentially racist?”

Gilday responded: “Sir, with all due respect, I’m not going to engage without understanding the context of statements like that.”

Cotton: “In what context could the claim that capitalism is essentially racist possibly be something with which you agree?”

Gilday responded: “Sir I’d have to go back to the book to take a look at that… I believe we can trust them to read books like that and draw reasonable conclusions.”

Cotton then retorted it was not a matter of trust, but a matter of time. “You, as the chief of naval operations, are suggesting in your professional reading that it’s a worthwhile endeavor for our sailors and ensigns to spend the time reading books like these as opposed to reading books on maritime strategy or basic seafaring skills.”

In a Time interview in 2019, Kendi argued that racism and capitalism are inseparable and will “die together.” He said:

What’s really happening, particularly among the left, is a debate over how we define capitalism. What I tried to show in [Antiracist] is that you can’t separate capitalism from racism, that they were birthed during the same period in the same area and have grown together, damaged together and will one day die together.

Cotton also cited other assertions made by Kendi in his book, including that the only remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination, the only remedy for present discrimination is future discrimination; that some individuals by virtue of his or her race are inherently oppressive or privileged while others are victimized or oppressed; and that individuals can bear some kind of collective responsibility or collective guilt of actions committed by his or her race.

He asked Gilday how the book ended up on his reading list.

Gilday defended his decision, saying that he wanted sailors to read about internal threats and think critically in a world of misinformation. He said:

Sir, I chose a variety of books. There are over 50 books on my reading list to give my sailors a wide range of information from which I hope they can make facts-based decisions on both their ability to look outwardly at potential aggressors like China and Russia, as well as looking inwardly and being honest with themselves in areas they need to improve. In talking to sailors over the past year, it’s clearly obvious to me and others that the murder of George Floyd and the events surrounding that and the discussions in this country about racism which go back for years and years and years are still a painful part of our culture and that talking about them, understanding them is the best approach.
And that offering books like Kendi’s for people to read — and they don’t have to agree with every assertion that Kendi makes — I don’t agree with every assertion that Kendi makes, I would think that all sailors would as well, but they need to be exposed to it, so that they’re making facts-based — we need critical thinkers in the Navy and throughout the military, and our enlisted force, again, we don’t only think outwardly but inwardly so they make objective, hopefully objective, facts-based, decisions, or draw conclusions in a world that is increasingly more difficult to get an unbiased view of a really tough problem. Even if they’re looking at things on social media, artificial intelligence associated with those platforms feeds them more of whatever they tend to look at. I’m offering them one book among 53 as a different perspective.

Cotton then chided Gilday on other “genuine cultural problems” he considered more pressing, including collisions at sea, a ship catching fire in port, and the Fat Leonard scandal that involved massive corruption among sailors in the Asia Pacific.

“Assigning books like these and encouraging your sailors to take the time to do so is not a way for the Navy to regain its focus, Admiral,” he told Gilday.

Last week, Gilday testified to the House Armed Services Committee that he read Kendi’s book. He also dodged questions on whether he agreed with Kendi’s past statements.

 

[marsh]

Survey: Students Are Ashamed Of Being American After College Education | The Gateway Pundit | by Alicia Powe

College students are cultivating an increasingly pessimistic view of the United States and their futures as their national pride deteriorates in university classrooms across the nation, a newly published American College Student Freedom, Progress and Flourishing Survey confirms.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Survey: Students Are Ashamed Of Being American After College Education

By Alicia Powe
Published June 22, 2021 at 7:30am

College students are cultivating an increasingly pessimistic view of the United States and their futures as their national pride deteriorates in university classrooms across the nation, a newly published American College Student Freedom, Progress and Flourishing Survey confirms.

More than half of self-identified liberal students say they have developed a more negative view of the United States as a result of their higher education curriculum, while nearly one-third of students who identified as conservative shared their growing pessimism about America, according to the annual college student survey.

Political ideology significantly impacts students’ national pride.

