Category: Cancel Culture

Whites Aren’t Hated for Slavery but for Making America and the West

BY DENNIS PRAGER

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/columns/dennis-prager/2021/04/20/whites-arent-hated-for-slavery-but-for-making-america-and-the-west-n1441203;

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

In Why the Jews? my book on anti-Semitism, there is a chapter on anti-Americanism. My co-author, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, and I long ago understood that many of the reasons for Jew-hatred and America-hatred were the same.

Among them are envy of success — material, of course, but even more importantly, success in terms of influence. Another is the religious foundation of both peoples: Both America and the Jews are rooted in belief in God, belief they are a Chosen People and belief in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, as the book from which they derive their values.

America-haters and Jew-haters resent the enormous influence both nations have had on the world, have contempt for their belief in being Chosen and dismiss the Bible as irrelevant and even malevolent.

In the premodern age, Christian anti-Semitism was primarily animated by the charge of deicide — the charge that the Jews killed Christ, a charge that does not have a parallel in anti-Americanism. But beginning in the 20th century, the reasons for the two hatreds converged.

In his recent biography of Adolf Hitler, Brendan Simms, a professor of the history of international relations at Cambridge University, identified Hitler’s hatred of America and especially of capitalism as central to Hitler’s worldview: “Hitler’s principal preoccupation throughout his career was Anglo-America and global capitalism. … Hitler wanted to establish what he considered racial unity in Germany by overcoming the capitalist order and working for the construction of a new classless society.”

In other words, another commonality of America-hatred and modern Jew-hatred has been hatred of capitalism. The Nazis hated America and the Jews, both of whom they identified with capitalism. And the left (not the liberal, who traditionally loved America, but who has become the primary enabler of the left) hates America, which it regards as the paragon of capitalism. By becoming the most successful country in history, America, the quintessential capitalist country, remains a living rebuke to everything the left stands for. If America can be brought down, every left-wing egalitarian dream can be realized.

The question for the America-hater, just as for the Jew-hater, has been: How do we destroy them? What has always rendered anti-Semitism unique among ethnic and religious hatreds was its goal of extermination. No other ethnic bigotry is exterminationist. Regarding America, the left does not seek to exterminate Americans; the idea is ludicrous since most of those on the left who loathe America are themselves American. What the left does very much seek is to destroy America as we have known it — the capitalist and Judeo-Christian enclave of personal freedom.

The Jews created something world-changing by introducing into the world the Hebrew Bible, a universal and judging God, the Ten Commandments, the rejection of the heart as the guide to behavior, the emphasis on justice (not “social justice”) and the doctrine of Jewish Chosenness. They were forever hated for this. So, too, is America hated for placing the Bible at the center of its value system, its belief in being a “Second” Chosen People, its freedoms and its capitalism. America is not hated for its slavery. If it were, given the ubiquity of slavery throughout world history, every country and ethnic group on earth would be hated. America is hated for its values and its success.

The fact is that, just as did the ancient Jews, the Americans made something unique: the American experiment in freedom. And it succeeded beyond even its founders’ dreams. With all its faults, America did become a shining “city on a hill” — the famous phrase first articulated in 1630 by John Winthrop echoing Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and repeated throughout American history. For example, President Ronald Reagan, in his 1989 Farewell Address, said, “I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life.”

And who created this unique place of liberty, opportunity and unequaled, widespread affluence? More than any other group, it was the WASP, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. I say this as neither Anglo-Saxon nor Protestant. Catholics, Jews, nonbelievers and members of every faith, ethnicity and race (blacks, in particular) made major contributions; but it was the WASP, more than any other group, who made America. And for that reason, America-hatred is WASP-hatred and, more broadly, white-hatred.

The idea that whites’ unique achievements — in making America, in music, art, literature and the sciences — means that white people are intrinsically superior is absurd. Hitler was also white, as was Joseph Stalin, as are most American mass-murderers. Those facts are no more a commentary on whites than Johann Sebastian Bach or Leonardo da Vinci being white is a commentary on whites.

Whites made the country and the greatest civilization — not because they were white, but because of the values they held. Hatred of the white is ultimately hatred of those values.

Given what the WASP has achieved in the West and in America, it takes extraordinary levels of dishonesty and ingratitude to be anti-white. But neither truth nor gratitude is a left-wing value.

Criticizing BLM is Unforgivable, Killing Jews is Understandable

The twisted campaign against the Zionist Organization of America

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/criticizing-blm-unforgivable-killing-jews-daniel-greenfield/;

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

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

In 2019, Rina Shnerb, a 17-year-old girl who had been hiking in Israel with her father and brother, was blown up by a bomb. Rabbi Eitan Shnerb, who ran a charity that handed out clothes and food to the poor, had enough time to kiss Rina on the forehead before she died.

"I will say of the LORD, who is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust," the Rabbi at her gravesite chanted the words of Psalm 91. "Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold, and see the recompense of the wicked."

Abdel Razeq Farraj, who was indicted for authorizing the attack, had been named as a career PFLP terrorist who had served 6 years in prison and had been arrested six times. The year that Rina was murdered, Farraj took part in an Adalah youth event in partnership with a PFLP affiliate.

Adalah is one of the anti-Israel hate groups funded by the New Israel Fund (NIF).

According to an NGO Monitor report, the NIF has directed $720,481 to Adalah. George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, who has also funded J Street, is another major donor.

Last fall, Beth Badik, a J Street supporter who serves on the regional committee for the anti-Israel NIF, and Barbara Penzner, a Reconstructionist cleric who had signed a J Street petition opposing a ban on BDS and another calling for engagement with a terrorist government, demanded that the Jewish Community Relations Council of Boston kick out the ZOA.

The Zionist Organization of America is the country’s leading pro-Israel group so Badik and Penzner’s animosity toward it and to Morton Klein, its unapologetically pro-Israel leader, was understandable. The anti-Israel Left had spent generations trying to seize control of the organizational establishment of the Jewish community in order to cut off support to Israel.

And they didn’t have far to go.

Badik, who is a supporter of one anti-Israel group and affiliated with another, also sits on the  JCRC of Boston's Israel & Global Jewry Committee. 

What was bizarre was the accusation in Badik and Penzner’s op-ed, “We’re Calling for ZOA to Be Kicked out of Boston’s JCRC”, the petition backed by J Street, the NIF, and a number of other anti-Israel groups, and the JCRC’s final response affirming the bizarre accusation that Morton Klein, the son of Holocaust survivors, was supporting white supremacists.

