Sunday, March 26, 2023

It's not hate to allow women to have their own spaces and their own events

The desperation of the elites to look good lies behind this suddenly invented "trans" war. The elite are aware that others envy and dislike them so grab at anything that will make them look good and wise and noble. So the poor old trannies have suddenly been elevated to an important group requiring support at all costs

For a while "women" were a big cause to the elites but women were just a convenient group for them to use to show that they cared. The fact that they all along did not care about women at all is now so clearly revealed that they are not even prepared to name them. It must be quite a shock to genuine advocates for women to find that they have gone overnight from friend to enemy in the minds of the insecure Leftist elites

And once the elites have set the ball rolling and given the latest issue big support, lots of other attention seekers climb on board in support of the issue in the hope of also becoming seen as good and wise and noble. They too seize the chance to be seen as virtuous

There are two issues at stake in the transwars that are again finding their way to our shores with ‘Posie Parker’s’ (aka Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull’s) Australian Let Women Speak tour. These are: children’s bodily integrity, and women’s rights including the need for single-sex spaces. These issues have very different histories, politics, and ontologies but they coalesce around transgenderism because this is the point at which the conflict of interest arises.

On social media and in the legacy media this week, this critique has been presented as tantamount to Nazi ideology. What we have is a classic case of reductio ad Hitlerum, defined by Leo Strauss as a type of ad hominem used to derail arguments by creating a ‘guilt by association’. In other words, ‘playing the Nazi card’.

This means if neo-Nazis are on the steps of the Victorian Parliament, ushered around by police and with excellent camera crews capturing their Sieg Heil, and you happen to be in the vicinity, you’re ‘guilty by association’.

If you’ve been so propagandised as to assume that there is no legitimate discussion to be had around these issues, then you’re a victim of a corrupt media that has ceased to do its job. The Third Estate has well and truly died if a smallish group of women, including MPs, teachers, doctors, and philosophy professors, can’t gather in a public place to discuss matters of cultural and political importance to women.

When Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and progressive party leaders such as the Greens’ Adam Bandt define these women (or their protest) as associating with ‘neo-Nazis’, we have a gross misrepresentation at play and one that anyone participating in this charade should be ashamed of.

This whole mess is an orchestrated misrepresentation that amounts to propaganda.

It is obliterating the legitimate concerns of women regarding the safety and privacy of women and girls in rape crisis centres, women’s shelters, women’s prisons, women’s changerooms, and toilets. It is sabotaging the discussion around how women can possibly compete against natal males in sport, and of the gross inequality of quotas, prizes, or shortlists for women being filled by trans-identifying males.

It is also about the loss of meaningful language for motherhood, including the removal and replacement of words such as pregnant woman, mother, and breastfeeding (with abominations such as ‘vulva owner’, ‘birthing people’, and ‘chest feeder’). These are important conversations, nothing more, but also nothing less. It is not and never has been about the violation of trans people’s legal, civil, or social rights. It is about the recognition of women’s rights.

Sure, feel free to disagree but don’t engage in this false and indeed defamatory characterisation of the gender-critical feminist voice. There are two sides to this discussion; not one legitimate side (trans) and a motley assortment of neo-Nazi bigots. Moreover, we have seen misogynist overtones from male leaders who appear to dismiss women speaking about issues of fundamental importance like equality, privacy, safety, and the well-being of children.

The neo-Nazi optics are undoubtedly appalling, and one can’t help but wonder how this came about. At the very least, this alignment serves the status quo very well, as every polite mainstream-media-reading centre-Left, small ‘l’ liberal who, having never left their media ecosystem, assumes that ‘Terfs’ are a bunch of scary bigots with radical ‘far Right’ views. Political goal achieved.

A quick lesson in protests: not all who attend a protest are in agreement. Some are widely divergent politically. Moreover, ‘outside agitators’ can and are planted to stir up trouble and/or to alter the public’s perception. A quick lesson in propaganda: the truth doesn’t matter if the lie has been accepted. Certainly, in the public’s mind, ‘gender critical feminism’ and the important political issues this argument represents, have been thoroughly besmirched.

In the public’s mind, Kellie-Jay has a kitsch Norma Jean aesthetic going on and seems to be showcasing more star-spangled nylon and sequins as her social media following grows (and concomitantly, as we descend into the ‘bread and circuses’ era of the culture wars). Moreover, in my opinion she has failed to overtly distance herself from the far Right, as some local feminist groups have rightly pointed out.

Nonetheless, her message is direct and simple, delivered in a working-class idiom: ‘men can’t have vaginas’, ‘men can’t give birth’, ‘men can’t be women’, ‘men shouldn’t be in vulnerable women’s spaces’, ‘men can’t (or shouldn’t) compete in women’s sports’, and ‘children aren’t old enough to surgically remove their primary and secondary sex organs, or make decisions about adult sexuality or fertility’.

These were all uncontroversial statements not long ago. Indeed, the first three statements were common knowledge in all cultures, in all places, and across all time until maybe five years ago (that’s a pretty big sample!). At this point, inner-urban, educated progressives extrapolated an obscure set of gender ideologies localised to arcane corners of university Arts departments and gaslit or bullied anyone who disagreed.

Magically, and in lockstep, governments the world over introduced legislation and policy to allow self ID, to outlaw ‘conversion therapy’ (i.e., newspeak for adopting an exploratory approach to gender dysphoria rather than uncritical affirmation), to update the protected category of sex in law, and to revise statutes regarding sex discrimination so that sex-category was replaced with gender identity.

This effectively created a mandate around the acceptance of transgenderism with no capacity – politically or socially – to disagree. If the ‘choice’ is to agree or be an incorrigible bigot with few job prospects, except perhaps as Mark Latham’s cleaning lady, then most people are going to shut up and go along with this agenda. This is the coward’s bargain; it is not agreement.

Let’s stop pretending this doesn’t have the full force of the corporate-state and captured media and academia behind it. Let’s stop pretending that there are two sides to this ‘debate’: there is one side and a maligned minority of women bravely fighting for the right to have a conversation. As I have said before, what we are owed is more and better disagreement, not slogans and abuse.

Until a moment ago we all understood what a woman was, and we understood that men were physically stronger than women. Most also understood that women had been historically excluded from political rights with ongoing ramifications for their civil standing in liberal democracies. Feminism was the movement for women’s rights that began with married women’s property rights and culminated in suffrage and access to education and the professions. It was the movement to end women’s legal and political subjection. From second-wave feminism onwards, larger questions were asked concerning women’s role in society, the family, sexuality, and psyche as women entered into paid work en masse and redefined what it meant to be women.

That the ‘category of woman’ is now being jettisoned (or revised beyond all recognition) at the precise historical hour that women in the West have gained a political and cultural voice is disturbing. Moreover, in redefining women’s rights almost entirely in terms of queer identity politics, crucial issues such as women’s poverty and homelessness, sexual and domestic violence, and mothering and care work, fade from view. These issues barely raise a mention as sex-class transmogrifies into gender ID.

Assuming this debate is like other debates between say, liberals, and conservatives, or between opposing philosophical paradigms like positivism and hermeneutics, is sadly mistaken. This debate, like so many in the contemporary culture wars, is on an entirely new epistemological terrain: what is at stake here is nothing short of reality itself!

The ‘priors’ therefore of either side are no longer shared; we need rather to understand this issue (as with several other contested political issues) as a disagreement, not on a shared understanding of reality, but rather a disagreement about the nature of reality itself. The question pivots, interestingly enough, on what it means to be a woman.

A poignant example to illustrate this point can be seen in the nomenclature used: one party refers to themselves as ‘gender critical feminists’ and sympathetic media outlets adopt this terminology, sometimes situating it in the longer history of feminism. This side suggests that ‘transwomen’ are better understood as ‘trans-identifying males’ to locate both the person’s natal or biological gender and their preferred identification.

However, the other side, the trans activists and their allies, refer to gender-critical feminists as ‘transphobic’ and as committing dangerous ‘hate speech’. These are such egregious accusations that, if true, require punitive action and redress. Thus, a position itself is defined by one side as ‘gender critical’ and based on women’s ‘sex-based rights’ and by the other as ‘hate speech’. The issue pivots on the ‘category of woman’ which is defined by one side (the gender criticals) as a political class – a ‘sex class’ – founded in biology and given its contemporary meaning in society.

That is, from a classical feminist perspective, the category of woman is a biological category with political implications, namely subjection within a patriarchal society. The newer definition replaces gender with sex and defines the category of woman (or man) as one that can be opted into, it is a subjective state or a feeling. Thus, we haven’t even made it out of the paradigmatic gate before we find ourselves fighting over the nature of reality itself. The category of sex is the site of the struggle. If we cannot agree that sex exists or is materially, politically, and linguistically distinct from gender, then we are not arguing about the same thing. To invoke Smith’s famous aphorism regarding the two women arguing from their respective balconies: they were arguing from different premises!

To suggest that any discussion which assumes natal women have a claim on the sex category woman is a priori an act of discrimination is effectively to quash the discussion. It is to define it as an abominable act of hate speech before it is even out of the gate. How is this a fair discussion? To suggest that gender-critical feminists are neo-Nazis is transparent bullying and it’s coming from the top – literally the leader of the Victorian government – not from minorities as we’re being told. It has the sanction of the mainstream media who are hacks failing in their duty to the electorate to fairly represent the issues from all sides.

