261 Transgender Prisoners Request Transfer Under California Law; 255 to Women’s Prison

REUTERS/LUCY NICHOLSON

BY JOEL B. POLLAK

SEE: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/05/261-transgender-prisoners-request-transfer-under-california-law-255-to-womens-prison/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Two-hundred sixty-one California state prisoners have requested transfers to facilities that house the opposite gender since a new law went into effect on Jan. 1 — and 255 of them have requested to move from a male to a female corrections facility.

The law, SB 132, provides that a prisoner who self-identifies who is “transgender, nonbinary, or intersex” must be “addressed in a manner consistent with the incarcerated individual’s gender identity,” and be “housed at a correctional facility designated for men or women based on the individual’s preference.” The law applies “regardless of anatomy.” Governor Gavin Newsom signed the law last September, declaring on that occasion that “our march toward equality takes an additional step forward.”

The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that while only a few transfers have been approved thus far, none has been rejected:

Just over 1% of California’s prison population — or 1,129 inmates — have identified as nonbinary, intersex or transgender, according to the corrections department, populations that experience excessive violence in prison. A 2007 UC Irvine study that included interviews with 39 transgender inmates found that the rate of sexual assault is 13 times higher for transgender people, with 59% reporting experiencing such encounters.

So far, the prison system has transferred four inmates to the Chowchilla women’s prison, approved 21 gender-based housing requests and denied none. Of the 261 requests, all but six asked to be housed at a women’s facility.

…Some prisoners are also concerned that inmates are making false claims about their gender identity in order to transfer to women’s prisons and say staffers have told them that this has slowed the process.

The Times adds that several inmates are thought to have applied “under false pretenses” and some female prisoners are afraid.

Women’s groups in Canada held a protest last month to urge the removal of biological males from women’s prison facilities.

Texas & LOUISIANA join forces to sue Biden over push to release felons, drug traffickers

Rumble — States at the forefront of the illegal immigration crisis are standing up to the Biden administration, drawing the line on criminals and drug dealers. One America’s Chief White House Correspondent Chanel Rion has more from Washington.

Tennessee lawyer files free speech lawsuit after being fired for ‘anti-Islam’ and pro-Trump tweets

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/04/tennessee-lawyer-files-free-speech-lawsuit-after-being-fired-for-anti-islam-and-pro-trump-tweets;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Jerry Morgan gave the details of this case in an exclusive Jihad Watch article HERE. Get more background on this case HERE, where Robert Spencer stated:

What disparaging remarks did Morgan make? Did he say that Muslims were “the most vile of created beings”? No, that’s what the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, calls non-Muslims (98:6). Did he call Muslims “apes and pigs”? No, that’s what the Qur’an calls Jews (2:63-65, 5:59-60, 7:166). Did he say Muslims were “unclean”? No, that’s what the Qur’an says of non-Muslims (9:28).

So what egregious statements did Morgan actually make?

As it turned out, he has been forced to resign for “praising President Donald Trump for ‘stopping Muslims’ and ‘talking big against Muslims,’” and “said Islam was not a peaceful religion and made comments linking the faith with violence and ‘Muslim terrorists.’”

To our dhimmi overlords, however, all that matters is that anything offensive to Islam/Muslims, even if it is true, must be shut down in accordance with Sharia blasphemy laws, which are well on the way to becoming mainstream in American society, despite the First Amendment. Jerry Morgan is one of the few who have had the courage to fight back, and we wish him well.

“Tennessee: State Lawyer Fired for ‘Anti-Islam’ Tweets Files Speech Suit,” Bloomberg Law, April 6, 2021:

An attorney alleges the Tennessee Supreme Court’s board of professional responsibility unlawfully fired him for posting Tweets that an opposing party said displayed anti-Muslim bias, arguing his social media posts were constitutionally protected political speech similar to that of former president Donald Trump.

The board of professional responsibility regulates licensed Tennessee attorneys. Jerry Morgan handled appeals to the state supreme court regarding attorney discipline, according to his complaint filed Monday at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Attorney Brian Manookian, who was undergoing disciplinary proceedings, filed a motion to disqualify Morgan, claiming he was an anti-Muslim bigot. Manookian cited multiple Tweets Morgan had posted that, among other things, praised then-candidate Trump for “talking about the #1 issue of our time—stopping Muslims” and disparaged Muslims and Democrats.

