Christian Schools Going “Woke”? Veteran Teacher Blows Whistle

Many Catholic and Protestant schools and education program providers are lining up with Common Core, Social-Emotional Learning, and "woke" propaganda, warned veteran educator and elementary director emeritus at FreedomProject Academy, Mary Black, in this episode of Conversations That Matter with The New American magazine's Alex Newman. Black, who has been teaching for around five decades, says these problems are becoming ubiquitous, and that parents must guard their children. In some cases, private schools have become even worse than government schools. Even more alarming, even many Christian textbooks for Christian schools are promoting globalism, critical race theory (CRT), and dangerous manipulation of children. 🇺🇸 The New American:

‘Breakfast Club’ Race Hustler: Confiscate 25% of U.S. Economy, Redistribute to Blacks

'Breakfast Club' Race Hustler: Confiscate 25% of U.S. Economy, Redistribute to Blacks



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

A racist in a tablecloth suit named Dr. Umar Johnson decreed on The Breakfast Club radio show recently that the American government must carve out a full quarter of all economic activity — in perpetuity. “We get a 25% cut… every time America makes a dollar.” That would amount to approximately six trillion dollars annually. He makes sure to emphasize this is a forever arrangement.

Specifically, he wants cash for the “psychological damages” wrought by slavery. Nearly everything, apparently, counts as “psychological damage” to Dr. Johnson. “When you see a black man take the life of another black man, that’s psychological damage [caused by white supremacy],” he explains.

Related: INSANE! San Francisco Reparations Committee Wants Every Black Resident To Be Paid FIVE MILLION DOLLARS

I have previously elaborated on the logistical difficulties of administering such a program of reparations, such as determining who qualifies as sufficiently genetically black and the disproportionate historical impact of racism based on skin tone (called “colorism”).

Another important consideration here is: what is the endpoint? Does anyone seriously believe Dr. Johnson would be satisfied with a mere 25% cut of the pie? What would stop him from demanding 50%, 75%, or 100% at some point in the future, on a whim? He and his ideological allies would certainly have more financial resources at that point to use on lobbying efforts. And if we know anything about American politicians and politicians in general, nothing’s off the table if there’s enough cash passing hands under the table.

The reparations idea would be a lot easier to entertain (although it would still be a non-starter for fundamental moral reasons) if there were some point at which the debt owed by the guilty party (white people) could ever be considered paid.

THE NEW AMERICAN: Social Justice “Religion” is NOT Christianity, Warns Christian Author

The social-justice movement is a religion with its own saints, holy books, seminaries and doctrines that is inherently opposed to Christianity on multiple levels, Christian author and filmmaker Jonathan Harris said in an interview on Conversations That Matter with The New American magazine's Alex Newman. Harris, who has extensive theological training and has written books about the issue, called on Christian leaders to see through this, but warned that this false religion is even infiltrating conservative evangelical seminaries. Even the Southern Baptist Convention is falling victim, he said. Harris, who hosts his own podcast called Conversations That Matter, also gives his thoughts on the proper role of the church in the culture and political realm, as contrasted with the "woke" view advocated by social-justice warriors. 🇺🇸 The New American:

Michigan School Board Member Lashes Out at White People



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Kesha Hamilton is a member of the school board in Jackson, Michigan. Whatever else she may believe, she firmly contends that white people are evil, as evidenced by a December 17 tweet that read, “Whiteness is so evil.. it manipulates then says, I won’t apologize for my dishonesty and trauma-inducing practices and thinks you should applaud it for being honest about its ability to manipulate and be dishonest.”

Libs of TikTok brought the proverbial receipts when it came to Hamilton’s opinion. As the old saying goes, tell me how you really feel:

So, according to Hamilton, white people are evil, manipulative, treacherously abrasive, and more dangerous than wild animals. Oh, and white women are “the stupidest.” You can scroll down through the feed to see that responders were, by and large, infuriated.

The website MLive Michigan said that the January school board meeting saw a larger number of people in attendance than usual and a greater security presence since someone had been circulating fliers with a logo resembling that of the Proud Boys reading, “Jackson School Board hates White people.”

During the meeting, some called Hamilton’s comments “disgraceful” and “appalling.” Another called her an “angry and bitter judge” and said her remarks were divisive. That commenter added, “Someone in her influential position must be held to a high standard. She must be a representative for all students in the JPS system. Her racist comments should not be condoned. How can all kids feel safe when physical characteristics over which they have no control are being called evil and dangerous?” Another said Hamilton’s language was hurting society rather than helping it and that Hamilton was adding to disparities and dividing the Jackson community.

Conversely, Jackson High School teacher Paris Anderson, a white, conservative male Christian called Hamilton caring and compassionate and said that she was not a racist. He added that Jackson has never questioned him about the way he teaches a history that is not his. Another attendee, Myeshia Jones, rose to Hamilton’s defense by stating that Hamilton was not attacking individuals:

Whiteness is the system, the ideology, the belief, the thought that because your skin is white, you are superior to Black people. Because your skin is white you deserve better. Because your skin is white, you have better opportunities

However, Hamilton’s tweets actually attacked white people. Scroll back up and read them again.

There are white racists out there. Just not as many as Hamilton or the DOJ would have you believe. And the white people who really believe they are superior and have better opportunities would rather have Hamilton in the room as opposed to a commoner like you or me. Supporting Hamilton gives the closet racists on the Left the balm they need to soothe their souls and continue to feel superior and gracious and to be patronizing. Someday, people like Hamilton will figure this out, and I hope I’m around to see it.
Undaunted, Hamilton posted another tweet, this time about her gratitude for the support she received:

She had one supporter who expressed her relief that Hamilton was safe. She also speculated that things at the school board meeting could have escalated, given the negative reaction from many online. Well, of course, because someone saying that they don’t like being called a racist, heaven forfend, expresses an idea that does not bear the official Woke Seal of Approval must naturally be prone to violence. However, the vast majority of those who replied continued to take Hamilton to task for her vitriol, including a man named Moaead Rawashdeh, who said, “I am not a white person But I stand with white people against your disgusting hateful blunt racism Getting fired is a fraction of what you deserve.”

Hamilton, it should be noted, is a racial equity consultant with Diverse Minds Consulting LLC. And there you have it – a repairperson in search of a problem. Even a problem that must be created will do. One of the responders to the Libs of TikTok post made an interesting observation:

This anti-white push will do nothing but manufacture white racists out of people who would have never been racist otherwise. They’re generating resentment. These people don’t want racial harmony. They need the racial animosity to continue.

And the man has a point. The only permissible response to this controversy is to confess one’s racism or, if necessary, manufacture it. And even then, confession is not enough. You may remember a little thing called “Race to Dinner,” in which black activists were paid to lecture wealthy white women on how racist they were. Even when the women broke down and cried, their tears were derided as manipulative.

For race hustlers, there can never be a right answer. The only thing one can do is say one is a racist and accept the penalties. Stop me if you’ve heard this story before, but in the early years of the Obama administration, anyone who disliked the president’s policies was labeled a racist. One listener told me he just didn’t care anymore since, no matter what he said or did, he would be labeled as a racist.

And the current trend in what passes for “discourse” is to find racism everywhere, even if it has to be sown, grown, and teased out of a person who is not racist to begin with. The idea is to hammer them until they blow up so people can shout, “See? See? I knew they were racists all along!” Or to break them down so they will confess to anything. Historically, the second approach has been a very effective torture technique among totalitarians.

Years ago, we lived in a house where to our left was an immigrant family from Chile. To the right was a white family. The white family flew lots of American flags and were life-long residents of the area. As white people, which family do you think we got along with? Well, the Chilean family came out to greet us when we moved in. We shoveled each other’s snow, brought in each other’s garbage cans, exchanged Christmas gifts, and we had them over for dinner and parties. They also, incidentally, introduced us to a great red wine.

The white family, by contrast, had two kids that were known for vandalism and crime. They had loud, obnoxious trucks that spewed exhaust everywhere, and raced up and down the street in a beater truck with a Confederate flag painted on the roof, terrorizing young and old alike. They screamed profanities at all hours of the night, stole cherries from the tree in our yard, and dumped toxic chemicals in the driveway. They were obnoxious, unkempt, chronically unemployed, and well-known to the cops. So we hated our neighbors to the right and loved our neighbors to the left, and not because we thought it was cool to have Chilean friends. Our neighbors to the left were genuinely decent, kind, and neighborly people. The kids on the right were a waste of DNA. Too bad progressives would never believe this story, as true as it is. But character counts more than color.

Ultimately, the race hustlers do not want to stop racism as much as leverage it where they think they have found it and create it where they deem it necessary. Again, there are real racists out there. And that attitude is execrable. No sane person would deny that. But apparently, there are not enough actual racists to support a narrative. Or an industry.

Racial-reparations Train Rolls On~Price Tag for “Closure”: $14 TRILLION

Racial-reparations Train Rolls On — Price Tag for “Closure”: $14 TRILLION



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

We are making progress “in the movement toward reparations” for the descendants of black slaves, said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) last week. The week before, a Duke University economist estimated that reparations sufficient to end black Americans’ “claims for race-specific restitution” would cost up to $14 trillion. (The U.S. economy’s total size was $25.72 trillion in the third quarter.) In this vein, San Francisco’s “reparations committee” just proposed that each longtime black resident be granted $5 million and total debt forgiveness. And across the Atlantic, a specific human target for reparations extraction has been identified.

No, it’s not Kamala Harris, whose own father conceded that their ancestors were slaveholders.

It’s British actor Benedict Cumberbatch, whose distant ancestors owned a Barbados slave plantation.

Starting first with the total reparations price tag, MarketWatch reported Thursday that black

Americans whose ancestors were enslaved have been excluded from full citizenship in the United States for the last 247 years — and granting them full citizenship will cost between $13 trillion and $14 trillion, economist William “Sandy” Darity told a conference of fellow U.S. economists last week.

To see the impact of second-class citizenship on Black Americans, look no further than the racial wealth gap, Darity, a professor of public policy at Duke University, said during a panel on inequality at the American Economic Association meetings.

The “central task” of reparations policy is to raise the level of Black assets to a level sufficient to match the average net worth of white Americans, Darity said. Only this will produce the material conditions for full citizenship for Black Americans, he said.

At present, the racial wealth gap exceeds an average of $300,000 per person, Darity said.

There’s much to unwrap here. First, black Americans do enjoy full citizenship and have done so for a long time; Darity’s contrary claim is demagoguery.

Second, why is whites’ average income used as the yardstick in these matters when, in fact, Asian-descent Americans earn more on average? Answer: Because speaking of “Asian privilege” won’t get the race hustlers very far.

Third, Darity asserts that $14 trillion in reparations “could finally lead to closure” and end black Americans’ “claims for race-specific restitution.” This is at best naivete. Since even huge handouts don’t eliminate racial economic disparities, and since man’s nature doesn’t change, there will always be jealousy and bitterness to be exploited — and demagogues such as Darity around to do the exploiting.

