After President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address last year, White House chief of staff and the administration’s resident Twitter addict Ron Klain joined a confab of journalists on Twitter Spaces to discuss the speech. When a reporter asked Klain, in response to Biden’s poor approval ratings, whether he thought they were having trouble getting their message out, Klain responded, “Well, I’m doing Twitter Spaces, aren’t I?”
It was a perfect demonstration of how Klain had taken to guiding administration policy in accordance with the whims of Twitter. Klain’s social media addiction became so notorious that an independent account titled “Klain’s Likes” became an instant follow for journalists and opinion columnists, many of whom were thirsty for the sweet, sweet endorphin release of a Klain retweet.
The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot and Chris Cillizza were among the select group in Klain’s Twitter fan club. They knew that Klain’s online approval was a direct line to the Oval Office — and with Biden acting as a three-day-a-week part time president, Klain was effectively in charge of setting the agenda.
While Klain was in power, the Biden administration was effectively governed by Twitter’s most frequent posters and the tropes pushed by the journalists among them, such as the false accusations that border agents were whipping migrants on horseback. The White House foregrounded gender equity and DEI initiatives thanks to Twitterbrain, even if those things didn’t do much to lower the price of groceries.
Impressively, the Biden administration has managed to be way more online than the previous one, with Klain acting as a media feedback loop. Klain fed White House talking points to journalists. Journalists repeated White House talking points. Klain retweeted journalists repeating White House talking points. Achievement unlocked!
Klain also finds himself turning over his @WHCOS account as a classified document scandal threatens Biden’s re-election plans. He no doubt sees choppy waters ahead for the eighty-year-old president and so may decide to take the inevitable job offer coming his way to flack from an MSNBC desk.
Yet if anyone thinks the Biden administration is set to become more professional and less social-media addled without Klain, they would be mistaken. Klain was replaced by Jeff Zients, an alum of the Biden transition team, the Obama administration and Bain Capital. While Zients is much less likely to find himself swiveling in the Oval Office chair humming “Hail to the Chief” while answering Twitter DMs, he does come straight from Meta’s board. Zients was also Biden’s Covid response director and notoriously kept travel lockdowns in place despite several requests from European nations to open up. (He’s also another cis white man — and surely that’s problematic.)
Klain’s imprint on the Biden presidency is undeniable, with tweets and retweets several times a day every day since his swearing in. With him gone, there will undoubtedly be a fight behind the scenes to see who becomes acting president. Is Klain stepping down from his job to spend more time with his Twitter account? Is that even possible?
Anyone on here who watches this show, this is our chance to have our voices heard on what should take top priority to give this show a deserved final ending! #VoteForHetty!
Something's happening here. Last month Tucker Carlson made the case for the CIA's direct involvement in President Kennedy's assassination. This month he has made the case for the CIA's direct involvement in President Nixon's forced resignation. Tying the two events together, Carlson outlines a chief motive for the Agency's alleged actions against Nixon by highlighting a recorded conversation between Nixon and then-CIA Director Richard Helms in which Nixon told Helms to his face that he knew "who shot John," an accusation from the president that the director answered with telling silence.
In publicly prosecuting the Intelligence Community for taking down Nixon, Carlson notes that four of the five Watergate burglars worked for the CIA, that young metro reporter Bob Woodward had been a naval officer at the Pentagon who "worked regularly with the intel agencies" and "had a top-secret clearance," and that Woodward's infamous Deep Throat source for his Watergate news stories, FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, had run the FBI's illicit counterintelligence program specifically designed to discredit and disrupt American political organizations.
Furthermore, Carlson points out that Nixon's replacement, Gerald Ford, the only unelected president in American history, had no achievements to justify his rapid rise from forgettable congressman to White House occupant in the space of eight months, aside from his service on the Warren Commission, which had "absolved the CIA of responsibility for President Kennedy's murder." When unelected federal bureaucrats forced Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, to resign in late '73 for tax evasion, Democrats in Congress "gave Nixon no choice but Ford." The next summer, the Intelligence Community replaced an adversarial Nixon, arguably the most popularly elected president in U.S. history, with a rubber-stamp for the CIA.
Carlson's pull-no-punches attacks on the CIA implicating America's spies in both Kennedy's assassination and Nixon's forced resignation are part of a larger campaign he has been waging for some time against the unelected yet permanent federal bureaucracy and its coercive national security Deep State. Night after night, Carlson chooses a target within the Washington Leviathan — regulatory agencies acting without legal authority, the Department of (in)Justice's selective prosecutions and political persecution, the Intelligence Community's dissemination of lies and propaganda meant to manipulate public opinion — and articulates how untethered America's acting government has become from the U.S. Constitution, statutory law, and the will of legal American voters.
