Two cases that underscore facts inconvenient to the Socialists


On the same day as the Rittenhouse verdict, another case validated the citizens’ right of self defense

The Western Journal reported on a second case that affirms America’s Second Amendment.

When application of the law is based upon reason instead of emotion, truth prevails.

AndrewCoffeeAndrew Coffee IV, a black man, was acquitted of murder by way of self-defense, as reported by WPBF-TV.  On the same day, Kyle Rittenhouse was cleared of murder charges by reason of self-defense.

I mention that Coffee was black only because many have been asking what might have happened in the Rittenhouse trial if the defendant was black. The question is usually asked by those who maintain that the U.S. justice system is systematically racist and therefore unjust.

“If Black Kyle Rittenhouse had shown up at an anti-vax rally with a weapon and the crowd chased him down and he shot two people dead, what would have happened? One, he probably would have been shot dead by police or bystanders, and two, he likely would have been portrayed as a thug and convicted in front of an all-white jury,” journalist David Greenwald claimed.

In another reaction, Democratic Rep. Cori Bush goes so far as to claim the judge, jury and defendant are white supremacists.

Bush wasn’t alone in her irrational response to the verdict. A slew of other leftists lashed out at at the verdict as well, as reported by Townhall.

Some of the claims were blatantly false. New York City Mayor Bill di Blasio claimed Rittenhouse had transported a gun across state lines.

The Coffee case just isn’t getting the same fanfare. Leftists are pretty quiet on that front.

Coffee was found not guilty of the murder of his girlfriend Alteria Woods and the attempted murder of Florida Indian River County sheriff deputies during an early morning drug raid in 2017.

Coffee’s defense claimed the defendant was asleep and thought a flash-bang set off by deputies was gunfire. Coffee claimed he fired his gun because he believed he was under attack.

“I was trying to protect me and Alteria,” Coffee said, according to WPBF.  “I thought I was doing that, but I feel I didn’t protect her. I can’t sleep with that … They killed her.”

The prosecution maintained that the deputies announced they were there and Coffee shot at them before they returned fire.

The jury, after deliberating over the evidence, including Coffee’s testimony, found the defendant not guilty on the murder charges. They did find him guilty of a felon in possession of a firearm for which Coffee faces up to 30 years in prison.

(Read more at Western Journal)

The one advantage that Rittenhouse may have had over Coffee may have been alternative journalist coverage of the Kenosha riots

Although I admit that journalists cannot cover every angle of every drug raid, I also must admit that the additional video available to show that Rittenhouse was defending himself from aggressors (one child rapist, one attacker who hit him with a skateboard, and one felon armed with a handgun pointed at Kyle’s head) and that did much to prove his case. Were it not for new-generation journalists like Andy Gno, Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene), and others, the case of Kyle Rittenhouse would have been hard to defend against the lies of the defense.

Still, with the eyewitness testimony and the corroborating video evidence, Rittenhouse went against the socialist narrative and proved that he was merely defending himself. Likewise, Coffee (although he earned a 30-year sentence for being a felon in possession of a gun) likewise proved that he did not deserve to be charged with multiple cases of murder when he was defending himself and his girlfriend.

Rittenhouse: the primary case

Ten heinous lies about Kyle Rittenhouse debunked

In a 22 17 November 2021 article, Miranda Devine of the New York Post outlined ten lies that worked to undermine the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.

The table below provides a link (on the left) to one example of each of the lies cited and the lie identified by Ms. Devine and the first one or two sentences of her explanation. For greater detail, go to the article by Miranda Devine of the New York Post.

Media Lie The truth
  1. He killed two black BLM protesters.
All three of the men he shot in self-defense during violent riots in Kenosha on Aug. 25 last year were white.
  1. He crossed state lines.
He lived 20 miles from Kenosha in Antioch, Ill., with his mother and sisters. But his father, grandmother, aunt, uncle, cousins and best friend live in Kenosha.
  1. Rittenhouse took an AR-15 across state lines.
His rifle was kept in a safe at his best friend’s stepfather’s house in Kenosha.
  1. The gun was illegal.
Under Wisconsin law, he was entitled to possess the AR-15 as a 17-year-old.
  1. Rittenhouse’s mother drove him across state lines to the riot.
Wendy Rittenhouse, 46, never went to Kenosha (on 25 August 2020).
  1. He was an “active shooter” who took his gun to a riot looking for trouble.
(Refer to the article for the complete lie and defense against this lie — it is too long.)
  1. Rittenhouse is a “white supremacist,” as then-candidate Joe Biden labeled him in a tweet showing the teenager’s photograph.
The FBI scoured Kyle’s phone and found nothing about white supremacy or militias, the court heard.
  1. He “flashed white power signs” with Proud Boys.
After spending three months in jail, Kyle was freed on $2 million bail two days after his 18th birthday last year, and went to a bar for a beer, with his mother and other adults, which is legal in Wisconsin. He posed for selfies with strangers at the bar, who the media say are Proud Boys, and was pictured making the OK sign with his thumb and forefinger.
  1. He wore surgical gloves “to cover his fingerprints.”
Kyle wore gloves because he was giving first aid to protesters.
  1. Judge Bruce Schroeder is a “Trumpy” racist biased toward the defense.
This slur is based on the fact he would not let the prosecution use the term “victim” — common practice when the jury has not ruled on a case.

Of course, the reason that socialists like Cori Bush took after Kyle Rittenhouse is that totalitarians cannot have you defending yourself

The reason that AOC, Cori Bush, Joe Scarborough and multiple socialist-supporting members of the political class and media class go after people like Rittenhouse comes from the fact that they cannot allow you to see that you can defend yourself.

For a similar reason, Biden does not allow “migrants” from Venezuela and Cuba to come to America. They know that socialism kills a nation and must be defeated.


Are Democrat journalists now killing top Democrats or just saving their own journalistic reputations?


Are Democrat journalists now killing Kamala?

“Bitterness,” “irritation:” CNN publishes mother of all Kamala Harris exposés

This 15 November 2021 article in the left-leaning Houston Comical Chronicle might signal that the Democrats finally recognize their need to sever ties from socialists (or just dead weight).

KamalaIt’s been clear for some time that there’s something going on between the offices of Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden given the unending leaks coming from the White House regarding Harris’ job performance.

On Sunday, CNN published the largest behind-the-scenes exposé on Harris’ time as vice president thus far, featuring interviews with “nearly three dozen former and current Harris aides, administration officials, Democratic operatives, donors and outside advisers.”

According to CNN, there is a growing “bitterness” between the respective teams of Biden and Harris, and “the situation has become a back and forth of irritations” over a great many things. CNN’s sources argued that Harris’ team believes Biden’s hasn’t provided enough support while giving her tasks that put her in “no-win political situation[s]” that will “only sandbag her in the future,” while Biden’s team believes many of Harris’ issues are of her own making.

The quintessential example of this dynamic at play is the White House putting Harris in charge of the administration’s handling of the southern border crisis. CNN reported that Harris herself told Biden staffers that she “didn’t want to be assigned to manage the border,” but got stuck with it nonetheless. Biden’s team has reportedly been annoyed with her at-times flippant attitude towards the task, best exemplified through her now-infamous interview with NBC’s Lester Holt in which she laughed off questions.

The CNN report also touches on the alleged toxic workplace environment in Harris’ office and her reliance on her sister Maya, two issues that have been widely reported on since Harris attempted to run for president in the 2020 Democratic primaries. Something new in the CNN report is a growing “suspicion” from Harris’ team over the Biden team’s treatment of Harris and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg — a reported 2024 rival for Harris if Biden does not run again.

(Read how Kamala has expressed envy of the fawning praise of Buttigieg at the Houston Chronicle)

Certainly liberal media could have ignored this, just as they ignore most embarrassing things coming out of the Biden regime

The liberal press, headed by organizations like CNN, could have ignored this bit of twittering between politicos. They could have deep-sixed this (just as they did the story on Joe’s flatulence in front of the future queen). 

Politico quietly throws Biden’s FBI under the bus

Politico: FBI O’Keefe raid “sparks questions about press freedom”

Breitbart explains how Politico has now started covering for themselves by pretending to care about the FBI raiding an investigative reporter. Never mind that O’Keefe’s Project Veritas reported to law enforcement that it had come into possession of what seemed to be the Biden diary. Never mind that the diary then went from Project Veritas to the New York Times.

Politico published the first article in an establishment media publication on Saturday questioning the legitimacy of the FBI’s recent raid on the home of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and warning that it could be a “threat to press freedom.”

The raid took place last Saturday at O’Keefe’s home in New York, and ostensibly involved a search for clues about a stolen diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley, which Project Veritas says it obtained legally and which it did not use in any media coverage, turning it over to law enforcement last year instead.

Politico‘s Josh Gerstein wrote:

The Biden administration’s effort to establish itself as a committed champion of press freedom is facing new doubts because of the Justice Department’s aggressive legal tactics against a conservative provocateur known for his hidden-camera video stings.

A predawn FBI raid last weekend against Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and similar raids on some of his associates are prompting alarm from some First Amendment advocates, who contend that prosecutors appear to have run roughshod over Justice Department media policies and a federal law protecting journalists.


“This is just beyond belief,” said University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley, a former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “I’m not a big fan of Project Veritas, but this is just over the top. I hope they get a serious reprimand from the court because I think this is just wrong.”


At the center of the gathering legal storm is a pivotal question: Is O’Keefe a journalist in the eyes of the law?


Lawyers tracking the case say the publicly available facts suggest two possibilities: the Justice Department deemed O’Keefe did not qualify as a journalist under DOJ guidelines and federal law known as the Privacy Protection Act, or concluded that he was a member of the media, but that Project Veritas’ personnel may still have committed a crime.

Read the full Politico article here. The Privacy Protection Act is described here.

In recent years, leading Democrats have proposed clamping down on the independent press by declaring that the government should be able to define who is, and who is not, a “journalist” for the purposes of press freedom.

In his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Merrick Garland promised not to allow the Department of Justice to become politicized — a commitment that has been questioned in recent weeks.

(Read about the files leaked to the NYT wits at Breitbart)

Admittedly, Politico did this under the cover of night (and nobody else in the press is mentioning it)

This mention by Politico is little more than a cover-the-rear-of-the-main-stream-press move.

Don’t expect CNN to spend years harping on the inequity of having the FBI invade an investigative reporting organization and transfer the findings from that organization to one of its chief rivals. Obviously, this is not a Russian collusion hoax.

Don’t expect CBS to comment on the problem to the Constitutional government where the press plays footsie with the occupier of the Oval Office. However, this doesn’t involve lying to destroy a Republican.

While the real jokes are the Democrats, here are some cartoons

Another solution plugged (and Democrats think Plugs would know)


Biden’s new sieve


Hillary riding the bear


Liberal hypocrite media has the vapors


Not the bean ball they expected


Overreach (get ’em, Fido)


Psaki going swimmingly


Camilla won’t pull Biden’s finger


Race and only race


You think that’s expensive …



Now that we have one Biden bill, look at the bigger brother in the BBB 2.0


Biden bill would give local news outlets “shot in the arm”

The Washington Times points out how the $1.85 trillion will cost you much more for the sake of the local news.

LocalNewsReportingPresident Joe Biden’s $1.85 trillion social spending bill includes a provision that, if it becomes law, would mark the first time the federal government has offered targeted support in response to the decline of local news.

The help would come in the form of a payroll tax credit for companies that employ eligible local journalists. The measure would allow newspapers, digital news outlets and radio and television stations to claim a tax credit of $25,000 the first year and $15,000 the next four years for up to 1,500 journalists.