In fact, Darity’s agitation brings to mind something author and ex-slave Booker T. Washington said more than a century ago. “There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public,” Washington observed. “Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs…. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

Speaking of which brings us to Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee. She and dozens “of House Democrats this week renewed their push for reparations and a national apology for slavery by reintroducing legislation that would set up a commission to consider these steps as a way to address the ‘cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery’ in the U.S.,” Fox News informed Thursday. How much money Lee donates personally to help poor black Americans was not reported.

But there are many “idealists” who want taxpayer money to fund their ideals — and stepping right up to the plate is San Francisco. As mentioned earlier, city wokesters are proposing $5 million and total debt relief for every longtime black resident. This is “not for slavery since California was not technically a slave state,” Fox News relates in an article today, “but ‘to address the public policies explicitly created to subjugate Black people in San Francisco by upholding and expanding the intent and legacy of chattel slavery.’”

The topic of legacy brings us to the hapless Mr. Cumberbatch, the British actor targeted for reparations. Cumberbatch, who, ironically, co-starred in the film 12 Years A Slave, has problems because his “seventh great-grandfather bought the Cleland plantation in the north of Barbados in 1728,” writes Showbiz Daily. We can only imagine what fate should befall the guy descended from Julius Caesar.

You can read more about the Cumberbatch saga here and here, but it turns out the accountability story is not so simple. For example, some “of the richest Cumberbatch clan plantation owners were, remarkably, themselves former slaves,” writes the Daily Mail. “These individuals, who were mixed-race, amassed huge fortunes as they forced slaves to grow sugar on their Barbadian plantations under the punishing Caribbean sun.”

But this is always the case with slavery gripes. More points to ponder:

• According to the 2007 book White Cargo, 300,000 white Britons were shipped to America and used as slaves prior to the use of Africans for this purpose. Shouldn’t their descendants get reparations, too?

• There were thousands of American Indians, and some blacks, who owned African slaves. Should their descendants also be forced to pay reparations?

• Collective blame should be attended by collective credit. So if “white Americans owe reparations for past wrongs,” shouldn’t they also get royalties for past triumphs (their world-transforming Western inventions and innovations)? Notably, whites might not have been the first to practice slavery — but they were the first to end it.

• In reality, since reparations payments generally wouldn’t come from individuals but the government (i.e., taxpayers), and since 40 percent of our population is now non-white, how will Hispanics and Asian-descent Americans react to having their money given to other non-whites to atone for “whites’ sins”?

Slavery reparations endeavors are unjust and politically unworkable. The fixation on past wrongs also diverts attention from what actually could be remedied: today’s wrongs. That is, obsessing over economic damage allegedly caused by antebellum policies helps obscure the economic damage caused by the Covid, climate, and currency (inflating the money supply) cons and other pseudo-elite schemes, which impoverish millions of Americans of all races, creeds, and colors.

The demagogues love it when we agonize over the past — while they steal the present.

The Warning Christians Critically Need: Bethel, New Age, and the New Apostolic Reformation.


The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is a popular and fast-growing new movement of Christians who emphasize signs and wonders and teach that God is giving a new revelation through new apostles and prophets. But is this biblical Christianity? This stuff used to be fringe. Now it's probably in your church in some way. Why is this dangerous, and how can you spot it? I talk with Holly Pivec and Doug Geivett, the authors of Counterfeit Kingdom, about this concerning movement.

Help Your Kids Think Critically

I got the great privilege to interview Elizabeth Urbanowicz, the founder of Foundation Worldview, about the tools she and her team have created to teach our kids critical thinking and life skills. I LOVE this stuff! Foundation Worldview is a Comparative Worldview Curriculum for kids and teens. Several years into Elizabeth's teaching experience, she realized that despite being raised in Christian homes, attending a Christian school, and being active in church, her students thought more like the culture than like Christ. So she did something about it! I ask her about this curriculum, discuss my personal interest in it, ask about parents that might feel discouraged, and overall how and why it's important to teach our kids -now more than ever!- about truth and critical thinking. Elizabeth's interview with Alisa Childers: Elizabeth's Interview with Mike Winger: Elizabeth's Information: Website for Curriculum:

Is it Harmful to Not Affirm Someone's Chosen Identity?

Otherkin, gender fluid, Trans-species, transgender... and everything in between. A question that people have asked me about this is… so what? Who is this hurting? People just live their lives and are just doing what makes them happy. Why do I care to speak out against something like this when people are just living their truth? And I have to say that this is a fair question. If we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize what's true. I address this and more in this video. RESOURCES: Irreversible Damage : The Transgender Craze Seducing our Daughters by Abigail Shrier:

If There is no Free Speech, There is no Real Thought

We're finding more and more people embracing blatant lies thinking it's the high moral ground. As language becomes less expressive, minds are more easily controlled. Apathy makes people prefer the false peace of conformity to the tensions of liberty. Whatever and whoever has the power can pressure you into believing their version of truth.... even if they're flat-out lies. Anyone who opposes this is viewed as backward and ignorant. We live in a world where there is more and more intense social pressure to accept that there is no such thing as objective truth. There's only power. Whoever holds the power decides what is true and false. The value of truth claims depends on who's making them. More and more people are knowingly believing lies out of fear of opposing them. In possibly one of my favorite interviews I've done so far, Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason addresses free speech and what this really means.

Critical Race Theory, BLM, Equity, Inclusion, Whiteness, and Beyoncé With Monique Duson

Monique Duson, who spent two decades advocating for Critical Race Theory and is the founder of the Center for Biblical Unity, joins me to discuss BLM, microaggressions, marxism, equity, inclusion, and MUCH more. Monique breaks down the movements we're seeing in social justice, and she explains how it differs from the Gospel. We both see that racism is a serious issue. But CRT is not the answer. You can't become a gaslighting racist to get rid of racism. This isn't about politics. It's about what Biblical justice and unity look like in the eyes of God. Hope you have your popcorn. We don't hold back.

Out of Astrology, Tarot, Crystals, Spirits, and the Occult... Into Jesus: With Angela Ucci

Angela Ucci is a former New Age Astrologist. She was into every facet of the New Age, including tarot, moon worship, mediumship, crystal energies, the Law of Attraction, and much more. Her journey is filled with hills and valleys that ultimately led her to the last thing she expected: Jesus.


GAETZ GOES NUCLEAR: Won’t Vote for McCarthy Under ‘Almost Any Circumstance,’ Threatens to Resign~Gaetz, Boebert take the ‘Hannity Hot Seat’ to debate GOP’s speaker race divide

"PROFESSING CHRISTIAN" Kevin McCarthy seemed to be the real thing;


7 YEARS AGO: Kevin McCarthy quits speaker race amid allegations of an affair with Renee Ellmers


House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Rep. Renee Ellmers, both married, are the subjects of longstanding rumors of an extramarital affair

Ellmers (left) lost her 2016 reelection bid as allegations of an extramarital affair with McCarthy (center) emerged. At the same time, McCarthy lost his bid to become House Speaker in part due to the rumors

Take a Look at Kevin McCarthy’s Personal Life!

Kevin McCarthy with his good friend, Renee Ellmers.


He has two children with his wife, Judy. They have lived in Bakersfield their whole lives. He was on the board of the Community Action Partnership of Kern in the past. McCarthy was accused of having an affair with Representative Renee Ellmers in October 2015.

Shortly before the allegations came out, he dropped out of the race for Speaker of the House. Representative Walter B. Jones Jr. sent Republican Conference chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers a letter a few days earlier saying that any leadership candidates with “misdeeds” should drop out of the race.

Is Kevin Mccarthy Gay

McCarthy and Ellmers have both said that the accusations are false. An investigation in October 2018 showed that William “Bill” Wages, who works for McCarthy’s brother-in-company law’s Vortex Construction, has gotten $7.6 million in no-bid and other top federal contracts since 2000.

J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

Ellmers (left) lost her 2016 reelection bid as allegations of an extramarital affair with McCarthy (center) emerged. At the same time, McCarthy lost his bid to become House Speaker in part due to the rumors


He’s long attended Valley Baptist Church in Bakersfield, California, which associates with the Southern Baptist Convention.

He talks up God at every step of his career. In 2014, after being elected Majority Leader, he was out assuring the ‘religious right’ that he was “proud to be a Christian,” thanking “my Lord and Savior for His grace, His strength and for never leaving me.”

DR. STEVE TURLEY: You Won't BELIEVE What McCarthy Just Did to Become SPEAKER!!!


What Marjorie Taylor Greene Found at Her Local Walmart Should Make Parents Angry


marjorie taylor greene walmart sex toys child grooming



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

For decades, Walmart has positioned itself as a family company. Just look at their ads — not just at Christmas, but all year long — and you’ll see families enjoying products that they bought at Walmart. When Walmart started spreading nationwide in the ’80s, it used a lot of goodwill with families to build its brand.

Of course, a lot of things have changed since the ’80s. Walmart now sells LGBTQ-oriented clothing in the children’s department, but you’d better believe it stopped selling guns — apparently “responsible firearm sales” means zero sales. The fact of the matter is that Walmart is as woke as you’d expect any large corporation to be.

But what Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) found at her local Walmart last weekend might shock you more than anything else. Last Saturday, she was shopping at Walmart in Dalton, Ga., in the northwest corner of the state, and she saw sex toys and other adult items on a display next to the kids’ toothbrushes.

She took to Twitter to express her outrage.

“Selling sex toys openly where children are exposed to them is wrong, inappropriate, immoral, indecent, perverted, shameful, and incredibly harmful to children,” she continued in a thread, asking, “Why is Walmart participating in the grooming and sexualization of children? Is this in all stores or just Dalton?”

“I don’t care how big your corporation, how much money you have, how powerful your lobby is, how big and powerful your political influence is,” she tweeted. “I just don’t care who you are. I will always firmly stand up for what is right and do everything I can to protect kids.”

Related: Walmart May Hike Prices and Close Stores Due to Theft
Green continued in her threat about how her district, which includes Dalton, is largely Christian and conservative and mentioned that the people of her district also seek to keep kids safe from things like sex toys in their local Walmart.

“On behalf of my district, I am demanding @Walmart resolve this issue immediately,” she concluded. “I sincerely hope this is not common product placement in your stores and that the employees responsible will be reprimanded. I do not believe this repulsive grooming represents Walmart.”

OK, maybe it’s not grooming, but putting sex toys next to items that families buy on a regular basis for grooming in the old-school sense of the word is definitely irresponsible.

When some Twitter users accused Greene of photoshopping her evidence of poor merchandise placement, PJ Media’s own Stacey Lennox came to her defense.

After Greene called Walmart out for what she saw on the shelves next to the toothbrushes, the retail giant responded.

“The placement of the product was a mistake and was promptly corrected at the store,” Walmart said in a statement, as the Washington Examiner reported.

Regardless of how you may feel about Greene, it’s nice to see someone taking on a corporate behemoth like Walmart when it does something wrong. And even if it was a “mistake” good on Walmart for fixing it.

It’s just a shame that Walmart sells items like these in the first place.

Google Goes Full-On Racist, Will Start Marking the Race of Business Owners~Where is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act when you need it?