Parker’s Let Women Speak Tour gives women an opportunity to speak about their experience of this inflamed political and cultural conflict without being silenced.

In the sinkhole of partisan politics and propaganda this act of discursive generosity is defined as ‘far Right’. In the real world of heterodox politics and culture, Posie Parker’s message cuts across the increasingly defunct Right/Left divide and indeed speaks to women and men across the political spectrum.


The Grotesque Motives Behind Transgenderism

Concerned parents and politicians, as well as the rapidly growing group of outspoken detransitioners, have actively engaged in bringing to light the troubling practices behind the progressive version of “gender identity.” The reality is that, behind the curtain, this trend of abandoning binary gender labels is not about the love and tolerance claimed in the marketing.

Your child’s first grade classroom is decorated as a rainbow-flooded utopia, there are tampons in your son’s middle school bathroom, and there’s a boy in a dress who is now allowed to undress in your high school daughter’s locker room. Parents are being forced to battle between what their child says they want and being afraid to reel them back in by questioning it, not wanting to appear as the hateful presence in their lives that their activist teachers have told kids they are.

Parents have given in to what seemed to be a new trend of self-discovery, wanting to ensure that their child is learning about different lifestyles, believing that this exposure will contribute to a well-rounded generation of young adults who understand love and tolerance at a level that society had never previously achieved.

However, the brazen rantings of unhinged left-wing activist teachers, the recommendations by medical and psychological experts to introduce material beyond just the exposure of different identities to young children, and the aggressive agenda to influence every child’s sexuality before they’re old enough to grasp these concepts has mobilized numerous parents and investigators to expose the true intentions behind the slogans and flags.

The background of some of the “experts” who are at the center of the policies surrounding sex-change surgeries and puberty blockers for children has been exposed — and it is nothing short of grotesque. The organization that they convene under to form these guidelines is known as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH.

In September 2022, WPATH released new guidelines under “The Standards of Care” (or SOC8) for children seeking potent, life-altering drugs and surgeries. The guidelines changed the suggested ages for hormones from 14 to nine, and when it comes to procedures like mastectomies or the construction of a non-functioning penis on a biological woman, the guidelines reduce the recommended ages from 15-17 for the former and 18 for the latter to basically no recommendation or restriction at all.

As disturbing as the new SOC8 updates are, the motives that drove these supposed authorities to make such drastic changes should stop any parent in their tracks before they consider sacrificing their child to this mutilation campaign disguised as scientific proof that the youth of today just need us to “support” them in living as their “true selves.”

Several of the WPATH panel members reportedly have a decades-long involvement in a fetish site called The Eunuch Archive, a forum that holds over 10,000 pornographic stories, surrounding sadomasochistic themes such as child rape, castration, and torture.

To those of us who have been following the history of gender ideology, it should come as no shock that the movement of the last few years is just as motivated by the pedophilic fantasies of twisted adults now as it was at its inception.

Dr. John Money was a prominent and well-known figure in the sphere of gender identity. As a doctor in the 1960s, he became a leading voice pushing the idea that binary gender expression is a social construct, and that it’s possible to socially construct gender stereotypes out of human beings simply by nurturing them otherwise.

In 1965, Janet and Ronald Reimer brought their seven-month-old twin boys to be seen by Money after a botched circumcision left one of the boys with irreversible damage to his penis. Money’s “expert” solution to the issue was to have the parents raise the injured twin, Bruce, as a girl — insisting that doing so would eliminate any notion of the boy’s biological sex within himself.

The “care” provided throughout the twins’ childhood included annual checkups with Dr. Money to monitor the progress of each child; sexual experiments beginning at age seven, wherein Money had the boys role-play sexual activities that might be carried out between a husband and wife; and taking nude photographs of the children, for which they were provided very specific instructions by Money on how to pose.

The parents believed that this “expert” had their children’s best interests in mind. They trusted that the “care” he was administering was to achieve the objective of feminizing their biologically male son and to lead him to be content with who he was. However, it is unclear if these parents understood that Money was truly conducting his own social experiment to prove his theories about gender identity, with no compelling proof that what he was doing would result in the intended outcome, and to also act out his own fantasies of child sexualization under the guise of healthcare.

(Some might have called this “gender-affirming healthcare.”)

Later in life, when both boys were informed of the truth behind their life experiences, the unaltered boy developed schizophrenia from the trauma, eventually ending his own life — and the twin who had started life as Bruce, then renamed as Brenda, returned to his male identity and was able to live in true contentment for a time, knowing who he really was. But due to trouble stemming from the lies spread by Money of the experiment on his identity being a success; the suicide of his brother; instability in his marriage; and the underlying struggles of his childhood, he too ended his life at age 38.

The foundation of this ideology set 60 years ago, the experiences of the Reimer brothers and the motivations behind their “care” are eerily similar to the mindset of today’s current policymakers and the numerous stories of detransitioners that are flooding social media every day.

Most people who buy into the “love and tolerance” slogan have honest intentions for just that. But the love and tolerance the activists are trying to create is not for children as they’re trying to figure out who they are. The love and tolerance being sought after is for those who wish to indulge their own desires with the most vulnerable among us, to be carried out without restriction or judgment.

What John Money hoped to accomplish almost 60 years ago is being played out before our eyes: Pedophiles granted access to children in the masses, with their parents being the prime enthusiasts for handing them over.


The Left’s Long March Into Despotism

Author and Christian apologist C. S. Lewis once wrote: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own consciences.”

We are witnessing the consequences of this insufferable and pernicious ideology, primarily on the political and cultural left. The American right and left have often disagreed about societal objectives, or the best method by which to achieve those objectives, but they at least shared a commitment to certain principles: the sanctity of life and of the nuclear family, the protection of children, the primacy of truth, the importance of the rule of law and due process, the punishment of criminals, freedom of speech, religion and other civil liberties, the dignity of work, and a free press charged with the responsibility for holding the powerful accountable.

Over time, however, the Left has become so certain of its moral superiority that those previously sacrosanct principles have been sacrificed, one by one, on the altar of whatever utopic visions Leftists have for perfecting society. The hills Leftists have decided to die on now include abortion and infanticide, pornography and gender confusion in schools, exploiting children in dangerous and irreversible medical experimentation, homeless encampments and drug use in our cities, incentivized theft and other unpunished crime, open borders and unlimited illegal immigration, lack of election integrity, censorship of medical professionals, scientists and journalists who dare to question the prevailing government narrative, the politicization of law enforcement, and political persecution.

An overly powerful government is eventually populated with arrogant, greedy and unprincipled people who will stop at nothing to get what they want. The Founders understood this, which is why they drafted the Constitution to leave most power within the state governments (and thus more accountable to the people), and to further diffuse federal power by dividing it between three more or less co-equal branches.

The moral busybodies on the Left, to their chagrin, are not omnipotent; they resent that their objectives for a perfected society are continually thwarted by the limitations imposed by the Constitution; therefore they seek to undermine the Constitution wherever possible: by eliminating the Electoral College, changing the composition of the United States Senate, “packing” the U.S. Supreme Court, federalizing elections and removing laws that protect election integrity, permitting illegal immigrants to vote, bypassing Congress and having a president issue countless executive orders.

The country’s descent into destruction and depravity is being facilitated by leftists in media who defend the crooks and malfeasors, even as they grab power and engage in oppressive and unlawful practices without fear of legal sanction or citizen pushback. Millions of law-abiding Americans who oppose the Left’s takeover nevertheless do not realize the risks of our current trajectory; ordinary people never think things will get that bad — until they do.

In fact, American media has a long history of cheering for leftist movements and ignoring or justifying their grievous human rights abuses. They supported Lenin and then Stalin in the former Soviet Union, covering for their political purges, mass imprisonment and murder, the starvation of their own people. (Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist Walter Duranty infamously defended Stalin’s actions, saying, “To put it brutally — you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”) They cheered for Mao Zedong and his Cultural Revolution in China that cost tens of millions of Chinese people their lives. They celebrated Fidel Castro’s Communist regime in Cuba. They praised the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia — at least until that army of university-educated malcontents and barely post-pubescent adolescents armed with Kalashnikovs drove millions of their countrymen into rice paddies and Phnom Penh prisons, where they were starved, tortured and shot to death, their bodies left to rot in piles in the “killing fields.” They praise Venezuelan dictators Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro, despite their socialist policies having driven the country into abject poverty.

So we should be suspicious when today’s Left — including and especially the media — demands support for movements dressed up in lofty language and pithy phrases like “antiracist,” “Black Lives Matter,” “diversity, equity and inclusion” and the big kahuna, “climate change.” These ideologies share a number of disturbing traits with their Marxist predecessors:

No. 1: Their adherents insist that implementation of these policies requires the dismantling of our constitutional order, including the elimination of freedom, individual liberties, private property and the rule of law.

No. 2: Their leaders do not live by the standards they demand of everyone else; instead, they grow rich on guilt-driven donations, corporate sponsorships, and book deals; they purchase expensive real estate, travel around the world on private jets and enjoy first-class accommodations.

No. 3: Argument, disagreement and proof of the failure of the proffered policies is never permitted; the theories are treated as religious dogma, and the authors are viewed as prophets.

C. S. Lewis was right — the moral busybodies never sleep. They already have too much power; history shows us what can take place if they acquire more. ?


Progressives’ ‘good cause eviction’ bill spells doom for NYC housing

It’s hard to imagine making New York City’s housing market even worse, but the progressives in charge of the Legislature aim to do just that.