Even though he is not claiming his opinionated commentary as rote recitation of indisputable facts, his arguments are grounded in research and reason. Often, his conclusions are not entirely new. Many like-minded Americans tune in to his show precisely because he reflects much of what they already believe. What is most interesting, then, is not necessarily Tucker Carlson's increasingly incisive rhetorical dismantling of the federal government but rather his timing.
Kennedy's assassination and Nixon's forced resignation occurred a half-century ago, and plenty of people have disputed the American government's official telling of those events since they first occurred. Only now, however, is one of the most popular hosts in the small world of news commentary dedicating his time (and reputation) to throwing down the gauntlet against America's Deep State. Why? Well, that relatively new and disparaging epithet — Deep State — tells a big part of the tale by reflecting an "awakening" American cynicism and a sizable collapse in Americans' trust in their own government. It should be a big deal for someone of Carlson's stature to accuse the Intelligence Community of multiple coups d'état; that he does so suggests that he feels the American people have begun to fundamentally shift in their understanding of and relationship to the federal government.
It is easy for his detractors to impugn his speech as conspiratorial, vulgarly incentivized by the pursuit of ratings, or needlessly inflammatory, but, in truth, Tucker Carlson's editorial monologues should scare the bejesus out of the Establishment as ominous harbingers of things to come. He clearly sees the rumblings of an emerging social consciousness in America grounded in disgust with government institutions, a rejection of the official "narratives" promulgated by national leaders, and a "widening gyre" separating the powerful from the powerless.
If Americans increasingly doubt the legitimacy of the very institutions that claim to have increasingly absolute power over every detail of their lives, then Tucker Carlson is urging them to question just how long the federal government's criminal enterprise has been operating. It didn't just start with the suspicious election outcomes in '20 and '22, did it? Surely it goes beyond American courts scribbling through the meaning of the Constitution, multinational corporations buying up politicians for pennies, and central bank currency manipulation that has only made the wealthiest wealthier while secretly taxing everyone else into poverty. Surely it goes beyond Americans' new understanding that the World Economic Forum and other international oligarchies of "elites" have for decades vetoed Americans' own self-determination.
The government's illegitimate exercise of power goes to the heart of the question: who really runs America? For most of American history, Americans proud of their nation's history and its dedication to individual rights, liberty, republican virtue, and respect for democracy would have answered, "The people." Now, however, they are beginning to wonder whether something much darker and more nefarious has been in charge all along.
If that "something" is actually "the Intelligence Community," then that revelation drastically changes the picture of America's post-WWII history, does it not? Think about the presidents who came after Truman. There was Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower; an assassinated Kennedy; a crass and calculating President Johnson often accused of having been complicit in his predecessor's murder; an obstinate Nixon forced into resignation; the Warren Commission's "go along to get along" man Gerald Ford; a peanut farmer apologist for Hugo Chávez; a true "outsider" President Reagan; followed immediately by former CIA Director George Bush; serial philanderer, credibly-accused rapist (and therefore "manageable"), China-backed Bill Clinton; the CIA director's oldest son; a "hope and change" puppet for American communists whose background history was covered up and rewritten repeatedly; another true "outsider" President Trump; followed immediately by a Deep State stooge with a half-century of public corruption under his belt. Now that same Deep State seems intent on taking out pudding-for-brains China Joe Biden, so that it can install Kamala Harris or some other fool entirely susceptible to the unelected Intelligence Community's control.
From that perspective, American leadership since the end of the last Great War has been dominated by men from the Intelligence Community, men who benefited directly from their efforts, men whose pasts made them easy to control, and a couple aberration presidencies where true "outsiders" Reagan and Trump still climbed to power. In Reagan's case, the former director of the CIA stood directly behind him. In Trump's case, the man was genuinely so free from political obligation to pursue his own path that the FBI, national security surveillance State, and D.C. Uniparty literally framed him as a Russian spy, wrongly accused him of abuse of power for revealing Biden's financial quid-pro-quo arrangements in Ukraine, and ultimately defamed him as a "terrorist" and "insurrectionist" for objecting to the massive mail-in ballot fraud and other election irregularities that rendered him the only sitting president to win substantially more votes during his re-election campaign only to come up short of victory.
