Trump, Abortion and the 2024 Election

posted by Josh Hammer at Townhall 

The ancient Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu taught that a battle is won before it is fought because it is won by choosing the terrain on which it will be fought. If former President Donald Trump and other Republicans on the ballot this fall want to win, they must choose the proper terrain.

That means focusing on key issues that play to comparative GOP strengths: immigration, crime and inflation/the economy. President Joe Biden's job approval rating on each issue is horrific -- on immigration above all, and rightly so. Furthermore, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, independents rate immigration and the economy as their top two issues this cycle; those just happen to be Republicans' top two issues, as well. That's a marked contrast from Democrats' top issues, which per Quinnipiac are climate change, gun violence and preserving democracy. The disconnect between Democratic partisans and independent Americans is real, pronounced and ripe for exploitation.

If the goal is to win elections -- a necessary condition for actually wielding political power and implementing one's preferred policies -- then it makes no sense to focus on issues that do not play to one's comparative strength. This is so obvious that it hardly needs to be said.

In U.S. politics, abortion is not currently an issue of comparative strength for pro-lifers and the only major party that pays any lip service to our cause, the GOP. True, numerous Republican governors have won elections in recent years after enacting pro-life legislation. But every time the issue has been directly presented to voters since the Dobbs Supreme Court case of 2022 mercifully overturned Roe's abortion "right," the pro-life side has lost. Most recently, the voters of conservative-leaning Ohio voted for Issue 1, a ballot initiative broadly legalizing abortion.

This is painful to concede, as a long-time pro-lifer. And it is made doubly painful by my belief, as this column has previously argued, that a proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires construing "person(s)" in the constitutional text to include all natural persons -- born and unborn. The upshot is that abortion should not merely be banned by legislative majorities -- it should be held unconstitutional. And it would be if we lived in an ideal world.

But we live in the real world.

It is against this backdrop that Trump, the man who called himself "very pro-choice" in a 1999 interview but who subsequently became the darling of the pro-life movement after his three Supreme Court nominees all joined the historic Dobbs majority, released a new video on abortion. Trump rejected pro-life advocacy groups' call for any kind of national legislation, instead taking the stance that abortion ought to be a "states' rights" issue. Echoing Stephen Douglas' "popular sovereignty" rhetoric from his 1858 debates against Abraham Lincoln, Trump stated, "The states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land."

So, is Trump's stance correct? In terms of principle -- meaning the substantive debate over whether, to borrow from Lincoln's 1854 Peoria speech, the unborn child is not or is a natural person -- Trump's stance is incorrect. But in terms of discerning empirical realities and exercising political prudence -- another defining Lincolnian virtue -- Trump's stance is defensible and perhaps even reasonable.

It would have been best if Trump had staked out the position of supporting a 15-week (or even 20-week) national ban as a backstop, as some of his presidential primary opponents did. But Republicans will not attain a filibuster-proof, 60-senator majority after November, so such talk is academic. The real impact of Trump's stance is rhetorical abandonment (for now) on the national stage, thus letting the Democratic Party's abortion-rights radicals attempt to fill the legislative void absent meaningful opposition. But that damage is mitigated by the benefit of shifting the campaign trail terrain on the national stage to issues of comparative political strength, as Sun Tzu would advise.

That tradeoff presents a judgment call on which reasonable minds can disagree.

When one tactically retreats, though, it is still imperative to articulate the value of the principle at issue. Trump could learn a lot here from Lincoln. So too, for that matter, could certain prominent Republicans in Arizona, such as former Gov. Doug Ducey and U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake, who reacted with shock and dismay to a state Supreme Court this week upholding the dignity of unborn human life.

Overall, the pro-life cause must be less concerned with short-term tactical disagreements and more concerned with unanimity as to the long-term goal. If "states' rights" (which Dobbs gave us) become the goal, that is a big problem. The true goal remains unambiguous: constitutional personhood. We have a lot of hearts and minds still to persuade to get there. But we also need political power. Hence, the paradox.

X22, And we Know, and more- April 12

 

DEI Cronyism and Woke Grifters ~ VDH

How odd it is that America is wasting billions of dollars hiring DEI czars and electing woke politicians, who so often accuse others of a multitude of sins, largely as a way of enriching themselves.

by Victor Davis Hanson for American Greatness

When ideology replaces meritocracy or provides immunity from the consequences of illegal behavior, systemic mediocrity follows.