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Remember the old “Whites Only/Colored Only” signs on water fountains and bathrooms in the old Jim Crow South? Thanks to Google, that kind of open, in-your-face racism is back with a vengeance. Google is so concerned that you are not racist that it is doing the most racist thing a major corporation has done at least since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: it is planning to mark the race of the owners of various businesses so that racists of all varieties can patronize only the stores of their favored group. Have Google’s far-Left ideologues really thought this through? If they really want to eradicate racism, this is just the way not to do it.

Jeremy Kauffman of tweeted Thursday that “Google has launched a new campaign called ‘Buy Black’ that encourages people to shop based on the race of the store owner. Stores in search and map results will be given icons indicating the race of the owner to make this easier.” Kauffman also pointed out that Google has been pushing this initiative hard for the last month: on Nov. 17, it published a video called “Buying All Black” and subtitled “A Google #BlackOwnedFriday Anthem,” featuring Ludacris and Flo Milli.

“We’re celebrating the third #BlackOwnedFriday,” Google announced happily, “with 70+ Black-owned businesses, a new track, and a block party in Atlanta. Join Ludacris and Flo Milli on their journey searching and shopping Black-owned, and then shop the 100+ products you’ll see throughout the video. Watch the music video, shop the products, and search to support Black-owned on Black Friday and every day.”

Great. That’ll eradicate racism, all right. What could be less racist than all the woke shoppers dutifully following Google’s lead and shunning businesses owned by white, Hispanic, Asian, and other people and buying only from black-owned businesses? There’s just one minuscule problem with this scenario: at least for now, white people are still allowed to use Google. White racists and white supremacists, you know, those people whom the Biden administration keeps telling us are the biggest terror threat that the nation faces today, can also use Google, at least until they’re finally all rounded up and sent to re-education camps. Until this problem is corrected, white racists can use the new Google race markings not to patronize, but to avoid black-owned businesses. For that matter, black racists can use Google’s new race tags to avoid white-owned businesses, but no one is worried about that, as that is exactly what Google wants.

Bull Connor or George Corley Wallace couldn’t have come up with a more ingenious scheme. Why in no time Google will have people choosing which business to patronize based on the race of the owner, and the country will become more divided and race-conscious than it has been since the worst days of Jim Crow. White racists won’t have to worry about black men sitting down at segregated lunch counters: they wouldn’t dream of doing so if the lunch counter in question is white-owned. No one will be sending Rosa Parks to the back of the bus, because she won’t be on the bus at all if the bus company is owned by people from Japan or Korea or Mexico or Italy, or France.

Google is setting us on the path to becoming a more racially striated society since the Supreme Court decided in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 that segregation was just fine. The Plessy decision said that the Fourteenth Amendment was “undoubtedly” meant “to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law,” but this didn’t mean integration, for “in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.”

That’s what Google means to stamp out: “a commingling of the two races.” It finds the idea of black people patronizing white-owned businesses to be “terms” that are “unsatisfactory,” and therefore is doing all it can to help black racists be racist. In doing so, it is also helping white racists be racist. Google, in short, has become an active corrosive agent, working to dissolve the nation’s unity and pit American against American. Where is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act when you need it?

Teaching that Grammar is Racist

Profile of a leftist white supremacist.



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

If you’ve wondered what the literal face of an evil left-wing Woke Supremacist looks like, look no further than the face of Marta Schaffer. She seems like an ordinary, nerdy woman, does she not? Do not be beguiled. She is a California English teacher who teaches her students that grammar is part of White Supremacy. Her goal as an educator is to “undermine that B.S.

According to the news report, Schaffer fights white supremacy by alerting her students to, and teaching them about, the overemphasized importance of grammar usage and writing rules. She uses her social media posts on Tik Tok to sell an even wider audience on the idea that proper grammar and syntax are part of the White supremacy she claims is an entrenched part of our culture. She maintains that she teaches the rules that “we actually use to communicate instead of the made-up rules that White supremacy created for when we write papers and stuff, which is what scholars call the language of power.”

She is a profound advocate of academic essays written by African American students using African American Vernacular English, otherwise known as the “AAVE” language.

She worries that standard usage of these statements in writing assignments, proper citation of sources (which we must remember is a preventative measure against plagiarism), and transition words like “however” and “therefore” are coterminous with misogyny, white supremacy, and colonization.

The non-sequiturs involved in her line of reasoning do nothing to help her case. And yes, she is a tenured high-school teacher.

She wishes to focus more on how students talk in real life, rather than how they ought to write in a manner that is grammatically correct. How students speak at home or with peers, she believes, is more important than forms of communication that can be universally accessed through the standard application of grammatical rules. The language of respectability, which is the language of utilizing proper grammar, she teaches her students, is far less important than one’s “natural language.”

Given the sloppy and ungrammatical way in which too many persons communicate; given the fact that several members of certain groups grunt like farm animals in their communicative endeavors, and make unintelligible noises that pass for language, this teacher’s pedagogical advice is more than ill-advised—it is nefarious.

Marta Schaffer thinks she’s a radical provocateur. She is, though, nothing more than a nihilistic, left-wing white supremacist with a profound lack of respect for her students. Her goal is to expropriate—especially—the agency of black students, to create a vast underclass of students who, when they speak, will sound as if English is their third language and who will never be able to achieve any semblance of socio-economic parity with their white counterparts and compatriots at large.

Marta Schaffer does not want black American students to master the English language and achieve facility and fluency with and in it. She has grasped the connection between grammar and cognition, and she aims to keep blacks in a position of cognitive diminution so she can rule over them. She can exercise her managerial class privilege and ensure that her perverse, racist privilege inheres and that said students never escape the cycle of linguistic and socio-economic challenges they face if she ensures that, at a minimum, they speak in sentences where subjects and verbs do not agree, sentence fragments are the norm, misplaced modifiers go unnoticed, and improper punctuation are noticed by future employees who will never hire them.

The irony is that she communicates this evil malarkey in perfect grammatical sentences. She promulgates the evil of grammar to her black students by using perfect grammar. No code-switching on her part. She never allows them to have the luxury of switching between standard English and AAVE because she realizes that such an option would empower them; it would give them options and choices.

Grammar is not an arbitrary, made-up language game created by racist power brokers. It is a science that deals with the formulation of the proper methods of verbal and written communication. It teaches us how to combine concepts into sentences. It establishes precision and clarity into first thinking and then verbal and then written communication. Grammar rules the use of language. Language is not just a tool of communication. It is a tool of cognition. If one were to dismiss the rules of soccer, one would be left with merely the maneuverings of human bodies on a field. There would be no game. The movements would be unintelligible. One would not be witnessing a codified set of rules that establishes a system that we recognize as soccer. Only a senseless movement of bodies.

The utterance of sounds without rules that govern their orderings, that identify conjunctions, prepositions, adverbs, verbal conjugations, tenses and moods, gerunds and infinitives, metaphors, and establish a method of choosing among synonyms, and a method of defining concepts and words, would reduce us to the level of grunting farm animals. There would be no capacity to develop high-level concepts, abstractions, and to formulate abstractions from abstractions. We would be unable to project a future (as has been the case with certain inferior cultures), and we would live a base and cyclical life, one totally ensconced in biological time. Such is the power of language.

A document or an utterance without punctuation or with improper punctuation is like a rambling mind incapable of producing nothing but unfocused streams of consciousness—incomprehensible to anyone and everyone, even to the writer or speaker himself.

Schaffer is the cognitive equivalent of a Chinese foot binder. The absence of grammar does not result in freedom. It results in abject stultification of the mind. An assemblage of words and a series of word salads not governed by grammatical rules are indiscernible to a civilized human mind.

And that is what she wants to afflict on blacks: a highly curated silo in which “black talk” remains among blacks, and where blacks are rendered incomprehensible to a broader public. She knows with full malice aforethought, I believe, that this will result in a reduction in the perceived intelligence quotient of blacks in the minds of others.

It is noteworthy that she singles out black vernacular as a treasure trove worth protecting from the evil incursions of white racist grammar, but she seems to have no problem correcting the grammar of white students. What is it about the nature of white students such that, if they commit grammatical infelicities, they stand open to linguistic correction? Why are blacks, on this topic, left outside the pantheon of the human community; one might even say, the domain of the ethical?

We know why. Schaffer is a sadistic leftist who has staked her life on the spectacle of black suffering and, paradoxically, on the pretense of relieving that suffering. We know that there is no such damn thing as “Black English.” It is broken ungrammatical English. Subject/ verb confusion, the abbreviation of abbreviations –among other infelicities—do not constitute a language unto itself. I don’t care what John McWhorter says to the contrary. I’m not convinced by his scholarship on this matter. The whole world knows that when a black person incapable of speaking standard English opens his or her mouth that he or she is placed at an immediate disadvantage on many levels. Schaffer wants to manufacture this disadvantage because left-wing liberals trade in this type of oppression under the guise of liberating a people from some made-up form of oppression. She is a real white supremacist. If her life is meant to create a false scenario (liberating black people from racist grammar), then she retains the perverted and sick pleasure of needing to see them suffer indefinitely by placing the blame on a racist society that has oppressed them by imposing “white grammar” on them.

This woman is not only evil, she is guilty of dereliction of duty as well. The idea that any instructor leaves her charges to wallow simply in “who they are” is proverbial nonsense. If this were the true goal of educational institutions, we would exist in a state of moral fertility. There would be no one to offer moral instruction when we simply felt like indulging in our homicidal impulses on the playing field; no one to punish us for succumbing to our “natural feelings of laziness” which result in delayed homework assignments; no one to suspend those from school who are endowed with a natural proclivity for cheating on exams.

People like Schaffer must be exposed for the frauds they are. She is not a militant assemblage of mediocrity. She is routinely mediocre. She is attempting to de-sacralize and de-legitimize one of the ways in which we transform ourselves from natural creatures into moral creatures—by means of language that is grammatically structured. She wants to normalize and mainstream the idea that such usage of language is illicit. This is one step in the direction that C.S. Lewis prophetically called The Abolition of Man.

Avatar photo

Jason D. Hill

Jason Hill is a professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy, and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. He is also the host of an original podcast on Frontpage, “The Jason Hill Show.”

Parental Rights Groups Chalk Up Victories in School Boards Across the Country



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Recent elections have revealed the increasing momentum of parental rights, anti-CRT, and anti-LGBT groups in electing traditional-values candidates to school boards across the land.

The Minnesota Parents Alliance (MPA) lauded their efforts following the recent elections in that state:

Despite the negative headwinds against conservative candidates nationally and in Minnesota, school board candidates backed by the upstart Minnesota Parents Alliance had a very good election night.

Forty-nine candidates running with the official MPA endorsement won election to the school board last night, a tremendous accomplishment for an organization that was founded just nine months ago.

Dozens of other candidates who received support from MPA such as campaign training, technical assistance, and educational resources also cruised to victory. In fact, 22 out of 38 candidates who attended one of the MPA campaign schools won their elections.

Several more winning candidates throughout greater Minnesota benefitted from online access to MPA training sessions and support.

The 1776 Project PAC told the Christian Post that their efforts “from November 2021 to November 2022 … flipped 100 school board seats across the country.”