Manookian claimed Morgan had an anti-Islam bias that could prejudice him, because his wife was Muslim and his children were being raised in a Muslim household.

Morgan says his posts were “indisputably political in nature,” concerning matters that were controversial but part of the national debate. “Many were views publicly expressed by Trump” and agreed to by the Tennessee voters who “overwhelmingly” voted for him in 2016, Morgan says. There were no accusations against him of biased conduct in the Manookian case or any other, Morgan claims.

Morgan was fired in December. He sued the board and chief disciplinary counsel Sandra Garrett, alleging he was unconstitutionally punished for Tweets that were made in his private capacity and were about matters of public importance.

Cause of Action: First Amendment.

Relief Requested: Damages, injunctive relief….

School Districts Are Hiding Information About Children From Their Parents

Parents

BY SARAH PARSHALL PERRY

SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/24/school-districts-are-hiding-information-about-gender-transitioning-children-from-their-parents-this-is-unconstitutional;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

American law has long recognized the importance of parental rights. A parent’s right to oversee the care, education, and control of his or her child is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1923, in Meyer v. Nebraska, and as recently as 2000, in Troxel v. Granville.

To raise and educate a child as parents see fit is—and always has been—on a par with the other fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Worryingly, one school district in Maryland is acting like parental rights are no longer valid.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, educators are actively keeping information about something as critical as a student’s gender identity preference hidden from parents—an action in direct contravention of legally guaranteed parental rights, and in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

In response, two families have sued the Montgomery County Board of Education. The suit aims to enforce their rights to access information about their children’s gender identity, which is generated and retained by Montgomery County schools pursuant to a 2019 policy.

This policy enables Montgomery County Board of Education personnel to evaluate minors about sexual matters, allows minors of any age to transition socially to a different gender identity at school without parental notice or consent, and requires personnel to facilitate the transition with the use of the child’s “preferred pronouns.”

It also permits students to use the restroom that aligns with their “gender identity,” stating that while “[s]ome students may feel uncomfortable with a transgender student using the same sex-specific facility,” that “discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.

School administrators and counseling staff members, the policy states, should work with students to “address their discomfort to foster understanding of gender identity and to create a school culture that respects and values all students.”

Certainly, the parents of students made to share sex-specific spaces with students of the opposite sex would want to know this information. But the Montgomery County Board of Education policy forbids it.

Stunningly, the policy prohibits personnel from communicating with parents on any of the above actions and goes so far as to direct teachers and staff to deceive parents by reverting to a child’s birth name and corresponding pronouns whenever a child’s parents are present.

According to court filings, the Montgomery County Board of Education claims it is acting in the best interests of the minors involved by protecting them from the “unsupportive” parents of those children.

In its motion to dismiss, the Montgomery County Board of Education represented that disclosure to parents who are “not supportive … might expose the student to harm” and that “gender-nonconforming students face significant dangers of abuse at home from unsupportive families.”

The Montgomery County Board of Education policy requires that “the principal or identified staff member should speak with the student to ascertain the level of support the student either receives or anticipates receiving from home.”

By cloaking critically important information about one’s child under the guise that unsupportive parents are “dangerous” to their children, schools are given license to effectively label “gender critical” parents as abusive without the benefit of due process protections.

Under some cock-eyed theory of “harm at home,” the Montgomery County Board of Education substitutes schools for parents and deprives all parents in the county school system of their fundamental right to vital information based on nothing but a hunch.

Montgomery County parents not only have the U.S. Constitution and the Maryland Constitution on their side, they have the protections of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act as well. Specifically, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act gives parents of minors rights regarding their children’s education records, with the only exceptions being a court order or specific state law to the contrary.

These rights include a right to access their children’s education records, to seek amendment of those education records, and to consent to disclosure of personally identifiable information. Parents whose Family Education Rights and Privacy Act rights are violated can file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education (in addition to any private legal action).

Montgomery County is not alone in bypassing parental consent and notification when it comes to students’ gender transitions. It’s quite possible the gender transition nightmare that Jay Keck experienced with his autistic daughter—facilitated and concealed by school officials in a Chicago suburb—could happen to other parents who are not informed of their rights.

With full awareness of her mental health challenges, school officials helped Keck’s daughter socially transition by using her preferred pronouns, giving her access to a gender-neutral restroom, and keeping it all from her parents.

When Keck and his wife discovered their child’s secondary identity and requested school officials treat her in accordance with her biological sex, they were continually defied.