While 52 percent of students say they are proud to be American, most of the patriotic students are conservative.

“A majority of conservative students (86 percent) are proud to be American compared to 38 percent of those who identify as liberal students and 59 percent of self-identified independents,” the survey notes.

Conservative students are significantly less inclined to accept the paradigm about American presented in the classroom. Eighty-one percent of liberal students say “college is giving them a more accurate picture of the U.S.” while “only 44 percent of conservative students” trust what they are being told about America.

The survey, conducted in April by The Sheila and Robert Challey Institute in partnership with North Dakota State, evaluated 400,000 students from 71 colleges “assesses student perceptions about viewpoint diversity and campus freedom.” The sample is 58 percent male, 36 percent female, and six percent were undecided about their gender.

Nearly half of the students surveyed with varying political ideologies say the future of America is dim.

Liberal and conservative students both gave negative responses concerning human progress in the U.S. and around the world. Only about half of each group believe, based on what they have learned in college, that the world and U.S. have been getting better over the last 50 years,” the study states.

More than half of liberal students along with 32 percent of conservatives report that college has led them to have a more negative view of the U.S.

Anti-capitalist rhetoric amongst professors in the classrooms is full-fledged, according to 70 percent of students who say professors are instilling unfavorable views towards capitalism.

Conservative students overwhelmingly maintain a negative view of socialism compared to their liberal counterparts. as “nearly half (47 percent) of liberal students have a positive view of socialism compared to seven percent of conservative students.”

Advertisement - story continues below

Conservative students are more inclined to define capitalism as a free market system, while liberal students
are conflate capitalism with cronyism.

Amid the anti-capitalist, anti-American indoctrination evangelized by radical professors, it’s no wonder nearly half of students, saddled with student debt, are pessimistic about the future of the U.S.

Meanwhile, the student loan debt in the United States reportedly stands at $1.7 trillion, with the average individual obligation at more than $29,000.

A report from the credit-rating agency Moody’s Investors Service, only a slight majority (51 percent) are making progress on their balance due as their student loan debt “weigh on household finances and the broader economy.”

 

[marsh]

Leaked Documents From Iowa School System Show Teachers Are Forced to Classify "Make America Great Again" as a Type of "Racism" and "White Supremacy" | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

TPUSA Chief Creative Officer and Newsmax host Benny Johnson obtained leaked documents from Iowa’s school system showing teachers are forced to classify “Make America Great Again” as a type of “racism” and “white supremacy.” This is done through MANDATORY Critical Race Theory (CRT) training...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Leaked Documents From Iowa School System Show Teachers Are Forced to Classify “Make America Great Again” as a Type of “Racism” and “White Supremacy”

By Cristina Laila
Published June 22, 2021 at 2:13pm

TPUSA Chief Creative Officer and Newsmax host Benny Johnson obtained leaked documents from Iowa’s school system showing teachers are forced to classify “Make America Great Again” as a type of “racism” and “white supremacy.”

This is done through MANDATORY Critical Race Theory (CRT) training FORCED on teachers at taxpayer expense.

Remember, Trump won Iowa by 9 points (and that was with all of the Democrat fraud).



“Teachers of Iowa are being INSTRUCTED to classify the vast majority of Iowan children as Racist and White Supremacist. Iowa is Trump country. Trump carried 94 out of 99 Iowa counties in 2020. The Republican Governor endorsed Trump. The Iowa Senate/House is solid Republican,” Benny Johnson noted.

Below is a photo of the slide from the CRT training in Iowa public school system that lists “Make America Great Again” as white supremacist.

It also lists as racist:
– Columbus Day
– American Immigration Law
– “Mass Incarceration”
– “Denying white privilege”
– Believing America is “post racial”
– Believing people are part of a “human family”

This type of mandatory CRT is against the law in Iowa.

The CRT training admits it is a tool for the destruction of America.



Attention parents in Iowa: The public schools will be teaching this toxic, racist, anti-American Marxism to your children in the fall.