Their evidence was that Klein (pictured above) has called Black Lives Matter “a Jew-hating, White hating, Israel hating, conservative Black hating, violence promoting, dangerous Soros funded extremist group of haters” and correctly noted that its ranks are “filled with hatred against Jewish people.”

Not only had the Boston JCRC and Jewish organizations failed to condemn the BLM riots which had vandalized synagogues and assaulted Jews, especially in the Fairfax Pogrom in Los Angeles, but they had decided to treat criticism of the black supremacist hate group as racist.

If the Boston JCRC had any standards, it’s the anti-Israel organizations calling for ZOA’s removal which should have been condemned and kicked out of any Jewish community alliance.

Beginning with J Street.

Rep. Ilhan Omar had attended J Street’s gala dinner and praised an exhibit smearing Israel. It’s chosen to honor Jimmy Carter who had falsely accused Israel of being an apartheid state.

While the anti-Israel groups were attacking the ZOA for opposing BLM, neither they nor the Boston JCRC seemed particularly interested in actually defending Jews against antisemitism.

The anti-ZOA petition was obsessed with social justice, election integrity, and the other shibboleths of a leftist establishment that is incapable of actually talking about Jewish issues as an end, not a means.

J Street, which was behind the petition, had defended Rep. Ilhan Omar, even as ZOA and Klein had condemned her antisemitic tweets. Just as J Street has called for making a deal with Hamas. The J Street campaign to oust the ZOA attacked it for condemning George Soros while neglecting to mention that Soros had been a major funder of the anti-Israel organization.

If JCRC Boston and J Street consider Klein’s statements provocative, what of Soros’ belief that the "resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe" is caused by Israel and that the “attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby’s success in suppressing divergent views.” What are these except typical antisemitic tropes and defenses of antisemitism?

Has J Street ever been asked to condemn these statements by its own backer?

And if “rhetoric that has been associated with antisemitic tropes” is a cause for expulsion, then how can the Boston JCRC justify letting any Soros-funded group remain in its umbrella group?

And it gets worse.

The Boston Workmen’s Circle, one of the groups petitioning to kick the ZOA out, proudly notes in its own literature that members of the Workmen’s Circle included Communists and that “The first member expelled from the Workmen’s Circle was kicked out in 1901 for working on behalf of the Republican Party.” A member of the group recently wrote an angry open letter to Chelsea Clinton celebrating the fact that one of her heroines was a Marxist and a Communist. 

Even though the Communists killed countless Jews and ethnically cleansed the Jewish communities under their rule, forcibly closing synagogues, imprisoning and killing Rabbis, and banning the entire Hebrew language, that doesn’t get you condemned by the JCRC.

The BWC even held an event featuring "longtime BWC member Alice Rothchild".

Rothchild is a radical anti-Israel activist who is a member of the anti-Israel JVP BDS hate group that was considered too extreme even for the Boston JCRC. 

Rothchild has described herself as a "self-hating Jew", falsely claimed that “the anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that can now be found in Muslim countries began almost entirely with the founding of the State of Israel", and posted on an antisemitic site that, “If I believed in a wrathful God, I might wonder why the Jewish National Fund forests were burning?"

"Hamas has produced horrific suicide bombers and incredible social service agencies building schools and hospitals and caring for the forgotten population. Hamas grew out of a response to Israeli oppression during the First Intifada," Rothchild was quoted as saying.

According to the JCRC, uplifting the voices of the worst sorts of deranged antisemitism from the Left isn’t a problem, but Morton Klein condemning BLM, Soros, and other Jew-haters is a crisis.

The Badik and Penzner op-ed argued that failing to kick out the ZOA would “convey an astonishing lack of empathy, decency and basic compassion, for people of color, for immigrants and Muslims”. The only astonishing thing here is the utter lack of interest in Jewish interests by leftist activists who claim to be Jewish and even more falsely to speak on behalf of Jews. 

Where is their basic compassion, their empathy and decency toward the Jewish synagogues and small businesses hatefully assaulted by Black Lives Matter rioters, and for the Jews of Israel living under the shadow of Islamic terrorism?

The New Israel Fund, in which Badik plays a role, and which is one of the leftist groups that demanded the expulsion of the ZOA, has funded BDS organizations and groups linked to terrorism. The lack of basic compassion, empathy, and decency that is required to be a member of the New Israel Fund is astonishing. As is the disinterest from the Boston JCRC.

Criticizing Black Lives Matter is unforgivable no matter how many synagogues they trash, but Jewish lives are worthless to organizations with ‘Jewish’ in their names, but not their hearts.

SARAH CORRIHER: Watch “Jonathan Pentland Is a Hero” on YouTube & OTHER VIDEO PLATFORMS

Fort Jackson, S.C. Drill Instructor Jonathan Pentland 

Stops Black Man Accused of Sexual Abuse of a Woman, Kidnapping of a Baby;

Gets Charged with third-degree assault and battery by Sheriff, Calls Pentland a Bully; All Due to Fake News Reports:

In our world of pathologically woke media outlets, black men are said to be hunted as they walk too close to white neighborhoods. The media recently tried to destroy the life of Jonathan Pentland, in a new narrative that labeled him as an evil racist who assaults innocent black men. The truth is that Jonathan is actually a hero of his neighborhood, who was protecting it from a predator who had recently engaged in kidnapping, sexual assault, and animal cruelty to name a few. As should be expected, the rapey kidnapper was the media's darling whom it fawned over. He was the black guy, after all. The "white supremacy" narrative must be maintained. Get reliable notification options and further information at Sarah's home site: https://SarahCorriher.com/

Welcome to Medellín, Minnesota, Where Elected Officials and Cops Are Afraid of BLM and Antifa Race ‘Cartels’~Seek to Ensure the City Will Burn by Crippling the Police Response

BY VICTORIA TAFT

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/04/19/welcome-to-medellin-minn-where-elected-officials-and-cops-are-afraid-of-blm-and-antifa-race-cartels-n1440258;

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

Well, folks, we’re here.

After years of pulling the threads from the Constitution and foundation of Western thought, telling ourselves it wouldn’t matter “this time,” or being shamed by our betters about the “fallacy” of the slippery slope, we’ve arrived to find our social fabric nearly undone.