It’s a response to growing alarm that the elimination of newsroom jobs is leaving communities without access to critical information. The concern has grown since a hedge fund with a reputation of ruthless cost-cutting acquired Tribune, one of the nation’s largest newspaper chains, in May. Already, about one-fourth of the country’s newspapers have closed and half of local journalism jobs have evaporated in the past 15 years, according to research from the University of North Carolina.

That leaves about 1,800 communities with no local newspaper.

But the credit, which would cost $1.67 billion over the next five years, does create some tension for the industry. Some top Republicans in Congress have derided it as a handout. Leading journalists also acknowledge that it’s awkward to receive financial assistance from a government they cover independently.

Still, given the sense of crisis the industry is facing, many journalists say the risk is worth it.

“This is only a reluctant response to this fear of the collapse of local news and their business models,” said Steven Waldman, president and co-founder of Report for America, an organization that places journalists in local newsrooms, including The Associated Press. “Most journalists start off with a healthy skepticism about the government getting involved and helping journalism. And that’s appropriate.”

“But,” he added, “the reason why this is happening now is just the severity of the crisis.”

Government support for media, in ways direct and indirect, is not new. It goes back to the earliest days of the country when Congress subsidized periodicals’ postal rates. More recently, a pandemic-era small business loan program provided millions to news organizations.

(Read how over a dozen idiot Republicans support this issue at the Washington Times)

This will only put a nail in the coffin of journalism and will build up Democrat propaganda

This will remove the incentive for investigation beyond what the Democrats require. Additionally, this will remove the incentive for small town reporters to distinguish themselves as strong-on-the-facts reporters. Rather, they will focus on the talking points of the regime, as April Ryan recently twisted a phrase to support a yet-unknown policy of Mayor Pete’s and Dementia Joe’s.

If this portion of the bill remains in place, we can expect the trend of liberalization in the national media to accelerate in the local media. Rather than reporting the evident truth, we will likely find our local media proclaiming “mostly peaceful riots” with bonfires burning in businesses behind them. Instead of waiting on the facts about a case, they will proclaim a defendant either sainted or guilty (based on their skin color or political affiliation and not on their acts).

Good news: the Senate has a little sanity

At least five Republican senators will not vote for the BBB 2.0 without border wall funding

Townhall comments on the five Republican senators who will not vote for Biden’s second inflation-spurring enterprise with a $1.85 trillion beginning bill.

Five Republicans senators are vowing not to support any spending bill that does not include funding to address the immigration crisis at the southern border, specifically highlighting the border wall’s lack of sufficient funds.

GOP Sens. Mike Braun (IN), Marco Rubio (FL), Mike Lee (UT), Cynthia Lummis (WY), and Ted Cruz (TX) are sending a letter to their Senate colleagues Monday that says the Senate Appropriations Committee’s funding proposals “fail to provide America’s border agents with the proper security infrastructure necessary to defend America’s southern border from the continued crisis of unrestrained illegal migration.”

“The failure to provide sufficient resources is a continuation of the Biden-Harris Administration’s inability and unwillingness to acknowledge the humanitarian and national security risks created by its open-border policies,” the letter reads, according to Fox News. “We write to indicate that we will withhold support of any negotiated Fiscal Year 2022 omnibus funding agreement that fails to appropriately fund our nation’s border security.”

The U.S. has faced an ongoing surge in border crossings this year. In Fiscal Year 2021, there have been more than 1.7 million migrant encounters, including more than 192,000 in September alone. 

Republicans have attributed this immigration crisis to President Joe Biden’s reversal of a number of Trump-era policies. These rolled-back policies included a Biden executive order that stopped border wall construction, which had more than 450 miles built during the Trump administration.

The letter points out that border wall funding was also left out of Democratic appropriation bills. The Homeland Security appropriation bill reallocated nearly $2 billion in funds for the wall, which will now be used for other border security operations. The bill will now only use $14.5 billion in funding for Customs and Border Protection, a $500 million dip from the Fiscal Year 2021 request.

(Read more of the issue at Townhall)

This reminds me of a key Bible verse

Since I know Senator Ted Cruz to have given a Christian witness and I trust lawmakers who — even when confronted by an adversarial press — seem to keep the best interests of the people in mind (and since I have experienced the adverse actions of the Biden regime), the following verse comes to mind:

When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan. (Proverbs 29:2 NASB)


How raw is the deal that Biden will sign today? Details of Biden’s $1.2 trillion “Build back better” plan


“Build Back Better” to hike taxes on some middle-class families while giving some wealthy people a massive tax cut

The Washington Examiner exposes a little of the workings of the smaller plan that Biden is pushing (pushing us further into debt and inflation). (Emphasis in bolding is mine.)

MillionaireHouseMost millionaires would receive a tax cut from the Democrats’ “Build Back Better” bill, and many middle-class taxpayers would see a tax increase.

That last point is politically salient. President Joe Biden absolutely positively 100% swore and promised he would not hike taxes by a penny on a single middle-class taxpayer.

Phil Klein at National Review spells it out. Citing a Tax Policy Center study, which concludes “roughly 20 percent to 30 percent of middle-income households would pay more in taxes in 2022,” Klein quotes Biden, who said:

“Here’s the deal: I pay for every single thing I’m proposing without raising your taxes one penny. If you make less than 400-grand you’re not going to get a penny tax.”

Meanwhile, most millionaires would get a tax cut from this bill, thanks to the expansion of the special deduction for state and local taxes — a tax break that almost entirely benefits very high-income people. On net, millionaires would pay more because one-third of millionaires would see tax hikes that drown out the tax cuts that most millionaires get.

But here’s the most interesting math, in my mind, via the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget: “A household making $1 million per year will receive ten times as much from SALT cap relief as a middle-class family will receive from the child tax credit expansion.”

This tells you where the Democrats’ priorities are.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Odd how Democrats don’t see credits for expensive e-cars as perks for the rich

The Democrats continually have claimed this law has no perks for the rich. However, when you point out that there are tax breaks for buying high-end e-cars (the cheapest of which is double the price of a comparably-sized gasoline-driven model), their argument falls apart. When you point out that the tax breaks for state and local taxes lean toward those who own estates (and do nothing for the guy renting an apartment), they don’t want to talk about it.


Biden’s “BBB-BS plan” deconstructed by Republican congressman

Fox News reports on Rep. Carlos Gimenez’s deconstruction of the “Build Back Better-BS” plan.

Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., outlined the full extent of the possible consequences of inflation and President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda Saturday on ‘Fox News Live.”

REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ, R-FLA.: I think it’ll affect the midterms big time. It’s always pocketbook issues are what [drive] elections and pocketbook issues will drive the midterms, too. And the inflation rate is at a…30-year all-time high. And…it just continues to go up and up and up. More people may be getting more money in their paychecks, but it’s all being gobbled up by higher gas prices. Food, eggs, milk, everything you’re buying is going to be more expensive.


All of that has the effect of inflation raising prices. And when you dump trillions of dollars into the economy, what do you think is going to happen? You know, that’s Economics 101. The value of the dollar will go down. The price of everything is going to go up. It’s going to hurt the poor. It’s going to hurt the middle class. And it’s going to hurt seniors who are on fixed incomes the most. So yeah, I think it’s going to hurt [Democrats] in the midterms. 


[The furthest-left Democrats]…voted against [the bipartisan infrastructure bill] because they really want the BBB…plan, which for me is the BBB-BS plan. …[T]he BBB plan says that [Democrats] [a]re going to create two million jobs except that the Wharton School of Business says it’s actually going to cost 200,000 jobs, that they’re not going to tax anybody [earning] under $400,000 [annually]. And yet that study says that 80% of Americans will…see tax increases. We’re going to have 80,000 IRS agents coming to look at all of our checkbooks in our accounts so they can squeeze about $500 billion more out of you and me in taxes. And not just the rich, you, me and…our waiters, our waitresses, hospitality industry people. Those are the people they’re really going to go after. So no, it’s not the BBB, it’s the BBB-BS plan that they’ve got coming for us. 

(Read the whole article at Fox News)

I am not sure whether the inflation is Biden’s side-effect or plan

To be clear, I cannot read the mind of a demented old guy that often goes to ramble aimlessly. I can’t read anyone’s mind, much less his. Therefore, I cannot tell whether it is Biden’s bumbling (or the bumbling of the socialists who really run his regime) that has produced his inflation. I don’t know whether it is just that Biden has academics from Russia who have never done anything in the real world that are running America into the ground in such short order.

Likewise, I don’t know if this is all by plan. I don’t know if they plan to force us all to have to barely subsist on wages where it takes a million dollars to buy a loaf of bread all so that they think (there go those pie-in-the-sky academicians again) they can pay down the debt with “cheaper” dollars.

All I know is that it will not work out well for anyone who does not have billions of dollars flowing in from Ukraine, Russia, and China.


When Biden’s COVID oppression gets so bad that the Houston graffiti artists take note …

For years, I have driven under various socially-conscious messages on the downtown Houston railroad bridges

From the banal Remüv Hate and Be Someone, the Graffiti artists have now taken to an anti-authoritarian COVID-1984

HoustonFreewayGrafitti_COVID1984When oppression from the Democrat ruling class gets so oppressive that graffiti artists start drawing inferences between Biden’s regime and novel warning of the dangers of totalitarianism, then maybe something has caught on. If you have read the book, you know it warns of a world ruled by propaganda, Big Brother, and censorship.

And for anyone who doubts the judgement of the Houston graffiti artists, think of how

I have included a video of the bridge for those who don’t believe it until they see it in video.


On CRT, the education bureaucracy, and the FBI

First, a definition

A lesson on critical race theory

The Heritage Foundation details how critical race theory has become the new intolerance and must not be allowed to increase its grip on America.

(For the abbreviated version, read the red text below. For the “War and Peace” version, read to the next Heading 2. For the extreme intellectual masochists, comment below and maybe I can have a buddy quote some Tolstoy in Russian.)

Critical Race Theory (CRT) makes race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life—and do so with a degree of persistence that has helped CRT impact all of American life. CRT underpins identity politics, an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation riven by groups, each with specific claims on victimization. In entertainment, as well as the education and workforce sectors of society, CRT is well-established, driving decision-making according to skin color—not individual value and talent. As Critical Theory ideas become more familiar to the viewing public in everyday life, CRT’s intolerance becomes “normalized,” along with the idea of systemic racism for Americans, weakening public and private bonds that create trust and allow for civic engagement.

As its name should make abundantly clear, Critical Race Theory (CRT) is the child of Critical Theory (CT), or, to be more precise, its grandchild. Critical Theory is the immediate forebearer of Critical Legal Theory (CLT), and CLT begat CRT. As we discuss in this Backgrounder, however, there are strong thematic components linking CT, CLT, and CRT. Among these are:

  • The Marxist analysis of society made up of categories of oppressors and oppressed;
  • An unhealthy dollop of Nietzschean relativism, which means that language does not accord to an objective reality, but is the mere instrument of power dynamics;
  • The idea that the oppressed impede revolution when they adhere to the cultural beliefs of their oppressors—and must be put through re-education sessions;
  • The concomitant need to dismantle all societal norms through relentless criticism; and
  • The replacement of all systems of power and even the descriptions of those systems with a worldview that describes only oppressors and the oppressed.

Far from being merely esoteric academic exercises, these philosophies have real-life consequences.

CRT scholars likely cite CLT, not CT, as their genesis: “Critical race theory builds on the insights of two previous movements, critical legal studies and radical feminism,” wrote one of architects of CRT, Richard Delgado, with his wife, Jean Stefancic, in perhaps the most widely read primer on CRT, Critical Race Theory, An Introduction.1

Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2017), p. 5.

