The financial terrorists are continuing their work on President Trump. Can you believe this is happening in the United States of America? Do you really believe the Biden/Harris admin are not a part of this? Obama leaves the WH and makes millions and President Trump leaves and lose millions! What a disgrace this is to a once great nation! This is nothing but terrorism against conservatives!!!!!
‘The full weight of the terrified corporate elite is slamming down on former President Donald Trump as it becomes all the more obvious he has a more powerful influence on the minds of the American people than ever now that the Democrats hold power.
They’re terrified.
In the latest jaw-dropping move, a Florida bank has inexplicably ended their relationship with the longtime businessman and now former POTUS over the same tired yet dangerous narrative being employed by his enemies to tarnish his historical presidency and enigmatic and massive following.
Bank United announced it had cut ties with Trump where he had previously held two money-market accounts holding somewhere between $5.1 million and $25.2 million in worth according to Infowars.
‘• London contender Brian Rose accuses No.10 of undermining democracy that leaves police in ‘impossible position’ over May elections • Rose and campaign team arrested despite ensuring fully digital campaign bus is safest in the country • Dangerously vague election guidance threatens fair vote, says Rose London Mayor candidate Brian Rose has accused the Prime Minister of undermining democracy after Rose and his campaign team were arrested while campaigning in London yesterday (Sunday 24 January). Rose is using a COVID-secure, fully digital battle bus to visit the city’s 32 boroughs ahead of the scheduled May elections, allowing the public to communicate with him via social media during lockdown but with the public kept off the bus itself. While the bus was parked legally in Southwark on Sunday morning, a large group of City of London police descended on Rose’s team, arresting them and issuing £200 fines. At the time, Rose was recording a piece to video, while social distancing. His team produced the relevant parking and filming permits, but was informed that “campaigning was not a necessary reason to be out of your homes”, despite the police being told that other political parties have continued to operate leafleting activities throughout the lockdown. The lockdown regulations include express exceptions for people to leave the house and gather in groups where engaging in voluntary work as our campaigners were or working as the production team were. WE URGENTLY DEMAND THAT POLICE FORCES ACROSS LONDON RECONSIDER HOW THEY RESPOND TO LAWFUL CAMPAIGNING.’ https://brianformayor.london/
The climate scammers are out in full force now that Leftist Sleepy Joe is at the helm. The world according to Bishop Ussher was only a little over 1600 years from the original creation when man had gotten so wicked that God sent a deluge upon the world and ONLY EIGHT PEOPLE SURVIVED. It wasn’t carbon that caused the flood but the sinfulness of man but as history shows man doesn’t learn much from history.
Now, today, it isn’t the sinfulness of mankind that causes politicians to lose sleep but its too MUCH CARBON!
The Biden Administration’s flurry of energy and carbon emission-related measures during its first day have had an immediate effect on Australian policy, with Scott Morrison declaring that political debate about reaching a carbon-neutral future is over.
Overturning Trump’s policies, Biden has recommitted the United States to the Paris Climate Accord, rescinded approvals for leases to explore for oil and gas on public lands and for a major oil pipeline — with the loss of thousands of jobs in his own country and Canada — and reimplemented tight vehicle emission controls.
It would not have been lost on Australian bureaucrats that Biden has previously discussed a carbon tax and that he has selected as Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, who has been working with the bipartisan Climate Leadership Council on carbon emission policies.
Yellen’s aim is for policies that would not leave US businesses vulnerable to competition from nations that are not incurring the costs of decarbonising their economies. Her proposal is for “carbon customs unions” that are to be deemed compliant with World Trade Organization rules. This is similar to EU thinking. The policy would impose punitive carbon tariffs on imports from countries judged to have inadequate emission reduction policies and perhaps offer exporters GST-type rebates on the emission-restraining costs they incur.