It’s over there, a tattered, stringy mass lying on the floor.

The Third-Worlding of America is nearly complete. Colombia, here we come!

Let’s go over the bill of particulars in case you don’t think Medellín is in our future.

In recent years we’ve seen that the rule of law bends toward injustice. We’ve seen the legal system weaponized against a sitting president of the U.S.

Washington, D.C.’s Capitol Hill rioters are treated completely different than Seattle’s Capitol rioters.

People defending themselves from a mob are the ones who end up in jail.

If there’s a difference of opinion, people who believe in the wisdom of the Constitution and the rule of law are called names like fascist or nationalist. They are kicked off platforms that have replaced the public square.

If people in the favored crowds are called out for doing something wrong or the merely hypocritical, it’s the disfavored messenger who is shunned from the public square. Ask James O’Keefe or Jason Whitlock or the “terrorists” who supported President Trump or the people who were – oopsie – geotagged at the president’s speech on January 6th … by the cell phone companies and banks.

And now we’ve seen a “public servant,” a term I use loosely, openly admit that she voted to fire a guy rather than leave herself open to the hostility – or worse – from the narcos.

In America.

Last week after the Brooklyn Center police shooting of Daunte Wright, there were the familiar riots, looting, arsons, and unrest in response. It’s understandable. After all, one needs a big-screen TV or jacked cellphone for “justice.”

The police officer involved in the shooting, a 26-year-veteran, had mistaken her service weapon for her taser and shot the suspect, who was fighting and fleeing the cops.

This, of course, occurred during the Derek Chauvin trial in nearby Minneapolis, which should have been moved from the area, as I explain in a recent piece in PJ Media. Chauvin is standing trial for the death of George Floyd, which has sparked endless riots, arsons, looting, and unrest.

And after the terrible news about Wright’s death, the mayor decided that everyone should be fired – the cops, the police chief and others.

Among the voices of reason was City Manager Curt Boganey, who said that before anything was done the cop needed due process.

And stating the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution was Boganey’s undoing.

The council voted to fire the – it seems appropriate to mention here – black city manager because he believes in the right to due process.

It’s not like it was for anything important that he lost his job. I mean, it’s not like due process is a big deal or anything.

The city councilor told the truth about the firing at a Zoom meeting later, as Legal Insurrection pointed out.

Brooklyn Center Council Member Kris Lawrence-Anderson, who voted to fire Boganey, explained that her decision to do so was based on fear of retaliation from the Black Lives Matter radicals who were wreaking havoc on the city:

At a virtual council workshop, Council Member Kris Lawrence-Anderson said she voted to remove the city manager because she feared for her property and retaliation by protestors if she had voted to keep him.

“He was doing a great job. I respect him dearly,” she said. “I didn’t want repercussions at a personal level.”

For those keeping score at home, the city manager was fired for standing by the fundamentals of affording the accused due process. At the same time, at least one council member openly admitted she cast her vote based solely on what she thought the mob of rioters might do to her or her property if she voted in a way that displeased them.

“I didn’t want repercussions at a personal level.” Great job, Minnesota! What a profile in courage she is. She was concerned about BLM and antifa going all primeval on her ass, so she tossed due process under the bus.

It looks like the wrong guy got fired here.

When antifa and BLM stir as much fear as Pablo Escobar and his henchmen, which prevents you from doing your damned job and following the Constitution, we’ve arrived at Banana Republic status.

Welcome to Medellín, Minnesota, where judges, elected officials, and cops are afraid of the race cartels.

____________________________________________________

Minneapolis Seeks to Ensure the City Will Burn by Crippling the Police Response

BY STACEY LENNOX

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2021/04/19/minneapolis-city-council-seeks-to-ensure-the-city-will-burn-by-signaling-they-wish-to-cripple-police-response-n1440964;

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

 

The Minneapolis City Council, in an unbelievable move, given the powder keg on their doorstep, voted 11-1 to oppose the use of tear gas and other non-lethal munitions in response to civil disorder. It would be fair to wonder if someone dropped these 11 elected leaders on their heads as children. In the last 48 hours, we have had a sitting member of Congress, Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), inciting violence if former officer Derek Chauvin is convicted of murder, and two National Guardsman injured in a drive-by shooting. The Chauvin trial is in closing arguments, and the jury is expected to begin deliberating with the threat of mob justice over their heads.

Luckily, this vote is, to some extent, worthless virtue signaling. Mayor Jacob Frey controls the Minneapolis Police Department, which he completely demoralized and ruined during last summer’s riots. Hopefully, he will ignore the insane members of the city council. Governor Tim Walz has activated 3,000 members of Minnesota’s National Guard in advance of the verdict, which is a significant improvement over his lag in doing so last year.

The council members don’t see it that way. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s son, Councilman Jeremiah Ellison, voted to oppose Walz’s move.

Council Member Jeremiah Ellison accused Gov. Tim Walz and law enforcement officials of approving “indiscriminate assaults, gassing, and arrests of protesters” in the name of protecting property.

“We’re just going to pump people full of fear and say, ‘Trust us, we got it. It doesn’t matter how many chemical irritants we use, and it also doesn’t matter whether or not it works,'” Ellison said.

His perspective is no surprise since the younger Ellison openly tweeted his support for antifa last summer. He was challenging the idea that antifa was involved in the destruction that took place. City Council President Lisa Bender described the vote as “a statement of the values of the City Council.” You may remember Bender from this insane segment on CNN where she was explaining how Minneapolis would defund the police and “reimagine” public safety:

The  Chauvin trial is wrapping up just as another officer-involved shooting in Brooklyn Center, Minn., just outside Minneapolis, reinvigorated rioting and looting across the metro area. One hundred rioters were arrested Saturday night near the Brooklyn Center police station. Emotions throughout metropolitan Minneapolis are running high, and the soft bigotry of low expectations among the city and state leaders is on full display. They are resigned to the violence that will follow the verdict no matter what conclusion the jury comes to. With such a stunning closing argument, it does not seem likely they will deliver the murder conviction Maxine Waters demanded:

How resigned are they? Minneapolis Public Schools will move back to distance learning on Wednesday after being out of school for over a year. Middle school students were scheduled to return for the first time this week, and many will not. Families are also losing all before and after school care provided by the school district for elementary students, and no athletic events will be held.