 Angela P. Harris—also a major early figure of CRT—agrees, though she attributes co-parentage to a different source. She said:

For me, Critical Race Theory (CRT) began in July of 1989, at the First Annual Workshop of Critical Race Theory at St. Benedict’s Center, Madison, Wisconsin. CRT looked like a promise: a theory that would link the methods of Critical Legal Studies [CLS] with the political commitments of “traditional civil rights scholarship” in a way that would revitalize scholarship on race and correct the deconstructive excesses of CLS.2

Angela P. Harris, “Foreword: The Jurisprudence of Reconstruction,” California Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 4. (July 1994), p. 741, (accessed December 3, 2020).

This strong political commitment is at the core of CRT. Americans should defend civil rights, and we should actively work to eliminate racism in the U.S. and anywhere it exists—but as we document in this Backgrounder, these noble aims are not the stated intentions of CRT’s founders. Harvard academic Derrick A. Bell, the recognized godfather of the CRT movement, does not mince words in one of the essays laying out the radical aims of the theory: “As I see it, critical race theory recognizes that revolutionizing a culture begins with the radical assessment of it.”3

Derrick A. Bell, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 1995, No. 4 (1995), p. 893, (accessed December 3, 2020).

Critical Race Theory shares these goals with both Critical Theory and Critical Legal Theory (or Critical Legal Studies).

This report offers the following:

  1. Gives a synopsis of these three related disciplines. This includes an explanation of how CRT specifically affects Americans today and a discussion of how CRT’s ideas support the concept of identity politics and blend the ideas of victimization, group identity, and political action together, leading to a divisive civic and political culture.
  2. Explains how the Black Lives Matter organizations built an aggressive political movement on CRT’s racially focused ideas—ideas apologists can use to justify violent riots.
  3. Discusses ways policymakers and educators are integrating CRT into K–12 instruction.
  4. Traces the roots of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in 2018 to a school policy dealing with student discipline that is being used by CRT advocates and researchers.
  5. Explains that the free speech crisis on college campuses today is the application of CRT’s and CT’s core tenets.
  6. Discusses CRT’s impact on the workplace and diversity trainings, some of which pressure employees to become activists or to discuss controversial topics in the workplace.
  7. Offers examples of how entertainers—actors, critics, and others—are using CRT’s ideas to influence decision-making in Hollywood.
  8. Provides policy recommendations that are aimed at restoring the concepts of judging people not by the color of their skin but by their conduct and the need to protect liberty so that everyone, regardless of ethnicity or background, has the opportunity to pursue the American Dream.

Critical Theory

The origins of Critical Theory can be traced to the 1937 manifesto of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, colloquially known as the Frankfurt School. One of the first examples of what has come to be called the Western Marxist schools of thought, the Institute modeled itself on the Moscow-based Marx-Engels Institute. Originally, the school’s official name was going to be the Institut fur Marxismus (Institute for Marxism), but, ever desirous of downplaying their Marxist roots, its founders thought it prudent to adopt a less provocative title, according to one of the best histories of the school’s work and of Critical Theory itself, The Dialectical Imagination, by Martin Jay.4

Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination (New York and Toronto: Little, Brown & Company, 1977), p. 20.

Critical Theory was, from the start, an unremitting attack on Western institutions and norms in order to tear them down. This attack was aimed only at the West. Even though the manifesto, titled Traditional and Critical Theory, was written at the height of Joseph Stalin’s purges, show trials, and famines, the school “maintained an almost complete official silence about events in the USSR,” according to Jay.5


The manifesto, written by the school’s second director, Max Horkheimer, claimed that traditional theory fetishized knowledge, seeing truth as empirical and universal. Critical theory, on the other hand, “held that man could not be objective and that there are no universal truths.”6

Mike Gonzalez, The Plot to Change America (New York: Encounter Books, 2020), p. 129.

This relativism was inherited from Friedrich Nietzsche and filtered through the dialectics of Georg Friedrich Hegel and his best-known disciple, Karl Marx. The Frankfurt School philosophers believed that “a true epistemology must end the fetish of knowledge as such, which as Nietzsche demonstrated, leads to abstract systematizing,” wrote Jay.7

Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, p. 69.

As for their Marxism, three years earlier, Horkheimer had let his true feelings for the Soviet state be known in a collection of short essays known as Dammerung (in German, both “dawn” and “twilight”). “He who has eyes for the meaningless injustice of the imperialist world, which in no way is to be explained by technical impotence, will regard the events in Russia as the progressive, painful attempt to overcome this injustice,” he wrote.8

Ibid., p. 19.

Critical Theory, and the Frankfurt School in general, were thus a renaissance of Hegelian thought and of the revolutions that had taken place as a result in 1848—repackaged for a now-industrialized Germany. “To trace the origins of Critical Theory to their true source would require an extensive analysis of the intellectual ferment of the 1840s, perhaps the most extraordinary decade in 19th century German intellectual history,” wrote Jay.9

Ibid., p. 41.

He adds, “It can be argued that the Frankfurt School was returning to the concerns of the Left Hegelians of the 1840s. Like that first generation of critical theorists, its members were interested in the integration of philosophy and social analysis.”10

Ibid., p. 42.

Critical Theory and Its Early Applications

In the context of the era, Critical Theory’s demolition of Western traditions and norms was nothing less than a tool to implement the counter-hegemony called for in the Theory of Cultural Hegemony enunciated in the first decades of the 20th Century by Antonio Gramsci. Marx and Friedrich Engels had promised constant revolution by the workers of the world, but by the early 1930s, few had succeeded. The founder of the Italian Communist Party, Gramsci had come to believe that the workers were not revolting and overthrowing the bourgeoisie because they had bought into the belief system of the ruling class—family, nation-state, the capitalist system, and God. What was needed was struggle sessions in which the revolutionary vanguard would teach the workers how to think. But first the norms needed to be torn down. That is where Critical Theory—and, as we will see, all its offshoots—come in.

Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt scholars left Germany to escape the Third Reich, fleeing first to Geneva, then to New York, where Columbia University allowed them to set up camp in 1935 at Teachers’ College. In the United States they developed the same disdain for the American worker that Gramsci had felt for his Italian counterpart. “They insist unwaveringly on the ideology by which they are enslaved,” Horkheimer wrote with another Frankfurt School scholar, Theodor Adorno, about the American worker.11

Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, Gunzelin Schmid Noerr, ed., Edmund Jephcott, trans. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), p. 106.

After the defeat of the Nazi regime, Horkheimer, Adorno, and the others were able to return to Germany. But they left behind Horkheimer’s assistant, Herbert Marcuse, who became one of the leading spokesmen of the New Left.

A witness to the upheavals caused by the riots and violence associated with the Civil Rights era and the anti–Vietnam War Movement, Marcuse discovered in them a new agent of change: minorities, of which more categories would need to be created. “Underneath the conservative popular base is the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other races and other colors,” Marcuse wrote. They would still need to be led ideologically—“their opposition is revolutionary even if their consciousness is not”—but the potential to stoke grievances among them was there in a way that did not exist with workers as a category.12

Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (Boston: Beacon Press, 1991), pp. 256–257.

Critical Legal Theory

It is at this point that Critical Legal Theory takes over. Its scholars self-consciously acknowledge their debt to Critical Theory and other Marxist movements that came before the Frankfurt School. “Although CLS has been largely contained within the United States, it was influenced to a great extent by European philosophers, such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, Max Horkheimer, Antonio Gramsci, and Michel Foucault,” reads the entry for CLT in the Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.13

Cornell Law School, “Critical Legal Theory,” (accessed December 3, 2020).

The Cornell entry for Critical Legal Studies explains:

Critical legal studies (CLS) is a theory which states that the law is necessarily intertwined with social issues, particularly stating that the law has inherent social biases. Proponents of CLS believe that the law supports the interests of those who create the law. As such, CLS states that the law supports a power dynamic which favors the historically privileged and disadvantages the historically underprivileged. CLS finds that the wealthy and the powerful use the law as an instrument for oppression in order to maintain their place in hierarchy.14


Then comes the kicker: “Many in the CLS movement want to overturn the hierarchical structures of modern society[,] and they focus on the law as a tool in achieving this goal.”

Just as with Critical Theory, Critical Legal Theory is, then, an instrument to overturn society for those who follow its tenets, this time from a legal perspective. The law, they argue, is simply the cultural hegemony codified in statutes and defended by a jurisprudence that aims to support the powerful against the claims of the marginalized. CLT proponents trace their founding to the first Conference on Critical Legal Studies, held at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1977. Among its main theorists figure Duncan Kennedy, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, and Robert W. Gordon.15

Duncan Kennedy and Karl E. Klare, “A Bibliography of Critical Legal Studies,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 94, No. 461 (1984), (accessed December 3, 2020).

In a 2002 essay, Kennedy acknowledges the debt Critical Legal Theory owes to both Marxism and post-modernism (championed by a mostly Parisian set of intellectuals who preached that texts could be “deconstructed” by the reader, a complicated philosophical concept that involves reinterpreting words to replace ideas based on objective physical existence), two separate critiques of bourgeois reality that nevertheless can rub uneasily against each other. “Critical legal studies,” he writes, “operates [sic] at the uneasy juncture of two distinct, sometimes complementary and sometimes conflicting enterprises, which I will call the left and the modernist/postmodernist projects.”16

Duncan Kennedy, excerpt of Left Legalism/Left Critique (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), (accessed December 3, 2020).

“Leftism aims to transform existing social structures on the basis of a critique of their injustice, and, specifically, at the injustices of racist, capitalist patriarchy. The goal is to replace the system, piece by piece or in medium- or large-sized blocs, with a better system,” writes Kennedy.17


Post-modernism is a much more complex phenomenon, but it aims at the same destruction of society as the Marxist project, starting with the use of reason itself. We can gain a sense of such complexity in Kennedy’s own abstruse writing on Modernism/Postmodernism (or MPM). He explains:

[MPM] is a critique of the characteristic forms of rightness of this same culture and aims at liberation from inner and outer experiences of constraint by reason, in the name, not of justice and a new system, but of the dialectic of system and anti-system, mediated by transgressive artifacts that paradoxically reaffirm the “higher” forms of the values they seem to traduce.18


Just as with Critical Theory, post-modernism borrows heavily from the Nietzschean attack on objectivity. Writes Kennedy:

For the [MPM] project, the demand for agreement and commitment on the basis of representation with the pretension to objectivity is an enemy. The specific enemies have been the central ethical/theoretical concepts of bourgeois culture, including God, the autonomous individual choosing self, conventional morality, the family, manhood and womanhood, the nation state, humanity.19


CLT scholars also display an awareness of the rising identity groups that Marcuse identified as the new revolutionary base. Kennedy quotes approvingly his fellow university professor Cornell West as asserting the existence of an

inchoate, scattered yet gathering progressive movement that is emerging across the American landscape. This gathering now lacks both the vital moral vocabulary and the focused leadership that can constitute and sustain it. Yet it will be rooted ultimately in current activities by people of color, by labor and ecological groups, by women, by homosexuals.20


Kennedy adds that “in the United States, by the end of the 1970s, with the rise of identity politics, left discourse merged with liberal discourse, and the two ideas of the rights of the oppressed and the constitutional validity of their legal claims superseded all earlier versions of rightness.”21


Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center’s entry on Critical Legal Theory neatly teases out the link between the legal analysis of power relations with the emerging identity-based politics. It writes that CLT scholars:

focused from the start on the ways that law contributed to illegitimate social hierarchies, producing domination of women by men, nonwhites by whites, and the poor by the wealthy. They claim that apparently neutral language and institutions, operated through law, mask relationships of power and control. The emphasis on individualism within the law similarly hides patterns of power relationships while making it more difficult to summon up a sense of community and human interconnection.”22

“Critical Legal Studies Movement,” (accessed December 3, 2020).

Critical Race Theory

From there it is a short step to Critical Race Theory. Unsurprisingly, given its name, CRT makes everything about race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life—and do so with a degree of persistence that has helped CRT impact all aspects of American life.