Under toxic National Socialism, Stalinism, and Maoism, millions of cronies and grifters mouthed party lines in hopes that their approved ideology would allow them to advance their careers and excuse their lawbreaking.

The same thing has happened with the woke movement and the now-huge Diversity/Equity/Inclusion conglomerate.

Grifters and opportunists mask their selfish agendas under the cloak of neo-Marxist care for the underprivileged or victimized minorities. Meanwhile, they seek to profit illegally as if they were old-fashioned crony capitalists.

During the disastrous COVID-19 lockdown, California governor Gavin Newsom pontificated about leveraging the quarantine to ensure greater equality: “There is opportunity for reimagining a [more] progressive era as it [relates] to capitalism…We see this as an opportunity to reshape the way we do business and how we govern.”

Meanwhile, Newsom did not seem very “progressive” when he was caught in one of California’s most expensive restaurants dining with sidekick lobbyists while violating the very mask and social distancing rules he had mandated for 40 million others.

Newsom also bragged about social equity when he signed a new California law mandating $20 an hour for fast-food workers—while many of his own employees at his various company-controlled eateries made only $16 an hour.

And he allegedly gave a unique exemption from his wage law to one particular bakery/restaurant chain, Panera, whose owner is an old friend and major campaign contributor.

Newsom apparently feels that the more progressively he postures, the less he’ll be called out for his own hypocrisy and self-interested agendas.

In another egregious case, the now-imprisoned felon, Sam Bankman-Fried, may have been the greatest con artist in American history. He siphoned billions of dollars from his cryptocurrency company, destroying the fortunes of thousands when his multi-billion-dollar Ponzi empire collapsed.

How did Sam and his two Stanford law-professor parents manage to accumulate millions of dollars in resort properties and perks without getting caught until after their empire collapsed?

Answer: Sam showered millions of dollars on left-wing politicians to advance their progressive crusades. His parents justified this family giving as a form of “effective altruism.”

That catchy phrase masked the reality that his crusade for social justice was just an incredibly effective get-rich-quick scheme.

The Bankman-Fried family apparently reasoned that their devotion to this woke form of “altruism” would translate into riches for themselves, albeit bankruptcies for investors.

Another example: in Georgia’s Fulton County, District Attorney Fani Willis ran for office, promising to indict supposed right-wing monster Donald Trump.

She raised campaign money on her woke credentials. Often, when challenged, she played the race victim card.

Meanwhile, Willis hired as a special prosecutor her secret paramour, the incompetent Nathan Wade, although he had never tried a single felony or even criminal case.

She and Wade then went on expensive junkets. She claimed that she reimbursed him with cash that was, of course, unverifiable.

Given their woke ideology, both assumed they were entitled to splurge at taxpayers’ expense, offer likely-false testimony under oath, and violate canons of professional behavior for lawyers.

She wasn’t alone in her corruption. After the death of George Floyd, the founders of the left-wing Black Lives Matter movement went on a house-buying rampage. The more corporations filled their coffers with millions, either from guilt or as protection money, the more new homes the directors purchased.

One co-founder, Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a self-described Marxist, splurged by spending $3.2 million in BLM money to buy herself four upscale residences.

And the most radical Democratic members of Congress—the so-called Squad—apparently feel that the more they level accusations of racism, the more they can profit without fearing any consequences for their wrongdoing.

One squad member, Rep. Ilhan Omar, redirected $2.8 million of her office’s allotted government money to her husband’s political consulting company.

Still another member, the radical leftist Rep. Cori Bush, often harangued the country to defund the police. Now the FBI is investigating her for stealthily paying tens of thousands of campaign dollars to her own husband for “security.”

Woke and DEI activists may not necessarily be any more innately mediocre, corrupt, or conniving than other politicians and activists.

But they seem so, because they loudly broadcast that they are for “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion”—and thus assume themselves to be exempt from all scrutiny and free to profit in any way they please.

The woke/DEI project is enticing thousands of shysters, careerists, and mediocrities, all keen to enrich themselves on the premise that they are noble fighters for social justice who deserve immunity from any scrutiny.