Specifically, the PAC-endorsed candidates won school board seats in Pinellas County, Flagler County, Indian River County, and Volusia County in Florida. All four of its endorsed candidates in Brandywine, Michigan, won school board seats there, while three of its endorsed candidates won seats in Carroll County, Maryland.

The PAC-endorsed candidates also won seats in Bedford, Virginia; Alliance, Ohio; and Bentonville, Arkansas. In Frederick County, Virginia, two of the group’s endorsed candidates won.

These successes followed similar victories last year, when the 1776 Project PAC saw four candidates win school-board seats in New Jersey, three in Ohio, and four in Virginia. It touted a 70-percent success rate for its candidates in Kansas, and a 100-percent success rate in Colorado last year.

Moms for Liberty (MFL), founded in late 2020, now boasts 100,000 members in 195 chapters in 37 states. Part of its mission is to abolish critical race theory and “The 1619 Project” from the public school curriculum. Of the more than 270 MFL school board candidates the group endorsed in 2022, over half won their respective races. In the past, conservative, traditional-values candidates would capture less than 30 percent of those seats.

The Christian Post recorded MFL’s remarkable successes:

Moms for Liberty indicated that all three of its endorsed candidates won school board races in Ocean City, New Jersey; five of its eight endorsed candidates won seats on the school board in Charleston County, South Carolina; six of its supported candidates emerged victorious in school board elections in Berkeley County, South Carolina; and four seats on the school board in New Hanover County, North Carolina, went to candidates the group supported.

Moms for Liberty touted additional victories in Rock Hill School District and Fort Mill School District in York County, South Carolina; Tipton, Indiana; and Iredell, North Carolina. Two of the three candidates supported by the group to serve on the school board in Shelby County, Tennessee, won their races, as did the organization’s chosen candidates in Pulaski County, Arkansas; Brevard County, Florida; Collier County, Florida; Lee County, Florida; Manatee County, Florida; Pasco County, Florida; and Volusia County, Florida.

According to unofficial results, the candidate endorsed by Moms for Liberty also emerged vict.orious in a school board race in Laramie County, Wyoming, as did two out of three candidates it supported in Natrona County, Wyoming. In Harford County, Maryland, unofficial results show three of the four candidates endorsed by Moms for Liberty winning their races.

In Baltimore County, Maryland, one out of the group’s three preferred candidates appears to have prevailed, while one of its four endorsed candidates appears to have won in Talbot County, Maryland.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis lent his credibility to several races in his state after signing into law the Parental Rights in Education Act earlier this year. All six of the school-board candidates that he endorsed won their races.

In Maryland, 25 socially conservative school-board candidates won seats in 14 counties.

In Texas, 10 Republicans were voted onto the Texas State Board of Education, while just five Democrats won seats there.

Thanks to the Covid infringements, parents have recently become aware of the infiltration of foreign ideologies into public schools, and the move to restore traditional education programs is now gaining traction.

If the results from the last two years are any indication, the restoration of “reading, writing, and arithmetic” in place of LGBT, CRT and Project 1619 Marxist history is well underway.

SaveTheChildren 728

Posts From Lighthouse Trails Research Newsletter

SHOCKING: Corporations to start running GENDER COMPLIANCE AUDITS and “blackness checks” to qualify for lower loan rates from “woke” finance giants

Image: SHOCKING: Corporations to start running GENDER COMPLIANCE AUDITS and “blackness checks” to qualify for lower loan rates from “woke” finance giants



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

(Natural News) Large corporations are signing loan agreements with finance giants that demand “LGBT quotas” and “black quotas” be met in order to receive beneficial interest rates on lines of credit. In essence, the more gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, Blacks or Hispanics a corporation hires, the more favorable the terms become for their borrowing.

This highly disturbing development has been revealed by the Washington Free Beacon, which reports that, “Race-conscious credit agreements are incentivizing illegal hiring practices across corporate America.”

This sets off several shocking ramifications that should rock the corporate world:

#1) Corporations will start asking about sexual preferences and transgenderism during job interviews.

In order to achieve lower loan rates, corporations will need to hire more gays, lesbians, trans, etc. So they will begin asking job candidates questions like, “With whom do you routinely have sex?” And as the radical Left moves even more strongly into pedophilia and grooming as a form of “tolerance” / “love wins,” it means corporations may actively seek to hire pedophiles to meet woke quotas required by lenders.

Can you imagine showing up for a job interview and being asked whether you have sex with children? And then if you answer YES, they say, “You’re hired!”

#2) Lenders will need to run gender compliance checks to keep companies honest about reported LGBT quotas

Watch for lenders to dispatch “gender auditors” to corporate offices. There, they may ask all transgenders to gather in the lobby while they interrogate them about the “rigorousness” of their transgender claims.

Since transgenderism is a state of mind, and not anything rooted in physical reality, anyone can claim to be transgender. So lenders will need to dispatch what are essentially “transgender police” to make sure nobody is just making it up (which, ironically, is exactly how transgenderism works in the first place). Make sure you don’t fake your fakery!

Prepare for your crotch checks in order to comply with woke corporate America.

#3) Lenders will also need to run “Black checks” to make sure claimed Black employee numbers are real

Imagine a Caucasian “Black auditor” showing up at the corporate offices and demanding all Blacks line up in the lobby to be counted and measured based on the blackness of their skin. Based on skin pigmentation, some Black employees might only count as 5/8ths of a Black person, hearkening back to the days of slavery in America when even the US Supreme Court once ruled that Blacks only counted as 5/8ths of a human being.

Imagine being a Black American working in corporate America and being told, “You’re not black enough” to qualify for favorable loan rates. Imagine HR interviews at the corporation valuing you based on the perceived darkness of your skin rather than the merits of your capabilities.

Blackness audits are coming to corporate America, along with gay audits, trans audits, and Hispanic audits. It’s the ultimate dehumanization of a human being. Under wokeism, your only value to society is found in your skin color or your sexual preferences, not what you might offer in terms of ideas, creativity, inspiration, performance, or otherwise.

“The businesses that have struck such agreements include the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, the consulting groups Ernst & Young and AECOM, insurers Prudential and Definity Financial, private equity firms BlackRock and the Carlyle Group, the technology company Trimble, and the telecommunications giant Telefónica,” reports the Washington Free Beacon:

Trimble CEO Rob Painter, for example, said the company’s credit facility—which conditions interest rates on the percentage of female employees—illustrates Trimble’s “commitment” to “gender diversity in the workplace.” In press releases announcing their own credit facilities, executives at BlackRock, Prudential, and Definity say the agreements demonstrate their commitment to “accountability.”

But critics see something far more sinister: a form of blatant discrimination that will harm consumers, credit markets, and the rule of law.

This is what “woke” policies are now doing: Turning people into corporate commodities based on superficial qualities

Now, a Black American, a gay person, or even a transgender, will be valued based on their skin color or sexual proclivities rather than their merit.

This entire “woke” scoring system turns a human being into a discount rate commodity, pretending their value to society is based solely on either the color of their skin or their preference of who they sleep with, or what gender identity they claim to exhibit.

It creates perverse incentives for distorted hiring practices, and risks corporations demanding to pry into the private sexual lives of potential employees. “Who did you have sex with today? Have you ever had sex with other men? Women? Both? Children? Animals? Furniture?”

As the “woke” movement goes increasingly insane, it’s also obvious that corporations will be incentivized when more employees claim to be grooming children or engaging in pedophilia, sex with animals, or so-called “furries” (people dressed up as animals who pretend to be animals).

Before long, if this trend continues, corporations might conceivably feature child rapists in the lobby, and pedophiles molesting children in the cafeteria, just to qualify for better loan rates. This will all be explained as completely normal “inclusive” behavior, and anyone who speaks out against it might be arrested and charged with hate crimes.

Welcome to your “woke” corporate future, where all business operations are contingent upon your acceptance of Satanic, child-abusing rituals and ungodly perversions that now count as credit with financial institutions.

Bring your underwear and hammers, too, since that will get you extra points in the whacko world of woke capital where workers are hired for their perversions rather than their skills, creativity, or job performance capabilities.

After all, why work hard when you can just f##k the couch in the lobby and keep your job in woketard corporate America that only values you for your perversions rather than your contributions?

(Gives a whole new meaning to the work week “hump day” doesn’t it?)

Get full details on this bizarre (and highly illegal) corporate plan in today’s Situation Update podcast:

– Finance giants offer lower lending rates to corporations that meet “woke” quotas
– If you hire more Blacks or Hispanics, you get lower rates
– If you hire more transgenders, gays, lesbians, or bisexuals, you get lower rates
– Will hiring teams now start grilling applicants on who they have sex with?
– Finance companies will need to deploy GENDER COMPLIANCE AUDITORS
– Get ready for your “gender check” from the loan company
– Get ready for BLACKNESS COMPLIANCE AUDITS from finance companies

– Will they base loan compliance on shades of Black/tones of pigment in the skin?
– Lighter-skinned Blacks might only count as 5/8ths of a “fully Black” (shades of slavery)
– This practice turns human beings into SLAVES / COMMODITIES based on external properties
– The ultimate dehumanizing enslavement system, packaged as “inclusive” or “woke”
– Crypto markets rocked by FTX fallout and collapse of liquidity
– Bitcoin drops nearly 22% in 2 days as crypto carnage spills over
– FTX accused of being a digital Ponzi scheme from the start
– Europe says “Take that, Putin!” while cutting off its own oil supply
– Beyond Meat is slashing employees because their products taste like crap





iTunes podcast:

NY Schools Demand PARENTS Submit to Woke Brainwashing, Too

NY Schools Demand PARENTS Submit to Woke Brainwashing, Too



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

At least five overpriced private schools in New York City are now subjecting parents to racist harangues and indoctrination sessions under the guise of “anti-racism” and “diversity,” and refusing to admit children of parents who will not comply, according to news reports. More than a few parents have expressed outrage.

The New York Post, which first broke the story, identified multiple examples of “elite” private schools in the Big Apple conscripting parents into mandatory racial brainwashing. While the sessions at some of the schools were officially “optional,” parents reported that school officials were even taking attendance. 

The cost of these institutions is in the neighborhood of $60,000 per year, per child, according to news reports. Why any parent would pay a single penny to have their children subjected to the same abusive brainwashing that their taxes already fund in government schools was not immediately clear. 

One of the worst offenders was Brearley School, an expensive all-girls indoctrination center in Manhattan. According to the student application, “parents are expected to attend two diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism (DEIA) workshops per school year.”  

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) — often labeled DIE by critics for its deadly consequences — is the newest euphemism for hyper-racial propaganda declaring that some people are inherently racist due to their ancestry, while others are inherently oppressed victims. 

Black critics of the scheme have regularly lambasted proponents as racists and wannabe “white saviors.” Furious black parents and pastors have especially denounced white adults training their children to see themselves as perpetually oppressed victims, in true Marxist style.

Anti-racism, meanwhile, is a new term demanding Marxist government controls and institutionalized racism to counteract alleged “systemic racism” that supposedly permeates all Western societies and cultures. Only a racial dictatorship can cure this problem, according to leading advocates of the half-baked idea.