In fact, given the lengths the Deep State went to remove President Trump from office in any way necessary, it would be fair to say that what the American government truly fears most is any elected representative of the people not entirely beholden to the permanent bureaucratic State. That speaks volumes about how the U.S. government really feels about "democracy."
If American elections mean so little because the Deep State's power is so great, then things must change.
There are few things Democrats love more than themselves, but one of those things is Ukraine. Here is where I’ll insert the caveat that I support Ukraine’s sovereignty and all of that. But what I’m not willing to do for Ukraine, or nearly any other country for that matter, is to go broke in defense of them. Sorry, a corrupt eastern European country isn’t worth it to me. But it is to Democrats, especially Joe Biden. Why?
I don’t know the answer, no one can really know what goes on behind the vacant start of the narcissist in chief, but I do have some questions about it.
Everyone on the political right looks at that famous video of Biden from 2018 where he proudly announces he, as Vice President, demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was, totally coincidentally, looking into the company paying his son $80,000 per month, and takes him at his word. (Ten percent for the “Big Guy” anyone?) Why should we?
The left-wing media immediately circled the wagons, refusing to even entertain the concept that any Democrat would do anything beneficial to their own bank accounts. The right took it as a confession.
What if we on the right were wrong? We know the left is, obviously, but what if Biden wasn’t taking credit for getting a guy fired in the way he was, but it was simply Joe being Joe?
Nearly every aspect of Joe Biden’s life is a lie, at least the aspects he speaks publicly about. His words are so disconnected from reality that people who know him think he’s talking about someone else. He was active in the civil rights movement (he was not), he was arrested trying to visit Nelson Mandela in South Africa (never happened), he was a popular football hero in college (he wasn’t) who somehow had such severe asthma that he got repeated draft deferments? (Do you know any lifeguards with major respiratory issues? Seems like that might be a little disqualifying, doesn’t it?)
Then there is the famous rant he went off on in New Hampshire during his first presidential run in 1987. Biden was asked by a voter about where he went to law school and how his grades were. He responded, “I think I have a much higher IQ than you, I suspect. I went to law school on a full academic scholarship — the only one in my class to have full academic scholarship. The first year in law school, I decided I didn’t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class. And then decided I wanted to stay and went back to law school and, in fact, ended up in the top half of my class. I won the international moot court competition. I was the outstanding student in the political science department at the end of my year. I graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and 165 credits; you only needed 123 credits. I would be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours, Frank.”
So, why should we believe Biden on that Ukrainian prosecutor?
All of Joe’s lies are told to make him look more important than he is (he’s wildly insecure) and much tougher than he is (saying he’d like to have a fist fight with Trump or challenge some doubting voter to a push-up contest), when he is neither.
Saying he demanded the prosecutor be fired while walking to the event announcing the loan guarantee from the United States is not how things would have been done. All the I’s were dotted and T’s crossed by the time the VP gets involved and the press conference scheduled. If Biden had threatened to pull the plug at that moment, it would be news and would have leaked. Even if it didn’t leak that the time (somehow), it would have been known before Biden told the world at a public event.
Was Joe Biden lying about how that went down? We have every reason to believe he was. Which would lead to the question of why then Joe would want that prosecutor fired at all, and he’d he be aware of it at VP. It seems pretty low rent for the second highest person in the US government to enforce, it’s more for low-level staff to handle long before.
Something doesn’t add to for me. Could it be that Biden decided to tie the two events – the money and the firing – together because it endeared him to the people paying a fortune to his crackhead son? Claim credit for something you didn’t do, but did happen, to keep the gravy train rolling?
I don’t know, but given Joe’s past of lying about literally everything exactly like this and raking in a fortune through his family off his positions in government, it makes more sense to me than the official story. And it might be why Joe’s so loyal to Ukraine for no rational reason, just imagine what they have on him from all this?
Censorship-hungry Twitter employees vented to the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 that their company wasn’t authoritarian enough when it came to curbing former President Donald Trump ahead of the 2021 Capitol riot, a newly released 122-page memo shows. “The Twitter Files,” however, prove Big Tech went out of its way to suppress the Republican president long before his ban from the platform on Jan. 8, 2021.
When the Twitter staff, or “Tweeps,” gave witness testimony to the J6 Committee last year, they likely didn’t anticipate a fact-check of their public statements against their internal communications. Then Elon Musk acquired the company in October of 2022 and released internal documents exposing Twitter’s key censorship decisions and election meddling.