How odd it is that America is wasting billions of dollars hiring DEI czars and electing woke politicians who so often accuse others of a multitude of sins, largely as a way of enriching themselves, hiding their own culpability, and making a mockery of the law.

Popular Nullification of the State’s Propaganda

posted by J.B. Shurk at American Thinker 

Mass media technologies such as radio and television ushered in an era of State-engineered propaganda on a global scale.  Any lingering allegiance to objective truth was eclipsed by the allure of powerful narratives.  Narratives create false realities that incentivize humans to accept certain ideas or pursue certain actions that they would otherwise never accept or pursue if they were thinking clearly and confronting reality truthfully.  

Over the last century, television and radio have operated as gatekeeper technologies that effectively controlled who was permitted to construct false realities on a mass scale.  In any country — from despotically communist to relatively free — the public is constantly bombarded with messages that reinforce certain narratives.  Whether that narrative is that eating marshmallow cereal will make you happy or that “fossil fuels” are killing the planet, there is always an economic or political motive behind what you hear and see.  In every nation, people with political and economic power have monopolized mass media so that they may monopolize the narrative influences that warp human minds.  You will not find much on television that encourages you to think critically or question authorities.  Television and radio are most effective when people question little and think even less.

The power of mass media takes advantage of human nature.  Target audiences are presented with images and sounds that are naturally appealing.  Then a new idea or suggested action is equated with the appealing scene, and the observer is unconsciously nudged to adopt the new behavior.  For example, a commercial might show a happy family playing around the backyard swimming pool of a large house.  Smiles and laughter abound.  Smoke from barbecued meat drifts through the air and creates an imaginary aroma.  Then an attractive mother looks to the camera and claims that she uses this product, or supports this politician, or believes in this idea.  Because the staged family seems ideal, the viewer imagines herself as part of it, and while placing herself inside the narrative, she is subtly drawn to the product or concept being promoted.  This is propaganda’s version of the Transitive Property of Equality: if the target identifies with the actors, and the actors identify with a product, then the target will identify with that product, too.

The news industry exploits a related phenomenon: intellectual insecurity.  The primary target in this manipulation is news reporters themselves.  You have surely noticed that a lot of well known pundits aren’t that smart.  That’s intentional.  The people who control public narratives don’t want celebrity thinkers; they want eager repeaters — people who mindlessly mimic whatever they’re told.  At the same time, most news repeaters have big egos.  That’s intentional, too.  People whose egos are larger than they merit are particularly susceptible to manipulation. 

They fall victim to what you might call the “lone genius effect.”  In any gathering of people, if one person sounds convincingly more intelligent than everyone else, the surrounding group will accord that person with some measure of authority.  What’s important is not whether the “lone genius” is telling the truth or even an actual genius, but rather that the group perceives the person to be intellectually superior.  In the news industry, oversized egos are vulnerable to the propaganda of the “lone genius.”  Because their psychological health depends upon a self-image of being smarter than they really are, they gravitate toward any individual who appears to be the real deal.  Reporters’ intellectual insecurity makes them easy targets.  

A Marxist globalist needs only one smart-sounding commie to create a wave of mockingbird mimickers eager to repeat exactly what the “lone genius” says.  How do Marxist globalists effectively control any public narrative?  They (1) prohibit truly intelligent people from presenting opposing messages while (2) flooding the media space with intellectual lightweights who wish to be seen as geniuses.  That’s how you construct a false reality in which every media voice claims that catastrophic, man-made “climate change” is “settled science” when scientific research says nothing of the sort.

Censorship of opposing voices combined with the “lone genius effect” creates unanimous journalistic consensus.  Totalitarians always rise to power by preying on insecure people because, once mesmerized by the tyrant’s speech, eager repeaters become goose-stepping sycophants of the highest order. 

Now, how has the internet changed these dynamics?  It has undermined the soft power of propaganda’s Transitive Property of Equality and the “lone genius’s” perceived expertise.  Even before social media platforms transformed communication in the last fifteen years, personal web pages, blogs, and emails provided individuals with the tools to challenge mass media’s narrative construction of false realities.  By empowering a random farmer, blue-collar roughneck, political iconoclast, shy cubicle worker, or teenage prodigy with the means to reach large numbers of people throughout the world in a short amount of time, the public’s voluntary exchange of information shattered the State’s (and the State’s economic allies’) long held monopoly over large-scale propaganda.  