Anti-racist kook Ibram X. Kendi, for instance, a tax-subsidized “scholar” at far-left Boston University, claims America needs a “Department of Anti-Racism” (DOA). Among other tasks, this unelected body of “formally trained experts on racism” would “be responsible for clearing all local, state, and federal public policies,” he said.  

As part of attending the “elite” girls’ school in Manhattan, parents are expected to write an essay swearing fealty to the institution’s supposedly “anti-racist” so-called values, similar to the hateful propaganda spewed by Kendi. They also must sign a loyalty oath pledging their support to the ideology, according to news reports. 

“We expect teachers, staff members, students, and parents to participate in anti-racist training and to pursue meaningful change through deliberate and measurable actions,” the pledge declares. “These actions include identifying and eliminating policies, practices, and beliefs that uphold racial inequality in our community.”   

At another over-priced replica of the government’s indoctrination centers, named after Unitarian founding father of America’s Prussian-style government “education” system Horace Mann, a “family learning session” praised the work of racist Robin DiAngelo of “White Fragility” fame. DiAngelo claims, among other absurdities, that all descendants of Europeans are racist. 

“How can we take DiAngelo’s message and make it applicable to all communities in the [Horace Mann] community,” mumbled the trainer under a “Black Lives Matter” face diaper reading “I CAN’T BREATHE.” “I don’t want to be in necessarily white spaces, because when black children were put into those spaces their support and caregivers were taken away and they were put into racially hostile environments.”

It is hard to imagine any sensible person could be paid enough money to allow their children to be brainwashed and abused with this sort of toxic poison. That there are enough willing to pay money to have their children destroyed proves the old biblical cliché is true: “A fool and his money are soon parted.”

SaveTheChildren 728


The Radical Inclusive CATHOLIC Church

Irish of a traditional bent need not apply.



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Most practicing Catholics will have noticed by now that the Church under Francis has changed.  And many are not happy with the changes.

For example, Andrea Cianci, author of a new book that questions the validity of Francis’s election, says that Francis’s objective is to “demolish Catholicism.” But it’s not only Francis that traditional Catholics worry about. His plans for the dismantling of the Church are being implemented by a small army of prelates who are, in essence, Francis clones.

Right now, Francis and his supporters are utilizing the Synod on Synodality as the main engine for transforming the Church into something new and strange. Conservative critics of the synod claim that it is a “hostile takeover of the Church,” an “exercise in self-destructive behavior,” and an “open revolution.” This may seem extreme, but many of Francis’s words and actions reveal a man who is deeply hostile to the Catholic Church—a Church that he considers “rigid,” “fundamentalist,” “exclusivist,” and very much in need of opening up. Moreover, those who are running the Synod share his sentiments.

In reality, the Church has been opening up ever since the pontificate of John XXIII, but much of what the Church of Francis is engaged in is not simply an opening up of the Church, but a rejection of it.  Church leaders are already in the process of rejecting the Church’s teaching on marriage, adultery, abortion, homosexuality, gender, divorce, polygamy, clerical celibacy, and women’s ordination. To the extent that they are opening the Church, they are opening it to people who dissent from Church teaching on these and other matters.

Perhaps because they realize they are already firmly in control, the “woke” prelates have become quite open about what they plan to do.  For example, the Vatican has just released a new document for the Synod on Synodality which calls for “a Church capable of radical inclusion.”

The 44-page document is entitled “Enlarge the space of your tent,” but the tent doesn’t seem to have much space for traditional Catholic beliefs and practices.  Rather it encourages dialogue with “those who, for various reasons, feel a tension between belonging to the Church and their own loving relationship, such as remarried divorcees, single parents, people living in a polygamous marriage, LGBTQ people, etc.”

“Polygamous marriage?”  One wonders what’s included in “etc.”  In any event, this new inclusive model is being suggested as the model the Church should embrace.  But don’t assume that the plan is to help the “marginalized” (i.e., adulterers, LGBTQ, etc.) to conform their lives to Church teaching.  Rather, the plan is to conform the Church’s teachings to the “lived experience” of the marginalized.

“Radical inclusion” sounds vaguely Christian, but it is actually a plan for demolishing the Church—as the word “radical” implies. The word brings to mind images of the radical French Revolution, the radical Russian Revolution, and the radical Sexual Revolution. All three resulted in enormous damage to the societies involved, yet the Synod documents often speak the language of revolutionary change. Moreover, the Synod fathers seem anxious to bless the Sexual Revolution and bring it fully into the Church. “Radical” is not usually thought of as a term of praise, but that’s the way it was used by Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, the Relator General of the Synod, in a recent interview with L’Osservatore Romano. Hollerich praised Pope Francis for being “not a liberal” but a “radical.”

Most Catholics don’t keep up with recent issues of L’Osservatore Romano or with the latest Vatican document. So, relatively few are aware of the radical nature of the changes being proposed in the synods. Perhaps the most prominent synodal theme is “inclusion,” and the promise that no one is excluded. But when the Synod fathers say “no one is excluded,” it should give us pause.  Do they also mean “no sins are excluded?”  Do they mean that no repentance is required? The numerous synod documents suggest that what progressive Catholics want is an inclusive community without rules—a place where each follows his or her own inner guidance.

But workable communities that last do have rules and, in order to survive, they tend to exclude those who won’t follow the rules.  One supposes, for example, that a good number of bishops belong to a golf club.  And it’s a good bet they know and observe the rules of the club.  If a bishop drives his golf cart in a reckless way after several drinks and several warnings, he can expect to be excluded from the club.  He can claim that the club has “marginalized” him, but in reality, he has marginalized himself.

One might counter by observing that the Church is not a golf club. It follows a different—more merciful– set of rules. Cardinal Hollerich has said as much: “[The] Kingdom of God is not an exclusive club.” Rather, he says, its doors are open “to everyone without discrimination.” “This,” said Hollerich, “is simply about affirming that Christ’s message is for everyone.”

All Christians can agree that Christ’s message is for everyone. But most would want “everyone” to hear the full message of Christ, not a highly redacted version. If you read the full message of Christ on the subject of entrance into the Kingdom of God, you would not, contra Hollerich, get the impression that it’s open “to everyone without discrimination.” Not by a long shot.

Take Matthew 25:31-46—the parable about the sheep and the goats. On Judgment Day, “[The King] will separate the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.” He then invites the sheep to inherit the kingdom, but the goats are sent away “into eternal punishment.”

I don’t know about you, but that sounds discriminatory to me. And frightening as well. Thank Heaven for purgatory.

Christ also discriminates on several occasions in favor of wheat over weeds (or chaff): “Let both grow together until the harvest and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, ‘Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn’” (Mt.13:30).

In another parable, he tells his disciples: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; when it was full, men…sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad” (Mt. 13:47-48).

Lest there be any misunderstanding, Jesus then explains: “So it will be at the end of the age, the angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire” (Mt. 13 49-50).

The meaning of these parables seems clear, yet Christ tells several other parables with the same message.  In one parable, he tells of five wise maidens who, having made proper preparations, are admitted to a wedding feast; and of five foolish maidens who, having failed to make sufficient preparations, are excluded from the feast.

In another parable about a wedding feast, a guest without a wedding garment is cast out the door: “Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness…For many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt. 22: 13-14).

Hollerich may say that the Kingdom of God is open “to everyone without discrimination,” but the Gospels seem to be saying something different.  Hollerich says, in effect, “come as you are,” but Jesus advises us to come wearing a wedding suit (i.e., in a state of grace.) Although well-acquainted with the merciful sayings of Jesus, Hollerich, and Francis seem to ignore his more judgmental warnings.

Quite obviously, the words of Jesus are an obstacle to the synodal plans of Hollerich, Francis, and others in the hierarchy.  Quite obviously, Jesus will have to go if the synodalists hope to achieve their goals.  Expect him to gradually disappear from the new radically inclusive Church.  Either that or expect him to be transformed to better fit the jolly theology of Cardinal Hollerich who tells us that “living in the footsteps of Christ means living well, it means enjoying life.”

In short, expect Jesus to be transformed into some kind of happy genderless hippie who utters woke platitudes and announces the good news that your sins aren’t really sins at all.  He just wants you to be happy doing whatever makes you feel good.

It is, of course, a formula for disaster. Canon Lawyer Rev. Gerald F. Murray calls it “a self-destructive Synod.”  He notes some of the signs of decline in the Church we have already seen under Francis: “lack of priestly vocations in the developed world; the steep decline in Mass attendance, baptisms, and Church weddings…the collapse of religious orders and the rejection of doctrinal fidelity.”

One doesn’t have to look far to find signs of doctrinal infidelity.  Here in the U.S., LGBTQ activist priest Fr. James Martin has asserted that LGBT Christians are not bound by the rule of chastity.  And in formerly Catholic Ireland, an elderly priest was recently suspended by his bishop for speaking of the sinfulness of certain sexual activities.

The priest, Fr. Sean Sheehy, said he was simply stating what was in the Gospel. But that’s the problem, isn’t it?  Fr. Murray says the Synod is “self-destructive.”  But it’s only self-destructive if the intention of the Synod is to preserve and strengthen the Church founded by Christ and revealed to Christians in the gospels.  If the intention of the Synod fathers (along with Pope Francis) is to replace the Church of Christ with a humanistic/modernist Church with all the supernatural elements purged out, then the Synod has thus far been a roaring success for them—if not for the rest of us.

It’s possible that the Synod organizers are genuinely well-intentioned.  Perhaps they think that by downplaying immorality and by convincing Catholics to “take it easy on yourself,” Catholics will shake off their burden of guilt and lead happier healthier lives.  But previous attempts at relaxing the rules while ignoring the supernatural dimension of life—such as the Sexual Revolution—eventually resulted in making life harder not easier.

Should the Synod fathers succeed in convincing Catholics that sin is not sinful, the destructive, addictive, and family-wrecking effects of sin will still be at work—both in individual lives and throughout society. The Synod leaders may succeed in bringing about a radical change in the Church, but because of their naivete about human nature, the changes will inexorably lead to widespread unhappiness and despair.

Avatar photo

William Kilpatrick

William Kilpatrick is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His books include Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West, What Catholics Need to Know About Islam, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad.

Dan Ball WITH Tina Ramirez: UNHINGED ‘Journalist’ Calls CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES On Mom Over Columbus Day, 10/12/22

Journalist Calls CPS on Virginia Senate Candidate for Teaching Daughter About Christopher Columbus

How FEMA Put ‘Equity’ Ahead of Disaster Management; “Find opportunities for equity in the big chunks of federal money.”



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

“It is our lowest income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions,” Kamala Harris told the Democratic National Committee’s Women’s Leadership Forum during the recovery effort for the victims of Hurricane Ian.

“We have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity.”

That is what FEMA is already doing.

FEMA uses something called the National Risk Index to calculate the risk to any area. The NRI can then be used to determine which communities should get how much funding to cope with natural disasters. Armed with an NRI evaluation, cities, counties and towns can apply for Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants. Billions in these grants have been handed out. The trouble with the NRI is that it’s less science and more sociology. And very leftist sociology at that.

The Index is made up of three components, the actual natural hazard, “community resilience” and “social vulnerability”. The last is really affirmative action for natural disasters. As FEMA puts it, social vulnerability calculates the “susceptibility of social groups to the adverse impacts of natural hazards”.Or as the old joke has it, “Earth destroyed: minorities hardest hit.”