Yellen’s approach is consistent with views of Obama officials that have been appointed to key positions in the Biden Administration. Among these is former Environment Protection Agency (EPA) head, Gina McCarthy as National Climate Adviser and John Kerry as the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. Biden has also appointed other climate change warriors to head powerful agencies, including the new the EPA head, Michael Regan and Green New Deal proponent Deb Haarland as Secretary of the Interior.
Four years ago, in my book Climate Change: Treaties and Policies in the Trump Era, I noted President Trump’s rejection of doom-laden climate prognoses and his determination to avoid measures that would place the US at a commercial disadvantage to other countries. That meant rejecting the Paris Climate Accord with its hefty decarbonisation costs. Fast-growing developing countries: China, India, Vietnam and Indonesia had also rejected emission restraints and once the US did so, this left only the EU almost alone among the major emitters. This would cause the Paris Accord to collapse, bringing a different end to the climate wars than the one now foreshadowed.
Trump’s low-cost energy policies contributed to a resurgence of the US economy, where high growth was accompanied by record-low unemployment rates and the US becoming, for the first time in 60 years, a net exporter of oil and gas. In ploughing an alternative field, the Biden team, like the EU, realises that decarbonisation must be multilateral to ensure acceptable national economic harm.
Developing countries might obtain a respite from US (and EU) attempts to prevent an erosion of their competitiveness through tariffs. But this would be more difficult for Australia to achieve, notwithstanding that, in terms of actual decarbonisation costs incurred, Australia has spent twice as much per capita as the US and EU. Aside from the money wasted on high-cost wind and solar, the 20 per cent share of electricity supply that renewable energy subsidies have brought about has resulted in an unreliable supply. Indicative of this is that last year, because subsidised renewables supply energy when it is not needed, the electricity market actually saw negative prices for almost four per cent of the time. Such negative prices place further pressure on the economics of those electricity suppliers that are dependent on commercial interactions for their revenues and brings a snowball effect in undermining reliability.
In seeking a way out of the impasse created by changed US policies, Morrison says he wants Australia to achieve carbon neutrality by adopting yet to be discovered technology innovations. In this, he finds himself in the camp of NSW Energy Minister Matt Kean, the standard-bearer for the anti-fossil fuel lobby, who has announced “hydrogen will power the future”.
The Prime Minister has previously rebuked Kean but the best path forward may be to proclaim Australia’s green credentials in having funded the destruction of its previously reliable electricity supply industry and to announce a 2050 net-zero commitment. Achieving that goal should be accompanied by gradually eliminating subsidies and be made contingent on the alchemy of turning hydrogen into energy or other unlikely breakthroughs.
‘We are religious, as religion is an inescapable concept and everybody is religious. Religions have their holy days (from which we get the word “holiday”), with Christianity having Christmas and Easter, Judaism Yom Kippur, Islam Ramadan, Hinduism Diwali, and so forth.
The relatively new religion of progressivism, which seeks to supplant and displace the previously dominant religion of Christianity, is in the process of establishing January 26, Australia Day, as the holiest day in its sacral calendar.
Progressivism borrows heavily from Christianity, which has been dominant in forming the West’s worldview over many centuries. But instead of seeking reconciliation with God, progressives seek above all social justice –- to set the captives free –– a concept with strong Christian roots. And instead of devotion to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Church of Woke devotes itself to fighting against the sins of Racism, Patriarchy and Heteronormativity.
In the same way that the concept of original sin is central to Christian doctrine, where to be Christian one must first acknowledge one’s own sin, progressive doctrine requires Australians to recognise and acknowledge that Australia is a racist country -– this in spite of Australia being a fair-go country with incidences of dictionary-definition (as opposed to expansive-definition) racism being rare and isolated.
Indeed, if what Woke teaching says about Australia were true, then we would have to wade through gushing rivers of blood every time we stepped outside, what with 50% of the population either born overseas or with at least one parent born overseas, and nearly 40% of the populations of Melbourne and Sydney born overseas. Naturally, by questioning such Woke dogma, I am, of course, committing a mortal sin risking eternal damnation, also known as being cancelled.