Derrick Bell, referenced above, the widely-acknowledged “godfather” of CRT, explains in the essay cited earlier that the work of CRT authors “is often disruptive because its commitment to anti-racism goes well beyond civil rights, integration, affirmative action, and other liberal measures.”23

Bell, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” p. 899.

 Bell quotes Angela P. Harris as explaining that CRT inherits from its Critical Legal Theory ancestor the commitment to dismantle all aspects of society through unremitting criticism—and at the same time eschews the wooly deconstructionist excesses of the postmodernists and adopts the practicality of the Civil Rights movement. Bell points to theorist and professor Charles Lawrence and says he “speaks for many critical race theory adherents when he disagrees with the notion that laws are or can be written from a neutral perspective.”24


 Because the law “systematically privileges subjects who are white,” CRT calls for a “transformative resistance strategy.”25

Ibid, p. 901–902.

CRT’s Theoretical Applications. Because CRT is so intent on real-life transformation, some aspects of post-modernism and its deconstructionism had to be jettisoned, or at least sidelined. Kimberle Crenshaw, the CRT scholar who first came up with the CRT term “intersectionality,” put the need to abandon the Parisian post-modernism best when she wrote:

While the descriptive project of postmodernism of questioning the ways in which meaning is socially constructed is generally sound, this critique sometimes misreads the meaning of social construction and distorts its political relevance…. But to say that a category such as race or gender is socially constructed is not to say that that category has no significance in our world. On the contrary, a large and continuing project for subordinated people—and indeed, one of the projects for which postmodern theories have been very helpful in thinking about—is the way power has clustered around certain categories and is exercised against others.26/p>

Kimberle Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review, Vol 43. No. 6 (July 1991), p. 1296, (accessed December 3, 2020).

In the end, the identity politics that CRT exists to implement was more important than salon revelries. Adherents can apply intersectionality, for example: Someone can claim to be oppressed in more than one way by citing association with more than one social group, or “axis.”27

Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Cynical Theories (London: Swift Press, 2020), p. 127.

 CRT writers Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge explain that with intersectionality, “people’s lives and the organization of power in a given society are better understood as being shaped not by a single axis of social division, be it race or gender or class, but by many axes that work together and influence each other.”28

Ibid., p. 127, and Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge, Intersectionality (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2018).

 In this way, write Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, CRT results in people looking for “power imbalances, bigotry, and biases that it assumes must be present,” which reduces everything to prejudice, “as understood under the power dynamics asserted by Theory.”29

Pluckrose and Lindsay, Cynical Theories, p. 128.

Of the three critical schools of thought analyzed here,30

There are others, such as “Lat-Crit” for Latinos, “Critical Pedagogy” for teachers, etc.

CRT is the least intellectually ethereal and the most explicitly political. Its use of story-telling—easy to understand fictional vignettes that seek to portray in every-day life terms the “systemic racism” that CRT scholars insist exists in America—is but one of the ways that CRT scholars seek to effect change.31

We discuss the use of such narratives in the section on K–12 schools infra.

 Abstraction is to be avoided because it “smuggles the privileged choice of the privileged to depersonify [sic] their claims and then pass them off as the universal authority and the universal good.”32

Bell, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” p. 901.

It is perhaps for this reason that CRT hardly ever identifies the Frankfurt School or its Critical Theory predecessor as an influence, only acknowledging a debt to Critical Legal Theory.33

Delgado mentions only Gramsci as a source that CRT draws from, and Gramsci was not a formal member of the school.

 CRT’s ceaseless assault on all American institutions and norms is pure Critical Theory, however. This assault includes the liberal order—in the classical sense, referring to Enlightenment ideas and political arrangements in which law protects individuals pursuing their own interests—something CRT scholars openly admit.

CRT and Classical Liberal Ideas

CRT’s proponents, writes Bell, “are highly suspicious of the liberal agenda, distrust its method, and want to retain what they see as a valuable strain of egalitarianism which may exist despite, and not because of, liberalism.”34

Ibid., p. 899.

 This is an important departure from the original goals of the Civil Rights movement, which sought to redeem America’s promise by calling for color-blind equality. “Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law,” acknowledges Delgado.35

Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, p. 3.

The radical egalitarianism obviously clashes with strong protections of property rights and any notion of equal protection under the law. These are not the only liberal rights to be thrown overboard. Freedom of speech is also in CRT’s sights. “Being committed to ‘free speech’ may seem like a neutral principle, but it is not. Thus, proclaiming that ‘I am committed equally to allowing free speech for the KKK and 2LiveCrew’ is a non-neutral value judgment, one that asserts that the freedom to say hateful things is more important than the freedom to be free from the victimization, stigma, and humiliation that free speech entails.”36

Bell, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” p. 902.

 Thus we arrive at today’s cancel culture.37

For more on this topic, see the section discussing free speech on campus infra.

Even the idea of rights itself—the very concept upon which this country was founded—is a target of CRT. “Crits are suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely, rights,” observes Delgado, using the informal abbreviation CRT writers sometimes employ to describe themselves. The “more radical CRT scholars with roots in racial realism and an economic view of history believe that moral and legal rights are apt to do the right holder much less good than we like to think…. Think how that system applauds affording everyone equality of opportunity but resists programs that assure equality of results.” Rights are “alienating. They separate people from each other—‘stay away, I’ve got my rights’—rather than encouraging to form close, respectful communities.”38

Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, pp. 28–29.

 The liberal principle that we universally derive these rights from a common humanity and human faculties we all share equally comes under the gun. Classical liberalism is “overly caught up in the search for universals,” writes Delgado. What CRT proponents want is “individualized treatment—‘context’—that pays attention to minorities’ lives.”39

Ibid., p. 65.

 “The concepts of rights is indeterminate, vague and disutile,” in Bell’s words.40

Bell, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” p. 900.

Legal and administrative neutrality, too, is an enemy because it gets in the way of uplifting such minority voices. Also—and this is a recurring theme with all critical schools, starting with Horkheimer, if not Nietzsche—neutrality is impossible to attain. On this point, Bell cites Lawrence again:

Charles Lawrence [a law professor] speaks for many critical race theory adherents when he disagrees with the notion that laws are or can be written from a neutral perspective. Lawrence asserts that such a neutral perspective does not, and cannot, exist—that we all speak from a particular point of view, from what he calls a ‘positioned perspective.’ The problem is that not all positioned perspectives are equally valued, equally heard, or equally included. From the perspective of critical race theory, some positions have historically been oppressed, distorted, ignored, silenced, destroyed, appropriated, commodified, and marginalized—and all of this, not accidentally.41

Ibid., p. 901.

CRT is purposely political and dispenses with the idea of rights because it blames all inequalities of outcome on what its adherents say is pervasive racism in the United States. “White supremacy,” a term that comes up repeatedly in CRT discourse and continues to be heavily used today by leaders of the Black Lives Matter organizations, must be smashed. White supremacy does not mean an actual belief in the superiority of white people, however. It can mean anything from classical philosophers to Enlightenment thinkers to the Industrial Revolution.

One of the most famous practitioners of CRT today, Robin DiAngelo, writes in her book, White Fragility:

White supremacy is a descriptive and useful term to capture the all-encompassing centrality and assumed superiority of people defined and perceived as white and the practices based on this assumption. White supremacy in this context does not refer to individual white people and their individual intentions or actions but to an overarching political, economic, and social system of domination. Again, racism is a structure, not an event. While hate groups that openly proclaim white superiority do exist and this term refers to them also, the popular consciousness solely associates white supremacy with these radical groups. This reductive definition obscures the reality of the larger system at work and prevents us from addressing this system.42

Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility (Boston: Beacon Press, 2018), p. 28.

“I hope to have made clear that white supremacy is something much more pervasive and subtle than the actions of explicit white nationalists. White supremacy describes the culture we live in,” DiAngelo writes.43

Ibid., pp. 28, 33.

 Its use is a very successful example of the Left’s use of strategic ambiguity in the pursuit of a rather large and ambitious goal. The target is a free-market system that rewards hard work, ability, and other virtuous traits. Other CRT terms that have specific and unique meanings when used by its practitioners are “equity,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “people of color.”44

See glossary infra.

 CRT speakers have also developed peculiar turns of phrase that are specific to the group; supporters are said to be “in allyship” or “in relationship.” The U.S. is said to be a “carceral state.”45

See, for example, “Angela Davis and BLM Co-Founder Alicia Garza in Conversation Across Generations,” Youtube, January 23, 2017, (accessed December 3, 2020). The exchange on “Democracy Now” was between Black Lives Matter leader Alicia Garza and former Communist Party USA member Angela Davis.

How Does Critical Race Theory Affect You?

Because of their strong political commitment to transforming the United States, CRT writers make clear that they do not intend for what happens on college campuses to stay on campus. “It is our hope that scholarly resistance will lay the groundwork for wide-scale resistance. We believe that standards and institutions created by and fortifying white power ought to be resisted,” writes Bell.46


On that score, we must pronounce CRT to have been a resounding success. CRT has broken out of the classroom and become the philosophy of wide-scale resistance. It is useful to identify a few of the ways with which it impacts the daily lives of Americans.

Identity Politics. CRT has become the academic body of work that underpins identity politics, an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation not of individuals and local communities united under common purposes, but as one riven by groups based on sex, race, national origin, or gender—each with specific claims on victimization. These identity categories correspond to Marcuse’s new revolutionary base (“the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other races and other colors”).47

Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society.

The identities are often artificial ones manufactured by government itself, examples being the Hispanic and Asian-American pan-ethnicities contrived in 1977 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or the 31 genders approved by the New York City Commission on Human Rights.48

Office of Management and Budget, “Directive No. 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Reporting Statistics and Administrative Reporting,” 1977,,administrative%20reporting%20and%20statistical%20activities (accessed December 3, 2020). See also New York City Commission on Human Rights, “Gender: Identity, Expression,” (accessed December 3, 2020).

 Under identity politics, America is no longer a country where the individual is the central agent in society, who, because of his very existence possesses individual rights. Instead, membership in the official categories becomes the identity that matters when it comes to rights (mostly positive rights, not natural ones), responsibilities, and everything else. Identity politics has become the new paradigm under which many Americans now operate. Victimhood is what commands attention, respect, and entitlements, seen as compensatory justice.

CRT emerged contemporaneously with the proliferation of these identity categories in America and became the philosophical tool to implement identity politics and the attempt to transform the United States. Race, Racism and American Law by Derrick Bell includes toward the end a chapter for “Racism and Other Nonwhites,” among whom he names for the United States the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Mexicans.49

Derrick Bell, Race, Racism and American Law (Philadelphia, PA: Aspen, 1972).

It was published in 1972, two years before the Census Bureau bureaucrats, under pressure from leftist activists, opened the first national racial and ethnic advisory committee.50

Mike Gonzalez, “The Divisive Consequences of the Census Bureau’s Advisory Committee on Race,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, August 16, 2018,

 Just three years later, these activists convinced the OMB to create the pan-ethnic categories.

The simultaneity was hardly coincidental: The activists who forced the bureaucracy to confect the identities also drank deeply from the well of European philosophies brought over after World War II. “The language of ‘dominant’ and ‘subservient,’ or ‘subordinate,’ groups, integral to Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School” pervaded the work of Julian Samora, the first founder of a Hispanic studies department at a major university, the first leader of La Raza [“The Race”] and a member of the Census Bureau’s first national advisory committee on race. Samora’s 1953 dissertation, titled “Minority Leadership in a Bi-Cultural Community,” quotes the German-born American social psychologist Kurt Lewin, who was associated with the Frankfurt School.51

Mike Gonzalez, The Plot to Change America (New York, NY: Encounter Books, 2020), p. 29.