Except with FEMA, it’s not a joke, it’s policy.

“Black and African American communities often suffer disproportionate impacts from disasters,” FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell claimed.

FEMA’s social vulnerability data set lists the percentage of immigrant, Asian, Hispanic and black populations as representing a higher “vulnerability” to a natural disaster. A town that is 40% black, 33% Hispanic, and 12% Asian is calculated by FEMA as being more at risk than a town that is made up of 23% Italian-Americans, 44% Irish, 9% Jews, and 18% Swedish-Americans.

Grants to prepare the town and the area for a hurricane are likely to be awarded accordingly.

Two towns with the same risk level, but different racial numbers will put the minority town ahead of the non-minority one when it comes to aiding to prepare for a disaster.

That racial discrimination is built into FEMA’s algorithms. When FEMA personnel tell federal and state legislators that they’re just following the numbers, they are actually using numbers that were specifically racially biased to provide affirmative action disaster planning and reward the Democrat electorate with special preferences. Some of which flow to the politically connected.

The racial bias at FEMA is part of the overall ‘equity’ push by the Biden administration. Every component of the federal government, from the military to NASA to FEMA was obligated to offer a political loyalty oath in the form of an equity plan. And to conduct political equity indoctrination sessions within their organizations and bring in leftist groups to lecture them on their politics.

FEMA’s Building Alliances for Equitable Resilience begins with a rejection of equality in favor of equity. The introduction by Chauncia Willis, a former wellness and diversity coach, urges disaster officials to reach out to “LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, Black Lives Matter chapters”.

Black Lives Matter is better known for causing national disasters than remedying them.

Willis claims that minority groups may feel the impacts of natural disasters most “severely” because of “immigration status”, “race”, and dictated that equity should be “a goal throughout all parts of your work”.

Jo Linda Johnson, the director of FEMA’s Office of Equal Rights, argued that the “whole community must be honest and acknowledge that the historical denial of equity and lack of opportunity to participate in economic, social, and civic life is intertwined with current concerns.”

Instead of actually working on disaster relief, FEMA was being transformed into a welfare system oriented toward denouncing America and white people as racist.

The FEMA brochure urges, “Find opportunities for equity in the big chunks of federal money.”

These days, FEMA talks about equity more than disaster relief. The set of priorities could be clearly distinguished when FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell commented on the confirmation of her deputy, Erik Hooks by stating that he would help “infuse equity across our agency, advance our nation’s emergency management and readiness and address the growing threat of climate change.” Equity comes in ahead of emergency management.

FEMA’s three missions are now identity politics, responding to emergencies, and global warming advocacy. Only one of those is actually the non-partisan task it’s supposed to be performing.

And it’s not as if FEMA has been shy about putting identity politics at the center of its agenda.

In his statement to the Committee on Homeland Security last year, Hooks revealed that FEMA’s new strategic plan under Biden was to “(1) instill equity as a foundation of emergency management; (2) lead whole of the community in climate resilience, and (3) promote and sustain a ready FEMA and prepared nation.”

Equity came first, global warming second, and disaster response third.

Hooks spoke at length about “instilling equity as a foundation of emergency management”, identity politics quotas at FEMA, “ensuring our employees increasingly reflect the diversity of the nation”, and global warming. He spent less than a minute on actual disaster response.

Under Biden, FEMA leaders talk in activist leftist terms about bringing social change. “At FEMA, we strive to place equity at the center of our efforts and do our part in addressing and correcting these historical injustices,” Criswell declared.

“At FEMA, and across the Biden-Harris Administration, we know even more work must be done if we are to live up to the promise of Juneteenth and ensure everyone in this country lives a life of dignity,” Hooks sonorously chanted.

None of this is the job of FEMA, but under the Left, every agency and organization under its control spends most of its time denouncing America and promising more equity.

Meanwhile, FEMA remains fundamentally broken.

Every round of natural disasters brings more congressional hearings, media outrage, and FEMA officials explaining why they messed up this time. When the FEMA failures happen under a Republican president, they’re front and center, but when they happen under a Democrat, like Obama, they’re quickly hushed up. Either way, though FEMA has never worked and the rebooted identity politics organization is even less likely to help the people it’s supposed to.

The prominence of identity politics at FEMA will only further undermine trust in it and the statistical tampering that turns risk evaluations into affirmative action will raise questions about a variety of statistical models including those that are utilized for insurance purposes.

The American people deserved an unbiased disaster management agency untainted by racialist and political agendas. FEMA was functionally broken before, it’s now also tainted by racism and partisan agendas. Those need to be rooted out beginning with anything involving “equity”.

When disaster strikes, hurricane, earthquake and other survivors need to believe that they’re not being discriminated against before or after the disaster. The only way to do that is to get “equity” and the “social vulnerability” index out of FEMA before they end up costing lives.

Transgender Marxism: From Dysphoria To Dystopia



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Angela Davis is an American Marxist “intellectual,” and 1979 Lenin “Peace Prize” recipient, who was the Communist Party USA Vice-Presidential candidate in 1980, and 1984. Speaking at a virtual conference, on June 14, 2020, entitled, “Unlock Us: Abolition in Our Lifetime,” Davis, now an eminence grise Communist, opined,

“[T]he trans community has taught us how to challenge that which is totally accepted as normal…that which is considered the very foundation of our sense of normalcy. So if it is possible to challenge the gender binary then we can effectively resist prisons and jails and police.”

Some 18 months later, last December 2021, Princeton Marxists protested Abigail Shrier’s appearance discussing her 2019 book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our DaughtersPrinceton’s campus was besmeared by the protesters with flyers proclaiming,

“LGBT oppression has a central role in maintaining the capitalist means of production…LGBT lives disrupt the heteronormative relationship and domestic labor structure…The liberation of the working class is liberation from gender oppression! Fight for an end to oppression! Fight for a socialist future!”

During May, 2021, ~6-months before the Princeton Marxist protest, a full-throated, celebratory manifesto for the Marxist-Socialist transmogrification of (residually) capitalist societies, “Transgender Marxism,” was published. Transgender Marxism is a 305pp. collection of 14 essays, bookended by an extended editors’ Introduction, and Afterward. All the contributors self-identify as Marxists-Socialists, and LGBTQ, particularly transgender persons. While the authors note that “transgender culture” has already “appeared as a mass culture,” and “Transgender Marxism is already a flourishing field…to hear ‘trans’ and ‘communist’ in the same breath has become quite routine,” they summarize the book’s rationale, affirming Angela Davis’ observation:

“Through collecting these essays as a mass-marketed book, we aim to capture the recent proliferation of gender-deviant Marxist thought in a more lasting and accessible form; to move us…towards social revolution…We believe the existing breakthroughs achieved by transgender Marxists will transform the scope of revolutionary action in the coming years.”

It is tempting to dismiss Transgender Marxism as a tiresome onslaught of non-stop grievance mongering, and irrationality. What passes for content is most often conveyed angrily, in turgid, vacuous, pseudo-academic Marxist jargon. Dismissing this excruciating collection of tracts, and tract commentaries, however, would be a mistake. The book’s introductory essay crows about an evident truth: “For the most part, left wing circles worldwide are coming to accept the call for ‘trans rights’ as a basic principle.” But a baleful warning immediately follows that statement: “[W]hat if the emancipation of trans people cannot be won through the securing of ‘rights’? What if, however, smoothed over the process of state validation were to become, a meaningful liberation remained out of view? What if even the most thoroughgoing defeat of fascism would not be guaranteed to achieve our social liberation?” Indeed, what then? Apparently, what ensues then is endless strife until the establishment of a global Marxist/Communist dystopia for those with gender dysphoria (pp. 452-59), and everyone else, “never allowing ourselves to be deterred from the path of internationalist revolution.”

Two salient discussions from Transgender Marxism illustrate the shameless dishonesty of its Marxist contributors, fanatic votaries of what ex-Communist propagandist, philosopher, and poet, Max Eastman dubbed, aptly, the Communist “religion of immoralism.” The first example is found in editors Jules Joanne Gleeson’s and Elle O’Rourke’s Introduction which maintains that Communism’s founding “Dr. Crankley,” Karl Marx, in his early work On the Jewish Question, implicitly championed the Jews by refusing, “to set aside the fate of minority groups from the structuring of society as a whole.” Gleeson and Rourke further conclude, regarding On the Jewish Question,  “In other words, we find in Marx’s writings and political concerns still much of relevance to our [transgender] struggles.” Contra such mendacious hagiography, Karl Marx’s On the Jewish Question reveals him to be an annihilationist Jew-hater. Marx wished to extinguish Judaism, and its Jewish adepts—mere embodiments of “usury and money”— actions that would achieve his dystopian vision of “the emancipation of society from Jewry.” Additional statements of Karl Marx’s reflexive, day-to-day Jew-hatred, include the following:

“It is the circumvention of law that makes the religious Jew a religious Jew.” (Die Deutsche Ideologie, MEGA V, 162); “The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849); He called Ferdinand Lassalle, “Judel Itzig—Jewish N–ger.” (Der Judische Nigger, MEKOR III, 82, July 30, 1862); “Ramsgate [British coastal resort] is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

A second example is a medical mendacity—and ignorance—of Johns Hopkins University Professor Jules-Gill Peterson, who provided a gushing blurb for Transgender Marxism. A History Professor, with no training in biology, Peterson teaches a course entitled, “The Gender Binary and American Empire.” The course’s thesis is that binary sex—male and female—is somehow an imperialistic, “racialized” construct foisted upon the world by irredeemably evil Western colonial powers, particularly, the United States. The University of Massachusetts, Amherst Professor Jordy Rosenberg’s Afterward to Transgender Marxism summarizes the conclusions from Peterson’s so-called “pivotal book,” Histories of the Transgender Child, riveting on Peterson’s study of 1950s era Johns Hopkins Hospital case records of patients with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Rosenberg accurately recapitulates Peterson’s claims from the analysis of these CAH cases: “doctors found themselves forced to conclude that biological sex is far less stable and fixed than they might have liked to presume. Sex in other words, is not an autonomous property of the body, rather it—and the body—exist in a tangled metabolic flux.” Peterson’s own ancillary arguments, it should be emphasized, devolved into what can only be characterized as a jargon junkyard of thought-disordered lunacy. To Peterson, the attempted management of CAH during the 1950s in XX genetic females, congruent with their female genotype, represented “a racialized plasticity,” and “an abstract whiteness.”

Rosenberg and Peterson, rigid, lying, uninformed transgender Marxist ideologues, take the utmost license with actual CAH. They deliberately ignore how our medical understanding of this rare syndrome has evolved over the past 7 decades to “validate” their equal parts idiotic, and dishonest contentions. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a cluster of inherited enzymatic disorders which result in defective steroid synthesis, and derangements of salt/water, glucose metabolism, as well as sexual function. Genetic XY biological males with CAH show no sexual developmental or functional incongruence. Genetic XX females with CAH may develop “virilizing” malformations of their external genitalia, rendering sexual intercourse unpleasant, or occasionally prohibitive, thereby reducing the chance of pregnancy. Simple, compassionate medical steroid replacement therapy, and if required, rehabilitative surgical treatment of “ambiguous” genitalia can provide these natal, genetic CAH females functions adequate for menstruation, pleasurable intromission (sexual intercourse), and birthing.