The city has more public and subsidized “affordable” housing (both in total and per capita) than any other — yet it’s in a perennial housing crisis. Nearly a million apartments are “rent-stabilized” — under a regime so onerous and discouraging of investment that some 60,000 are just being left vacant by their owners, rather than lose money on them.

Nor is there a way up and out for squeezed tenants: Thanks to zoning and NIMBY-ism, New York state as a whole has built less new housing than even other Northeastern states, let alone Texas and Florida.

Now the progressives want to distort this housing “market” even more.

Their “good cause eviction” proposal threatens to discourage new housing and drive existing landlords out of the business altogether.

That would probably please the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Julia Salazar of Brooklyn, a proud Democratic Socialist.

But she’s far from alone: Both the Assembly and state Senate proposed budgets include the idea.

Obvious good causes for eviction include not paying the rent, or causing disturbances.

But that’s not what the “good cause” bill has in mind. It would prohibit evictions if rents become “unreasonable” — specifically, raised by more than 3% or 1.5% above the Consumer Price Index, as determined once a year.

This is statewide rent control by another name — with all the distortions it brings with it.

Beware NY progressives’ push for universal rent control
In a period of raging inflation, a snapshot of the Consumer Price Index may well not reflect a property owner’s rising costs over the course of the year. Not that progressives are concerned about the costs of the numerous small, “mom and pop” landlords, many of whom are new immigrants using property ownership to aid their upward mobility.

A 2019 law barred rent increases in regulated units even if owners have to make major capital repairs.

The cost of a new roof must come out of their profits — even if they have none.

That’s why units are being left vacant.

More broadly, controlling rents suppresses price signals, the means through which supply and demand are balanced.

It encourages tenants to stay longer in apartments larger than what they might need — limiting the turnover that a healthy market needs.

That’s why you can find aging Baby Boomers knocking around in Upper West Side apartments with empty bedrooms, while young New Yorkers are doubled up in shoeboxes.

New York University’s Furman Center has found that rent-regulated tenants remain in their units three times as long as those in non-regulated units — and are better off, as well.

Rent limits are also why there are long waiting lists for public housing units; more than a quarter of current tenants are “overhoused”— meaning they, too, have more bedrooms than they need.

Housing “advocates” believe we should effectively transfer property rights from owners to tenants and let the latter stay put as long as they’d like — and even pass along their apartment to younger family members.

Their model is the city’s dilapidated public-housing system, where tens of thousands of residents have lived in their units for more than 40 years.

Salazar and her fellow travelers have a dread of gentrification — the wealthier driving out the poor from the Brooklyn neighborhoods she represents.

Reality check: There are a limited number of hedge fund managers even in New York, and lots of them are following Citadel’s Ken Griffin to Miami, as New York has apparently made “tax the rich” its official state slogan.

Moreover, property owners in many parts of the state — think depressed Syracuse, Rochester or Utica — are not likely to be keen to evict a tenant having trouble paying the rent; there may not be another one ready to move in.

Gov. Kathy Hochul, to her credit, has promoted the idea of new housing construction in New York’s suburbs — a good way to lower prices when so many state residents are fleeing and the population has fallen.

But she pushed an idea guaranteed to inspire maximum resistance — a state super-zoning board that could override local decisions.

That’s predictably inspired pushback. She needs to find the right mix of incentives to persuade, rather than coerce — a challenge for tight housing markets across the country.

To her discredit, Hochul might cave to the Legislature and sign a budget that includes “good cause eviction” regulation to get the rest of her plan passed, too.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis will seek the presidency on the basis of what he’s done to make his state a magnet for newcomers.

Meanwhile, Empire State lawmakers are doing all they can to make their state ever less attractive.




Friday, March 24, 2023

World Athletics votes to EXCLUDE transgender athletes who have transitioned from male to female after puberty

Transgender women have been banned from competing in the female category at international athletics events.

The decision was made by World Athletics today in order to 'prioritise fairness and the integrity of the female competition before inclusion'.

Seb Coe, the governing body's president, also confirmed athletes from Russia and Belarus would continue to be excluded from competition, including the Olympics, due to the war of Ukraine.

That puts World Athletics in direct conflict with the International Olympic Committee, who are exploring a pathway for Russian and Belarusians to compete at Paris 2024 as 'neutrals'.

On the new transgender participation rules, Lord Coe said at a press conference in Monaco: 'The World Athletics council has taken the decisive action to protect the female category in our sport.

'The council has agreed to exclude male-to-female transgender athletes who have been through male puberty from female world ranking competitions from March 31 this year.

'The decision that the council made is a primarily principle-based decision and that is the overarching need to protect the female category. This is what our sport is here to do.'

Under previous rules, transgender women could compete in the female category as long as their testosterone levels were below five nanomoles per litre over a one-year period.

In January, World Athletics announced they wanted to tighten their policy but said their 'preferred option' was only to reduce testosterone levels to 2.5 nmol/L and increase the transition period to two years.

That led to a huge backlash from female athletes and women's rights campaigners who wanted a blanket ban on transgender athletes competing against other women.

And yesterday, they were granted their wish following a vote of World Athletics council members, with the governing body admitting there was 'little support' for their original stance during a consultation period.

Coe said: 'The majority of those consulted stated that transgender athletes should not be competing in the female category. Many believe there is insufficient evidence that transwomen do not retain advantage over biological women.

'Where the science is insufficient to justify maintaining testosterone suppression for transgender athletes, the council agreed it must be guided by our overarching principle, which is to protect the female category.'

Asked if he expected a legal challenge, Coe said: 'It's possible. If that is the case, then we will do what we have done in the past which is vigorously defend our position. We will always do what we think is in the best interest of our sport.'

The decision by World Athletics follows that of swimming's world governing body, FINA, who announced a ban on transgender athletes from competing in elite women's races last summer.

The rules for trans women in other sports:


Provided they have reduced their testosterone to a specific amount, transgender women can compete against other women.


Transgender women are banned from elite female races if they have been through any male puberty. FINA, the governing body, is creating an ‘open’ category for transgender swimmers.


Since 2020, trans women have been prevented from playing at the elite, international level of women’s rugby. World Rugby was the first international sports body to impose such a ban

Sharron Davies, the former British Olympic swimmer and leading campaigner on the issue, tweeted: 'Thank you @sebcoe & @WorldAthletics for standing up for female athletes across the world who are worthy of fair sport.'

She added: 'Protecting the female category must include young girls, masters females & schools too. They all deserve their right to fair sport. This cannot just be about elite. School girls, Club athletes & masters racers (as well protecting the pathway) is no less worthy of fair competition.

'Sport is for all. But it must be safe, fair & then inclusive. Not the other way round. Let's have respectful debate & find places for everyone.'

Coe added that a working group would be set up to do further research into transgender eligibility guidelines and insisted that 'we're not saying 'no' forever'.

He also announced stricter rules on athletes with differences in sex development (DSD).

Under previous regulations, DSD athletes only faced restrictions in events ranging from 400 metres to a mile, which prevented double 800 metres Olympic champion Caster Semenya from competing.

However, DSD athletes in all other events must also now reduce their testosterone levels to 2.5 nmol/L for at least six months, meaning Christine Mboma, the Olympic 200m silver medallist, is ineligible to compete at this summer's World Championships in Budapest.

It comes after years of rows of the position of transwomen in sports, with high profile cases including Lia Thomas's attempts to compete in women's National College Athletics' Association races.

Caitlyn Jenner, who performed in the Olympics as a man under the name Bruce, before transitioning later in life, criticised Thomas's desire to race against female swimmers, saying 'we have to keep it fair for women'.

She added it was 'just not fair' on other competitors given she has already gone through puberty as a male, and her Olympic quest 'the trans community look selfish'.

In the same press conference, Coe revealed that Russia's seven-year doping ban has now been lifted – but that their athletes, and those from Belarus, would still be excluded because of the invasion of Ukraine.

That is despite IOC president Thomas Bach insisting that Russians and Belarusians should be allowed to compete at next summer's Olympics in Paris.

Coe, who is also an IOC member, added: 'The IOC is not in any doubt about where I sit on that issue.

'The death and destruction we have seen in Ukraine over the past year, including the deaths of some 185 athletes, have only hardened my resolve on this matter.

'The integrity of our major international competitions has already been substantially damaged by the actions of the Russian and Belarusian governments, through the hardship inflicted on Ukrainian athletes and the destruction of Ukraine's sports systems.

'Russian and Belarusian athletes, many of whom have military affiliations, should not be beneficiaries of these actions.'


Left-wing Young Turks commentator infuriates woke mob by blasting trans-friendly terms such as 'birthing person' and 'person who menstruates'

One of the hosts of The Young Turks faced intense outrage from a woke mob - which included some of her own loyal fans - after she criticized a series of 'trans-friendly' vocabulary.

Left wing commentator Ana Kasparian tweeted that she finds certain trans-inclusive ways of addressing 'women' - such as person with a uterus and birthing person - as degrading.

But Kasparian then found herself heavily criticized by the woke online mob - pinning her as being transphobic and trans-exclusionary for her mere opinions.

Earlier this week, the social commentator wrote: 'I'm a woman. Please don't ever refer to me as a person with a uterus, birthing person, or person who menstruates. How do people not realize how degrading this is?

'You can support the transgender community without doing this s**t.'

Her comments did not go over well with Twitter users on both the right and the left with one person saying: 'Ana, that might be one of the most TERF things you could say.'