CRT reshaped the identitarians’ thinking in new ways still and gave them newer terms to express these thoughts. Soon CRT was spawning Critical Latin Theory and other spinoffs that were identical in their approach—save for the “marginalized” subjects to be emphasized. Identity politics is difficult to challenge because it presents itself as a just demand for formerly marginalized people to claim attention and reward, but it seeks to collectivize American society; it is divisive, flouts constitutional equal protection, and represents a direct threat to republican self-rule. In all this it has found a handmaiden in CRT.

(Read about The Black Lives Matter Insurgency and more at The Heritage Foundation)

Critical Race Theory stands as the complete opposite of Martin Luther King Junior’s dream

Whereas Martin Luther King Junior had a dream of a nation where his children would be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, critical race theory depends solely on a person’s race to determine their worth and how laws should apply to that person.

While MLK’s dream requires the development of the better angels within people of society, while critical race theory depends on the enslaving influences of socialism.

If you don’t accept paying for it and having your kids force-fed it, the left will criminalize you

Tucker Carlson: The left will now use armed agents to enforce their radical ideology

Tucker Carlson of Fox News comments on how the left has recruited law enforcement and the FBI to enforce its radical agenda.

Remember when political debates were the highlight of the political year, like boxing matches, everyone would watch them. It doesn’t happen anymore. The ratings for the last presidential debates were terrible, and there’s a reason for that. They’re boring. Everything is scripted. You know what they’re going to say before they say it. But if you keep watching the lower tier, the debates lower on the fight card, sometimes you see something interesting and happens invariably by accident. But it reveals a lot about the country and the people who are trying to lead it. 

That just happened last month in Virginia during a governor’s debate. Terry McAuliffe was the governor of Virginia. He gravely damaged the state. He’s the career Clinton operative who you may remember from his many brushes with apparent indictment. The Washington Post is always telling you he was about to get indicted. He never was. Instead, he ran in Virginia, and he ran it into the ground, and now he wants to hurt it even more so he wants to be reelected. 

And at the debate last month, Terry McAuliffe announced what just kind of welled up within him, and he told us that parents no longer have a say in their own children’s education. The one that they pay for. Instead, Terry McAuliffe informed the state of Virginia, the government is in charge of your child, period. 

TERRY MCAULIFFE: I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach. I get really tired of everybody running down teachers. I love our teachers and what they’ve done through COVID, these are real heroes who deserve our respect.

He’s a hack, a liar and a demagogue, but ignore the second part of the sentence. “I don’t think parents have any right telling teachers what to teach.” Really? So parents don’t control their own kids. Do you have a right to tell the pediatrician what kind of medical treatment your kids should get? No. This is the new rule. The government makes all key decisions about your children. That’s not just true in the state of Virginia. It is now orthodoxy throughout the entire Democratic Party. And as of yesterday, this idea, unprecedented in the history of America, has the full backing of the Biden administration, in other words, of the entire federal government.

And if you disagree with that, if you’re one of those troglodytes who think you should have some say in what your children are taught in the schools that you pay for, you should know the Biden administration now views you as a domestic terrorist, and they are fully willing to used armed agents of the state to compel you to shut up. Joe Biden’s Justice Department has made that very, very clear. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland, remember, the moderate, soft-spoken, one to turn out to be not moderate at all, but a wild-eyed, radical crazy person – He’s now the attorney general. He issued a memorandum yesterday calling on the FBI to crack down on parents who complain about their school board. 

Now, keep in mind at this exact moment that Garland wrote that, we learned that murders in the United States since the advent of Black Lives Matter have gone up 30%. So that’s thousands more dead people. This is the attorney general, our chief law enforcement officer. He did not issue a memo about that. He issued instead a memo about people who are committing wrongthink. Garland directed, “federal, state, tribal, territorial and local law enforcement leaders to discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend.” This disturbing trend being parents complaining. 

“In the coming days,” Garland wrote, “The department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.” 

Criminal conduct. What does that consist of? Bombings, assaults? No, complaining. It is now criminal to disagree with your kid’s school. What have we learned from this? Well, among other things, we’ve learned the Biden administration no longer believes in the most basic precepts of liberal democracy. Among them, your freedom of speech should never be abridged, The government must convince you, not compel you almost always, and you and not the government is in charge of your children. 

(Read more at Fox News)

Never mind that the left has been letting real felons onto the streets for years

Never mind that a majority of violent, career criminals in Harris County get off with deferred adjudication or low-bail or no-bail bonds offered by either Democrat District Attorney Kim Ogg or allowed by a number Democrat social justice judges.

Regarding what the FBI will and will not address

FBI admits it doesn’t track leftist violence

Townhall notes in a 4 October 2021 article that the FBI recently admitted it does not track the Left-wing violence of BLM or Antifa.

During the misnamed “Summer of Love,” riots, looting, vandalism, and political violence was carried out by radical leftists under the (often literal) Antifa and Black Lives Matter banners. The violent leftists besieged federal property, private businesses, law enforcement, and private citizens with costly, deadly, and devastating outcomes.

Joe Biden and other Democrats turned a blind eye to the violence for political reasons in a stunning show of hypocritical double standards. In too many cases, Democrats even encouraged more leftist violence. As it turns out, the Federal Bureau of Investigation turned a blind eye to those carrying out the riots and looting too.

In a congressional hearing last week titled “Confronting Violent White Supremacy (Part VI): Examining the Biden Administration’s Counterterrorism Strategy,” FBI Assistant Director of Counterterrorism Timothy Langan said that the Bureau doesn’t consider Antifa to be an “organization,” and as such does not have specific information on the group’s activities. 

In response to a question about how much violence or domestic terrorism Antifa committed in recent years from Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), Langan had nothing to offer. 

“Under the anti-government category or subcategory of domestic terrorism — would that include groups like Antifa or Black Lives Matter, folks who commit violence or acts of domestic terrorism?” Mace asked.

“Well, we don’t identify groups but individuals’ actions,” Langan responded. “So if individuals are committing actions that would be in furtherance of anti-government or anarchist ideals then they would fall into that category.”

“So would you quantify Antifa as an anarchist group under then that subcategory?” Mace pressed. “I mean, it’s an anarchist group, right?”

“The director has previously described them as a ‘movement’ and there have been individuals that have associated or identified with Antifa that have conducted violent acts that we would categorize as anarchist,” was all that Langan could offer of the mere “movement” of Antifa. 

Mace continued, asking “how many acts of violence or domestic terrorism has Antifa committed over the last two years?”

Again, Langan has nothing to offer. “Since we don’t categorize Antifa, nor do we calculate or collate information regarding Antifa, that movement, we don’t have that,” said the senior FBI counterterrorism official. “But we can provide you information on anarchist threats and cases in general.”

(Read more at Townhall)

When you have a blind authoritarianism that would mandate shots (where those who refuse get fired) and then act surprised when job numbers suck, those in authority cannot see the common man

Joe Biden seems only to see the immediate effects of his last disaster. Therefore, he:

The crazy thing is that (while the press will not focus on it due to his Democrat party card) Joe seems to have manufactured each of these as a distraction from a previous failure. He opened the border only because of his incomplete campaign against Bernie and Trump. Every time a new crisis came up, he came up with a new topic to toss (which became its own crisis). This guy can’t get out of his own way.

FBI won’t condemn cop killers, but goes after parents

The Daily Wire reports on the words of Ted Cruz as he points out the FBI will not address cop killers and firebombers of cities while condemning concerned parents speaking before teachers and school boards.

On Wednesday, Texas GOP Senator Ted Cruz grilled Deputy Attorney General Kristen Clarke over the Biden Justice Department ordering the FBI to investigate alleged “threats” against school board members and teachers, a move that comes as parents have been voicing opposition to Critical Race Theory and mask mandates. At one point, Cruz bluntly asked, “Do you believe parents objecting to the teaching of Critical Race Theory have civil rights in the democratic process?” Clarke answered, “Uh, I don’t follow the question, senator.”

Later, Cruz asked if Clarke believed parents objecting at school boards were “domestic terrorists.” He then asked if she believed Antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters “who burned shops, who firebombed police cars, who murdered police officers” were domestic terrorists.

When Clarke evaded answering the question, Cruz fired, “Ms. Clarke, it is amazing that you are not willing to condemn people who are murdering police officers and firebombing cities because your politics aligns with them, but at the same time when it comes to parents at school boards, you’re perfectly comfortable with calling a mom at a PTA meeting a ‘domestic terrorist.’”

A memo issued by Attorney General Merrick Garland on Monday reads in part:

In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools. While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, the protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views. Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values. Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety.

Cruz began his questioning by remarking, “Ms. Clarke, when you testified before this committee and when Attorney General Garland testified before this committee, you both promised to be non-partisan and impartial. I’m sorry to say that I think neither of you has lived up to that promise.”

After citing the Biden administration’s dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit against Yale University, Cruz continued:

Just this week, after you were there, after Merrick Garland was there, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum to the FBI instructing them to mobilize against parents across the country. Parents of school kids who have the temerity to show up at school boards and express their opposition to the teaching of Critical Race Theory, a pernicious theory that divides us on racial lines, that tells children the lie that America is fundamentally racist, that America is irredeemably racist, that all white people are racist. It spreads racial division; many parents are, understandably, quite dismayed at schools that are teaching this to their children, sometimes as young as five. And yet the Department of Justice looked at that issue and decided to label the parents objecting to this teaching as domestic terrorists. Did you participate in discussions about the memo before it was issued?

“Senator, I can’t talk about internal deliberations inside the department,” Clarke replied.

“You can’t talk about whether you participated in discussions about the memo?” Cruz asked.

“No,” Clarke answered. “But what I can tell you is that the Civil Rights Division will play a role going forward. The Attorney General has asked the Department to undertake a review and the Division will participate in that review to determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute crimes.”

Then Cruz got down to brass tacks: “Do you believe parents objecting to the teaching of Critical Race Theory have civil rights in the democratic process?”

Clarke: “Uh, I don’t follow the question, senator.”

Cruz: “You don’t understand the question whether parents objecting to Critical Race Theory have civil rights?”

“The First Amendment is a core value in our democracy,” Clarke replied.

Cruz pointed out, “I didn’t say free speech; I said civil rights. School board meetings are democratic. They are petitioning your local government. Do they have civil rights that the Voting Rights gives a damn about?”

Clarke: “They have the right to express their view, to challenge the school boards, to ask —”

Cruz: “And is it beneficial for the Attorney General to label them as ‘domestic terrorists’ and direct the FBI to target them?”

Clarke: “The Attorney General’s memo deals with threats against public servants and says that threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values.”

Cruz: “Do you believe parents objecting at school boards are ‘domestic terrorists’?”

Clarke: “I don’t, senator.”

Cruz: “Do you believe Antifa are domestic terrorists?”

Clarke: “I don’t have a view about Antifa.”

Cruz: “Do you believe the Black Lives Matter protesters who burned shops, who firebombed police cars, who murdered police officers, do you believe they’re domestic terrorists?”

Clarke: “Senator, I believe we believe we live in a society where people espouse different views, but what we don’t want are threats of violence.”

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

Square for me the last statement by Cruz with the last statement of Clarke

If Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will not condemn Antifa or BLM for firebombing shops and courts in Seattle, then why will they have Merrick Garland charge people under the Patriot Act for getting possibly verbally abusive at school board meetings?

Biden appoints avowed CRT supporter to Department of Education

The Daily Wire shows us how Biden’s appointment to head the Department of Education has always been an avowed supporter of Critical Race Theory.

President Biden has appointed an avowed Critical Race Theory supporter to the Department of Education.

Biden appointed Precious McKesson, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party’s Black Caucus, as a Special Assistant in the DOE’s office of Communications and Outreach.