In an August 2022 interview, 1995 Nobel Prize-winning developmental biologist Dr. Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard demolished the anti-scientific, modern Lysenkoism of Marxist pseudo-academics Rosenberg and Peterson and their ilk. Nüsslein-Volhard elucidated the fixed biological determinants of mammalian sex, and the distinction between sex and gender while warning of the dangers (and futility) of hormonal and surgical “re-assignment” treatments. Her apposite comments are extracted, below:

 “With all mammals there are two sexes, and the human being is a mammal. There’s the one sex that produces the eggs, (and) has two X chromosomes. That is called female. And there’s the other one that produces the sperm, has one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. That’s called male. And when an egg unites with a sperm, a new being is created… Of course, with gender, the social sex, there is a range, while with biological sex there is only female or male. There are very ‘feminine’ men and very ‘masculine’ women, which has to do not only with cultural factors, but also with different hormone levels, among other things… There are people who want to change their sex, but they cannot. They remain XY or XX. The crucial thing is that the fact whether one has a Y-chromosome already affects the development of the embryo during pregnancy and of course also in the adolescent. Boys therefore have different sex characteristics than girls and this cannot be reversed. People retain their sex for life. Of course, it is possible through hormone administration that, for example, a girl who takes testosterone gets a deep voice and beard growth. But from this the girl will not grow testicles and will not produce sperm. And biological males also do not produce eggs and cannot bear children due to hormone doses. The problem with this arises when it comes to irreversible interventions. With the surgeries anyway. But also with the hormones you add something to the body that is not intended there. Hormones cause a great deal in the body – on a wide variety of levels, both physically and psychologically. To dose that properly and to take it all the time, I think is extraordinarily daring. The body can’t handle it well in the long run. Every hormone you take has side effects. Taking hormones is dangerous in principle.”

Pediatrician Michelle Cretella, MD, former President of the American College of Pediatricians, previously stated Nobel Laureate developmental biologist Nüsslein-Volhard’s biological axioms from the perspective of a clinician-scientist:

“Sex chromosome pairs ‘XY’ and ‘XX’ are genetic markers of sex, male and female, respectively. They are not genetic markers of a disordered body or birth defect. Human sexuality is binary by design with the purpose being the reproduction of our species. This principle is self-evident. Barring one of the rare disorders of sex development (DSD), no infant is “assigned” a sex at birth; rather birth sex declares itself anatomically in utero and is acknowledged at birth…The norm for human development is for one’s thoughts to align with physical reality, and for one’s gender identity to align with one’s biologic sex. People who identify as ‘feeling like the opposite sex’ or ‘somewhere in between’ do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.”

Ex-Communist and ex-Daily Worker editor, Louis Budenz, in 1954, described the “transmission belt method,” whereby Communist talking points and themes, as ordered then, for example, by American Communist leader Gus Hall, were soon, “being repeated by outstanding public figures, certain leading newspapers, and television and radio commentators.” Budenz, who returned to Catholicism, taught at Providence College, and spent his last years in Rhode Island, would have readily identified that dynamic in action, again, before, during, and in the aftermath of an event entitled, “What Your Kids Learn About Gender in School,” Monday, 9/19/22, at the Cranston Rhode Island Public Library. Event organizer Nicole Solas was sprayed with false and defamatory charges of “transphobia” by local “community transgender activists,” their political allies, and lazy, morally cretinous amplifiers in the Rhode Island media. Ms. Solas also received violent threats prior to the event which necessitated a large police presence.

I attended “What Your Kids Learn About Gender in School,” and witnessed the same sympathetic, informative presentation Erica Stanzi described so thoroughly.  Key medical data highlighted at the event can be found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM-5; p. 455), and a seminal peer-reviewed analysis by Dhejne and colleagues, published in the high-impact journal PLOS One. DSM-5 notes that gender dysphoria may persist from childhood into adolescence in as few as 12% of natal biological females, and 2% of natal biological males. Moreover, also per DSM-5, only 0.005% (1/20,000) of adult natal males, and 0.002% (1/50,000) of adult natal females, exhibit gender dysphoria.  Finally, Dhejne and colleagues conducted an average follow-up of over 10 years among all 324 sex-reassigned persons (191 male-to-females, 133 female-to-males) in Sweden, 1973–2003. Compared to controls of the same birth sex, the sex-reassigned persons experienced a ~19-fold increased death risk from suicide, as well as a 5-fold increased risk for suicide attempts.  The authors concludedwith understatement, that such surgery wasnot sufficient to remedy the high rates of morbidity and mortality found among transsexual persons.”

Negating biology, freedom, and human compassion and decency, transgender Marxist fanatics exploit gender dysphoria—their own, and that of hapless others—incessantly striving to forge a totalitarian “anti-capitalist” dystopia.

Woman Rejects Democrats After Being Told to Sign a Workplace “White People Are Racist” Contract

Woman Rejects Democrats After Being Told to Sign a Workplace “White People Are Racist” Contract



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

“The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes,” noted G.K. Chesterton ages ago. Well, for one Pennsylvania woman, they just made one mistake too many. In fact, says family attorney Nicole Levitt, it’s to the point where “political liberalism seems to have passed me by.”

At issue is that as part of employer-mandated “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) training, she was asked to sign a contract stating that “all white people are racist,” as Levitt put it in a July video. She refused and now has filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against her employer.

Levitt explained in a Sunday article that she was enthusiastic about joining her current company. She states that being a licensed professional counselor as well as a lawyer, she finds it fulfilling to work in family law, working with domestic violence victims; she says she has even done pro bono work in the field, and her current workplace allows her to indulge her passions.

Levitt doesn’t mention who her employer is, but she’s identified as an associate attorney at We Care Legal Services, PLLC at the entity’s website. However, Levitt states that her current employer is “based in Philadelphia” while We Care Legal lists offices only in Levittown and Doylestown in Bucks County (which does border Philadelphia). So it is possible, though perhaps unlikely, that We Care Legal is a former employer that has not sufficiently updated its website.

Levitt’s problems started after the 2020 death of drug-addled criminal George Floyd. Levitt states that most of her employer’s clients are non-white and that her workplace “organized meetings about it [the incident]; everyone was upset.” She continued:

This evolved into having what was later referred to as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) sessions, where we had affinity groups where staff were separated out into groups based on ethnicity, for example into a white group and a Black group. I was told that I had to attend a white affinity group meeting, but eventually, I was given permission to not attend, because I really didn’t agree with being separated by race.

… I felt it was very regressive. I felt that we didn’t need to listen to one group over another and split ourselves off into groups….

I found the approach of my organization to be very divisive and to be taking time away from our mission.

… I have always been adamantly opposed to racism. I joined the Racial Equity Committee at my job in 2020, but over time, I personally found the language used against white people to be very dehumanizing. I also discovered that there was to be a difference in stipends paid to members of the Racial Equity Audit Taskforce (“REAT”), where Black members of REAT would be paid more than their white counterparts. That seemed not only wrong, but illegal, a violation of US civil rights laws.

… And I was even asked to agree to a “Full Value Contract” shared over email that included a point saying we had to “Own that all white people are racist and that I am not the exception.”

It should be emphasized that Levitt is no conservative. Under the aforementioned July video, posted by the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values (JILV), it’s stated that she “is an active member of the Philadelphia Jewish community and is a founding volunteer of the [JILV].”

Levitt also states that she “used to be liberal” and is still “a more classic liberal,” but feels “politically homeless” with wokeness’ ascendancy and now doesn’t have affection for either major party.

But refusing to drink the Kool-Aid, deeply, was a problem. Levitt was told by her employer that if she didn’t want to attend the racially segregated “white affinity group,” she could instead meet with a DEI consultant. But while this was billed as a company effort to support her, it turned out to be an attempt at “re-education” in which her unacceptable thoughts were to be reformed.

Levitt also relates that the revisionist, anti-American, discredited 1619 Project was presented as truth at some of her company training sessions. Par for the course as well, Levitt says that by objecting to her workplace’s divisive program, she was accused of sowing division. Levitt relates her experiences in the JILV video above.

Levitt believes her employer’s “singling out [of] white people” and creation of a hostile work environment “is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.” She’s also not alone, as these woke anti-white policies have been embraced by workplaces, schools, colleges, and organizations nationwide.

Know that while Levitt has been alienated from the hard Left, she still hasn’t been red-pilled; in fact, she calls her employer’s trespasses “one of these cases where good intentions have gone very awry.”

And it’s not unusual to hear — though it was far more common decades back — that “liberals have good intentions” (with which they pave a road to Hell). But is this true?

Does it reflect good intentions when you tout “sanctuary cities” and condemn those opposed to illegal migration, but then avoid having migrants in your midst, as recently happened in Martha’s Vineyard, New York City, and Chicago?

Does it reflect good intentions when you advocate defunding the police, but then enjoy private security while non-white people you claim to champion must deal with the burgeoning crime?

Does it reflect good intentions when as in Dumbo, Brooklyn, leftists push diversity but then recoil when it’s introduced in their own schools, with one actually saying, “It’s more complicated when it’s about your own children”?

It’s easy being idealistic when you don’t have to live with your ideals. It’s easy being charitable when you outsource your charity. Why, with good intentions like that, who needs bad ones?



Kamala Harris Suggests Hurricane and Disaster Relief Should Be Based on Race


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' office asked Vice President Kamala Harris to clarify her comments about aid being distributed based on equity.

Ron DeSantis responds to Kamala Harris's 'equity' comments


Kamala’s Pernicious Plan for Hurricane Relief

Distribute relief based on race and class, not solely on the basis of need.


AOC, Omar, Tlaib Largely Mum On Iranian Women’s Struggle



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

What’s happening in Iran is the biggest women’s rights protest ever in the Islamic world. Yet the response from some of the leading feminists in the United States, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, has been strikingly muted. Each one has made what can be characterized at best as a tepid, pro forma response, one that contrasts sharply with their statements and actions during the Trump administration. It looks as if each one of these women regards Donald Trump as a far greater threat to women than the Islamic Republic of Iran is.

AOC tweeted on September 23: “Solidarity with the courageous women and allies in Iran protesting for their freedom. Mahsa Amini was senselessly murdered by the same patriarchal and autocratic forces repressing women the world over. The right to choose belongs to us all, from hijabs to reproductive care.” She also retweeted a tweet from Yassmin Abdel-Magid, a hijab-wearing Muslim writer in Australia: “To be (hijabi) or not be (hijabi) is the business of no state or man. Solidarity with women resisting patriarchal control, the world over.” Tlaib, meanwhile, retweeted AOC’s statement, and Omar retweeted Abdel-Magid’s. That’s it in terms of the public reactions of this trio to the uprising for women’s rights in Iran.