A political or commercial advertising campaign that costs millions of dollars and takes months to produce can be destroyed with a single web page that mocks the effort effectively.  In the process, the psychological pull of a narrative’s false reality can be severed permanently.  When an unknown outsider can undermine the value of a product or idea almost overnight, the power of mass media shifts away from entrenched institutions and toward once easily ignored individuals.  The rise of social media platforms has accelerated this shift.

How have economic and political overseers reacted to this information revolution?  For many years, they have attempted to compete in the new cognitive battlespace by developing narratives that could survive the rough-and-tumble environment of the World Wide Web’s Wild West.  That’s why Taco Bell’s and Burger King’s Twitter accounts are so snarky.  It’s why politicians learned to use humorous sound bites and fifteen-second videos to create viral sensations.  It’s how a niche industry of online “influencers” became sought-after talent for pushing narrative messages.  

All these years later, though, mass media’s worst propagandists have begrudgingly come to accept a striking truth: in a world where anybody can be a messenger, authenticity is king.  You might even say that in a world flooded with competing points of view, authentic truth possesses enhanced power.  The public’s capacity to deconstruct lies means that propagandists must work harder to construct false realities.  Because those with political and economic power no longer maintain exclusive narrative monopolies, they are stuck playing on a more level playing field with everyone else.  No matter how much they might pay homage to the virtues of “democracy,” the last thing those with power want is a world where knowledge, ideas, and viewpoints blossom democratically.

This is why the United Nations and the World Economic Forum have both declared “disinformation” and “misinformation” the planet’s most dangerous threats.  It is why NATO is openly expanding operations to “counter cognitive warfare” by manipulating what the public can see and say on social media platforms.  It is why the United States has joined with most Western nations in embracing censorship and criminalizing free speech (despite the explicit protections the First Amendment provides against such grotesque State encroachments upon the public’s inherent liberties).

Over the last three decades, technological advancements have fundamentally changed the ways we communicate.  These technologies have provided governments with vast powers to spy on their citizens and manipulate their behaviors.  That said, the far greater effect has been the liberation of the public from the constraints of hypnotically effective State propaganda.

One of the chief reasons for social division today is that so many people have begun to turn on their brains and turn off the State.  Popular nullification of government-engineered narratives has never been more effective.  For freedom-minded people, that’s progress; for the totalitarian Deep State, thinking people are dangerous.

8 Ways To Ensure All Legitimate Votes Get Counted But No Others

The proposed reforms center on dealing with the explosion of absentee/mail-in voting, which surged 131 percent in Covid-stained 2020.

posted by M.D. Kittle at The Federalist

There’s no sugarcoating a disturbing fact: Americans have lost faith in elections. Not even the corporate media, with all their pale assurances, can water down the confidence drought. 

How bad is it? This bad: Just 20 percent of Americans said they were “very confident” in the integrity of U.S. elections, according to a 2022 ABC Ipsos poll. Spoiler Alert: Things haven’t changed much since. 

The confidence waning started before the myriad election integrity questions surrounding the 2020 election. A Gallup poll conducted in 2019 found that, of 32 developed nations, only respondents in Chile and Mexico had more distrust in their elections than voters in the U.S. That was long before the accomplice media began pounding the narrative that confidence would be higher if not for all those “false elections claims” — such as concerns about Zuckbucks in local election administration and the unprecedented use of mail-in ballots during the manufactured Covid crisis. 

A new report from the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) opens with an obvious point that has incredibly become less than obvious to some. 

“A functioning democracy requires that those who elect their representatives trust the voting system in place. This means that elections must be safe and secure and that there is no doubt that elected officials were legitimately elected to their positions,” states the report, exclusively provided to The Federalist. 