Australia Day, therefore, offers penitents the opportunity to acknowledge the country’s original sin of Racism and to ask for forgiveness. Similarly, International Women’s Day offers an opportunity for this same ritual, but this time in relation to the sin of Patriarchy; while the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras allows us to reject the grave sin of Heteronormativity by paying homage to an identity that has come to occupy a prominent place in the pantheon of Diversity.
Through these purging rituals, society undergoes a process of progressive sanctification, where, even as it recognises and struggles against its sins, society never quite frees itself of its sinful nature: the socialism is willing but the fascism is weak. Nevertheless, through a long march through the institutions, society can progressively mortify the fascism, until the final enemy, political incorrectness, is destroyed.
Therefore, siblings in Wokeness, let us come together in this annual ritual of self-flagellation that we mark on this national holy day, Australia Day.
And may Wokeism bless you and keep you in its care.
‘An elementary school in Cupertino, California—a Silicon Valley community with a median home price of $2.3 million—recently forced a class of third-graders to deconstruct their racial identities, then rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.”
Based on whistleblower documents and parents familiar with the session, a third-grade teacher at R.I. Meyerholz Elementary School began the lesson on “social identities” during a math class. The teacher asked all students to create an “identity map,” listing their race, class, gender, religion, family structure, and other characteristics. The teacher explained that the students live in a “dominant culture” of “white, middle class, cisgender, educated, able-bodied, Christian, English speaker[s],” who, according to the lesson, “created and maintained” this culture in order “to hold power and stay in power.”
Next, reading from This Book Is Antiracist, the students learned that “those with privilege have power over others” and that “folx who do not benefit from their social identities, who are in the subordinate culture, have little to no privilege and power.” As an example, the reading states that “a white, cisgender man, who is able-bodied, heterosexual, considered handsome and speaks English has more privilege than a Black transgender woman.” In some cases, because of the principle of intersectionality, “there are parts of us that hold some power and other parts that are oppressed,” even within a single individual.
Following this discussion, the teacher had the students deconstruct their own intersectional identities and “circle the identities that hold power and privilege” on their identity maps, ranking their traits according to the hierarchy. In a related assignment, the students were asked to write short essays describing which aspects of their identities “hold power and privilege” and which do not. The students were expected to produce “at least one full page of writing.” As an example, the presentation included a short paragraph about transgenderism and nonbinary sexuality.
The lesson caused an immediate uproar among Meyerholz Elementary parents. “We were shocked,” said one parent, who agreed to speak with me on condition of anonymity. “They were basically teaching racism to my eight-year-old.” This parent, who is Asian-American, rallied a group of a half dozen families to protest the school’s intersectionality curriculum. The group met with the school principal and demanded an end to the racially divisive instruction. After a tense meeting, the administration agreed to suspend the program. (When reached for comment, Jenn Lashier, the principal of Meyerholz Elementary, said that the training was not part of the “formal curricula, but the process of daily learning facilitated by a certified teacher.”)
The irony is that, despite being 94 percent nonwhite, Meyerholz Elementary is one of the most privileged schools in America. The median household income in Cupertino is $172,000, and nearly 80 percent of residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher. At the school, where the majority of families are Asian-American, the students have exceptionally high rates of academic achievement and the school consistently ranks in the top 1 percent of all elementary schools statewide. In short, nobody at Meyerholz is oppressed, and the school’s high-achieving parents know that teaching intersectionality instead of math is a waste of time—and potentially dangerous.
One parent told me that critical race theory was reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. “[It divides society between] the oppressor and the oppressed, and since these identities are inborn characteristics people cannot change, the only way to change it is via violent revolution,” the parent said. “Growing up in China, I had learned it many times. The outcome is the family will be ripped apart; husband hates wife, children hate parents. I think it is already happening here.”