Neither AOC nor Abdel-Magid was going to come close to saying something about Islamic law, although that’s exactly what the protests in Iran are all about: women there don’t want to live under Islamic law anymore. But both are far too committed to the fictional concept of “Islamophobia,” and so they both made it all about patriarchy. That’s a much safer target for them, as patriarchy exists all over, not just in Iran, and not just among Muslims. So the very publicly practicing Muslims Omar and Tlaib could retweet their statements without fearing that they would be accused of criticizing Islam.

AOC also went further, equating the mullahs of Tehran with the pro-lifers in the United States. They’re “the same patriarchal and autocratic forces repressing women the world over,” daring to interfere with “the right to choose” in the fields of both “hijabs” and “reproductive care.” It’s a spectacular feat of illogic to equate a regime that is mowing down its own people in the streets with a Supreme Court decision that allows the individual states to determine whether to legalize or outlaw abortion, but that sort of incendiary rhetoric is how AOC keeps her rabid Left base ginned up with the requisite outrage that will drive these drug-addled slackers to the polls and to take other “social action.”

Related: No Matter What Happens in Iran, the Women Have Already Won

Yet AOC’s comparison, as you would expect, falls apart upon a moment’s thought. Pro-lifers, or at least the Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, are just like the Supreme Leader and his cohorts in the Islamic Republic. They’re both “patriarchal and autocratic forces,” you see. But from what ideological wellsprings does Iran’s patriarchal autocracy spring? AOC doesn’t dare get close to that question, for it is one of her most cherished dogmas that Islam is a religion of peace that has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism and Muslims are victims of “Islamophobia” who must accordingly be given special consideration and accommodation. And allowing restrictions on access to abortion in some localities is, as far as AOC is concerned, equivalent to shooting women to death for daring to uncover their heads? The mind reels.

This is the same Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who in October 2020 took umbrage at then-President Trump referring to her as AOC in one of his debates with Old Joe Biden. “I wonder,” she wrote at the time, “if Republicans understand how much they advertise their disrespect of women in debates when they consistently call women members of Congress by nicknames or first names while using titles & last names when referring to men of = stature. Women notice. It conveys a lot. AOC is a name given to me by [the] community & the people. Y’all can call me AOC.”

So the “community & the people,” i.e., Leftists, can call her AOC, but if Republicans do so, they “advertise their disrespect of women.” AOC didn’t even say that the mullahs were displaying any “disrespect of women.” You may recall Tlaib, meanwhile, back in 2016 screaming and yelling at a Trump rally until she had to be escorted out. Has she ever gotten so enraged and emotional at the mullahs? Not publicly and likely not privately, either. For her part, Ilhan Omar claimed that Trump’s criticism of her was an attack on all women. Has she said that the murder of Mahsa Amini was an attack on all women? No.

Do Omar, Tlaib, and AOC just want the Iran protests to go away because Iran’s repressive and bloodthirsty regime interferes with their “Islamophobia” narrative? Sure looks like it.

Woke Trans Madness Targeting Religious Freedom but Faithful Are Fighting Back in Court



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Michigan Physician Assistant Valerie Kloosterman was exercising her First Amendment right to practice and express her faith when she requested a religious accommodation to her employer’s requirement that she use “gender-identity-based pronouns” and participate in or refer patients for “gender-dysphoria-related surgeries and drugs.”

In an 11-page, single-spaced Sept. 27, 2022, letter to officials with the University of Michigan Health and University of Michigan Health – West, attorneys with First Liberty Institute told the health system that it should reinstate Kloosterman to her position and “assure her that, going forward, it will fulfill its legal obligations to respect its employees’ religious consciences.”

Firing Kloosterman violated the First Amendment, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and various Michigan statutes, according to Michael Berry, senior counsel for the Plano, Texas-based public interest law firm that specializes in defending religious freedoms.

The letter noted that “before firing Ms. Kloosterman, Michigan Health blatantly denigrated her religious beliefs, attempted to compel her to speak against her conscience and make referrals for medical services that violate her conscience, discriminated against her for her religious beliefs, and refused to reasonably accommodate her religious beliefs.”

Those actions were carried out against a 17-year employee who had consistently received superlative performance reviews, including one in which her supervisor observed that “Valerie goes way beyond the call of duty when dealing with patients, follow up and professional responsibility. She is very ethical [and] responsible and treats all with respect.”

Jordan Pratt, also a senior counsel with First Liberty, observed in a statement regarding the Kloosterman firing that health care professionals should never have to choose between practicing their faith and keeping their jobs.

It’s bad medicine to force religious health care professionals to choose between their faith and their job. Valerie provides excellent medical care for every patient, but she cannot in good conscience refer patients for experimental drugs and procedures that violate both her religious convictions and her medical judgment. Nor can she use biology-obscuring pronouns that violate her religious beliefs and could cause patients to miss potentially life-saving screenings. It is intolerant of Michigan Health to demand that medical professionals like Valerie abandon their religious beliefs and their medical ethics in order to remain employed.

At the center of this controversy is Kloosterman’s strong, principled religious faith, which is precisely what the Founders intended to be protected by the First Amendment. It would be no different if Kloosterman was an atheist and had been fired for refusing to participate in compulsory prayers or Bible studies as a condition of employment.

Berry made clear in the letter the vital role Kloosterman’s faith plays in her life and her life’s work:

Ms. Kloosterman is a Christian and longtime member of a United Reformed Church. She believes that God created humankind male and female, that one’s sex is ordained by God, that one should love and care for the body that God gave him or her, and that one should not attempt to erase or alter his or her sex, especially through drugs or surgical means.

She believes that she must not speak against these truths by using pronouns that contradict a person’s biological sex. As a Christian, she also believes that God has ordained the sexual function for procreation, that children are a gift from God, and that—absent compelling reasons—one should not sterilize oneself. Moreover, as a Christian medical professional, she believes that it would be sinful to assist a patient in procuring sterilizing drugs or surgical procedures designed to erase or alter his or her sex.

In her medical judgment, according to the letter, she views “hormone therapy” and “gender reassignment surgery” as experimental procedures that thus far lack credible validation in peer-reviewed, long-term studies. She also believes such procedures result in damaging side effects, including bone density loss, infection, nerve damage, chronic pain, loss of sexual and urinary functions, psychological trauma, and other serious complications.

Kloosterman asks only to be reinstated and assured of her ability to continue providing medical care to all who need it and come to her. If the University of Michigan Health refuses to do so, this case will almost certainly end up in federal court, where it is difficult to see any outcome short of the justice she seeks.

Let it also be noted here that woke trans madness includes a dangerous intolerance that cannot abide individual freedom of choice and reflection was made clear during Kloosterman’s lengthy attempt to obtain a religious accommodation by Thomas Pierce, program director for the Department of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), who insisted that she use the mandatory language and prescriptions.

When she respectfully indicated that she could not do so because of her religious beliefs and because of her independent medical judgment, but that she would use patients’ names in place of pronouns to respect their wishes, Thomas Pierce grew hostile, visibly angry with tight fists and a flushed demeanor, and attacked her religious beliefs.

Among other things, he told Ms. Kloosterman that she could not take the Bible or her religious beliefs to work with her, either literally or figuratively; that given her religious beliefs against gender identity based pronouns and “gender reassignment surgery,” she was to blame for transgender suicides; and that she was “evil” and abusing her power as a health care provider.

Clearly, diversity, equity, and inclusion do not include men and women of faith for ideological obsessives who have no qualms whatever about using every power at their disposal to force the rest of us to think and act as they do.

They are, in short, the enemies of freedom and human creativity.

James Madison’s Home to Become Site of Massive White Guilt Monument



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

“We want to make this a national monument to the ‘Invisible Founders,’” said the Rev. Larry Walker, a trustee at Montpelier, the home of James Madison, father of the Constitution, in announcing plans to build a national slavery monument right on the grounds of Madison’s home. The Montpelier board is planning on a massive scale: “Our memorialization project is not going to be limited to a bench and a plaque,” Walker declared, as the board compared the projected monument to the Lincoln Memorial. If this thing is built, future visitors to Montpelier will come away with one overwhelming message: James Madison was an evil man who enslaved other human beings.

Board chairman James French showed the photo of the Lincoln Memorial in order “to illustrate…our desire to create a national monument for the legacy of those who were enslaved.” Montpelier CEO Elizabeth Chew said that the plan for a national slavery monument was one of “big future projects” planned for Montpelier. The board announced its big monument plans on Sept. 17 at a little-noticed panel session (the video of the session has all of 91 views as of this writing), “Equal Power-Sharing at Montpelier,” at the mansion’s David M. Rubenstein Visitor Center. The New York Post has noted that David M. Rubenstein, who got the visitor center named after himself by donating millions to Montpelier, is “on the boards of the globalist World Economic Forum, China’s Tsinghua University, and the Council on Foreign Relations, among others.” What a surprise!

Larry Walker explained, according to a Saturday report in the New York Post, that he believed that slaves “deserve equal credit for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because their labor financed the private lives of Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and many of the nation’s early leaders.” Why choose Madison’s home for the slavery monument when others among the Founding Fathers also owned slaves? Apparently, because he was unrepentant: “Madison owned 38 enslaved African Americans when he died in 1836 — and unlike George Washington, freed none of them in his will.” Nor did Madison denounce slavery even while owning slaves, as did Jefferson. Walker asserted: “The home of the Constitution should be the place that recognizes the contributions of descendants of the enslaved communities across America.”

Before wokeness took over Montpelier and the rest of the Western world, it was generally understood that human beings were complex and that a man could be heroic in one way even while having blind spots and weaknesses. Madison was much more than just a slaveowner, and according to the Post, “critics and historians say such a memorial would upend the fourth president’s legacy and become the center of attention at his own home.” Oh yes indeed. Historian Douglas MacKinnon declared: “These people are doing what any totalitarian regime would do. They want to create a whole new narrative not based on reality. As they say, the victor gets to write the history — and now our history is being rewritten before our eyes.”

Related: Not Just Jefferson: Now James Madison’s Home Gets an Anti-American Makeover

That’s right. The woke have won the culture, or want us to believe that they have, and so they’re recasting American history as one of racism, white supremacy, colonialism, and other assorted evils. MacKinnon added: “A monument honoring America’s slaves is a worthy goal. But the only reason to build it at the home of James Madison is if you aim to deny, demean, and dismiss him by focusing on his weaknesses and not his massive contributions.”

That’s exactly what the Montpelier board wants to do. The Left hates James Madison, as well as Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers, for exactly the same things that make him great and worthy to be celebrated: Because he fought against tyranny. Because he helped create a free republic. Because he placed statements in those founding documents that would ultimately lead multitudes of the citizens of the new nation to believe that slavery was wrong and immoral and give their lives to bring about its abolition.

Madison is just the sort of man whom the fascist thugs of Antifa, busy smearing ACAB on the sides of buildings and hurling obscenities at police in pursuit of their vision of socialist utopia, and their moneyed backers despise and fear. They want Americans to hate America and the Constitution, so that they won’t defend either, and will submit meekly to their authoritarian vision. The example of James Madison could inspire Americans instead to work to save the free republic he did so much to leave for us. Can’t have that. Madison’s name must be made anathema to Americans. That’s the point of this national slavery monument at Montpelier.

1 2 3 13