Not only did the council members take an emotional vote to signal they want police officers defending life and property to have no effective crowd control munitions. They also unanimously voted to develop an unarmed traffic enforcement division that is not part of the Minneapolis PD. Meanwhile, they tolerate a no-police autonomous zone in the area where George Floyd died. Record levels of violence and crime in the space taken over by militants earned the area FBI monitoring in March.

Minneapolis is headed down the same path as Portland, which experiences nearly nightly riots that have escalated to frequent arson attempts. They learned nothing from the CHAZ in Seattle or the Red House in Portland. How many of our once-thriving urban centers will have to descend into Gotham-level insanity due to the threats of mob justice? That Americans are accepting it is beyond astonishing.

 

Maxine Waters INCITES VIOLENCE as Calls for Her IMPEACHMENT SURGE!!!

★★★ YOUR PATRIOT PATH TO FREEDOM! ★★★

The ultra-left Maxine Waters is being accused of inciting violence as calls for her impeachment explode! In this video, we’re going to look at the latest insanity coming from the radical activist disguised as a politician, how Republicans across the nation are pushing back against her reckless rhetoric, and how cultural Marxism has come to infest so much our political climate; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Mad Maxine Waters Returns With a New Message 

MARK DICE REPORTS:

SEE ALSO: 

Judge Overseeing Chauvin Trial Blasts Waters' 'Abhorrent' Comments

judge cahill speaks wearing judicial robes

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/chauvin-waters-floyd/2021/04/19/id/1018224

EXCERPTS:

The judge overseeing Derek Chauvin’s trial for murder on Monday blasted “abhorrent” Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters for comments over the weekend urging protesters to “get more confrontational” if Chauvin is not convicted for George Floyd’s death and said her words could be grounds for the defense to appeal a verdict.

Waters, D-Calif., over the weekend told reporters that protesters needed to “stay on the street” demanding justice until there is genuine police reform. She also said if Chauvin is not found guilty, "we've got to stay on the street, and we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”

The congresswoman also vowed to “fight with all of the people who stand for justice," adding, "We’ve got to get justice in this country, and we cannot allow these killings to continue."

"Telling rioters who have burned buildings, looted stores and assaulted journalists to get 'more confrontational' is incredibly irresponsible.

 

Watts’ Tweet Reveals Racist, Sexist Motivation to ‘Replace’ White Men

Shannon Watts revels in the thought of having “white gun extremists … replaced” and of passing citizen disarmament edicts through fear, and then expects gun owners she contemptuously calls “buffoons” to surrender their firearms? (Moms Demand Action/Facebook)

BY DAVID CODREA

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/watts-tweet-reveals-racist-sexist-motivation-to-replace-white-men/#axzz6sTwFL3MJ

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

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “This is the last gasp of white gun extremists losing power and you’ll all soon to be replaced by women and people of color who will ensure you’re spotlighted in history books as the buffoons you are. And also will undo all of the dangerous things you’ve done,” Moms Demand Action’s Shannon Watts tweeted Friday. She was reacting to former Texas State Representative Jonathan Stickland’s reminder that “constitutional carry” is advancing  in rebuttal to her contention that Second Amendment advocates are “losing power.”

“This is exactly why these people are dangerous,” the website Mom-at-Arms observed. They use things like gun control to advance other agendas.” As an aside, if you’re not familiar with this website, set some time aside to rectify that. They’re innovative and observant, often exposing gun-grabber screw-ups and/or offering insights that no one else has thought of.

In this case, they focus on the “systemic racism” that defines the way Mom Demand Action’s benefactor, Everytown for Gun Safety (the name itself advances two bald-faced lies), operates.

In an earlier investigation, Mom-at-Arms showed how, despite offering lip service to “racial justice,”  Everytown does not appear to practice what it preaches when it comes to its own minority employees. That’s hardly surprising when billionaire citizen disarmament backer Michael Bloomberg is on record calling for (and then trying to hide) special infringements against the right of minorities to keep and bear arms.

As long as we’re talking cognitive dissonance and steaming hypocrisy, does anyone else find it contradictory to call the police out for shooting minorities and then demand the police should be the “Only Ones” allowed to carry guns in public?

Watts’ tweet introduces another chilling motivation, “replacement theory.” And that’s doubly curious because the “political left” smears and tries to discredit citizens who object to the Republic being culturally terraformed for political power.

“A racist conspiracy theory called the ‘great replacement’ has made its way from far-right media to the GOP,” a Business Insider screed by a Media Matters flack warns. “[S]ome of the GOP’s most stalwart voices have drummed up a more explicit accusation that immigrants are here to steal the very essence of America and replace it with something foreign — an idea plucked directly from far right-wing media.”

“[The] ADL CEO has been writing letters and giving interviews on CNN, demanding that FOX News fire Tucker Carlson for having the audacity to use the word ‘replacement’ in criticizing liberal immigration policy in the United States,” the Throne, Altar, Liberty blog notes in a detailed analysis of the way the Anti-Defamation League’s actions, like Everytown’s, are not what its deceptive name implies.

Those positions, of course, are just more gaslighting, meant to spook “conservatives” out of talking about what is really going on for fear of being labeled “racists” and then “canceled.” If Tucker Carlson is “too extreme,” where will the benchmark for acceptability be moved, and at what point will even “moderates” like Susan Collins or Mitt Romney be vilified as “Nazis”?

The fact remains, tens of millions of foreign nationals have been and are being deliberately attracted in with the intention of turning the “pathway to citizenship” into a superhighway.  That they vote overwhelmingly Democrat (and anti-gun) is observable, and what the Democrats have shown time and again is a huge part of a plan they don’t want looked at for what it is.

It figures that, rather than address the issue of Texas constitutional carry, Watts resorts to ridicule. The gun-grabbers rely on that cheap redirection all the time when they have no counter to the truth, which is pretty much always. It’s a tactic they learned from collectivist organizer (and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis) Saul Alinsky, who wrote as “Rule 5” in his subversive manifesto, Rules for Radicals:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

For well-to-do, white Watts to posture as a champion for women (who she demands to be defenseless) and people of color, is just more of the fraud that defines everything about her, starting with the “simple stay-at-home mom” lie. That’s curious for someone who refuses to acknowledge questions about the role she played as a high-level communications executive for a multinational conglomerate, and then for its PR firm, in directing public attention away from the suffering of a black man who won a substantial settlement after a jury found their product gave him terminal cancer.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

____________________________________________________

SHANNON WATTS TALKS WITH BETO O'ROURKE, BOTH GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES:

 

These 107 Corporations Signal Opposition to Election Integrity

BY JARRETT STEPMAN

SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/15/these-107-corporations-signal-opposition-to-election-integrity;

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

The top executives of some of the largest corporations on the planet released a statement on Wednesday saying they support “democracy.”