After Nebraska Board of Regents board member Jim Pillen introduced a resolution to bar CRT from the University of Nebraska education system, McKesson co-authored an August op-ed in which it stated:

Pillen and other Republicans, including Gov. Pete Ricketts, have made CRT a political boogeyman without actually knowing what it is. Simply put, CRT examines social, cultural and legal issues as they relate to race and racism. Students would be taught about the systemic racism that still exists today and permeates our society.

Further, CRT is a 40-year-old academic framework, so one has to wonder why the Republican Party is now trying to frame all educational experiences that discuss diversity and equity with a negative partisan lens. From our collective experiences, the only answer is to create a wedge between white communities and communities of color, making us the villain rather than having Nebraskans see us as their neighbors and co-workers.

… Ricketts and Pillen are also trying to dictate how a person can attain knowledge, information and engage in intellectual activity, which violates more than academic freedom. It is a direct assault upon the sovereignty of one’s soul, mind and body.

McKesson cast the only Biden-Harris vote out of Nebraska’s five electoral college ballots in 2020.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

Why is Biden attacking our First Amendment Right for the sake of government?

According to the American form of government, our government is supposed to be limited and our speech is supposed to be free. I hate to put things at a first-grade level, but there is a reason that the First Amendment covers the freedoms of speech, journalism (if they so choose), and religion.

Garland has conflict of interest with Facebook and critical race theory

The New York Post reports on a the conflicts of interest Merrick Garland has with Facebook and Critical Race Theory.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is under scrutiny after a parents group revealed that his daughter is married to the co-founder of an education company funded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that allegedly employs critical race theory in its work, according to a report.

The disclosure comes as the attorney general announced on Monday that the FBI will help investigate increasing accounts of alleged threats against teachers and school board members in response to critical race theory being taught in schools — an action that critics slammed as a “declaration of war” on parents and intimidation of political opponents. 

His daughter, Rebecca Garland, is married to Xan Tanner, the co-founder of Boston-based Panorama Education, a company that collects social and emotional data from students in grades K to 12, Fox News reported on Wednesday. 

Asra Nomani, the vice president of investigations and strategy of Parents Defending Education, which opposes the Justice Department’s enforcement actions, tweeted about the connection.

“Merrick Garland has declared a war on parents,” Nomani posted on Tuesday. “His daughter is married to the cofounder of @PanoramaEd which is under fire for its multimillion contracts with school boards. At @DefendingEd, parents sent us tips. We raised the alarm. Now Garland is trying to silence parents.”

“Panorama Education will profit from Garland’s outrageous silencing of parents who are challenging its data mining of K-12 students,” she wrote on the group’s website.

Nomani linked to a New York Times report from 2018 about the marriage of Garland’s daughter and Tanner.

She and her group argue that the Justice Department is likening parents who oppose such “woke” policies as critical race theory and mandatory mask wearing to “domestic terrorism.”

It also comes as a whistleblower, Frances Haugen, testified to a Senate committee on Tuesday about how Facebook routinely scoops up people’s information and then uses it to keep them engaged on platforms it owns. 

(Read additional details at the New York Post)

If Merrick Garland had any honor, he would recuse himself from this case

What’s more, if Merrick Garland had any honor, he would recuse himself before this information became public knowledge. He should not wait to be found out. However, since he remains in place despite this conflict, obviously he has no honor or credibility.

Thank God he did not get appointed to the Supreme Court.

Parents refuse to be intimidated by Biden’s Attorney General labeling them domestic terrorists

The Federalist pulls together an article on how parents have refused to allow Biden and Merrick Garland to intimidate them.

Local mother Stacy Langton stood before the Fairfax County School Board in a suburb of the nation’s capital two weeks ago, boldly exposing explicit examples of child porn and pedophilia in library books in area schools, available to children as young as 12 years old.

Langton’s witness ended in mayhem because the school board failed to do something very simple: listen to the stakeholders — and taxpayers — who are parents. Board members rudely interrupted Langton during her two minutes of allotted speaking time and called a hasty recess, a board member later incorrectly claiming that he faced two “exorcisms” by parents praying during the meeting.

“Shame! Shame! Shame!” shouted parents, horrified at the cowardice of the board members.

Now, however, instead of recognizing Langton for the hero that she is for protecting children, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has issued a declaration of war on America’s parents.

“I am directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to … [address] threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,” he wrote in a memo to FBI Director Christopher Wray and the U.S. attorneys generals on Monday night.

Langton, of course, didn’t threaten anyone. But in this war, facts don’t matter.

In just five days, Garland issued that response to a September 29 letter by the National School Boards Association alleging, incredulously: “As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

Neither the school board association nor Garland mentioned the word “parents,” as if to acknowledge us, even in an attack, is to validate us. But we know. It’s now the United States vs. America’s parents.

(Read more at the Federalist)

Doocy Presses Psaki On Whether Biden Considers School Board Protesters ‘Domestic Terrorists’

George W. Bush’s Patriot Act being used against concerned parents

Tweets on the AP Fact Check on Domestic Terrorism

Liberals were losing the argument over critical race theory in schools — time to call in the FBI

The New York Post comments on how the calls to the FBI only occurred after the liberals started losing the argument over Critical Race Theory.

In an official memo, Attorney General Merrick Garland has pledged to mobilize the FBI against parents protesting critical race theory in public schools, citing unspecified “threats of violence” against school officials.

Garland’s memo follows a National School Boards Association request that the Biden administration investigate threats to school board members and classify sometimes heated parent protests as “domestic terrorism.”

The NSBA suggested that some of these parents should be prosecuted under the PATRIOT Act and federal hate crimes legislation.

But the school board association letter is riddled with falsehoods, errors, and exaggerations. It begins with the claim that “critical race theory is not taught in public schools,” despite a vast body of evidence showing that CRT is widespread in public schools. Even the national teachers’ union has admitted as much, and called for its implementation in all 50 states.

The NSBA deliberately misrepresents debates at school board meetings as “threats” and sometimes vociferous and angry speech as “violence.” The letter refers to dozens of news stories alluding to “disruptions,” “shouts,” “arguments,” and “mobs” but, contrary to its core claim, cites only a single example of actual violence against a school official: a case of aggravated battery in Illinois, which is obviously condemnable, but hardly the justification for a national “domestic terrorism” investigation.

The association even fabricated entire storylines to support its political objectives. For example, the NSBA claims that a Tennessee school board official named Jon White resigned due to “threats and acts of violence”; but the linked source reports that White resigned for “concerns about too much time away from his family,” with no mention of threats or violence. (In another local report, White complains about parents calling him a “child abuser” and other epithets, which, while harsh, are hardly an “act of violence.”)

Still, despite the school board association’s flimsy pretext, the Biden Administration appears to be doing its bidding. Garland’s memo instructs the FBI to coordinate with “federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement” to develop plans to “discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate.” NSBA director Chip Slaven and national teachers’ union president Randi Weingarten immediately praised Garland’s aggressive actions.

This is a deeply politicized and dangerous escalation in the debate about critical race theory in public schools. For months, critical race theory proponents, including teachers’ unions, have struggled to respond to critics, and new survey data now show that strong majorities of all racial categories oppose CRT in public school. But as their standing in the polls has collapsed, the education establishment has turned to more heavy-handed tactics.

The purpose of mobilizing the FBI is not only to monitor dissent but to subdue it. The suggestion that parents might be engaging in “domestic terrorism” is designed to suppress speech and assembly and to justify the further federalization of education policy.

In congressional testimony last week, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona refused to say that parents are the “primary stakeholders” in their children’s education; this week, Attorney General Garland is attempting to drive an even bigger wedge between parents and public schools.

Parents should not let this overreach deter them from speaking out against critical race theory in their schools. The Biden administration has raised the stakes, so that this fight is no longer only about CRT; it is about protecting the basic rights of speech, assembly, and voter control over the country’s public institutions.

(Read more at the New York Post)

Only to Biden and other totalitarians is a parent defending a child a terrorist

For four years, Democrats claimed Trump to be a fascist. However, Biden now holds the record for the number of executive orders issued within the first month, six months, and (soon) nine months. Biden is the one who has issued a vaccine mandate for American citizens (while allowing illegal aliens to choose whether or not to take the jab).

Sen. Rand Paul Rips Biden, DOJ: ‘Moms’ Aren’t ‘Terrorists’

The Daily Wire lets Senator Rand Paul point out the obvious: “Moms” aren’t “terrorists.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) says Americans should “be afraid of your government” following an announcement from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that the FBI would begin to investigate alleged “threats” against school officials, a move that comes as parents have been voicing opposition to Critical Race Theory and mask mandates.

“Moms at school boards are being told that they’re criminals, potential domestic terrorists, for the crime of dissent, and I think criminalizing dissent is something that we should all be appalled with,” Paul said Wednesday on Fox News.

Host Ben Domenech asked the senator what he would say to Americans worried that “if they go to their local school board and say the wrong thing, that they’re going to end up on some list that Merrick Garland goes after.”

“I would say be afraid. Be afraid of your government,” Paul said.

“That’s a sad thing from someone in the government to say, but the thing is, is those lists already exist. For example, people in northern Virginia that have gone to [protests], have been then sought out by the school council, by the members of the school board and retaliated [against] in a sort of legalistic way to try to put them on some sort of list and chill their speech by letting them know there’ll be a penalty for showing up and protesting,” Paul said.

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s announcement on Monday came after the National School Boards Association (NSBA) sent President Joe Biden a letter claiming “America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat.” The NSBA asked the White House to consider investigating attendees of school board meetings and even using the 9/11-era Patriot Act to do so.

“I think the problem is it’s become so normalized to use government to search out and seek out your opponents,” said Paul.

The senator cited the FBI case of former Donald Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, whose communications were monitored by the agency after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued warrants.

“There are people I know on the left who should have stepped forward and should have said how wrong it is to use this foreign intelligence court – that uses a standard lower than the Constitution – to go after a political campaign,” Paul said. “Yet, the Left — once it became about Trump, their hatred of Trump trumped everything else, and I have a feeling and a fear that the Left has become more authoritarian than we can really even imagine.”

“Look, there are all kinds of laws about decorum, and there ought to be,” Paul said. “The idiot woman that goes in the bathroom, filming Senator [Kyrsten] Sinema [D-AZ] in a bathroom, that is illegal according to every local ordinance and you should punish that person.”

“If you go to a school board meeting and you’re disruptive and you don’t obey the rules of the school board meeting, then there will be local punishment,” Paul said. “But that has nothing to do with the federal law, it has nothing to do with the Department of Justice. What Merrick Garland did is, he’s attempting to stifle dissent, …”

(Read more at the Daily Wire)


How did CNN miss this?

A former Trump official goes to the liberal press pushing her book

And pointing out that she lied in her official capacity

Recently, a new perspective was presented on AFR‘s The Hamilton Corner podcast regarding a recent Stephanie Grisham interview on the CNN show New Day (hosted by John Berman and Brianna Keilar) where Ms. Grisham admitted lying in her official capacity.

Speaker Quote
John Did you ever want to do a press conference?
Stephanie Well, selfishly, in this administration, I didn’t because I knew I would possibly be put in a position to stand at that podium and not be honest.
John Lie?
Stephanie And lie. And I didn’t want to do that. Working in the White House had always been my dream — my dream to stand behind the podium and do it the traditional way — but in our administration, I selfishly did not want to do it.
John You did do interviews on Fox, though.
Stephanie Yes.
John Were you always truthful there?
Stephanie I probably wasn’t. I prob — I can’t think of an example right now. I probably wasn’t and I regret that so much. …

At that point, Alexander Hamilton asked why neither of these “reporters” asked the obvious question: Why should we believe anything in your book if you just confessed to lying in your professional capacity?