For proof of school districts’ increasingly cavalier attitudes toward parental rights, see the Metropolitan School District policy in Madison, Wisconsin, that requires staff to keep a student’s gender identity “confidential” from parents if the student does not consent to the information being shared.

Or, see the New Jersey Department of Education’s guidelines, which instruct teachers how to avoid “inadvertently disclos[ing] the transgender student’s status” to parents.

Or, see the guide on the Los Angeles Unified School District’s website, which instructs teachers to provide whatever “services” they can for transitioning students with unsupportive parents.

Even the National Education Association, a labor union for teachers across the nation, encourages teachers to hide a student’s gender identity from parents unless they are “required to [reveal it] by law.”

While the public school districts and their unions may foolishly assume they know better than parents about what to do when it comes to a child’s “gender identity,” the Constitution and other federal law do not grant them the authority to circumvent parental consent or notification in these matters.

Despite the whims of the board of education, a parent’s rights do not end at the schoolhouse door. But if not eliminated, the unconscionable policy of the Montgomery County Board of Education will be the beginning of a steep and precipitous decline in protections for those rights.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.  

Vaccine Passports: “It’s China-style Suppression of Our Liberties on a Grand Scale”

Vaccine Passports: “It’s China-style Suppression of Our Liberties on a Grand Scale”

BY ANNALISA PESEK

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/vaccine-passports-its-china-style-suppression-of-our-liberties-on-a-grand-scale/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Naomi Wolf, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton, cultural critic, New York Times best-selling author (The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot), and CEO of the tech company Daily Clout, has crossed the political aisle to join mostly lone conservative voices warning forcefully against both a national and global rollout of COVID-19 vaccine passports.

In recent weeks, the liberal author has appeared on conservative TV and talk-radio shows, such as Fox News’s The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton and The Eric Metaxas Show, to signal the midnight cry on vaccine passports, which she contends are part of “a carefully constructed, systematic, biofascist rollout of a new biosecurity state involving the constant upgrade to vaccinations, constant monitoring…and 360 degree surveillance.”

“Once this rolls out you don’t have a choice about being part of the system,” cautioned Wolf in a recent interview with author (BonhoefferPastor, Martyr, Prophet, SpyMiracles) and conservative radio talk show host Eric Metaxas.

A stalwart supporter of exposing the potential harms of COVID-19 vaccines, with an instinct to question everything, Wolf told Metaxas, “Nothing is supposed to be off-limits intellectually [in America]…. [Yet] there is [currently] a mantra of sanctity being woven around the mere act of vaccination…. I am not an anti-vaxxer but I am certainly anti-going back to the Middle Ages and leaving the Enlightenment behind and having a secular priesthood that says what we are and what we are not allowed to question.”

COVID-19 vaccination programs are sprouting up en masse across the United States. Funding these plans are billionaires such as Bill and Melinda Gates, who pour millions annually into high-profile media companies, including the New York Times, the Guardian, National Public Radio, as well as the corporation Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Informed Wolf, the CDC receives a staggering “$12–17 million a year” from the Gates Foundation.

Several Democrat-run states are already floating test trials of the so-called vaccine passports. New York, for example, launched its voluntary Excelsior Pass in March. So far, Republican-led states are fiercely resisting. Governors Ron DeSantis (Florida) and Greg Abbott (Texas) recently signed executive orders banning legislation requiring proof of vaccination.

On April 6, the White House announced that the Biden administration would not be supporting or working with developers to establish a national “vaccine passport,” but Wolf is skeptical.

She decried the passports as a global rollout, backed by corporate interests and funding: “Microsoft has a contract to build the vaccine passport. They already have a prototype. It’s a completely closed circle.”

“I cannot stress this enough,” continued Wolf. “The vaccine passport is the social credit system that China has. It doesn’t lead to it; it is that. It takes no engineering; it takes literally the flick of the backend. I’m talking as a tech CEO … and it takes no special addition to merge your Google Wallet or your Apple Pay or your Paypal with your vaccine status.”

“It’s a China-style suppression of our liberties on a grand scale,” she went on to say, slamming the New York Times for “colluding” in “a very, very hideous and quite systematic process of constructing anyone who critiques what is clearly a biofascist rollout of a new biosecurity state.”