Some of the material in the revelations dubbed “The Twitter Files” corroborates what these ex-staffers told the J6 Committee about Twitter’s hesitation to ban Trump until Jan. 8. Many of the uncovered documents and communications, however, prove that long before the riot, Twitter treated Trump differently than it did most world leaders.
Tweeps Agree: Big Tech Not Authoritarian Enough
Anika Navaroli, a member of Twitter’s censorship team, told the J6 Committee in anonymous testimony in July of 2022 that Twitter’s decision to delay the permanent suspension of Trump until after the riot was “absolutely indicative and emblematic of Twitter’s hands-off, willfully ignorant approach to the former President’s rhetoric on the service and on the platform.”
Much like hundreds of Twitter employees who wrote an open letter demanding the president’s permanent suspension, Navaroli claimed she lobbied for the curbing of Trump long before he was banned on Jan. 8, 2021, but her demands for action were ignored.
“For months I had been begging and anticipating and attempting to raise the reality that if nothing — if we made no intervention into what I saw occurring, people were going to die,” Navaroli said in her interview with the Democrat-dominated committee. “On Jan. 5, I realized no intervention was coming. As hard as I had tried to create one or implement one, there was nothing. We were at the whims and the mercy of a violent crowd that was locked and loaded.”
Navaroli’s frustrations furthered when, after being tasked with evaluating the validity of Trump’s online rhetoric following the Capitol riot, she ultimately dismissed the outgoing president’s tweets as above board under Twitter’s policies.
“I also am not seeing clear or coded incitement in the DJT tweet,” Navaroli wrote in a Slack chat with her colleagues on Jan. 8. “I’ll respond in the elections channel and say that our team has assessed and found no [violations] for the DJT one.”
Navaroli wasn’t alone. Another unnamed member of Twitter’s safety policy team told the J6 Committee that Twitter’s censorship teams weren’t equipped to “find a rationale to suspend the President’s account from the service, and ‘stop the insurrection’” on Jan. 6.
“The team was left to respond to rampant incitement on Twitter under its own initiative, once again without clear instruction,” the committee report states, adding later, “This understaffed, ramshackle made [one of the employees moderating content on Jan. 6] feel like she was a security guard hovering over the Capitol, trying to defend the building as the crowd tweeted out its progress during the course of the assault.”
It’s clear from these accounts that Twitter employees tried to find a cause for deplatforming Trump under the Big Tech company’s then-policies. When they failed to obtain the political results they desired, partisan Twitter executives sidestepped free speech loyalists at the company by changing the rules to target Trump alone. The Capitol riot was simply their catalyst.
Months after Navaroli gave her testimony and Trump was barred from Twitter, members of the J6 Committee were still publicly praising her for “answering the call of the Committee and your country.”
Corporate media such as The Washington Post elevated her as “the most prominent Twitter insider known to have challenged the tech giant’s conduct toward Trump.” Business Insider amplified Navaroli with the headline, “Twitter whistleblower who foresaw the violence of Jan. 6 reveals her identity with an omen for the future of US democracy.”
Navaroli’s testimony, along with other witnesses, helped Democrats conclude that “Trump’s suspension ended the preferential treatment Twitter gave his account for years” and that Big Tech failed to prevent violence by delaying its permanent ban on Trump until after the Capitol riot.
“The former employee’s testimony confirms that Twitter saw President Trump’s potential violent incitement of his supporters as a cause for concern even prior to Election Day but chose not to take effective actions to prevent him from using the platform in this way. Moreover, this failure to act was consistent with Twitter’s longstanding deferential treatment of President Trump,” the report states.
Twitter Did Treat Trump Differently
The effort to permanently bar Trump may have concentrated around the Capitol riot and culminated with a mad scramble on Jan. 8, as Navaroli suggested. Still, as “Twitter Files” journalist Matt Taibbi noted in part three of the exposé, “the intellectual framework was laid in the months preceding the Capitol riots.”
Executives such as Twitter’s former head of trust and safety Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former legal and policy executive Vijaya Gadde, and Twitter’s recently fired general counsel and FBI veteran Jim Baker spent months building a network that could quickly respond to suppression requests and easily strike violative content and users.
“[T]he firm had a vast array of tools for manipulating visibility, most all of which were thrown at Trump (and others) pre-J6,” Taibbi noted.
The treatment Trump received from Twitter’s top censors may have been different, but it was far from the “deferential treatment” the J6 Committee concluded had occurred.
Contrary to Tweeps’ testimonies, Trump faced several bouts of censorship including Twitter reducing the reach of his tweets, shadowbanning him, labeling his tweets with warnings, and temporarily suspending his account long before the Capitol riot.