The paper lays out “Commonsense Solutions to Better Secure the 2024 Election.” The suggested reforms center on dealing with the explosion of absentee/mail-in voting, which surged 131 percent in Covid-stained 2020 compared to the general election just four years before. FGA says states still have the opportunity “to make the process as secure as in-person voting,” but doing so requires: 

• Banning ballot harvesting 
• Narrowing who can return ballots
• Banning third-party distribution of unsolicited absentee applications 
• Stopping unsolicited applications and ballots by government officials 
• Adopting strict guidelines for absentee ballot returns 
• Requiring voter ID to cast an absentee ballot 
• Prohibiting unsecured drop boxes 
• Requiring absentee and mail-in ballots to be returned by Election Day 

‘More Like In-Person Voting’

While the leftist-led vote-by-mail revolution of 2020 cooled a bit in 2022, “the genie is out of the bottle” on casting absentee and mail-in ballots, said Michael Greibrok, senior research fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability and author of the new election integrity report. 

Leftist “voting rights’ activists have long pushed for universal voting via mail. They got their wish under the cover of Covid, as health bureaucrats and governors locked down Americans at the outset of the pandemic.  

“The one thing we can do, though, is make absentee ballot voting more like in-person voting,” Greibrok said. 

Start by doing away with ballot harvesting, or third-party collections and submissions of ballots, a practice rife with perceived — and actual — problems, the researcher said. Confidence in elections requires confidence in the ballot chain of custody, which is sorely lacking in ballot-harvesting operations. 

In the fall of 2020, the city of Madison, Wisconsin, organized what it billed as “Democracy in the Park,” a massive campaign that harvested more than 10,000 absentee ballots on one Saturday alone. Guess who reportedly promoted the event? Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden. The Democrat city attorney who was involved in Wisconsin’s infamous John Doe investigations into conservatives signed off on the ballot-harvesting events and told Republicans who questioned it to go pound sand. 

Canceling the Invitation to Fraud

In particular, the FGA report urges states to place limits on who can return ballots. 

“When anyone can return absentee ballots and there is no limit to how many ballots they can return, it invites fraud. This includes but is not limited to paying for votes, pressuring voters to vote a certain way, and discarding votes of which the harvester does not approve,” the paper states. 

These aren’t merely hypothetical problems. 

A 2023 Democrat Party mayoral primary in Connecticut was nullified amid absentee ballot fraud. A guardian from Detroit-area firm Guardian & Associates last year pleaded guilty to seven counts of voter fraud after she allegedly “submitted applications for absentee ballots to nine city and township clerks on behalf of 26 legally incapacitated people under her care and had the ballots mailed directly to her” in the 2020 election, according to the Detroit Free Press. Similar allegations popped up in Wisconsin. 

The FGA report recommends states limit the authority to return absentee ballots to “either the voter, a family or household member, or a designated caretaker.” 

At least 14 states have banned ballot harvesting, according to the FGA report. Arkansas and South Dakota last year banned absentee ballot drop boxes, while other states such as Wisconsin have been waging the battle over drop boxes in court.

States should also require absentee and mail-in ballots to come with proof of identification, FGA advises: “This could be a driver’s license number, a voter identification number, or the last four digits of a voter’s Social Security number.”

Nebraska and Ohio recently put into effect voter ID laws for absentee voting. They have joined Arkansas, Georgia, and Minnesota, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

Sacking Solicitations and Long Ballot Counts

Banning third-party and government solicitations of unsolicited absentee applications would do much to restore confidence in elections, the FGA report asserts.

As The Federalist recently reported, Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen alerted residents to “misleading, unsolicited mass mailing of pre-filled voter registration forms targeting Alabama mailboxes.” Perhaps it’s no surprise that left-wing groups founded by an old Clinton family friend are behind the effort. 

Many other states are dealing with the same concerns. 

“It’s safe to say that most everyone knows someone who in 2020 received an absentee ballot application for someone who did not reside in their home,” Greibrok said, adding that his brother has received multiple applications for individuals who haven’t lived in his home for years. 

“It makes you wonder, ‘If I’m getting six of these, who else is getting them? If I’m doing the right thing and shredding them, are there people out there who aren’t?’”

States, too, have gotten into the business of flooding the mail with absentee ballot applications for every registered voter. In 2020, Michigan sent out 7.7 million applications at a cost of $4.5 million, FGA’s report notes. 

And long, drawn-out ballot counts extending well past Election Day have eroded confidence in election integrity. States that allow absentee ballots to be returned after Election Day delay results and fuel election mistrust, the paper asserts. 