If that sounds bland and terribly nonspecific, you get the gist of the statement, which was the product of a summit of more than 100 CEOs and executives. The summit was convened in response to passage of Georgia’s election-integrity law and similar legislation being considered in other states.

The collective corporate statement was released in the form of an ad, which appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere.

Here’s what it said:

A government of the people, by the people. A beautifully American ideal, but a reality denied to many for much of this nation’s history. As Americans, we know that in our democracy we should not expect to agree on everything. However, regardless of our political affiliations, we believe the very foundation of our political process rests upon the ability of each of us to cast our ballots for the candidates of our choice.

For American democracy to work, we must ensure the right to vote for all of us. We should all feel a responsibility to defend the right to vote and to oppose any discriminatory legislation or measures that restrict or prevent any eligible voter from having an equal and fair opportunity to cast a ballot.

Voting is the lifeblood of democracy, and we call upon all Americans to join us in taking a nonpartisan stand for this most basic and fundamental right of all Americans.

This is so generic it makes one wonder what the point of the ad was. The Georgia election-integrity law isn’t mentioned at all, nor are any other specific laws.

A list of more than 100 corporate signatories that appeared in the ad can be found at the bottom of this article. It includes Apple, the Ford Motor Co., PayPal, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Under Armor, Sweetgreen, and American Express, among many others.

So, unless you don’t use the internet, drive a car, use large banking institutions, wear clothes, eat food you didn’t grow yourself, or pretty much function at all in modern life, you are almost certain to find companies you interact with on the list.

And, of course, The New York Times did its best to shame the companies that didn’t sign the statement.

Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines, two of the companies that were most public and vocal about the Georgia voting law, were not on the list of the statement’s signatories.

What’s to be made of their collective statement?

One wonders if the only truly animating “nonpartisan” issue these corporate titans are standing for is democracy, why do we see no similar collective statements in response to the autocratic and deeply anti-democratic policies of communist China, for instance?

“There is overwhelming support in corporate America for this principle of voting rights,” Kenneth Chenault, the former chief executive of American Express Co., said in the days before the meeting. “The right to vote is fundamental to America. It is not a partisan issue.”

Isn’t the right to vote fundamental in other countries, too?

Again, why was there no dramatic corporate summit to address the end of democracy when China was squeezing the life out of the last vestiges of free government in Hong Kong?

This is corporate posturing, little more than virtue signaling that they are all aboard the cause of the woke, social justice left.

It isn’t about “democracy” at all. It’s a typical corporate-speak way of demonstrating that they are committed to the cultural left and the policy priorities of the Democratic Party.

Though the product of this confab ended up being little more than insipid, nonspecific mush, the implications of this turn in corporate behavior should worry Americans.

Are these companies now going to constantly collaborate to bully and threaten states and elected officials who don’t pursue the policy agenda of the activist left?

Not only that, in spite of this corporate insistence on “democracy,” threatening states that pass laws through their democratically elected officials seems quite anti-democratic.

Such a turn further erodes public trust in private corporate institutions and makes them very much the opposite of “nonpartisan.” That only adds fuel to the fire of our current civic discord.

These trends are disturbing, but at least they are revealing. The rise of woke corporatism can no longer be ignored.

Accenture

AIG

Airbnb

Alphabet

Amazon

American Airlines

American Express 

Apple

Bain & Company

Bank of America

Berkshire Partners

Best Buy

Biogen

BlackRock

BMC Software

Boston Consulting Group

Broadridge Financial Solutions

Cambridge Associates

Cisco

Civic Entertainment Group

Climb Credit

CODAworx

Cowboy Ventures

Creative Artists Agency

Dell Technologies

Deloitte

Discover Financial Services

Dropbox

Eaton

Emerson Collective

Estee Lauder

Eventbrite

EY

Facebook

Ferrara

FirstMark Capital

Ford Motor Co.

General Catalyst

General Motors

Goldman Sachs

Harry’s

Hess

IBM

Insight Partners Leadership

Instacart

Intelligentsia Coffee

Johnson & Johnson

Jazz Lincoln Center

JetBlue

Khosla Ventures

Levi Strauss & Co.

Live Nation Entertainment

Loop Capital Markets

Lyft

M&T Bank

MasterCard

McKinsey & Company

Merck

Microsoft

Mondelez International

Netflix

Newell Brands

Nordstrom

Otherwise Incorporated

Paper Source

PayPal

Peloton

Pinterest

Plaid

Predxion Bio

PwC

Reddit

REI Co-op

Richer Poorer

Salesforce

ServiceNow

Seventh Generation

Slow Ventures

Smith & Company

Sodexo USA

SodexoMAGIC

Sonos

Sound Ventures

Spark Capital 

Square

Starbucks

Steelcase

SurveyMonkey

Sweetgreen

Synchrony

T. Rowe Price

Target

Tory Burch

Tripadvisor

Twilio

Twitter

Under Armour

United Airlines

United Talent Agency

Vanguard

ViacomCBS

VMware

Warburg Pincus

Warby Parker

Wells Fargo

Zendesk

Zola

FORMER Trump Official: Biden policies making government complicit in human trafficking

Rumble — As the Biden White House continues to avoid addressing the border crisis, another tragic trend is rearing its head. One America’s Chief White House Correspondent Chanel Rion has more from Washington.

Harvard Medicine’s Anti-White Apartheid

Rumble — The morally-deficient leftists of higher education are seeking to bring South African style apartheid to the United States. At Harvard Medical school, a scheme is being launched to implement a genocidal policy of delaying critical medical therapies to white patients, while forcing those languishing patients to pay for the treatments of patients who are artificially sent to the front of the line via brown privilege. The proponents of these disgraceful policies state that this will obtain "racial justice". As to be expected, Harvard Medical School apparently approves of this genocidal and racist policy recommendation, which is already being implemented at one of its medical facilities.