As independent journalist Bari Weiss noted in part five of “The Twitter Files,” the Big Tech company was far more eager to justify that kind of censorship against Trump than to use it against actual dictators.
Twitter staff and executives were so overcome with their hatred for Trump that they were willing to create a reason to deplatform the president. What those employees didn’t anticipate is that their shenanigans would be blown open by “The Twitter Files” mere months after they gave sworn testimony to Democrats in Congress.
As evidenced by “The Twitter Files,” there was nothing stopping Tweeps from deplatforming Trump. In fact, Twitter, cheered by the same Democrats, worked for years to silence its political enemies at whatever cost.
Panaji: French Ambassador to
India Emmanuel Lenain on Saturday said when India is looking to
diversify its suppliers then France is a "great option" and also
committed to making available to Indian forces the best technologies
without restrictions.
"Our governments at the
top level have really understood the vision of Atmanirbhar Bharat And we
really want to be partner in that process to build a National
Industrial base for defence industries in India. And we understand that
also because we are a highly independent country and we've been through
that process also. I mean India is looking to diversify its suppliers
and obviously, I think that France is a great option and we're working
on major equipment cooperation together," Lenain said when asked whether
France can replace Russia as a defence supplier.
The
French envoy stressed his country is committed to making available the
best technologies to Indian forces without restrictions and France will
not only support for make in India, but also come forward to co-develop
and co-produce equipment.
Speaking about the relations between
the two countries, Lenain said, "Obviously, we have great cooperation
and on strategic issues with India, there's a greater level of trust
that makes it possible for countries to commit over years or decades and
to launch success defence equipment program so that is for sure. And we
have seen many in the last years successful delivery of 36 Rafale for
the Air Force, and we have seen many offers."
The
French Navy's carrier strike group, including the nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, is currently on a deployment in the
Indian Ocean. The carrier strike group carried out a large-scale
"Varuna" air-sea joint exercise with Indian Navy from January 16 to 20.
From
January 21, Charles de Gaulle makes a port call in Goa. According to
the official statement released by France Embassy, the French Carrier
Strike Group, comprising the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de
Gaulle, is deployed in the Indian Ocean under the ANTARES mission.
This
joint deployment in the Indian Ocean contributes to ensuring stability
in this region in line with France and India's shared approach of
collective security based on respect for international law at sea and in
the air.
A
major annual aero-naval event whose first edition dates back to 1983,
"VARUNA" bears witness to the ability of the French and the Indian
Navies to deploy and operate together and exemplifies the high level of
trust between France and India, according to the statement.
The
2023 edition holds special significance as France and India embark on a
year of celebrations of the 25th anniversary of their strategic
partnership and work towards an ambitious agenda for renewing, expanding
and deepening this partnership.
Speaking about the Indo-Pacific region, Rear-Admiral Emmanuel Slaars,
Joint Commander of French Forces said, "Our aim is to make sure that
international law is respected by everyone in every place. It's really
great to work with Indian Navy which is committed to ensure that
international law is respected and fight illicit trafficking at sea.
On Sunday, Vice President Kamala Harris claimed preventing teachers from teaching kids to judge each other by skin color amounts to ‘ban[ning] American history.’
Every Republican governor and state lawmaker should copy Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ decision last week to block a major company from selling critical race theory-promoting high school curricula to public schools.
The College Board is privately pitching state officials on its experimental new African-American Studies high school curriculum but has so far refused to publicly release the materials that taxpayers would end up paying College Board millions for public schools to use. Leaks of those materials have shown them to be stuffed with critical race theory, an ideology that labels some racial groups victims and others oppressors based solely on skin color and ancestry.
As Stanley Kurtz reported Wednesday, DeSantis’ administration therefore rejected College Board’s application to release the curriculum in Florida. Florida’s Department of Education wrote to College Board, “as presented, the content of this course is inexplicably contrary to Florida law and significantly lacks educational value.”
Florida has banned government support for teaching critical race theory. Kurtz previously obtained a copy of the College Board curriculum and found it rife with critical race theory documents that are not counterbalanced by opposing views. In addition, he wrote, the secret curricula “clearly proselytizes for a socialist transformation of the United States.”
On Sunday, Vice President Kamala Harris went to bat for the College Board, claiming that preventing teachers from teaching kids to judge each other by skin color and filtering history through a Marxist lens amounts to “ban[ning] American history.”