The small fight at Meyerholz reflects a larger development: for the first time, Asian-Americans on the West Coast have become politically mobilized. In 2019, Asian-Americans ran a successful initiative campaign against affirmative action in Washington State; in 2020, Asian-Americans ran a similar campaign in California, winning by an astonishing 57 percent to 43 percent margin. In both cases, they defended the principles of meritocracy, individual rights, and equality under the law—and roundly defeated a super-coalition of the states’ progressive politicians, activists, universities, media, and corporations.
The stakes are high for the Asian-American community. For progressives insisting on the narrative of “white supremacy” and “systemic racism,” Asian-Americans are the “inconvenient minority”: they significantly outperform all other racial groups, including whites, in terms of academic achievement, college admissions, household income, family stability, and other key measures. Affirmative action and other critical race theory-based programs would devastate their admissions to universities and harm their futures.
At Meyerholz Elementary, the Asian-American families are on high alert for critical race theory in the classroom. Since their initial victory, they have begun to consider campaigning against the school board. “We think some of our school board members are [critical race theory] activists and they must go,” said one parent. The capture of our public institutions by progressives obsessed by race and privilege deserves opposition at every level. The parents of Cupertino have joined the fight.’https://christopherrufo.com/woke-elementary/
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation steals more than one billion dollars from the tax payer each year to deliver progressive Leftist/Marxist/Socialist news each and every day. One Nation’s Mark Latham is one politician that is willing to call the ABC out. Mark says ‘I wish the ABC’s Climate Alarmists would make up their minds. With rising sea levels, in Western Sydney we were supposed to get beautiful ocean views. But now in the article below, we are being told to abandon our homes, live underground and paint our roads white so they repel the heat. All in the middle of the coolest summer in memory. Just because of a few hot days since last week. You really need to read this article three times to make sure someone could actually write this fear-mongering nonsense. ABC: Always Biased Crap. A waste of taxpayer’s money. A media factory for Left-wing propaganda.
This is happening in Australian schools as well. Now that Biden and many Progressives are in charge 1984 is happening now in 2021 and this is not going to end well! A video is attached at the bottom of this article.
‘A middle school in Springfield, Missouri, recently held a diversity training program that forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix” and watch a video of “George Floyd’s last words.”
According to whistleblower documents and teachers who attended the program at Cherokee Middle School, the training began with a “land acknowledgement,” claiming that “Springfield Public Schools is built on ancestral territory of the Osage, Delaware and Kickapoo Nations and Peoples.” (At the time of publication, Springfield Public Schools had not responded to a request for comment.) The diversity trainers, Jeremy Sullivan and Myki Williamson, asked the teachers to “acknowledge the dark history and violence against Native and Indigenous People” before engaging in the day’s program of “social justice work.”
The trainers then forced the teachers to watch a nine-minute video of “George Floyd’s last words.” The film is silent, showing only white text on a black screen, illustrating Floyd’s final utterances, including his cries for his mother. Such videos are a common technique in many diversity-training programs—and cult indoctrinations. The intention is to overload the senses of the participants and create an “emotional anchor” that serves to justify subsequent political arguments, even if they’re non sequiturs.
Next, Sullivan announced the agenda: “We’re going to look at three large concepts and those concepts are oppression, white supremacy, and systemic racism.” He and Williamson provided the teachers a handout to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” which defines white heterosexual males as the “privileged social group” and women, minorities, transgender, and LGBT people as “oppressed social groups.” Presumably, those at the top of the oppression matrix, including many of the teachers in the room, are responsible for the “racism, sexism, transgender oppression, heterosexism, [and] classism” against disfavored groups.
The diversity trainers then narrowed the focus to race, distributing another handout that outlines the concepts of “overt white supremacy” and “covert white supremacy.” The document claims that “lynching, hate crimes, KKK, neo-Nazis, [and] burning crosses” are “socially unacceptable” forms of white supremacy, while “education funding from property tax, colorblindness, calling the police on black people, BIPOC as Halloween costumes, not believing experiences of BIPOC, tone policing, [and] white silence” are “socially acceptable” forms of white supremacy.