SARAH CORRIHER REPORTS: 

INTERVIEW: Voddie Baucham Explains ‘Looming Catastrophe’ of Critical Race Theory in the Church

The star of Christian pastor and apologist Voddie Baucham has risen substantially over the last year, an elevation tied directly to a cultural fascination with critical race theory and some Christians' affinity for the politicized social justice movement. He joins CBN's Faithwire team (Dan Andros, Tré Goins-Phillips) for a lengthy discussion about his new book, which dissects problems with CRT in detail. In Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism's Looming Catastrophe," Baucham focuses on defining the terms so many are wont to throw around these days, in both pessimistic and praiseworthy ways. As the number of voices facing big-tech censorship continues to grow, Baucham, a Los Angeles native who serves as the dean of theology at African Christian University in Zambia, relies on the writings of CRT co-creator Richard Delgado, who argues racism "is ordinary, normal, and embedded in society" and that it "advances the interests of both white elites (materially) and working-class people (psychically), [therefore] large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it."

Woke Kindergarten-Brainwashing Very Young Children

Anti-American brainwashing starts early.

BY MATTHEW VADUM

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/woke-kindergarten-matthew-vadum/;

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

The Left’s unceasing efforts to turn the young against America will be supercharged with your tax dollars if a radical new plan devoting $6 billion to leftist educational indoctrination becomes law.

The proposed “Civics Secures Democracy Act,” introduced in Congress last month would authorize $1 billion per year in federal grants over six years for K–12 curriculum development, teacher training, and research on the teaching of history and civics.

It would also subsidize left-wing political agitation for course credit.

“These Alinskyite proposals seek to normalize in children radical leftist political activism disguised as public service,” said Pete Hutchison, president of Landmark Legal Foundation.

“Patterned after the environmental movement’s co-opting of children in the 1970s, we face both the bogus critical race theory and phony civic action programs that are fundamental challenges to our very way of life.”

U.S. taxpayers have indeed been funding subversive left-wing groups like the now-defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation since at least the Johnson administration. Radicals advance their objectives, erode civil society, and send you the bill.

The Biden administration is fully behind this push to further entrench an ahistorical, politically slanted interpretation of American history and civics into the nation’s classrooms, where, in many cases, the writings of dead communist scholar Howard Zinn, along with nonsensical pabulum from the 1619 Project and the Southern Poverty Law Center, are already taught as objective truth.

Remember that in Executive Order 13985, the first executive order of POTUS 46*, the newly installed placeholder president rescinded President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 13950, which wisely banned the Marxist-invented Critical Race Theory in federal training, and Trump’s Executive Order 13958, which created the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission that urged U.S. education be moved away from a radical curriculum that hyped race-related injustices of the past.

The 1776 Commission’s final report described Critical Race Theory as “a variation of critical theory applied to the American context that stresses racial divisions and sees society in terms of minority racial groups oppressed by the white majority.”

“Equally significant to its intellectual content is the role Critical Race Theory plays in promoting fundamental social transformation,” it stated, “to impart an oppressor-victim narrative upon generations of Americans. This work of cultural revolution has been going on for decades, and its first political reverberations can be seen in 1960s America.”

Astonishingly, at least two Republicans in Congress who ought to know better are onboard.

The legislation, known in a previous iteration as the proposed “Educating for Democracy Act,” was introduced in the House as HR 1814 by Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), and Tom Cole (R-Okla.). The Senate version of the bill was introduced by Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas).

“The events of recent weeks have illustrated how fragile the democratic process is. We need to help train young people to appreciate how our democracy works,” said Blumenauer, referring to the endlessly overhyped security breach during the congressional certification of the presidential election at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 and its aftermath.

“This effort has never been more important, and our legislation is an opportunity for the federal government to place money behind efforts to supercharge civics education,” he said.

Left-wingers, by the way, rarely fail to refer to the events of that day incorrectly as an “insurrection,” which, if it is an accurate description, would make it one of the few rebellions in modern history in which the participants never got around to arming themselves.

It is unclear how Blumenauer resisted the urge here to sensationalize January 6 by using the I-word.

Much of the money in the proposal will go toward encouraging and supporting student political activism.

This is called “Action Civics” in the parlance of today’s media-savvy radicals and it means students will receive course credit for protesting and lobbying for political causes. The education bureaucrats holding the purse strings will overwhelmingly be left-wingers and so will almost all the recipients.

Conservative organizations that make the mistake of supporting the proposed “Civics Secures Democracy Act” because they think they might actually receive federal money will be “terribly disappointed,” said David Randall, director of research for the National Association of Scholars (NAS).

NAS has launched a new project called The Civics Alliance that aims to unite Americans to promote authentic civics education that teaches the nation’s founding principles and documents, key events of American history, the structure of our self-governing federal republic, and the spirit of liberty and tolerance.

In the legislation, the way the “bureaucratic hoops are being set up” means conservative and even moderate groups will likely be shut out of the grants process, he said. “It’s not until you look in the footnotes that you see it includes Action Civics.”

“A bill putatively open to progressive and conservative civics, will, because they have Action Civics as one of the bureaucratic prerequisites to apply for a grant, be overwhelmingly steered to radical civics organizations.”

Underwritten by federal grants, the left-wing activists want to promote activities outside the classroom, usually in connection with a nonprofit organization, and “what this does is it gets rids of actual education in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,” Randall told this writer in a recent interview.

They want to substitute “collective action overwhelmingly for radical progressive causes … habituating students to being organized and learning how to organize.” It’s “vocational training for left-wing activism.”

“Action Civics really has to be removed from the curriculum. It shouldn’t even be an option,” he said.

“It’s a peculiarly effective pedagogy,” Randall admitted.

“This is actually really good psychology, when you get people to become active in something, that makes them loyal to it. … You’re supposed to be having a disengaged education so that you can make mature decisions. This is short-circuiting that process to get minors committed to political activism early on.”

Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, was the first to raise the alarm about the pending legislation.

The money disbursed under the legislation will benefit so-called woke education, including Critical Race Theory and Action Civics, in the nation’s classrooms, merging “the culture war [and] … K–12 education-policy disputes to a degree never before seen.”

The new legislation “is a backdoor effort to impose a de facto national curriculum in the politically charged subject areas of history and civics,” Kurtz wrote at National Review.