A TERF is an acronym meaning 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist,' a term that most notably entered the public eye after Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling made anti-transgender statements.

Kasparian's tweet, posted just before 2.30pm on March 22, has been viewed on the social media app more than 20 million times.

One transgender journalist and MSNBC contributor called out Kasparian and told her to 'get a grip' on her tweets.

'Those words are meant for AFAB [assigned female at birth] people as a category, not individual people. Get a grip,' Katelyn Burns wrote.

One person who identifies themselves as a psychiatrist for transgender youth also called out the tweet.

'Who called you that? I've only ever heard that used when referring to a population, not an individual person,' wrote Jack Turban.

'Obviously, those terms are meant to be precise to include all people who meet one of those characteristics, when needing to discuss a relevant topic,' Turban tweeted.

Mike Figueredo, who goes by the 'The Humanist Report' on Twitter, said in a tweet that he believes Kasparian is playing into anti-trans rhetoric.

'I respect you a lot, but this notion that the mere existence of trans-inclusive terms (rarely used in casual convos) somehow degrades women comes right out of the right's anti-trans 'war on women' playbook,' Figueredo tweeted.

'There's a reason why they're praising you for this,' he continued.

Among those 'praising' Kasparian was former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, who tweeted her support for the host's statements.

'A broken clock...' Lake wrote in response to The Young Turks' host's tweet.

Kasparian did not appear to want Lake's endorsement, however, responding: 'I think you're an embarrassment to this country and full blown lunatic.'

British rapper Zuby joined in, stating: 'Your side is going to roast you now. I hope you're ready for the tolerance.'

Kasparian also responded to that tweet, saying: 'They have the right to speak their piece, as do I.'

'A sensible, mainstream take... that is going to absolutely trigger the s**t out of Very Online progressives,' journalist Brad Polumbo responded in a tweet.

'Your comment section has turned into a lunatic asylum. Some people just can't accept your remarks,' Ian Miles Cheong said.

The backlash comes just weeks after Kasparian sat down with right-wing podcast host Ben Shapiro to talk about some of the biggest issues in the country.

At one point, Kasparian called out left-wing policies in Los Angeles in regards to the homeless crisis in the city. 'The approach that we have implemented is clearly not working; more people are dying,' Kasparian said.

'I get so much flack for saying this: I want an actual solution,' the host continued.

'It is insanely cruel to watch people die on our streets and then give yourself a pat on the back because you think you did something compassionate. That is not compassionate,' Kasparian continued.

After the sit-down where the pair discussed a myriad of topics, Kasparian received backlash for 'platforming' Shapiro, who he base vehemently disagrees with.

She fought back saying that Shapiro's audience didn't appear to have a problem with her talking to him and the issue seemed one sided.

'Ben has a bigger following than me. I can assure you he’s platforming me and his audience isn’t crying about it,' Kasparian said.


White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo is accused of being pro-segregation after saying 'people of color need to get away from white people'

'People of color need to get away from White people and have some community with each other,' DiAngelo said during a March 1 webinar, 'Racial Justice: The Next Frontier.'

DiAngelo then went on to suggest that people who do not concede to antiracist teachings do not belong in modern workforces.

'In 2023, we have to see the ability to engage in these conversations with some nuance and some skill as a basic qualification and if you can't do that, you're just simply not qualified in today's workplace,' DiAngelo said.

The racially charged comments enraged conservatives on Twitter.

'Robin DiAngelo sounding like an old-line segregationist,' anti-CRT expert Chris Rufo tweeted in response to the clip.

Conservative podcast host Allie Beth Stuckey said DiAngelo's comments sounded like racial comments made by Dilbert creator, Scott Adams, that caused several newspapers to pull his long-running cartoon.

'When Robin DiAngelo says it, it's inspirational and she gets paid $20k. When Scott Adams says it, it's racist and he loses his job,' she tweeted.

Darrell B. Harrison, director of digital platforms at Grace to You Ministries, argued that DiAngelo's comments revealed her own racist attitudes.

'For people like Robin DiAngelo, it's always other white people who black people need to 'get away from,' but never her. DiAngelo is a woke Bull Connor, only instead of dogs and fire hoses, she uses the divisive and factious tenets of critical race theory to keep blacks in their place,' he tweeted.

The left-wing activist was on a panel with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) consultants Mary-Frances Winters and Mareisha N. Reese discussing the future of DEI when she made the comments.

Her most recent book title, 'The Facilitator's Guide for White Affinity Groups: Strategies for Leading White People in an Anti-Racist Practice,' also suggests she believes Whites should stay within their own racial social circles.

DiAngelo has published a number of academic articles on race, privilege, and education and written several books.

In 2011, she co-wrote with Ozlem Sensoy, 'Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Critical Social Justice Education.'

The book won the American Educational Research Association's Critics' Choice Book Award in 2012 and the Society of Professors of Education Book Award in 2018.

DiAngelo later that year published a paper titled 'White Fragility' in The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, thereby coining the term.

She defined the concept of white fragility as 'a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves'.

Since 2016, DiAngelo has regularly led workshops on the topic. In 2017, the term 'white fragility' was shortlisted by the Oxford Dictionary for Word of the Year.

An in June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, White Fragility reached number one on the New York Times list.

DiAngelo makes an estimated $728,000 a year from speaking engagements and workshops and is charging an average of $14,000 per speech to talk about 'utlra-woke' concepts.


National Archives Sued for Shielding Documents Declassified by Trump

The National Archives and Records Administration is illegally withholding documents that were declassified by then-President Donald Trump, according to a new lawsuit.

The archives, or NARA, has repeatedly refused to provide the documents Trump declassified just before leaving office on Jan. 19, 2021.

The documents relate to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, a counterintelligence probe that examined purported links between Trump and Russian actors.

John Solomon, a journalist, and Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official, asked NARA for the documents in 2022 after being named Trump’s representatives to NARA.

Gary Stern, a NARA official, said the declassified records had been sent to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) per a memorandum from then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who directed on Jan. 20, 2021, the DOJ to review the materials and release them with redactions.

“I have asked DOJ to complete its review as quickly as possible, so that we can all have a fully releasable set of records,” Stern said in a message on Aug. 17, 2022.

NARA did find a box with about 2,700 pages but couldn’t ascertain the box’s classification status and is thus treating it as top-secret, Stern said in another email.

NARA is violating the Presidential Records Act, which states that presidential records of a former president “shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative,” the new suit states.

The government defendants “have wrongfully taken or are wrongfully in possession of and/or detaining the subject records,” it states.

Solomon filed the suit in federal court in Washington.

He is asking the court to order the DOJ to immediately return the records to NARA and to order NARA to turn the records over once received.

“President Trump declassified these records so the American public could see for itself the abuses and failures of the FBI during the Russia collusion case. But at every step of the process, the public has been thwarted,” Solomon said in a statement. “These declassified records are clear records of the Trump presidency, have clear historical value, and have been wrongly kept from the Archives and its employer, the American people, by the DOJ for more than two years.”




Thursday, March 23, 2023

UK: When is a crime not a crime?

Toby Young

On Monday, Suella Braverman [Home Secretary] published draft guidance designed to rein in the police habit of recording a ‘non-crime hate incident’ (NCHI) against a person’s name whenever someone accuses them of doing something politically incorrect. You may think I’m exaggerating, but in 2017 an NCHI was recorded against Amber Rudd, then the home secretary, after an Oxford professor complained about her references to ‘migrant workers’ in a Tory party conference speech. NCHIs can show up on an enhanced criminal record check even though, by definition, the person hasn’t committed a crime.

The concept first surfaced in guidance published by the College of Policing in 2014 and within five years 119,934 non-crime hate incidents had been recorded by 34 police forces in England and Wales, according to FoI requests submitted by the Telegraph. Nine police forces didn’t respond, but if we assume they were logging NCHIs on the same scale, it’s likely that more than a quarter of a million have been recorded to date. Little wonder the police won’t send anyone round to your house if you report a burglary. They’re too busy investigating people accused of wrongthink.

So this new guidance – in reality, a statutory code of practice that requires the approval of both houses of parliament – is long overdue. Free-speech campaigners like me have been lobbying Conservative home secretaries about NCHIs for years, not least because they’re used as a weapon by political activists and religious zealots to silence their critics. A carefully worded complaint accusing your antagonist of being motivated by ‘hostility’ towards you on the basis of a ‘protected’ characteristic, e.g. your race, religion or sexual orientation, will result in a summons to the local police station. But Suella, God bless her, is the first one to sit up and listen. She recognises that meting out this punishment to anyone who challenges woke dogma is having a chilling effect. ‘We need a common sense approach that better protects freedom of speech,’ she wrote in the Times.

The Home Secretary is able to introduce this new code of practice thanks to an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act secured by Lord Moylan and other peers last year, but what seems to have tipped her over the edge is the recording of NCHIs against the four boys at the centre of the imbroglio involving a slightly scuffed copy of the Quran at Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield three weeks ago. Even though the boy who brought the book into the school has a diagnosis of autism and the head-teacher said there was no malicious intent, a chief inspector for West Yorkshire Police proudly announced at the Jamia Masjid Swafia mosque, where a ‘community meeting’ had been convened, that the episode had been recorded as a ‘hate incident’. The terrifying thing about this is that ‘non crimes’, unlike crimes, aren’t automatically deleted from a person’s record when they reach 18.