Iowa and North Carolina are the most recent states to require all absentee ballots to be received by the time polls close on election night. 

Beating Dems at Their Own Game

While conservatives have urged policymakers to implement such reforms, Republicans are looking at employing some of the same ballot collection tactics the GOP has long criticized. 

A New Jersey political action committee is pushing a ballot-harvesting plan. Organizers are working to recruit and train ballot collectors. They say they plan to look at other voting options and the availability of drop boxes, one of the more effective weapons in Democrats’ get-out-the-vote arsenal. 

California Republicans have seen the light and plan to roll out ballot-collection operations during this pivotal election year. Jessica Millan Patterson, chairwoman of the California GOP, told CalMatters that the party is playing by the rulebook it’s been handed. 

A change in leadership at the Republican National Committee has brought a change in thinking on ballot harvesting. New Republican National Committee Co-Chair Lara Trump told the Washington Examiner that Republicans have “been playing checkers, and the Democrats have been playing chess.” 

Last year, the GOP unveiled its “Bank Your Vote” initiative, encouraging “pre-election day voting.” 

But as my Federalist colleague Shawn Fleetwood recently reported, voting by mail isn’t as secure as the left and their public-relations team in the corporate media want confidence-depleted voters to believe. Several outlets are beginning to tacitly admit to holes in their narrative. 

“The good news is there has been a lot of movement on this front over the last few years,” Greibrok added. Reforming election laws around absentee and mail-in ballots, he said, will go a long way in increasing voter confidence in elections. 

Biden's New ATF Rule Could Open Millions of Lawful Gun Owners to Criminal Prosecution

Spencer Brown reporting for Townhall 

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre kicked off Thursday's briefing by bragging about the Biden administration's supposedly noble efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States and touting a new rule to "save lives by requiring background checks." 

If you listen to Democrats and the mainstream media talk about the new ATF rule, it's a move by Team Biden to close the so-called "gun show loophole." But such a thing does not exist. In standard fare from the Biden White House, the rule is actually about more power for the federal government and greater harassment of law-abiding firearm owners. 

As our friend Cam Edwards over at Bearing Arms explained this week, the Biden administration's new rule "could open millions of gun owners to criminal prosecution as well as diverting the ATF from going after real gun traffickers" by "broadening the definition of who is 'engaged in the business' of selling firearms." 

The truth being ignored by the Biden administration is this: there are already rules for commercial firearm sales that must be followed whether a purchaser is at a gun show, buying online, or in a physical store. 

"Private sales, no matter where they take place, are not subject to background checks," Edwards reminded. "Commercial sales are, no matter where they happen. "More on what will change — for the worse — from Bearing Arms:

Rather than providing gun owners (and gun sellers) with a clear and understandable definition of who is "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, the ATF is promulgating this incredibly vague rule; not to close a non-existent loophole, but to force as many private sales as possible to go through a background check. If that means that some gun owners end up being charged with federal felonies for offering a single gun for sale, the Biden administration is just fine with that outcome. And if the ATF is flooded with applications from gun owners who decide it's safer for them to get their federal firearms license, it won't be long before the gun control lobby uses that to call for a dramatic increase in agency funding, and crack down on who is eligible to obtain an FFL or both. 

White Leftists Cry ‘Racism’ To Win Political Battles — Even When Nonwhites Oppose Them

White leftists call anyone who disagrees with them racist and then refuse to live by their own race-baiting rules.

by Stephanie Lundquist-Arora for The Federalist

In March 31, the National Organization for Women argued on social media that opposing males in women’s sports is “white supremacist patriarchy at work.” After receiving a torrent of justified criticism, the organization deleted its post on April 5.

The National Organization for Women is using tactics that are pervasive among white leftists. Founded by almost all white feminists in 1966, the white leaders of the organization since have used the concept of racial intersectionality to garner support for advocating clear sexism such as allowing males in women’s sports. It seems they believe that adding the racial element allows white liberals to castigate anyone who opposes their agenda as racist.