“All around us, the culture war has broken the bounds of the university and spilled into our day-to-day lives. Conservatives and traditional liberals are rightly up in arms about the woke assault on our most fundamental freedoms, extending to inculcating guilt and shame in elementary-school students for the color of their skin. The Democrats in Congress, in league with the Biden administration and the leftist Action Civics movement, are about to supercharge this culture war by injecting it into the heart of federal education policy. Whether sooner or later, this is destined to become the greatest education battle of our lifetimes.”

Randall agrees.

“This civics education is part of a broader ideological assault on the American republic,” he said.

“The basic point is you are supposed to be learning affection for the republic you’re a part of,” Randall said.

“A republic cannot continue if nobody loves it.”

 

CENSORED: Scientists From Oxford, Harvard, and Princeton Talked COVID With FLORIDA GOVERNOR DeSantis~YouTube Deleted It

THE CENSORED VIDEO REPUBLISHED: 

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/04/10/youtube-memory-holes-desantis-covid-19-roundtable-with-medical-experts-n1438954;

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

This week, YouTube deleted footage of a COVID-19 roundtable discussion between Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and medical experts from Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard. The doctors and medical experts reportedly disputed Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance that children wear masks in school to stop the spread of COVID-19.

Cody McCloud, DeSantis’s press secretary, condemned the move as “another blatant example of Big Tech attempting to silence those who disagree with their woke corporate agenda,” NBC News reported.

“YouTube claimed they removed the video because ‘it contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities,’ yet this roundtable was led by world-renowned doctors and epidemiologists from Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, all of whom are eminently qualified to speak on the global health crisis,” McCloud argued. “Good public health policy should include a variety of scientific and technical expertise, and YouTube’s decision to remove this video suppresses productive dialogue of these complex issues.”

YouTube Removes Videos of Trump’s CPAC Speech, Suspends RSBN

Indeed, the panel included Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University; Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician, epidemiologist, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School; Sunetra Gupta, an infectious disease epidemiologist and epidemiology professor at Oxford University; and former Trump White House COVID-19 advisor Dr. Scott Atlas.

The roundtable had been embedded in a WTSB TV’s news story. Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), first reported the fact that YouTube had removed it.

Tucker praised DeSantis for taking the lead in rejecting lockdowns. He argued that the governor “became a master of knowledge and erudition on matters of public health and the cell biological issues concerning immunity,” and he praised DeSantis for following the Great Barrington Declaration, which AIER sponsored. He faulted YouTube for its policy on removing “misinformation” that contradicts the CDC and World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.

“YouTube has clear policies around Covid-19 medical misinformation to support the health and safety of our users,” YouTube spokesperson Elena Hernandez said in a statement. “We removed AIER’s video because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19.”

While YouTube allows videos “that otherwise violate our policies to remain on the platform if they contain sufficient educational, documentary, scientific or artistic context,” the platform apparently decided that the roundtable with scientific experts whose advice helped DeSantis make policy decisions on the COVID-19 pandemic did not fall under the “educational” umbrella.

“Our policies apply to everyone and focus on content regardless of the speaker or channel,” Hernandez insisted.

NBC News — which put “free market” in air quotes while describing AIER as “a ‘free market’ think tank” — suggested that the video violated YouTube’s rules when the medical experts questioned the wisdom of requiring children to wear face masks in school.

“Uh, children should not wear face masks, no. They don’t need it for their own protection, and they don’t need it for protecting other people either,” Kulldorff argued.

Bhattacharya argued that mask-wearing “is developmentally inappropriate and it just doesn’t help on the disease spread.”

“There’s no scientific rationale or logic to have children wear masks in school,” Atlas added.

Tyler O'Neil

Senior editor of PJ Media, Tyler O'Neil is an author and conservative commentator. He has written for numerous publications, including The Christian Post, National Review, The Washington Free Beacon, The Daily Signal, AEI's Values & Capitalism, and the Colson Center's Breakpoint. He enjoys Indian food, board games, and talking ceaselessly about politics, religion, and culture. He has appeared on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight." He is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

For media inquiries, please contact tylero@pjmedia.com

U.S. military extremism ‘stand down’ agenda released seminar centered around liberal ideologies

Rumble — Details from the recent "all hands" stand-down across the U.S. military are raising concerns about political bias among the brass. One America's Christina Howitson has more.

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 here, here, 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.

 

CANADA: Edmonton Church Barricaded By Local Authorities FOR NOT OBSERVING COVID-19 MANDATES

Edmonton government officials have "physically closed" the GraceLife Church in Edmonton for not abiding by the local restrictions. This is draconian tyranny against the local church!

The Authorities Completely Locked down Grace Life Church - Pray for Pastor James Coates

 

 

3 Ways Americans are RISING UP and FIGHTING BACK Against Woke Corporate America!!!

★★★ YOUR PATRIOT PATH TO FREEDOM! ★★★

Americans are RISING UP and FIGHTING BACK Against Woke Corporate America! In this video, we’re going to look at 3 ways more and more Americans are pushing back against the woke left, how even the truly woke left are actually rejecting the politically correct antics of corporate America, and how one trend in particular promises not only to be the wave of the future, but a future free from the woke left! You are NOT going to want to miss this!

EPOCH TIMES, AMERICAN THOUGHT LEADERS: Peter Boghossian on Woke Ideology: ‘A Recipe for Cultural Suicide’; Case for Defunding Universities

Pentagon Promotes Radical Resources to Kill ‘Extremism’

BY FRED LUCAS

SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/06/exclusive-pentagon-promotes-radical-resources-to-kill-extremism-in-ranks;

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

The Defense Department is promoting reading resources on opposing “systemic racism” that include radical authors as part of a program to combat extremism within the ranks of the military.  

In a virtual meeting for “all hands” last month, the agenda—obtained by The Daily Signal—counted the scandal-plagued Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible resource alongside the Department of Homeland Security and the University of Maryland. 

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a left-wing activist group known for labeling organizations it opposes as “hate groups.”

Authors touted by the Pentagon include radical voices such as Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates.

The meeting agenda, titled “Policy ‘Stand Down’ Extremis” and marked “Virtual Policy All Hands,” unfolded from 9 to 10:30 a.m. March 22.

The meeting included a recorded message from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a former four-star Army general who was appointed by President Joe Biden and took office Jan. 22. 