A Highly Orchestrated Propaganda Campaign

As a Rhodes Scholar, Democratic advisor, Jewish, a resident of urban New York City and San Francisco, Wolf is indeed “in the right tribe.” “But just to question Biden or China’s influence on the United States or vaccine fascism ‘otherizes’ me in the camp of yokels that are being constructed by the New York Times. It declasses me, de-platforms me, risks censoring me, people won’t invite me to their conferences anymore. That’s exactly how the Nationalist Socialists consolidated power in 1933; it’s ugly and it’s obvious this is happening.”

Wolf accuses the New York Times, which allegedly receives millions from the Gates Foundation each year (which might affect its coverage) of inventing “a kind of caricature of white fundamentalists … who are too stupid to accept Dr. Fauci … and are anti-science because they don’t necessarily think Pfizer has all the answers…. It’s really offensive, I think it’s racist, and they shouldn’t do it.”

Metaxas, a self-described white evangelical, and a skilled speaker, rarely wanting for a witty retort, was admittedly rendered speechless at multiple points in the conversation. “What they’re doing, as they demonize groups of people,” he finally said, “[They] are saying that these people [white evangelicals] are stupid and anti-science…. They [the New York Times] are enabling the cancel culture to move forward in the way it did in Germany in the 1930s…. If you question it, you have to ask, do I want to get in trouble.”

Responded Wolf, “This is a technique of creating an insider’s and outsider’s society, then starting to shove opportunity to those who go along and close down jobs, professional advancement to those who don’t go along, it’s absolutely classic of building a fascist society.”

Who Is Really Behind this Global Takeover?

World leaders ambitiously chasing after power in their mission to “stop the spread” of COVID-19 seem to be both in concert with and competing against one another to see who can achieve complete control of the citizenry, following China’s lead in an attempt to curb individual freedoms completely. Are they really so blind?

“In America, this biofascism is being led by Democrats,” declared Wolf. “It’s the Republicans who are the sole bulwark that I’m working with to try to stop some of the worst of this legislation. But in Britain, it’s a Tory government that’s rolling it out. In Canada, it’s Premier Trudeau. In Germany it’s Merkel. This is not partisan. We have to call it as we see it. These are directives coming down probably from a hellish amalgam of the World Economic Forum, China, and Bill Gates, and two or three tech bros going along for the billions.”

Wolf, who investigated Gates in 2017, expounded on the Microsoft founder’s profit margins, along with those of Amazon and Google, since the start of the virus outbreak in March 2020. “They are up around $22-100 billion dollars,” she reported.

The monumental investment on the part of technocrats in this grand design to remove freedom from the face of Western civilization could not be more apparent. Wolf detailed Gates’s deep-pocket funding of “geoengineering technology.” “The patent [to this technology] is owned by Silicon venturers in Silicon Valley and Bill Gates, who say that if you don’t continue to do it once you’ve started the world faces catastrophic warming.”

She further noted that the tech giants and Gates, “having dominated the computer space, want to colonize medicine and colonize the government as business models. The pandemic and buying up of influencers allow them to be the source for the updates and the boosters this vaccine will require, according to Moderna’s own site.”

But what do most Americans know about Bill Gates and his foundation? Wolf’s portrayal is grim. Allegedly, Gates “bought up a bunch of lawmakers at Harvard and Stanford and the department of energy, and the reason he wants to do this is to coat the globe in chalk dust or sulfates to prevent the sun from shining…. It may sound like a science fiction novel but the reporting is MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Bloomberg, Opinion.”

What’s Going on in Israel?

Surprisingly, leading the global vaccination push, marching to the “false drumbeat of death,” as Metaxas says, is the nation of Israel.

Wolf zeroed in on Denmark and Israel, both of which have forced their citizens into vaccine passports.

Israel was the bellwether four months ago,” said Wolf. “They got vaccine passports and within four months it’s destroyed civil society. Activists face 360-degree surveillance, nobody is free to challenge it. Parents are being told their own vaccine passports will be switched off unless they allow their children to be vaccinated…. Israelis have to show these vaccine passports, which are digital, not paper, and why they are digital I will explain, but they have to show these passports to get food at the grocery store.”

“This is out of the pit of hell!” exclaimed Metaxas. “Why do you suppose there are people on the Left going along with this?”

Wolf responded, “There’s a horrible tendency to go along with anything in order to maintain power because we [Democrats] tend to be not very good at power. And this means people tend to along with anything in order to maintain power.”