Politically blackfacing an issue, such as fairness in women’s sports, is actually what is racist. White liberal elites are using race to promote one of their pet projects that has nothing to do with race and is opposed by a majority of the black population. In a Pew Research Center survey, 68 percent of black respondents agreed with the statement that gender is determined by sex at birth. In the same survey, 61 percent of white respondents also agreed that gender is determined by sex at birth. 

Setting aside the confusion in the deleted post of what “patriarchy” actually means, it is misleading to suggest that allowing men in women’s sports is somehow a black-supported issue and that opposing it is white supremacy. But that is the overplayed battle tactic of white liberals: anyone who disagrees is racist.

White Liberal Hypocrites in Fairfax County

In fact, recent pictures of the transgender movement’s rallies and political resolutions show that the vast majority of activists in this realm are white. In March, for example, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors voted 9-0 to commemorate Transgender Visibility Day on Easter. Fairfax County is racially and ethnically diverse, the second most diverse county in Virginia. Yet the picture of the celebration following the resolution to commemorate the made-up holiday captured, with very few exceptions, almost all white smiling faces. The same is true for Fairfax City’s local council when they passed a similar proclamation days later.

White leftists on Fairfax County’s school board have also used race in their rise to power. They pay a great deal of lip service to being “anti-racist,” a poorly named, unjust concept that includes the use of present discrimination to remedy past discrimination. These school board members have promoted the overtly racist, “anti-racist” policies against Asian students to that end, dismantling gifted education at the district’s magnet school, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology.

In an attempt to racially diversify the student population, Fairfax County’s school board members implemented admissions changes that replaced merit with equity. Ironically, both the chair and vice chair of the racist, “anti-racist” school board, elected by their fellow board members, are white leftists. These hypocrites refuse to live by their own race-baiting rules.

Silencing Brown Parents in Montgomery County

While local politicians from Fairfax County and Montogomery County, Maryland, discuss race incessantly, the rainbow mafia pushing transgender ideology on our children in public schools is notably white, and the public dissent is coming from a large group of mostly brown and black parents.

In March 2023, Montgomery County’s school board revoked its opt-out option for LGBT curriculum materials, including for students in the district’s elementary schools. Three families sued the district, arguing that the decision violated their First Amendment rights. In addition to the lawsuit, there were large protests at Montgomery County’s school board meetings where parents demanded the restoration of the opt-out option.

On June 6, 2023, mostly Muslim parents staged a massive protest during a school board meeting. Asra Nomani, a journalist, covered the protest and posted a video on X. It shows the majority black and brown parents chanting the phrase, “Protect our children.” They were demanding the fundamental right to guide their children’s upbringing and have a say about what they learn at their public schools. In contrast, the video also shows a group of white liberal activists donning rainbow gear and supporting the district’s continued indoctrination of the children.

Leftist Colonizers Define Black Identity

Potentially their gravest and most racist offense is when these white leftists, such as the ones leading the National Organization for Women or mandating the indoctrination of children in public schools, try to pontificate about what black people should believe and how they should vote. In 2020, for example, President Joe Biden infamously told voters, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

I wonder what Biden would say about the increasing number of black voters supporting Donald Trump for president in 2024. Some surveys estimate that Trump’s support among black voters in November could be double what it was in 2020. Would Biden dare now to claim those voters are not black?

And there is little worse than the leftist vitriol toward black conservatives. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, referred to his Senate confirmation hearings to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court as “a high-tech lynching.” 

Black leftist pundits sometimes join their liberal white counterparts’ demands for ideological homogeneity among the black population. Michael Eric Dyson, a black professor, made an abhorrent comment suggesting that Winsome Sears, the first female black lieutenant governor of Virginia, is a ventriloquist for white supremacy. Referring to Sears, he said, “There is a black mouth moving, but a white idea running on the runway of the tongue of a figure who justifies and legitimates of the white supremacist practices.”

It seems many leftists agree that diversity of political thought among black Americans is unacceptable. If they veer from the preset course the left determines, then these leftists villainize them as tools of white supremacy incapable of independent thought.

White leftists, such as those leading the National Organization for Women, are not the kind and inclusive people they claim to be. Make no mistake: Anyone deviating from their political inclinations should not expect the so-called inclusivity preached in the white leftists’ sermons.

To manipulate voters, these leftists are blackfacing their pet issues to gain legitimacy. And deleting one post on social media does not erase that fact.