Thankfully, schoolchildren will no longer have NCHIs recorded against their names when the new guidance comes into force. Paragraph 39 states: ‘If a report is made to the police about an incident that occurred in a school and does not amount to a crime, the appropriate police response would be to refer the matter to the school management team… An NCHI record should not be made on policing systems, and the personal data of the subject should not be recorded.’

One person who deserves some credit for this victory is Harry Miller, an ex-copper who got into trouble for tweeting a comic verse about trans women in 2019. When he was told an NCHI had been placed on his record, he took the College of Policing and Humberside Police to court. Had he lost, he would have faced an eye-watering bill for the other side’s costs, but luckily he won. The new guidance partly reflects this triumph, but he is worried some woke police officers will try to get round it by treating politically incorrect remarks as actual crimes, rather than NCHIs, and petitioning the CPS to prosecute.

That’s not all that fanciful. Last week, I was due to appear as an expert witness for a Christian street preacher called David McConnell who was appealing a conviction for causing harassment, alarm or distress. His crime? ‘Misgendering’ a trans woman. A judge at Leeds Crown Court overturned the conviction without needing to hear my evidence, but we can expect more such prosecutions in future once the use of NCHIs to shut people up has been curtailed. The Home Secretary should be congratulated for striking a blow in defence of free speech this week, but there’s more work to be done.


Minorities Prefer Trump? Here’s Where Trump Gets Major GOP Primary Lead

By Manzanita Miller

Two recent polls could upset political assumptions about GOP primary voters going forward. While former President Trump maintains a double-digit lead over prospective GOP challenger Ron DeSantis in several national polls, Trump’s widest lead over DeSantis is with non-white voters. Trump also holds a substantial lead over DeSantis with lower-income voters who make under $50,000 a year and with younger voters under 50.

The average of two recent polls by CNN/SSRS and Quinnipiac University shows Trump’s lead over DeSantis widens substantially among non-white Republicans, who make up a larger share of low-income voters than whites do.

Trump is ahead of DeSantis by approximately 29 percentage points (55% to 26%) with voters of color but ahead by just one percentage point – and well within the margin of error – with white GOP primary voters.

Minority GOP primary voters are also more likely than whites to say it is more important for their GOP primary pick to share their values. By a two-to one margin minority GOP primary voters say it is more important for their GOP primary pick to share their values than to be “capable of beating Joe Biden.” A full 80% of minority GOP primary voters also say that it is “essential” that whoever is nominated for president in 2024 restores the policies of the Trump Administration.

Lower income voters continue to be key Trump supporters, while higher income voters favor DeSantis in polls, but CNN’s data shows non-white Republicans are more likely to fall into the lower-income group.

For instance, Trump leads DeSantis by 22 points among voters earning less than $50,000, but trails DeSantis by 13 points with those earning $50,000 or more. However, 45% of non-white Republicans fall into the group earning less than $50,000 while just 28% of White Republicans do. Race and class are both converging to create a block of working-class voters that skews heavily pro-Trump.

Young voters also favor Trump while older voters favor DeSantis, something Americans for Limited Government Foundation (ALGF) pointed out two weeks ago. Trump leads DeSantis by 18 percentage points with voters under 50, but trails DeSantis by 9 points for voters 50 to 64.

The minority shift toward Trump is not new. Latinos in particular have seen a significant rise in Trump support in recent months, with YouGov survey data showing the share of Latinos who say Trump should run again is up 14 points since he left office going from 22% to 36% today. Meanwhile, just 28% of Latinos want a Biden re-run and a solid 57% say Biden should not run again.

Looking back at the 2020 election, Black and Hispanic voters saw substantial shifts toward the right. Although Latinos still favored Biden in the 2020 presidential election, Trump’s share of the Hispanic vote rose ten percentage points from 28% in 2016 to 38% in 2020.

Trump also netted 12% of Black Americans nationwide, up from 8% in 2016. His most substantial gain was among Black men, 18% of whom supported Trump in 2020 up from 13% in 2016. Though his share of the Black female vote was small, it doubled from 4% in 2016 to 8% in 2020.

Minority voters have still favored Democrats in recent elections, but non-college-educated minorities are beginning to move to the right much like non-college whites. According to exit polls, the Democratic Party’s share of the non-college minority vote dropped eleven points between 2008 and 2020.

While Biden did win non-college minorities by 46 points in 2020, Trump increased his share of their vote by six points between 2016 and 2020. In 2016, Trump won 20% of the non-college minority vote and in 2020 he won 26%.

Non-college minorities also moved eight points to the right between the 2018 and 2022 midterm elections. In the 2018 midterms Democrats won minorities without a college degree by 76% to 22%. In the 2022 midterms Democrats won this block by 68% to 28%.

The midterms also showed a substantial shift toward the right among non-white men between 2018 and 2022. Democrats lost 21 points with Latino men between the two most recent midterm elections, going from winning them by 29 points in 2018 to 8 points in 2022.

Democrats also lost 14 points with Latino women between 2018 and 2022. Democrats lost 11 points with Black men, who supported Democrats by 76 points in 2018 and 65 points in 2022. Black women supported Democrats by 7 points less last year as well.

While education is growing among minorities, minorities without a college degree make up a substantial share of the electorate. In the 2022 midterms, minorities without a degree made up nearly a fifth of the electorate (18%) while those with one made up just 9%.

As ALGF pointed out last month, early polling shows Trump leads DeSantis on issues central to Latino voters including economic issues and border security. By a greater than two-to-one margin, Americans say they trust Trump more than DeSantis to handle the economy, taxes and government spending, foreign policy, and immigration.

Polls also show younger voters, who are more likely to fall into lower-income profiles largely prefer Trump to DeSantis. Over half of voters eighteen to twenty-nine (51%) have a very or somewhat favorable view of Trump, while just 43% have a very or somewhat favorable view of DeSantis. Voters over 65 are the opposite, with 37% saying they have a very or somewhat favorable view of Trump while 42% say they have a favorable view of DeSantis.

In the Republican party, as well as in the Democrat party, class is becoming a more divisive variable than almost any other metric. Lower income and lower educated voters prefer the GOP regardless of race, and within the Republican Party these voters gravitate toward former President Trump’s populist platform over DeSantis’ more conventional GOP agenda.


A Genuine Heroine for Women’s History Month

Ever heard of Zoila Aguila, also known as “La Niña Del Escambray?” No?...And yet her story seems to check every box for a Woke feminist super-drama.

You mean to tell me that from the Mainstream Media (so abundant with “feminists”) you didn’t hear about this “Latina” girl who, when younger than Miley Cyrus, courageously took up arms as a guerrilla fighter against a murderous, terror-sponsoring (genuinely) Russia-colluding regime, was captured, horribly tortured in utterly dark, underground dungeons crawling with rats and roaches where she lost her baby and eventually her mind? She suffered 15 years as a political prisoner enduring horrible tortures, alongside the longest-suffering female political prisoners in modern history, in a locale absolutely infested with mainstream “news” bureaus and their intrepid “reporters” and correspondents. Finally she was released in a prisoner exchange and found refuge in the U.S.

You mean the U.S. Mainstream Media didn’t inform you of how her brother and husband, fellow guerrilla fighters against Soviet commanded oppressors, were also captured by Soviet–armed and commanded storm-troopers on orders of the regime whose historic rationale was the destruction of the U.S.—and were murdered by firings squads, well within earshot of the “latina” freedom-fighter, as the murderers taunted her with laughs and jeers?

Well, gosh? Doesn’t this story—involving events just 90 miles from U.S. shores and subsequent legal U.S. resident—seem to have all the villains, heroes, drama and plot the Mainstream Media/Democrat/Hollywood/Publishing-Complex could ever DREAM of—for a smashing, human-interest story, documentary, movie, etc?

AH! But here’s the kicker, amigos: the latina freedom-fighter in question, Zoila Aguila, who passed away in Feb. of 2021 in Miami, fought against and was tortured horribly till insane by the regime co-founded by the Left’s premier poster boys—Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.

Need I say more about the media blackout?

When the hacks who host and narrate programs on The History Channel, NPR, etc. call Che Guevara a "guerrilla fighter" they're quite correct, but unwittingly. After all, the term "Indian fighter" was used for cowboys who fought against Indians right? Well, did your history professor or The History Channel inform you that one of the bloodiest and longest guerrilla wars on this continent was fought - not by - but against Fidel Castro and Che, Guevara and mostly by campesinos (country folk)?

Didn't think so. Farm collectivization was no more voluntary in Cuba than in the Ukraine. And Cuba's Kulaks had guns, a few at first anyway. Had these rebels gotten a fraction of the aid the Afghan Mujahideen got, the Viet Cong got — indeed that George Washington's rebels got from the French — had these Cuban rebels gotten any help, some bandits named Fidel Castro and Che Guevara would probably merit less Wikipedia space today than Pancho Villa.

But JFK's Missile Crisis "solution" pledged to Castro and his Soviet sponsors that the U.S. pull the rug out from under Cuba's in-house freedom fighters. Raul Castro himself admitted that at the time of the Missile Crisis his troops and their Soviet advisors were up against 179 different "bands of bandits" as he labeled the thousands of Cuban anti-Communist rebels then battling savagely and virtually alone in Cuba's countryside, with small arms shipments from their compatriots in south Florida as their only lifeline.