She continued, “There’s also this kind of blind spot and this is human nature, but it’s like if he’s [Joe Biden] a Democrat he can’t be taking orders from China for a CCP-style social credit system in the United States…. So this is very dangerous, because when you believe you’re not capable of evil that’s when evil comes rushing in the door.”

What Can Americans Do?

Courageous scientists and influencers, such as Wolf and Metaxas, and medical professionals, including the thousands who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, are heeding the warning and rising up against these evil forces threatening our freedoms and our way of life. But time is running out. As exemplified in the vaccination rollout in Israel, it could be a mere matter of months before this machine destroys our liberties.

“Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to pray, freedom to run your business, privacy of your medical records, it will all be gone unless we can stop this,” warned Wolf.

To stop this, Americans must take the firm stance encouraged by Metaxas: “To refuse to get a vaccine passport for any reason as a matter of principle.” One of the little things citizens can do is to decline the opportunity to scan QR codes so conveniently placed at tables in restaurants, deceptively suggesting they’re easier to use than a regular menu. In fact, it takes one scan for the app to gather all of your data — personal, financial, medical, even your credit history. It’ll be over, cautions Wolf.

Yet as Wolf emphatically stresses, refusing to participate won’t matter if the vaccine passport plan is rolled out. Americans can take action by supporting Republican governors and initiatives to halt this legislation, but they must do it now, before it’s too late.

 

SCOTUS to Decide if Public Schools May Regulate Off-campus Speech

Brandi Levy, then 14, was suspended from her cheerleading squad by the Mahanoy Area School District in Pennsylvania back in 2017 after she sent the Snapchat to her friends on a weekend

ABOVE: Brandi Levy, then 14, was suspended from her cheerleading squad by the Mahanoy Area School District in Pennsylvania back in 2017 after she sent the Snapchat to her friends on a weekend

BY ELAD HAKIM

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/scotus-to-decide-if-public-schools-may-regulate-off-campus-speech/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

When Brandi Levy, a high school freshman, issued an F-bomb-laden Snapchat post to some of her followers, she probably didn’t expect any pushback from the school district. To her dismay, Levy, who had unsuccessfully tried out for the school cheerleading team, was suspended from cheerleading for an entire year by the school district as a result of her post. After prevailing in several lower courts, Levy has asked the Supreme Court to intervene, and arguments in front of the Supreme Court are scheduled for later this month. In essence, the Supreme Court will decide whether a school may regulate speech that occurs off-campus in the same manner that it does with speech that occurs on-campus.

As reported by the Morning Call:

Frustrated at not making the varsity cheerleading squad or getting the softball position she wanted and worried about final exams, the Schuylkill County teen posted a picture of herself and a friend with middle fingers extended and the text, “F— school f— softball f— cheer f— everything.”

Levy sent the post on her own personal cellphone, away from school property, and on a Saturday. Despite these important facts, the school district suspended her after a coach from the school informed the district about her post.

Given the suspension, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments about whether the school board exceeded its authority when it suspended Levy. Since, as stated above, Levy’s post was made on her personal device, away from school grounds, and on a Saturday, at issue is whether the school was permitted to “police” such posts and to take remedial action under such circumstances?

In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question of student speech and the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court explained:

In December, 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. The group determined to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year’s Eve. Petitioners and their parents had previously engaged in similar activities, and they decided to participate in the program.

The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan to wear armbands. On December 14, 1965, they met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and, if he refused, he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. Petitioners were aware of the regulation that the school authorities adopted.

On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired — that is, until after New Year’s Day.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that public-school officials could not censor student speech/expression unless they could forecast that the expression would result in “substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” or “intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others.” As the Supreme Court noted:

As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred. These petitioners merely went about their ordained rounds in school. Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth, not more than two inches wide. They wore it to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them. They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.

Since the Tinker decision, the Supreme Court has created several exceptions to such protection, which are discussed herehere, and here. One obvious question, however, is whether these exceptions should be applied to speech/expression that occurs away from school property, on a personal device, and not during school hours.