Recommended resources for attendees also included several references to a video of a 1965 debate at Cambridge between influential conservative journalist William F. Buckley and acclaimed novelist-essayist James Baldwin, who wrote about the black experience growing up in Harlem. 

The Pentagon’s agenda suggests viewing the video and describes the debate as: “A stark contrast between the perspective of one person living a life subjected to racism and another person living a life privileged by racism.” 

Radical Reading List

A Pentagon spokeswoman told The Daily Signal late Tuesday that she would not have a specific response to this report before publication. 

At the end of the meeting agenda, the Defense Department clearly states that it isn’t endorsing every sentiment of the authors it suggests as resources: 

All views expressed by authors and speakers referenced here are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

The book “The Fire Next Time,” comprised of two of Baldwin’s essays and originally published in 1963, is one of the Pentagon’s recommended resources for service members. 

The agenda for the Pentagon program recommends two books by Kendi, including “Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America.” Amazon’s description of the book says: “Some Americans insist that we’re living in a post-racial society. But racist thought is not just alive and well in America—it is more sophisticated and more insidious than ever.”

The meeting agenda also includes Kendi’s more recent and well-known book “How to Be an Antiracist.” Amazon’s description says, “Racism intersects with class and culture and geography and even changes the way we see and value ourselves,” and adds that Kendi’s book “will help readers see all forms of racism clearly, understand their poisonous consequences, and work to oppose them in our systems and in ourselves.”

Kendi, director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has pushed the “anti-racist” movement, which redefines racism as a matter of equity and stresses that “assimilationists” are on a par with segregationists.

Members of Congress raised objections in March to the Navy’s promotion of Kendi on reading lists, as well as other books. 

Reps. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., and Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., both members of the House Armed Services Committee, wrote to Adm. Michael M. Gilday, chief of naval operations, saying that Kendi’s writing suggests service members are fighting for a systemically racist country. 

The Navy has declined to remove any books from Gilday’s list of recommended reading. 

Targeting Violent Extremism

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., a combat veteran of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, proposed legislation to block the teaching of critical race theory in the military.

Critical race theory defines individuals as oppressed or oppressor based on skin color and views history and human interactions as a perpetual racial conflict.

The agenda for the March 22 meeting also recommends the 2015 book “Between the World and Me” by Coates, an advocate for paying blacks reparations for slavery in America. 

Amazon’s description says the book seeks to answer these questions: “What is it like to inhabit a black body and find a way to live within it? And how can we all honestly reckon with this fraught history and free ourselves from its burden?”

To be sure, the agenda of the Pentagon’s virtual meeting wasn’t limited to politics or assertions of “systemic racism.” It also refers to books and videos that address violent extremism, including the 2018 book “Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America” by Kathleen Belew and the 2020 book “Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far Right” by Cynthia Miller-Idris.

Another listed resource is the 2020 book “Breaking Hate: Confronting the New Culture of Extremism” by Christian Picciolini, who was radicalized by white supremacists at age 14 and joined violent groups, but eventually found a way out. The agenda also recommends Picciolini’s TED Talk, titled “My Descent Into America’s Neo-Nazi Movement.”

Prohibited Activity

In response to questions, a Pentagon spokeswoman referred The Daily Signal to 2009 guidelines on what constitutes “prohibited activity” for enlisted service members.

“No commander should be indifferent to conduct that, if allowed to proceed unchecked, would destroy the effectiveness of his or her unit,” those guidelines note. 

The guidelines also call for commanders to approve “policies and procedures” developed by the secretaries of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and other military departments “to implement this instruction.”

The Pentagon issued the guidelines after the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, an Army base in Texas.

The guidelines continue:

A commander may require prior approval of publications to be distributed on a military installation through other than official outlets to determine if the publication would: (a) Create a clear danger to the loyalty, discipline, or morale of military personnel; or (b) Materially interfere with the accomplishment of the military mission. … 

Commanders have the authority to place establishments off-limits in accordance with established procedures when, for example, the activities taking place at these establishments include, but are not limited to, counseling, encouraging, or inciting service members to refuse to perform duty  …

Military personnel must not actively advocate supremacist, extremist, or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes, including those that advance, encourage, or advocate illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin or those that advance, encourage, or advocate the use of force, violence, or criminal activity or otherwise advance efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights. 

Scheduling ‘Stand-Down’

The Defense Department on Feb. 5 issued a public memo regarding “extremism in the ranks” that directed commanding officers at all levels to “select a date within the next 60 days to conduct a one-day ‘stand-down’ on this issue with their personnel.”

The memo came about one month after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, after which officials deployed National Guard troops to patrol a newly fenced perimeter around the building where Congress meets.

The memo says:

We will not tolerate actions that go against the fundamental principles of the oath we share, including actions associated with extremist or dissident ideologies. Service members, DoD civilian employees, and all those who support our mission, deserve an environment free of discrimination, hate, and harassment. It is incumbent upon each of us to ensure that actions associated with these corrosive behaviors are prevented.

The memo says military leaders have discretion in the discussion about addressing extremism in the ranks, but all should focus on the oath they take to serve the nation. 

“You should use this opportunity to listen as well to the concerns, experiences, and possible solutions that the men and women of the workforce may proffer in these stand-down sessions,” the memo says. 

‘Eliminate Extremist Behaviors’

The Navy conducted a separate PowerPoint presentation “that touched on “anti-government extremists” and “recent events,” former Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams reported in PJ Media last month after obtaining documents about the presentation.  

The Defense Department information obtained by Adams includes this statement:

If we don’t eliminate extremist behaviors from our Navy, then racism, injustice, indignity and disrespect will grow and keep us from reaching our potential—an inclusive, respectful, professional fighting force that answers the nation’s call. If we must first question the intentions of our shipmate standing the watch with us, now, and especially, when taking fire, we will fail when the nation needs us most in combat.

The documents obtained by Adams, president of Public Interest Legal Foundation, also recommend “do’s” and “don’ts” to Navy commanders when engaging personnel, including:

Do be alert to statements about Prohibited Behavior (Extremism in the Ranks) which rely on inaccurate or misleading assumptions, misperception or myth. Correct these inaccuracies in a resolute, respectful manner.  … Do Not allow only a few participants to dominate the conversation.

Steven Hall and Ken McIntyre contributed to this report. 

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

1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 12