Kennedy's shameful surrender to Khrushchev which “solved” the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis cut this lifeline. The Cuban freedom-fighters working from South Florida were suddenly rounded up for "violating U.S. Neutrality laws." The Coast Guard in Florida got 12 new boats and seven new planes to make sure Castro and his Soviet patrons remained utterly unmolested as they consolidated Stalinism 90 miles from U.S. shores. Think about it: here's the U.S. Coast Guard and Border Patrol working 'round the clock arresting Hispanics in the U.S. who are desperate to return to their native country.

Zoila Aguila was prominent among these lonely and virtually-unknown Cuban freedom-fighters. On the other hand the utterly bogus battles of the utterly bogus guerrillas (the Castro brothers and Che Guevara) had been trumpeted to high heavens by the U.S. media. And this relentless propagandizing was highly appreciated:

“Much more valuable than rural recruits for our Cuban guerrilla force were American media recruits to export our propaganda,” snickered Ernesto “Che” Guevara in his diaries.

This ferocious guerrilla war, waged 90 miles from America's shores, might have taken place on the planet Pluto for all you'll read about it in the MSM and all you'll learn about it from those illustrious Ivy League academics. To get an idea of the odds faced by those betrayed rural rebels, the desperation of their battle and the damage they wrought, you might revisit Tony Montana during the last 15 minutes of "Scarface."

Che had a very bloody (and typically cowardly) hand in this slaughter, one of the major anti-insurgency wars on this continent. Many of these anti-communist guerrillas were executed on the spot upon capture, a Che specialty. "We fought with the fury of cornered beasts," is how one of the lucky few who escaped described this desperate freedom fight against the Soviet occupation of Cuba through their proxies Fidel and Che.

In 1956 when Che linked up with Fidel, Raul, and their Cuban chums in Mexico City, one of them (now in exile) recalls Che railing against the Hungarian freedom-fighters as "Fascists!" and cheering their extermination by Soviet tanks.

In 1962 Che got a chance to do more than cheer from the sidelines. He had a hand in the following: "Cuban militia units commanded by Russian officers employed flame-throwers to burn the palm-thatched cottages in the Escambray countryside. The peasant occupants were accused of feeding the counterrevolutionaries and bandits." At one point in 1962, one of every 17 Cubans was a political prisoner. Fidel himself admits that they faced 179 bands of "counter-revolutionaries" and "bandits."

Mass murder was the order in Cuba's countryside. It was the only way to decimate so many rebels. These country folk went after the Reds with a ferocity that saw Fidel and Che running to their Soviet sugar daddies and tugging their pants in panic. That commie bit about how "a guerrilla swims in the sea which is the people, etc." fit Cuba's anti-Fidel and Che rebellion to a T. So in a relocation and concentration campaign that shamed anything the Brits did to the Boers, the gallant Communists ripped thousands of Cubans from their ancestral homes and herded them into concentration camps on the opposite side of Cuba.

One of these Cuban redneck wives (Zoila Aguila) refused to be relocated. After her husband, sons, and a few nephews were murdered by the Gallant Che and his Soviet-armed and led minions, she grabbed a tommy gun herself, rammed in a clip and took to the hills. She became a rebel herself. Cubans knew her as La Niña Del Escambray.

For a year she ran rings around the Communist armies sweeping the hills in her pursuit. Finally in 1964 she ran out of ammo and supplies and the communist storm-trooper rounded her up. All this was totally ignored by the foreign media.

On the other hand, Zoila Aguila’s torturers got no end of adulatory coverage from media “feminists.”


The DiAngelo/Dilbert Double Standard

See if you can spot the difference in these quotes.

Quote #1:

If nearly half of all blacks are not OK with white people … that’s a hate group. And I don’t want anything to do with them. And based on how things are going, the best advice I could give to white people is to get the hell away from black people. Just get the f*** away. Wherever you have to go, just get away. ‘Cause there’s no fixing this. This can’t be fixed.

Quote #2:

I’m a big believer in affinity space and affinity work, and I think people of color need to get away from white people and have some community with each other. And I’ll let that go and maybe see if anyone else wants to pick it up.

The first quote was spoken by Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon. Just under a month ago, Adams made these remarks in response to a Rasmussen poll that questioned black people about the phrase, “It’s okay to be white.” Of the black respondents who answered, 53% agree, 26% disagree, and 21% are not sure.

What Adams said even in the context of this poll is still racism. As political pundit Ben Shapiro said at the time: “What Scott Adams said was racist. And here’s the thing: if you substituted the word 'white’ for ‘black’ in his rant, you would immediately be given a top editorial post at the New York Times.”

This is really quite prescient of Shapiro because on March 20, the Left gifted us Quote #2. This, however, isn’t top billing for The New York Times. In fact, there is a distinct mainstream media silence, which is telling in and of itself.

This second quote reverses the races but delivers the same racist messaging. Who, pray tell, was the architect of this atrocity? The reigning queen of the book White Fragility herself, Robin DiAngelo. She phrased it more “nicely,” dubbing this segregation “affinity space,” but really it is the same racism that got Adams canceled.

DiAngelo, however, probably will be applauded for her “wondrous insight” because she is one of the people “doing the work” to open all of our plebeian eyes to the racism inherent in our whiteness and in the institutions built up by white people.

In those comments, both Adams and DiAngelo displayed a worldview that separates people by their races. The big difference is that such racism is what made DiAngelo rich and famous.

As our Nate Jackson said when he wrote about the original Adams infraction, “Here’s a fundamental truth that 100% of Americans should agree with: It’s okay to be whatever color your skin actually is.” You can’t change your skin color any more than you can change your biology. God made us exactly who we are supposed to be. Using race as one more tool to divide us is inherently anti-human as well as morally repugnant.

Conservative pundits were quick to pick up on this double standard. Allie Beth Stuckey observed: “When Robin DiAngelo says it, it’s inspirational and she gets paid $20k. When Scott Adams says it, it’s racist and he loses his job.”

Christopher Rufo, who has the video of DiAngelo uttering her “affinity space” quote, had two things to say: “Robin DiAngelo sounds like an old line segregationist,” and “It’s amazing that, for an entire year, the libs scrambled to find their moral voice and settled on Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, who turned out to be two of the greatest midwits of our time.”

Dave Rubin responded to Rufo’s post with the question, “Isn’t this what they cancelled @ScottAdamsSays for?” To which Scott Adams interjected, “You’re not supposed to notice.”

As was mentioned earlier in the piece, this DiAngelo soundbite has gotten radio silence from all of mainstream media. When Adams said his bit about white people staying away from black people, that was in The New York Times for days.

Perhaps the mainstream media is hoping we all are sufficiently distracted by the potential indictment of Donald Trump or perhaps the Russia/China meeting in Moscow to notice.

Either way, this is an egregious double standard.




Wednesday, March 22, 2023

Tenured Professor Amy Wax, Under Siege for ‘Truth Telling’ on Race, Makes Her Case

She is both very bright and highly principled. She speaks the truth without fear. The moves against her are pathetic. If they succeed, the matter will just end up before SCOTUS, where she will win

The future of tenure in American higher education could turn on the fate of a septuagenarian professor who teaches law at the University of Pennsylvania who has an intense mien and history of inflammatory opinions of which she has no regrets.

Professor Amy Wax has catapulted to national attention because of comments about race and gender that have made her a truth telling seer to some and a bomb throwing bigot to others. In refusing to back down, she could break the back of tenure, the system of a job-for-life that in its modern contractual form has been the coin of the academic realm since 1940.

Ms. Wax has come to represent a test case because of both the extremity of her pronouncements — she has alleged to have made a series of controversial comments over the years asserting discrepancies in cognitive ability relating to race, has claimed that she has never seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of their class, and called India a “sh-thole” — as well as Penn’s effort to oust her.

“Universities,” Ms. Wax tells the Sun in the course of a nearly one hour conversation, “need to have room for people like me to explain the opposition and above all, to explain to students that there is another point of view” than the reigning one, which she regards as “lopsided, stunted, and inadequate.”

Ms. Wax speaks in the forceful tones of someone who has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. Her resume includes all the usual gold stars, plus a white coat; she graduated from Harvard Medical School and completed a residency in neurology before turning to the bar full time.

Now, Ms. Wax is facing what she calls “a formal attempt to take away my job,” notwithstanding that she secured tenure two decades ago and holds a named chair, another mark of distinction. The dean of her law school, Theodore Ruger, is initiating disciplinary action against her to determine whether her patterns of speech warrant a “major sanction.” This could include firing, despite her tenure.

For Dean Ruger, it appears personal. He told students at a town hall meeting in 2018 that he is “pissed off” that she remains on faculty, a reality which he says “sucks.” He explained that the “only way to get rid of a tenured professor” is a process that will “take months.” That effort is now underway.

Dean Ruger’s report, which reads like a criminal complaint, accuses Ms. Wax of a “callous and flagrant disregard for our University community” in the form of “incessant racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic actions and statements.” He finds that faculty “call her presence demoralizing and disruptive” and students steer clear of her courses.

Ms. Wax asserts that this line of accusation heralds a dawning age where universities “can take away your job and your tenure just for what you said and for your opinions.” She calls Mr. Ruger “one of the worst deans in America” and accuses him of “groveling and pandering” to students.

Even some of Ms. Wax’s defenders have their doubts. The director of campus rights advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech stalwart, told the New York Times that “academic freedom has to protect the Amy Waxes of the academic world, so that it can be there for the Galileos of the academic world.” Ms. Wax allows that she is “unhappy” with that explanation.