A ruling against Levy could have far-reaching implications due to the possible chilling effect it could have on First Amendment-guaranteed rights. Clearly, there are times when schools must take remedial action against students for certain forms/types of expression, including such cases where threats or incitements are made (such speech/expression is generally not protected under the First Amendment). However, if students can be disciplined for merely “venting” on their own personal devices, where will the line be drawn between protected speech and unprotected speech? More to the point, how much power will school administrators/officials have to police what students say? Finally, if such broad police powers exist, who will police those who are doing the “policing?” Are students merely at the whim of the school administrators/officials? Could this result in instances of selective enforcement? Will the students’ First Amendment-protected rights outside of the school be equivalent to those inside of the school?

Our First Amendment rights are vital. Sadly, they are already being eroded. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will provide some additional guidance in this context.

 

CDC Director Walensky: ‘Racism Is a Serious Public Health Threat’

BY JIM TREACHER

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/jim-treacher/2021/04/09/cdc-director-walensky-racism-is-a-serious-public-health-threat-n1438690;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

CDC stands for Centers for Disease Control. That’s supposed to be the job of that particular federal agency: controlling disease. But in 2021 America, doing the job that your agency was created to do isn’t enough. Now the CDC’s job is to take the money we’re forced to give them, by federal law, and use it to scold us for things we may or may not have done. Now their job is to call us all racists because otherwise journalists and other Democratic Party activists will keep yelling at them.

The last time I paid any attention to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, she was moaning about her “recurring feeling… of impending doom” about COVID-19. She used her public platform to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and the libs all loved her for it. If you thought that was pathetic and insane, check out Walensky’s latest “Director’s Commentary” from the CDC website:

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the death of over 500,000 Americans. Tens of millions have been infected. And across this country people are suffering. Importantly, these painful experiences and the impact of COVID-19 is felt, most severely, in communities of color—communities that have experienced disproportionate case counts and deaths, and where the social impact of the pandemic has been most extreme.

Yet, the disparities seen over the past year were not a result of COVID-19. Instead, the pandemic illuminated inequities that have existed for generations and revealed for all of America a known, but often unaddressed, epidemic impacting public health: racism.

What we know is this: racism is a serious public health threat that directly affects the well-being of millions of Americans.

Isn’t racism the real virus, when you don’t think about it?

Well, she might be onto something. Being falsely accused of racism does tend to raise my blood pressure.

If anything bad has happened to you because of COVID-19, the first thing you need to do is look in the mirror. Do you see a white face? Well then, stop complaining. You don’t matter. You didn’t actually think you were a human being, did you?

This is what they call “mission creep.” Racism is the perfect distraction for any government agency, or corporation, or other large group of people who have power and want to hold onto it. Unlike an actual disease, which is what the CDC is supposed to be fighting, the disease of “racism” can be whatever they want it to be. The symptoms are whatever they want them to be. And they don’t need to offer any proof that “racism” is the problem in any particular instance. In fact, asking for proof just shows that the skeptic is a racist!

Here’s how it works:

“COVID-19 is racist.”
“What? That’s insane. Why are my taxes paying you to spew this nonsense?”
“Oh, so you’re denying racism exists, racist?”

In real life, you can tell whether a disease has been cured by measuring the health of the patient. If he’s still sick, the cure isn’t working. If various measurable indicators of health improve, it’s working. The key word there is “measurable.” There are tangible results. But when you deny reality and blame everything on “racism,” you don’t need to worry about all those pesky facts and evidence. Emotions are the only thing that count. If you feel that something is racist, then it’s racist.

Once something has been declared racist, you can demand whatever you want in order to cure it. And then comes the best part: There’s no cure until you decide there is! Until then, everybody else has to meet your demands without question or criticism, or else they’re just proving you right.

Libs are absolutely obsessed with race. Look, here’s another example from just the other day:

Fonts are racist now. Fonts!

Accusing people of racism is a lucrative business, and a business needs to grow to survive. So get ready, because more and more things you’ve lived with your whole life are about to be declared “racist.” And if you have a problem with it, you’re a racist too. Ain’t the future grand?

But look on the bright side: If the director of the CDC can waste time on this crap, the pandemic really is over!

The ‘New Normal’ Will Be More Unequal, More Polarized

BY RICK MORAN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/04/09/the-new-normal-will-be-more-unequal-more-politically-polarized-and-more-authoritarian-n1438767;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A new report from the National Intelligence Council is worried about some of the trends that are emerging as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. In short, the world will not be back to “normal” for many years and some promising trends in poverty reduction and gender equality may actually be reversed.

The National Intelligence Council examines global trends and its report is released every four years. In the latest report, the NIC doesn’t pull any punches.