Contact your local officials and representatives and tell them they must enforce the law and remove the CRT training from the schools.

 

[marsh]

Dinesh D'Souza: The FBI Is the Greatest Domestic Terrorist Threat in America Today (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Dinesh D’Souza called out the FBI this week for being America’s greatest domestic terrorist threat today.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Dinesh D’Souza: The FBI Is the Greatest Domestic Terrorist Threat in America Today (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published June 22, 2021 at 3:38pm

Dinesh D’Souza called out the FBI this week for being America’s greatest domestic terrorist threat today.

Dinesh D’Souza: The FBI is a grave threat to our national security. In fact I would say the FBI now poses a greater threat to our national security than any militant white supremacist group. Thugs with badges are always more dangerous than thugs on the street.

Dinesh goes on to discuss the explosive Revolver News article that was published last week. Dinesh argues that the Revolver article demands an explanation from the FBI but so far there has been no explanation.

The FBI’s informants and infiltrators reportedly led the charge on the US Capitol on January 6th. The FBI operatives were inserted into conservative groups and plotted an attack on the US capitol and were among the most violent “protesters” at the Capitol that day.



So why is the FBI setting up innocent, patriotic Americans?

Dinesh D’Souza is right — the FBI is the most dangerous organized group in America today.

Rumble video on website 7:48 min

 

[marsh]

Parents Protesting CRT at Loudoun County School Board Meeting Declared Unlawful Assembly - Sheriff Deputy Makes at Least Two Arrests (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Virginia – Parents protested Marxist, anti-American Critical Race Theory (CRT) at a Loudoun County School Board meeting Tuesday night.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Parents Protesting CRT at Loudoun County School Board Meeting Declared Unlawful Assembly – Sheriff Deputy Makes at Least Two Arrests (VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila
Published June 22, 2021 at 7:40pm

Virginia – Parents protested Marxist, anti-American Critical Race Theory (CRT) at a Loudoun County School Board meeting Tuesday night.

Sheriffs declared an unlawful assembly and some parents refused to leave right away.

At least two arrests were made Tuesday night.

The Loudoun County school board ended public comment so the anti-CRT protesters booed them.

VIDEO:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1407457942882897925

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1407457942882897925
.14 min

At least two arrests were made after law enforcement declared an unlawful assembly.

VIDEO:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1407462757923004425

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1407462757923004425
.25 min

Additional video of the arrests:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1407463741235642369

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1407463741235642369
.25 min

 

[marsh]

NEA President: We Need to Teach Students about Race So They 'Confront the Injustices That Have Been Built Into Every Social System'

During an interview with CBS on Tuesday, National Education Association President Becky Pringle commented on efforts to limit critical race theory and | Clips

www.breitbart.com

NEA President: We Need to Teach Students about Race So They ‘Confront the Injustices That Have Been Built Into Every Social System’

IAN HANCHETT22 Jun 2021140

View: https://youtu.be/bsUwAdr1WPA
8:39 min

During an interview with CBS on Tuesday, National Education Association President Becky Pringle commented on efforts to limit critical race theory and other teachings on race in schools by stating that educators must ensure students are taught the truth because when students are taught the truth, “they have the creative imaginations about what they can actually do to make a difference so that they can actually confront the injustices that have been built into every social system within this country.”

Pringle said, “[A]s educators, we must continue to lift our voice to ensure that our students have the truth. We know, as — I can tell you as a teacher for over 30 years, this is what I know about my students, when they teach — when you teach them the truth, they have the creative imaginations about what they can actually do to make a difference so that they can actually confront the injustices that have been built into every social system within this country. We should never underestimate our students’ ability to not only learn about the complete and rich history of this country, but to come together with their shared stories and make sure that they have the opportunity to be those problem-solvers we need them to be so we can confront the institutional racism that this country lives with every single day. And it’s not just about history. It’s about right now, as we very well know.”