Ms. Wax has, in turn, filed a grievance against the school, which she says is targeting the expressions of opinion that she is “fully and totally entitled to make by every tradition and standard in academia.” She calls Penn’s effort to sanction her a “direct attack” that aims to enforce a “rigid orthodoxy of permissible speech and expression.”

The grievance, which aims to arrest the disciplinary push against Ms. Wax, acknowledges that her opinions are “at times hard to hear or read” but asserts that they find support in “empirically based sources.” It adds that no Penn faculty member has “ever been formally charged with an infraction of University rules based on what he or she has taught, written, assigned to students, or opined in the media. No one.”

The lack of any accusation of sexual or behavioral misconduct sets Ms. Wax’s case apart from other instances where the shield of tenure has been pierced, such as the firing of a professor of the Classics, Joshua Katz, at Princeton. Mr. Katz was ostensibly dismissed over a lack of candor regarding a sexual relationship with a student, although he has claimed that was pretextual.

With Ms. Wax, it’s all about speech. She sees herself as a trespasser of an “unseen borderland” that cuts through campus, beyond which “dissent is not tolerated.” This zone is policed by academic hunters of “crimethink” that aim to “get rid of people or silence people or punish people” like her.

Not spared Professor Wax’s indignation is the “tea table gossip of modern journalism.” In particular, she calls the New York Times a “rag” and tells the Sun that their report that she describes herself as a “race realist” — asserted in the recent profile of her case — is “made up.”

The Sun asks Ms. Wax whether she feels that she has inflicted “severe harm” on her students, as Penn alleges. She rejects this “weaponized” notion of harm, where disagreement and offense have “transmogrified that harm into something that warrants discipline or ejection of a person who inflicts the harm.”

Ms. Wax is asked if it shows “discriminatory animus” to make the statement that “on average women are less knowledgeable than men?” She claims that “every study that’s been done worldwide” discloses that finding. Punishing her for statements like that one, she argues, will mean the “destruction of academic freedom.”

Ms. Wax acknowledges the utility of a “certain kind of restraint and decorum when talking about groups and comparing groups and making generalizations especially in a diverse society.” Alongside that caveat, though, is her aspiration to “defeat wokeism by developing a counter narrative.”

Ms. Wax’s account rejects the “premise that all groups are equal in their skills, ability, preferences, and talents.” That, she says, is both untrue and “not to be expected in a free and diverse society.” She sees the “core of wokeness” and its “central pillar” as the conviction that in the absence of racism “all groups are equal, equally capable and assimilated to positive norms.” She does not believe that.

Ms. Wax fiercely objects to Penn’s accusation that her pedagogy is marbled with bias and that her convictions compromise her classrooms. She tells the Sun that she has “never been biased against any student.” She elaborates that she treats “every student the same” in that she “responds to who they are as an individual” and demands from Mr. Ruger “forensic proof” to the contrary.

The Sun asks Ms. Wax if she misses teaching first year law classes, which are devoted to the basics of the legal canon. She was stripped of those duties in 2018. She responds that she’s told by colleagues that it is “no longer fun” to teach first year courses because “you’re always on your guard against committing some kind of violation or infraction of the progressive and woke rule book. ”

One particular flashpoint in l’affaire Wax was her invitation of the white supremacist and editor of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor, to speak to a seminar she was teaching on conservative thought. Mr. Taylor has written a book entitled “White Identity.” He was a contemporary of Ms. Wax at Yale.

The Sun pushes Ms. Wax on the merits of importing Mr. Taylor to her classroom. She responds that “whether you like it or not Jared Taylor is an educated informed articulate proponent of a far right position.” She explained that “students know nothing about this stuff” except that “they are supposed to condemn it and call it evil.”

Ms. Wax worries over this ignorance of both students and academic administrators of positions they find repugnant, saying how neither her pupils nor their instructors can “define a white nationalist,” which signals a state of “complete and total ignorance.” Spreading her arms and leaning forward in her chair, Ms. Wax declares “I am a teacher, I am a professor, and I am there to banish that ignorance.”

Within this condition of what she calls “educational malpractice,” Ms. Wax contends that she is a “very important person at the University of Pennsylvania” because of her “pastoral role” as mentor and confidant. She suggests that she is the only faculty member at Penn conservative students believe will not “turn them in” for contraband thought.

The professor casts back to her childhood to explain the distinction between “defending your right to say something” and “agreeing with what you say,” a difference that to her has been lost. She recalls sitting at the “dinner table when the Nazis marched through Skokie and my father said ‘I’m proud to live in a country where the Nazis can’” fly their flag. The American Civil Liberties Union defended the marchers then, but would be unlikely to do so now.

If Ms. Wax is a kind of pastor to the unwoke, her congregation stretches beyond Penn’s campus. She sees herself as channeling the thinking of an “enormous chunk of our democracy,” voicing opinions that are “discussed in living rooms and kitchens behind closed doors and at dinner parties” but have no place in the contemporary academy.

Reaching for examples of the kind of opinion she speaks that others wouldn’t, she cites Charles Murray’s “Facing Reality” for the persistent existence of a “one standard deviation difference in cognitive ability between blacks and whites.” She points to “differences in family structure and family stability and birth rates out of wedlock” as “really important.”

Speculating on her future, Ms. Wax calls the case against her “pathetic” but acknowledges the possibility that a “show trial” undertaken by a “kangaroo court” could oust her. She explains that she “would love to stay on” and that, aided by deep-pocketed backers, she is going to “fight the good fight to the death.”


The Legally and Morally Flawed Case Against Trump

Although we don’t yet know entirely how it will be structured, enough of the Manhattan District Attorney’s case against Trump has found its way into the public domain so that we know the general parameters. The centerpiece of the case is a misdemeanor charge under Section 175 for supposedly falsifying his business records. The theory is that Trump paid his former lawyer $130,000.00 in a series of reimbursements to Cohen and labeled them as legal expenses to conceal that the money was really to pay Adult Film Actress, Stormy Daniels for a nondisclosure agreement and that somehow this scheme violated federal election laws.

From a legal perspective, this bizarre wielding of State prosecutorial power in pursuit of what is essentially an alleged federal crime is seriously flawed.

For starters, it is not a crime to be a philanderer, if in fact Trump did have an affair with Ms. Daniels. She has claimed publicly that there was no affair – but who knows. It is not a crime for Trump to pay so-called “hush money” either. I hate it when people call it that. It is a legal contract called a “nondisclosure agreement” and it is not in the least uncommon. Particularly for a celebrity who is a married man with many business interests. There are myriad reasons – unrelated to his Presidential Campaign – for Trump to pay the money to Ms. Daniels.

The case is legally flawed for a second major reason. Specifically the Manhattan DA has a major Statute of Limitations problem.

It’s worth noting that the Federal Elections Commission and the Department of Justice have already looked at all this and took no action back when it was fresh. Nevertheless DA Bragg is essentially trying to stuff a federal campaign finance crime into a state law business records charge. The business records case under Section 175 is a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations is two years. If DA Bragg manages to shoehorn an alleged violation of the federal campaign finance laws into the Section 175 charge – despite being a state DA and not a US Attorney – then the business records case becomes a felony and has a five-year statute of limitations. My iPhone tells me this is 2023 – nearly seven years after any such Section 175 business record crime would have occurred. So, the statute of limitations has clearly run. Nevertheless, I wait on pins and needles to see what whackado legal theory DA Bragg pulls out of his…..hat to claim the statute of limitations has somehow not expired.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the potential indictment is on moral grounds. The whole thing is immoral and rotten to the core. This is a political weaponization of the criminal justice system. This expected indictment comes as the 2024 presidential election season is kicking into high gear. Donald Trump is leading in some polls as he seeks the Republican Nomination for President of the United States. If this indictment were truly grounded in good-faith, it could have been prosecuted back when it allegedly occurred. There’s no legitimate reason to bring it now. Only politics.

At its core, the justice system relies on trust. We must have faith and trust that the prosecutors we elect to serve our communities will wield the awesome power of their office fairly, objectively and without regard to his or her personal political biases. The public needs to have faith that prosecutors are using their power to objectively pursue legitimate crimes.

This indictment would represent a perversion of the justice process and will undermine public confidence. This blatant hyper-partisan abuse of power will undermine public confidence and poison the well for legitimate cases that truly do need to be prosecuted. New York is in the midst of a crime crisis the likes of which are unprecedented. One would hope DA Bragg would aggressively pursue and prosecute murderers, rapists, and robbers with the zeal with which he is pursuing the former President of the United States for a seven-year-old alleged bookkeeping crime.

Nobody who’s paying attention needs me to tell them that Trump is not in friendly territory. The DA and nearly all politicians in New York are democrats and Trump is the bane of every democrat’s existence. One hopes Trump will find a fair-minded and impartial judge who won’t be afraid to do the right thing and dismiss any legally defective indictment, but I am not holding my breath. I can’t even begin to ponder how Donald Trump would find a fair jury in New York.


Goodbye America, Hello Banana Republic

America as the “shining city on a hill” is gone. It has been replaced by a country with a weaponized criminal justice system, a radicalized educational system, and a news media that is a mouthpiece for a tyrannical government.

It is difficult to be hopeful about America after twenty-six disastrous months of the Biden administration. All the progress of the previous administration has been reversed. Our country is no longer economically robust, energy independent or secure at our borders.

We face a border crisis, a crime crisis, an economic crisis, a banking crisis, an education crisis and are fighting a proxy war against Russia. To make matters worse, a “woke” leftist agenda has become dominant at our nation’s top corporations, universities, government agencies and media outlets.