“The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic marks the most significant, singular global disruption since World War II, with health, economic, political and security implications that will ripple for years to come,” says the report.

“The response to the pandemic has fueled partisanship and polarization in many countries as groups argue over the best way to respond and seek scapegoats to blame for spreading the virus and for slow responses,” while contributing to low levels of trust in political institutions, the report says.

Wall Street Journal:

The report, Global Trends 2040, envisions a rough ride ahead for the planet, with accelerating contests over resources, governments struggling to meet citizens’ aspirations, and increased fragmentation of communities where “people are likely to gravitate to information silos of people who share similar views, reinforcing beliefs and understanding of the truth.”

It sees some bright spots. Population growth in Latin American and South Asia could spur economic expansion, the report says, even as China, Japan and South Korea deal with aging populations. The advent of artificial intelligence, by boosting productivity, could help governments deliver more services and tackle rising national debts, it says.

The report isn’t meant to predict the future. It sketches out likely scenarios so that policymakers won’t be totally blindsided by events.

But that hardly matters. I doubt very much whether the last report in 2017 foresaw the coronavirus pandemic or anything remotely like it. But this report has no problem predicting climate disasters.

“During the next 20 years, the physical effects from climate change of higher temperatures, sea-level rise, and extreme weather events will impact every country,” with the costs falling disproportionately on the developing world, the report says. This will lead to fiercer debates on how to implement greenhouse gas emission cuts, it says.

The report anticipates that technology will continue to play an integral and expanding role in everyday life, fueling global competition—especially between the U.S. and China—and hyperconnectivity. An accelerating pace and reach of technological breakthroughs is likely to be so seismic as to transform society’s collective understanding of the human experience, it said.

And if it’s dystopia you want. I’ve got your dystopia right here.

“Privacy and anonymity may effectively disappear by choice or government mandate, as all aspects of personal and professional lives are tracked by global networks,” the report states. “Real-time, manufactured or synthetic media could further distort truth and reality, destabilizing societies at a scale and speed that dwarfs current disinformation challenges. Many types of crimes, particularly those that can be monitored and attributed with digital surveillance, will become less common while new crimes, and potentially new forms of discrimination, could arise.”

It’s all very depressing and makes me pine for the days of three major networks, no internet, and no identity to hack.

There will be a reaction, of course. Some of us will probably choose to drop out and turn out backs on this Brave New World. But most of us will stay tuned in and endure. I can only imagine the streaming opportunities 20 years from now.

Pastor Slams Police Raid on Church, Says Services Expose “Unnecessary” Covid Lockdown Measures

“We’ve met for 37 Sundays in a row without a single Covid case, let alone a breakout.”

”If you are waiting for the government to hand you back your civil liberties, it’s just not going to happen.”

BY BEN WARREN
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/posts/pastor-slams-police-raid-on-church-says-services-expose-unnecessary-covid-lockdown-measures/;republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The pastor of the Canadian church that was raided by police for defying Covid restrictions says his actions have exposed the government’s lockdown measures as “unnecessary” and even “harmful.”

Pastor James Coates of Gracelife Church in Alberta told Rebel News’ Sheila Gunn Reid his congregation hasn’t had a single Covid case or breakout despite their non-compliance with COVID rules.

“The government is embarrassed at this point in time,” said Coates. “We are a black eye on our government because we continue to meet, we’ve met for 37 Sundays in a row without a single Covid case, let alone a breakout.”

“We are exposing the reality that these lockdown measures are not just unjust, they’re harmful and unnecessary. I think the closing of our facility is necessary in order to prevent any further embarrassment to Alberta health services as well as to Jason Kenney [Premier of Alberta].”

On Wednesday, Coates’ church was seized by Alberta Health Services in a dawn raid, and to this day is surrounded by chain link fencing and has a police checkpoint to stop people from entering the property.

Due to the perimeter barriers, the church is currently surrounded by supporters and Coates has told Rebel News that neither he nor his congregation will be deterred from the gathering.

“…I would just say to the people of Alberta: the only way you’re going to get your province back is if you take it back,” said Coates. “It is time now, not in any violent manner, to peacefully return to your life. We just need to live our lives and do so peacefully and return to life as usual, and this ‘pandemic’ goes away.”

“We are ultimately in control, but if you are waiting for the government to hand you back your civil liberties, it’s just not going to happen.”

Coates’ full interview can be found on Rebel News.