However, in light of the the way the Hunter Biden story got suppressed at CNN, the 2016 presidential debate questions were leaked to the DNC by CNN, the time Donna Brazile leaked questions to Hillary Clinton, and too many other instances of bias to count, one has to ask:

  • Is CNN so accustomed to looking away from real news that it cannot help but look away when real news walks up like a puppy and jumps in their lap (that is, why not ask the question above)?
  • Has CNN gotten so accustomed to working with liars like Joe Biden that it expects the impossible (truth from habitual liars)?

Democrat lies

Democrat lie #1: 6 January was just right-wing people attacking

An F.B.I. informant marched into the Capitol among the Proud Boys on 6 January

The New York Times admitted that an the FBI had planted an informant among the Proud Boys during the 6 January 2021 march. Makes you wonder how many other plants there were.

FBI SealAs scores of Proud Boys made their way, chanting and shouting, toward the Capitol on Jan. 6, one member of the far-right group was busy texting a real-time account of the march.

The recipient was his F.B.I. handler.

In the middle of an unfolding melee that shook a pillar of American democracy — the peaceful transfer of power — the bureau had an informant in the crowd, providing an inside glimpse of the action, according to confidential records obtained by The New York Times. In the informant’s version of events, the Proud Boys, famous for their street fights, were largely following a pro-Trump mob consumed by a herd mentality rather than carrying out any type of preplanned attack.

This comes with a hat tip to The Right Scoop

We need to look at the FBI history of arranging crime to “catch” criminals

As illustrated by Buzzfeed News in their review of the case where the FBI got involved in the kidnapping of Governor Gretchen Whitmer, not all criminals commit their crimes without some leading.

The audacious plot to kidnap a sitting governor — seen by many as a precursor to the Jan. 6 assault on the US Capitol by hundreds of Trump-supporting protesters — has become one of the most important domestic terrorism investigations in a generation.

The prosecution has already emerged as a critical test for how the Biden administration approaches the growing threat of homegrown anti-government groups. More than that, though, the case epitomizes the ideological divisions that have riven the country over the past several years. To some, the FBI’s infiltration of the innermost circle of armed anti-government groups is a model for how to successfully forestall dangerous acts of domestic terrorism. But for others, it’s an example of precisely the kind of outrageous government overreach that radicalizes people in the first place, and, increasingly, a flashpoint for deep state conspiracy theories.

The government has documented at least 12 confidential informants who assisted the sprawling investigation. The trove of evidence they helped gather provides an unprecedented view into American extremism, laying out in often stunning detail the ways that anti-government groups network with each other and, in some cases, discuss violent actions.

An examination of the case by BuzzFeed News also reveals that some of those informants, acting under the direction of the FBI, played a far larger role than has previously been reported. Working in secret, they did more than just passively observe and report on the actions of the suspects. Instead, they had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them.

A longtime government informant from Wisconsin, for example, helped organize a series of meetings around the country where many of the alleged plotters first met one another and the earliest notions of a plan took root, some of those people say. The Wisconsin informant even paid for some hotel rooms and food as an incentive to get people to come.

(Read more at Buzzfeed New)

Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask whether the accused criminals really did anything worthy of punishment or were lead to a prepared crime.

Democrat lie #2: Fox is conservative

Fox News bans Rudy Giuliani from appearing

The Hill reports that Fox has banned Rudy Giuliani from speaking on their outlets.

Fox News has banned Rudy Giuliani and his son from appearing on its network, Politico Playbook reported on Friday.

Giuliani, who served as a personal attorney to former President Trump, has reportedly been banned for close to three months and only learned of the move by the news network right before Sept. 11, the news outlet reported. 

Prior to a scheduled appearance on “Fox & Friends” on Sept. 11, “Fox & Friends Weekend” co-host Pete Hegseth apparently called the former New York City mayor the night before and apologized, telling him he had been canceled from their guest list.

A source close to the former New York City mayor told Playbook that Giuliani was upset by the decision because he had “done a big favor” for Fox Corp. founder and Chairman Rupert Murdoch. 

“He was instrumental in getting Fox on Time Warner so it could be watched in New York City,” the source told Playbook.

A spokesperson for Fox denied Politico’s report that Giulani had been scheduled to appear on “Fox & Friends” on Sept. 11, but that person declined to comment on whether there was a ban for the former New York City mayor.

Additionally, Giuliani’s son, Andrew Giuliani, has also been reportedly banned, though it is unclear when that ban would have started. Since his New York gubernatorial campaign was initiated in May, Andrew Giuliani has not appeared on the network, Politico Playbook reported.

The news outlet reported that the Giulianis were told that the ban had come from the top of the network.

(Read more at The Hill)

Can’t accuse him? Silence him.

Yes, Rudy has had a few slips recently. As we get older, we all do that. However, for the most part, he seems of very sound mind.

The main thing with Rudy was he made crucial decisions that secured New York for a period of time and he held a key position during a pivotal period of American history (the 9/11 attacks). While lefties like those in charge of Fox News cannot take that from him, they can silence him.

Of course, since Fox began as a conservative powerhouse, it still holds a number of conservative voices. However, since the leadership has gone to the left, we cannot expect it to remain as a conservative source (as shown when it called Arizona for Biden early).

Democrat lie #3: There was Trump/Russia collusion in 2016

Jake Sullivan repeatedly promoted Alfa Bank story at the center of Durham indictment

The Washington Examiner points out how Joe Biden’s advisor Jake Sullivan repeatedly promoted the fake Alfa Bank story central to the story pushed by indicted Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann.

Special Counsel John Durham’s indictment of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann will likely have made uncomfortable reading for a key member of President Joe Biden’s administration — his beleaguered national security adviser Jake Sullivan.

The grand jury indictment against Sussmann centers on a September 2016 meeting between him and then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in which Sussmann passed along allegations claiming there was a secret backchannel between Russia’s Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization. While Durham says Sussmann told Baker he was not working for any specific client, the special counsel contends he was secretly doing the bidding of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign as well as working on behalf of a yet-unnamed technology company executive. Sussmann pleaded not guilty .

The Durham indictment states that “on or about September 15, 2016, Campaign Lawyer-1 exchanged emails with the Clinton Campaign’s campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy advisor concerning the Russian Bank-1 allegations that SUSSMANN had recently shared with Reporter-1.” Durham wrote that “Campaign Lawyer-1 billed his time for this correspondence” to the Clinton campaign, with the billing entry of “email correspondence with [name of foreign policy advisor], [name of campaign manager], [name of communications director] re: [Russian Bank-1] Article.”

Clinton’s foreign policy adviser was Sullivan, while her campaign manager was Robby Mook, and communications director was Jennifer Palmieri. “Campaign Lawyer-1” was Marc Elias. Sullivan has not been accused of wrongdoing by Durham. The White House National Security Council did not return a request for comment.

On Halloween 2016, Clinton tweeted : “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.” And she shared a lengthy Sullivan statement.

“This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow,” Sullivan claimed . “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia. … This line of communication may help explain Trump’s bizarre adoration of Vladimir Putin.”

Sullivan added: “We can only assume that federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia.”

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Democrats may believe the trope that “a lie repeated becomes the truth;” however, never

While there may be popular perception and a delusion that truth can be bent through the repetition of lies, the truth is that truth remains and it comes out.

That is why the New York Times and Politico find a need to cover stories like the Hunter Biden laptop when their revelation cannot hurt a Democrat. They still want to be seen as standing on the side of truth (even though they effectively lied when it made a difference).

Democrat lie #4:  Democrats respect our system of a non-political armed services

Democrat testimony proves the politicization of the armed forces

Townhall comments on General Milley’s words regarding how Nancy Pelosi tried to take the place of the President.

HatTipToBenGarrison1During his opening statement in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday morning, General Mark Milley denied inappropriate phone calls with the Chinese military and tried to reassure Americans he is dedicated to civilian control of the military. 

“I am specifically directed to communicate with the Chinese. These military to military communications at the highest level are critical to the security of the United States,” Milley said. “My loyalty to this Nation, its people, and the Constitution hasn’t changed, and will never change, as long as I have a breath to give. My loyalty is absolute, and I will not turn my back on the fallen.” 

“I firmly believe in civilian control of the military,” he continued. 

Milley also stressed that he does not believe President Donald Trump planned to attack the Chinese in the final days of his presidency.

In his remarks, Milley also addressed a phone call from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on January 8, 2021, in which she pressed him about the process to launch a nuclear weapon. Milley says he informed her that while launching such a weapon requires multiple people in the chain of command, the president is the sole authority to launch an attack. 

(Read the specific quote at Townhall)

Much like the Hunter Biden laptop news, admissions about the politicization of the military since Obama will likely leak out for years

Especially now that Biden is requiring everyone to take the jab or be dishonorably discharged (even if they have had COVID), we will likely see a continued politicization of our military.


While Biden is not getting Americans out of Afghanistan, other news comes out on Biden’s $3.5 trillion “threat” to economy, worse jobless numbers, and Trump being more popular than Dementia Joe

Stealthy Israeli aid group does something “pro-woman” Biden would never do: rescues 41 Afghan women from Taliban after hiding in safe house for days

The Christian Broadcast Network reports on a risky move by a Israeli aid group who saved 41 Afghan women.

afghanwomen2Rescue efforts continue in Kabul, Afghanistan where 41 more women were recently evacuated from the country.

The UK’s Telegraph reported Thursday that those flown out of the country last week included a singer, 19 members of a cycling team, three robotics team members, female rights activists, and a number of relatives.

Yotam Polizer, CEO of the Israeli NGO IsraAID, said rescuers faced a daunting challenge as they searched for people in a city under Taliban rule.

“The issue was they had to collect them from hiding,” he told the outlet. “(The rescuers) had to do rounds around the city in alleys to pick up these people and try not to create any suspicious movement.” 

He added that the group was delayed at the border with Tajikistan where they hid in a safe house for two days until the Tajik government granted permission for them to enter. 

“The stressful part really was around the border, there were a lot of Taliban in the area. They were not allowed to leave the shelter and we were very stressed that someone might find them,” Polizer explained.

The refugees were met by Israeli aid workers in the Tajik capital of Dushanbe, and on Sept. 6 they boarded a plane bound for the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Deputy Director of Strategic Communications for UAE, Afra Al Hameli, shared an image of their arrival on Twitter.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcast Network)

For all of Biden’s bluster of support for women, his “support” has as much substance as his sniffs

Thank God that the Israelis might base their actions on compassion rather than Marxist calculus. If they had only determined to help those who helped them, then surely they would not have saved these Afghan women (or anyone remotely associated with the likes of Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, or the other members of the Squad who worked to defund the Iron Dome).

Those left behind in Afghanistan

Newsweek reports on the way Biden has gone to just ignore the people abandoned by his Biden regime to the Taliban.

Later today, President Joe Biden will deliver his first address to the United Nations General Assembly. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield previewed President Biden’s speech on Friday, noting that it will speak to the administration’s three top foreign policy priorities: “ending the COVID-19 pandemic; combating climate change…and defending human rights, democracy and the international rules-based order.”

Notably absent from the list of important subjects likely to be addressed by the president is the situation in Afghanistan. That topic was a mere footnote in the ambassador’s remarks, listed alongside other general references to crises in Burma, Yemen and Syria.

The Biden administration likely hopes to shift media coverage away from Afghanistan—and especially from its poorly executed withdrawal of U.S. forces. White House officials were reportedly expressing their hopes for media fatigue several weeks ago. To some extent, their predictions have borne out. The public has paid surprisingly little attention to the astonishing facts and stories coming to light about the botched evacuation of Americans and Afghans.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken‘s testimony on Afghanistan before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee early last week highlighted some of the disturbing data. Of the 18,000 SIV applicants, we evacuated a mere 705. Of the 60,000 at-risk Afghans, we evacuated half. Estimates indicate that 75 percent of the people evacuated from Afghanistan were not American citizens, green card holders, SIV applicants or P1 or P2 visa holders.