Every Republican officeholder with any power over education policy should go even further, and investigate K-12 schools and colleges for using public resources to promote racism and racial division, which violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Missouri’s attorney general has set up an investigation portal that other states can copy.
Public Schools Violate Equal Protection Constantly
After such investigations, all violations of the 14th Amendment must be rectified and defunded by state legislatures. This includes all use of skin color or ancestry to grant or deny college entrance; all use of skin color or ancestry to punish or absolve students of any school infraction; all use of skin color or ancestry to hire, screen, or fire government employees; and the like. This is all blatant racism, and it happens all the time, most often at the hands of people who claim to be “anti-racists.”
We know such applications of critical race theory are rampant in public institutions. We know it not just because of the last several years of constant reporting, showing blatant racism being taught and practiced in public institutions, sponsored by public funds. Even College Board openly confirms that racism is rampant in U.S. high schools and colleges by insisting, as Kurtz notes, that its experimental African-American studies curriculum “faithfully represents the content of African American studies courses at the college level.”
College Board also embeds these racist and divisive perspectives in its other classes that bright high school students take to get early college credit, according to scholarly analyses. Banning its new course should be just the beginning — several of its others need to be investigated for equal protection and critical race theory violations.
College Board’s representation of college classes in African-American studies is that these courses are essentially Marxist, which means anti-American and anti-equality. The vast majority of these classes at the university level are publicly subsidized, if not directly in public universities then indirectly through student loans. This is something state governments have a vast amount of control over, and therefore the responsibility to rectify.
No, Americans Don’t Need to Sponsor Racist Ideas
It’s as simple as this: Taxpayers are not duty-bound to subsidize ideologies that attack not only our Constitution but human dignity. It’s unjust and evil to force Americans to sponsor the proclamation and enforcement of ideologies that attack our rights, liberties, and equal protection under the law.
Yes, the people who believe these evil ideologies may speak their evil ideas freely. They may stand on the public corner and shout and wave signs all they like, just like the rest of us. They may write letters to the editor and publish their ideas online. They can self-fund all the speech they want.
But none of their anti-American speech is owed one penny of public funding or institutional support. In fact, any people who preach these ideologies deserve to be stripped of any public funding they receive. Public funding is a privilege, not a right. It should never be given to individuals or entities who slander the very institutions and people who pay their salaries.
Further, those who would abuse their public positions in these ways should be censured for doing so. As Scott Yenor recently outlined in American Reformer, legislatures should “Make those who would implement DEI [diversity, equity, inclusion, or CRT] policies pay a steep price for allowing the heckler’s veto or hiring on the basis of racial preferences or using their government offices for political purposes.”
As one example, he suggests “a Texas legislature should starve the DEI beast, through combinations of lower tuitions, tighter budgets with targeted DEI cuts, general budget cuts, and mandated program prioritization. An activist review board would audit universities for compliance.”
Will Elected Officials Back the Actual Anti-Racists?
This all should be so basic and obvious it’s already been done everywhere. That DeSantis is a standout in this regard is an utter embarrassment to the rest of his party and yet another reflection of the huge amount of resentment against elected Republicans among their base voters. If Republican officeholders want to energize voters to get out for them to combat the increasing waves of ballot-harvesting their weak and lazy party has also largely allowed, ending public sinecures for preachers of racial division is one very obvious vote-winning strategy.
It’s no coincidence that DeSantis has presided over a major vote-integrity effort as well as worked hard to defund race Marxists in schools, and was among one of the few Republican electoral bright spots in the 2022 midterms. Making fake politician promises doesn’t do it for voters anymore. Keeping promises, however, does. And one major promise voters want to see kept is the one in our Constitution that every American citizen will receive “equal protection of the laws.”
It’s not equally protecting any American citizen to approve or deny his application to college based in any part on his race. It’s not equally protecting an American citizen to, while in public employment, attribute crimes to a fellow citizen based on her sharing a roughly similar skin color to someone who committed such a crime in the past. It’s not equally protecting any American citizen to give lighter or harsher school discipline or civil penalties based in any part on that citizen’s skin color.
All this is abhorrent and must be abolished. Any Republican who refuses to use the due powers of his or her office to punish such frequently perpetuated and often publicly funded acts of racial injustice in our society is a tacit participant in systemic racism and deserves all the shame that label carries. Republicans who want to energize their voters should just copy everything DeSantis does until they figure it out, starting with his righteous use of his authority to stop wicked idealogues from teaching American children to hate each other based on outward appearances.