At the forefront of this destruction has been the most radical presidential administration in American history. The Biden administration has weaponized the Department of Justice to attack its political enemies, including parents, pro-life activists, and supporters of President Donald Trump who participated in the January 6, 2021, protests in Washington D.C.

While plenty of Americans have been targeted by “blue state” prosecutors and Democrats in the Department of Justice, the individual who has received the most abuse is former President Trump.

In fact, the former president has been besieged from the day he descended the “golden escalator” at Trump Tower and announced his presidential campaign. What followed was an unrelenting assault on Trump including almost universally negative media coverage, the coordinated release of the “Access Hollywood” tape and actual government spying on his campaign.

Although the phony “Steele dossier” was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign, it was used to grant “FISA” warrants to surveil Carter Page, a Trump foreign policy advisor.

The mistreatment did not stop after Trump’s 2016 victory. His National Security Advisor, Lt. General Michael Flynn, was the target of an FBI sting operation and was forced to resign. The charges of “Russian collusion” led to the establishment of a Special Counsel, former FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Despite the efforts of 18 Democrat prosecutors and a $32 million investigation no “Russian collusion” or obstruction of justice was proven.

Even though the Mueller investigation was a major waste of resources, deranged Democrats continued. The next obsession was the first impeachment of President Trump over a “perfect” phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky. Trump was trying to determine details about the corrupt relationship between the Biden family and Ukraine. The result was his impeachment and eventual acquittal.

Soon thereafter, COVID-19 struck, compliments of communist China, which led into the highly disputed 2020 election.

Recent polls show that 61% of Republicans believe that Joe Biden was not legitimately elected President of the United States. The following January 6th, millions of Americans held that view, including the large crowd of Trump supporters who gathered in Washington D.C. to protest. This led to the unprecedented second impeachment and acquittal of President Trump.

The demonstrators were not trying to overthrow the government, but to protest what they believed was a stolen election. The congressional committee that investigated the so-called “insurrection” was incredibly biased and partisan. Their target, not surprisingly, was President Trump.

Recently, new video footage has been shown to the American people which paint a different picture of what happened. Many of the protesters were not violent and were praising police officers and following their instructions.

Their next abusive tactic occurred last August. As President Trump was planning his 2024 campaign for the White House, FBI agents raided his Mar-a-Lago home and conducted a ten-hour search. While Trump’s attorneys were forced to wait outside, agents rummaged through his home, including his wife’s closet and his son’s bedroom.

Interestingly, classified documents were also found at the office and home of Joe Biden, but there was no FBI raid. In Biden’s case, everything was handled differently by the Department of Justice. The search was scheduled with Biden’s attorneys and conducted in an orderly manner.

In November, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate the classified documents recovered in the Trump raid and his involvement in the January 6th protests. According to reports, Smith has been aggressively spearheading this ongoing investigation.

As that probe continues, Trump is also being investigated by a Fulton County, Georgia Grand Jury for supposed efforts to pressure state officials to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The latest outrage involves an investigation in New York City that will reportedly lead to the President’s arrest this week. The District Attorney is resurrecting an old charge that President Trump improperly reported the payment of “hush money” to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged tryst between them. Trump denies the affair and calls the entire case “and old and fully debunked (by numerous other prosecutors!) fairytale.”

The vicious political persecution of Trump is akin to what occurs in “banana republics.” No longer is our country too advanced for such shenanigans to occur here. With partisan Democrats prosecuting in “blue states” and in the Department of Justice, there is an ongoing, ruthless campaign to obliterate Trump politically.

Their goals are not only to destroy Trump, but also to destroy what he represents, the “America First” agenda. The political establishment and Deep State do not want the needs of Americans at the forefront. Instead, their priorities include international affairs, global wars, and funding for the military industrial complex.

While our country suffers economically and has an open border, the political establishment is concentrated on the Ukrainian war, climate change and other issues of little importance to most Americans.

Trump jeopardizes the financial interests of his political enemies by focusing on the real desires of Americans. Instead of spending $6.5 trillion on unwinnable foreign wars, Trump wants Americans to prosper economically.

His “America First” agenda threatens very powerful interests. Thus, he has become the first American President to endure government surveillance, two impeachments, an FBI raid, and a presumed arrest. The banana republic has arrived.


Muslim woman Exposes the Woke Army

We are all familiar with radical terrorist cells that once set in motion commit acts of mayhem destroying American life and property. But there is another kind of terrorist network operating in America. Rather than blow things up, these terrorists tear things down from within the institutions themselves. Rather than plant explosives, these terrorists infiltrate local, state, and national governments and businesses and use the power of acquired positions and the wealth given them by George Soros, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other enemies of the United States to incite opposition to and riot against American institutions and values. Whether driven by a bin Laden-kind of perverse theocratic hatred for Western freedom and religious pluralism or by far-left desires to transform our country into a communist state, these radicals want to put an end to America as the greatest bastion of liberty the world has ever known, and establish in its place dictatorship.

In her excellent new book, Woke Army, former Wall Street Journal reporter Asra Q. Nomani reveals the identities, locations, and actions of this heretofore clandestine network of radicals. It exposes their plot to take over America and their methods. Her book is an eye-opener. A Muslim born in Bombay, India who has traveled throughout the Middle East, she spent her youth in Morgantown, West Virginia. Since her arrival in America and citizenship here, she has adored our foundational principles of individual liberty and religious pluralism. “I embraced liberal American values of freedom, self-determination, and secular government,” she writes. She is part of a Muslim reform movement which embraces conceptions of equal rights for men and women and acceptance of other faiths, including the Jewish faith and the state of Israel. For that, she has been condemned as worse than heretical by many in the same network of radicals she exposes in her book. “I have been viciously attacked as a ‘Zionist media whore,’ ‘racist,’ ‘American apologist,’ and ‘Islamaphobe,’” she writes.

Nomani strongly opposes all forms of racism and religious bigotry, including anti-Semitism. She has a long history of public defense of equal protection of the laws and equal opportunity regardless of race and gender. A professional journalist and author, she was the former colleague of Daniel Pearl who was abducted by radical Muslim terrorists from Nomani’s home in Pakistan and thereafter murdered. She is also, along with Suparna Dutta, one of the original founders of Parents for TJ (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology), where she opposed race-based exclusion of Asians imposed as part of the school’s “equity” agenda.

Nomani defines these obscured threats to the survival and success of liberty this way: “The Woke Army is an organized, well-financed global network of Muslim radicals and leftist activists who exploit the freedoms of the West to promote a system of beliefs that runs counter to any values of freedom.” She explains how these radicals incessantly exploit means to destroy the United States, uniting with Marxists, among them those in BLM and Antifa, to maintain a constant assault and effort at erosion of everything from law enforcement to public education. Together, they subvert foundational American “values of democracy, meritocracy, and progress” and promote essentially self-destructive and divisive ideological concepts like critical race theory, cancel culture, and anti-Semitism as a means to shake and crush the United States, ultimately enabling the foment of a revolution to bring about, in the case of the radical theocrats, a Muslim theocratic dictatorship, and, in the case of the Marxists, a communist state.

They operate in political positions of power, such as on school boards, boards of education, high schools, and universities; local, state, and national political offices; non-profit organizations; and businesses large and small. The picture she paints is one of insinuation of radical elements into these institutions all over the United States.

In her first few pages, Nomani boldly lists by name and position and organization those who are a part of this radical network. She finds certain common sources of financing and activity behind them. She writes “the network’s national security influence” is “funded by . . . George Soros.” She explains that it is “counterintuitive that Soros, who survived the Holocaust as a teen born into a Jewish family . . . was financing a great deal of this network, most of them anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.” She explains that Soros has, for example, increased his support for the radical group Muslim Advocates from $78,000 in 2006 to $1.7 million in 2019.

She reveals that as far back as the 1950s radicals began plotting means to overthrow the United States and establish either a theocracy or a communist dictatorship. She documents the arrival in 1981 of the now deceased Ismail Al-Faruqui of the Muslim Brotherhood to Virginia and how he purchased buildings in Herndon at 500 Grove Street. That location would thereafter serve as the address and center for all sorts of radical groups and as the funding base for others nationwide and worldwide. She explains that Al-Faruqui even acquired a lucrative chicken slaughter house in Georgia to help fund their political operations, Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc. Nomani records the history of development of these groups and their alliances with Marxist entities. She also records their success in landing large donations again and again from George Soros’s funding entities, often to pay for political operations against American institutions by radical Muslim groups in conjunction with or as a complement to Marxist groups.

This kind of ever present, persistent terrorism is now big business in the United States. Nomani reveals that the radical agenda is being promoted across the country. Her book Woke Army is a wake-up call to all freedom loving Americans. It asks us to recognize that the terrorism threat is not limited to violent massacres but involves a persistent decades old and continuing effort to infiltrate essential American institutions and use them as bases for the elimination of all foundations of American liberty. Grave threats to the survival of our nation from Biden’s open border policies, Soros-baked prosecutors’ anti-incarceration agenda, and Marxist CRT indoctrination in the schools are exacerbated by this dedicated network of radicalsand Marxists who exploit those weaknesses at every opportunity. We must awake to the reality of the Woke Army and turn the power of local, state, and federal law enforcement against it. We must first remove those in office who stand in the way of defense of Americans’ rights to life, liberty, and property.