These numbers demonstrate not only the immensely chaotic nature of the evacuation effort—and the potential dangers of not knowing whom exactly we were evacuating from Afghanistan—but also the tragic reality that the most vulnerable Afghans, including those who risked their lives to aid American efforts, were left behind to fend for themselves against the Taliban.

As thousands fear for their lives in Afghanistan because of U.S. incompetence, the Biden team hopes to discuss the end of the pandemic, the evergreen talking point of combating climate change and a commitment to human rights that apparently does not include the preservation of life for those we promised to protect.

The passing of time will make it easier for all of us to turn our attention away from the Afghanistan crisis. Yet the media, the public and the foreign policy community should not let the Biden administration shift the narrative while innocents are still in danger in Afghanistan.

(Read more at Newsweek)

Luckily for Biden, we have a complicit press who will direct attention to the shiny object (like the non-existent beating at the border)

The crazy thing about all of the articles I have read on those left behind is that no article precludes the possibility that he left thousands of Americans. No article precludes the possibility that he left hundreds of thousands of those who cooperated with America. There are tales groups of people (including women and children) being beheaded, but no totals.

When Americans and our allies are trapped and being beheaded in Afghanistan, it takes real dedication to the Democrat-Socialist cause and to Joe Biden to manufacture a story about illegal aliens being whipped when the pictures do not support that narrative.

Chamber of Commerce calls Biden’s $3.5T reconciliation bill a “threat”

The Daily Mail reports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calls Biden’s $3.5 trillion bill a “threat.”

The US Chamber of Commerce president warned Americans on Wednesday that progressives’ hefty $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill poses an ‘existential threat’ to the national economy. 

The group is targeting five moderate Democrats with a paid advertising campaign launched on Wednesday, urging voters in those districts to tell their representative to ‘reject higher taxes’ it says will come with the bill’s passage. 

‘This reconciliation bill is effectively 100 bills in one representing every big government idea that’s never been able to pass in Congress. The bill is an existential threat to America’s fragile economic recovery and future prosperity,’ US Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Suzanne Clark said.

‘We will not find durable or practical solutions in one massive bill that is equivalent to more than twice the combined budgets of all 50 states.’  

President Joe Biden spent the same day fighting for his $3.5 trillion wish-list, central to his ‘Build Back Better’ agenda. 

Biden held marathon back-to-back meetings well into the evening with 23 Democrats in the House and Senate yesterday to press them to vote in favor of the reconciliation bill.

The president spoke with both moderates and progressives within the party, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. 

Pelosi told reporters ‘we’re in good shape’ upon returning to the Capitol Wednesday. The White House called the meetings ‘productive and candid’ but indicated there would be more to follow.

Republicans have long opposed the measure, calling it a ‘reckless tax and spending spree.’ 

They and moderates have pushed to prioritize the smaller $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure compromise, which Pelosi hopes to pass on a ‘two-track’ plan with the larger bill.

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

With our economy staggering under the weight of inflation, a portion of our work force lured away with unemployment benefits, and entrepreneurs barely able to get back to operating, this is not the time to hit everyone with a tax

A hat tip to The Public

As much as Biden thinks that you all have benefitted from his reign, this is not a time for him to expand his empire through taxing everyone so as to be able to give out trinkets to his select groups.

When you also consider the provisions in that bill that would allow the IRS to track transfers in our bank accounts as small as $600 and would effectively kill the 401K program — this is something we really do not need.

US jobless claims rose by 16K to 351K last week

The Daily Mail reports how the jobless claims in America rose in one week under Biden from 16,000 to 351,000.

The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits rose by 16,000 last week despite a massive shortage of workers in key industries, including retail, hospitality and education, leaving 10million positions open across the country.

Last week 351,000 people filed for unemployment benefits, a 16,000-person spike from the week before when 335,000 were filed, according to data from the Department of Labor (DOL).  

The first week of September saw only 310,000 jobless claims – a new pandemic low. At the height of the pandemic last year, about 6.1million new claims were being filed weekly. 

This is despite the country’s 10million job openings outnumbering the number of people looking for work. At least 8.7million people were still unemployed at the beginning of the month, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

There has been little incentive for Americans to apply for new jobs with the Biden administration extending pandemic-related benefits. This included a $300 weekly boost on checks, which only stopped being paid on September 6. 

However, parents are still being given a payout on the American Rescue Plan, which gives parents $3,600 per child under the age of six or $3,000 for those up to age 17 through December 15, 2021. There are 60million eligible children under this plan. 

Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chair from 2006 to 2014 also told The Wall Street Journal that the lockdowns have shifted workers’ mindsets, with some saying they wanted to work remotely permanently. Others moved in 2020 to areas where jobs aren’t so readily available.

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

Didn’t Biden say that the job market was expanding?

Come to think of it, Biden did claim to have great jobs numbers, but the experts came behind him and disproved his claims of being the cause of the purported “upturn.” It was just as specious as his claim to a first job at an Idaho lumber company.

Poll shows Trump is now more popular than Biden

The Daily Mail reports that their poll shows President Trump has more popular support than Dementia Joe.

Former President Donald Trump has overtaken President Joe Biden in approval ratings for the first time since his loss at the 2020 presidential elections, according to a new Harvard/Harris poll. 

While Biden enjoyed his highest approval rating of 57 per cent in May, support for the president dropped dramatically to 46 percent as of September following the nation’s chaotic exit from Afghanistan, crisis at the southern border with Mexico, and deadlock in Congress over his infrastructure bills.

Meanwhile, Trump’s approval ratings remained at about 46 per cent since 2020 and surpassed Biden after rising to 48 per cent in September.

‘The mounting issues on all fronts have led to the surprise conclusion that Trump is now seen as being as good a president as Biden, suggesting the honeymoon is being replaced with buyer’s remorse,’ Mark Penn, co-director of the Harvard/Harris survey told The Times.

The poll comes as Biden held talks with feuding Democrats at the White House on Tuesday in an effort to reach an agreement on the $1.1 trillion infrastructure deal and the second $3.5 trillion bill containing new social spending. 

It also stands in the wake of a new migrations crisis in Texas as thousands of migrants, mostly from Haiti, cross the Rio Grande and settle in camps outside of the city of Del Rio. 

As well as revelations that the US mistakenly killed 10 people, including one aid worker and seven children, after a botched done strike meant to kill an ISIS-K terrorist. 

The Harvard/Harris poll also found that 55 per cent of people believed former Vice-President Mike Pence was a better vice president than his successor, Kamala Harris, and that 63 per cent of people thought Mike Pompeo was a better secretary of state than Anthony Blinken. 

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

This should really burn the American news

This bit of news will never hit the pages of the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times. While information beneficial to Dementia Joe will appear in a heartbeat, information that benefits the MAGA crowd will be buried.

Therefore, it is always a good idea to have a link to a few British papers.

Over-counting COVID deaths and using the mandate to distract from Afghanistan: what else will Biden bungle?

Sharyl Atkisson proves COVID deaths have been extremely over-counted

Real Clear Politics reviews a recent Full Measure episode where Sharyl Attkisson explores how COVID deaths may have been over-counted by 100% or more.

SharylAttkisson“Full Measure” host Sharyl Attkisson investigates how Covid-19 cases and deaths are being counted and finds some suspicious overcounting:

As hindsight comes into clearer focus, we’re learning a lot about mistaken advice and policies amid the Covid-19 pandemic. One still murky and disputed area involves the death toll, now upwards of 640,000 in the U.S., according to CDC. Some insist the true count is much higher; others claim it’s lower. Today, we begin with the startling results of our investigation that found in some documented cases, news that Covid was the cause of death was greatly exaggerated.

Grand County, Colorado, rural country a hundred miles outside of Denver.

Thanksgiving 2020, Lucais Reilly shoots his wife Kristin in the head, then turns the gun on himself, committing suicide. They have alcohol and drugs in their system and a history of domestic troubles.

Grand County coroner Brenda Bock explains how the small town tragedy is exposing serious questions about the way Covid deaths are counted.

Brenda Bock: I had a homicide-suicide the end of November, and the very next day it showed up on the state website as Covid deaths. And they were gunshot wounds. And I questioned that immediately because I had not even signed off the death certificates yet, and the state was already reporting them as Covid deaths.

Bock says somebody, somewhere had apparently run the couple’s names through a database showing they’d tested positive for Covid within 28 days of their death. Then recorded them as Covid deaths even though they died of gunshots.

Sharyl: If we look at the death certificates for the murder-suicide case, what will it say about Covid?

Bock: Nothing, absolutely nothing. I paid a forensic pathologist to do the autopsies on those two cases. And nowhere is COVID mentioned on those death certificates. Nowhere.

Bock: This is a copy of the death certificate, and nowhere does it say COVID. So we have a homicide, suicide, nothing to do with COVID.


But when we checked in July, the New York Times tally over-reported Grand County’s 2020 Covid death toll by least 500%. It was missing one resident who reportedly died of Covid outside of the county. But the Times counted the unrelated heart attack; the two people who were alive – which were removed from the state total; and the murder-suicide of Lucais and Kristin Reilly.

Sharyl: What are the implications nationwide when we’re looking at numbers then?

Bock: I believe they’re very inflated. And don’t get me wrong. I believe Covid is real. And I believe people do get very sick from it. And I do believe a small number do die from that. I do not believe a homicide-suicide belongs in that number. I don’t, because my job is to tell the truth about why a person died, the cause and the manner. And I don’t believe that what’s going on is the truth.

(Read more at Real Clear Politics)

When I heard a bit of Sharyl Atkisson’s presentation on Full Measure, it clicked.

The idea that non-COVID deaths had been reported as COVID deaths rang true. This may be based on the fact that the main stream media just will not stop pounding the COVID topic. It may come from the lies that the media has been caught pushing. Or it may originate with the occasional story on how Democrats hide the truth surrounding an outbreak thought to be COVID.

Nonetheless, the Democrats in office and in the press have spent all of their trust.

Biden Timed Vaccine Mandate Announcement to Distract from Afghanistan Debacle

Breitbart points toward indications that the vaccine mandate might be Biden’s attempt to distract from the multiple Afghanistan bungles. However, with the poor thinking that went into both the mandate and Afghanistan, who’s to say he isn’t magnifying both bungles?

Breitbart News editor-in-chief Alex Marlow said President Joe Biden announced his vaccine mandate in order to distract from his disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, adding that U.S. leaders can “literally get away with murder at this point.”

“I think this is exactly why Biden unrolled the vaccine mandate, is specifically because he didn’t want to talk about Afghanistan. He didn’t even give a live address on the 20th anniversary of 9/11 — he’s hiding,” Marlow said in a recent episode of I’m Right with Jesse Kelly.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Has Biden thought out what happens when nursing home workers resign rather than get the jab?

Nursing home workers don’t make a lot of money; however, they hold a key position. If they quit en masse as a response to Joe’s mandate, who will replace them? Will this result in massive deaths in government-run nursing homes due to worker shortages?

What will happen if garbage truck drivers refuse the jab? Does anyone remember the last garbage hauler’s strike in New York? Does anyone want that nationwide?

What happens when more rural clinics have nurses and doctors quit rather than get this relatively untested “vaccination?” How will we provide healthcare when rural systems are already being shut down to compensate for refusals in the big cities?

Is there a possibility that Joe’s cover-up issue might grow to be worse than Afghanistan? What other industries could say “No, I will just quit” rather than take Joe’s jab?

A running list of Joe’s/Kamala’s failures

The following comes directly off of the top of my head; therefore, I welcome corrections (with linked documentation) in the comments. If you make comments, I will add your input to the list (with citations to you). Additionally, I will keep your comments.