This is a dangerous conflation. The trainers are attempting to extend the stigma of true social evils—slavery, lynching, Nazism—to any deviation from progressive political preferences, from property taxes to criminal justice to Halloween costumes. According to one teacher who attended the training, the handout originally listed “MAGA” as a form of “covert white supremacy,” but it was removed after public outcry. The principle, however, has remained: diversity trainers use the emotional overload of historical evils to justify the imposition of current dogma.
Even more cynically, diversity trainers such as those at Springfield Public Schools have begun to insist on a standard of “affirmative consent.” This means that teachers must not only accept the tenets of the training—in some cases even condemning themselves as white supremacists or oppressors—but also actively vocalize that acceptance. When one teacher said that he was “afraid to say anything,” Sullivan quickly shut him down, telling the teacher that he must think what an “underrepresented or under-resourced student [might] say of our fear of speaking up.” Remember: under the new ethics, disagreement is verboten; silence is transformed into an admission of guilt. “White silence” is a form of “white supremacy.”
Finally, after more than an hour of training, one white teacher, who was raised by a black stepfather began pushing back, asking: “Is the district saying that we should be Marxists?” He continued:
While I don’t think there’s a person in the room who doesn’t agree that this is an important topic that should be dealt with, the way that it’s being framed comes from Herbert Marcuse who took and stripped all of the economic policies of Marxist theory and turned it into [cultural Marxism]. . . . I grew up the son of a black man, he raised me to believe in Dr. King’s teachings. Dr. King did not teach the kind of vitriol that we see out of Marxism, [which] has a long replete history of countries being bigoted and prejudiced against others and then murdering millions as a result.
The diversity trainers, both white, were stunned. At first, Sullivan acknowledged the Marxist orientation of the diversity training program. “I know that that’s the roots, I’m aware of all that information,” he said. Then, perhaps realizing that teaching Frankfurt School Marxism in a Missouri public school could be controversial, he distanced himself: “The goal here is to take a stand against racism, it’s not to be totalitarian. . . . There’s not some big political agenda. It’s certainly not Marxism. It’s just let’s make sure that all of our kids are truly valued and celebrated.”
This is the tell. Many diversity training programs—and the political movement known as Black Lives Matter—operate on the principle of bait and switch. Following Marcuse, they predicate their rhetoric on the “emotional anchor” of racial suffering, then use euphemisms to make their political arguments. In the Missouri training program, the school district proposes “empowerment” as the solution, which sounds anodyne, even appealing. However, in the documentation, the district defines “empowerment” as training students to “refuse to accept the dominant ideology and their subordinate status and take actions to redistribute social power more equitably.” The district defines a euphemism with more euphemisms, but the deeper meaning is clear: that American society is white supremacist and must be replaced with a regime of race-based redistribution.
For years, Americans have watched as educators have pushed deeply divisive “antiracism” programs in coastal cities such as Berkeley, Portland, and Seattle. Now “antiracism” has come to the heartland.’https://www.discovery.org/a/antiracism-comes-to-the-heartland/
‘oppression matrix
The oppression matrix provides a model for analyzing social oppression and considering the formation of multiple interacting (intersectional ) parts of our identities and power structures that determine our lives.’ https://blogs.umass.edu/comm397ss-jsaxe/oppression-matrix/
This is from the horse’s ( that’s to say Sleepy Basement Joe’s) mouth. How can it be said he is President when he admits voter fraud?! This is scary when a man and a political party can assume control of a whole nation via fraud!
‘“Free speech” is a term that gets thrown around quite often these days. But what is it? And why is it important?
The freedom of speech is simply the ability to say, write, or otherwise express what you truly believe without fear of punishment or retaliation from the government.
This freedom is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The authors of our Constitution believed it was very important to protect this freedom.
And for good reason.
Speaking is how you express your thoughts. So if government officials can force you to say things you don’t believe, you no longer control the content of your speech and thus lose the freedom to live consistently with the principles you treasure most.
Government officials who seek to control your speech are trying to control what you think and what you do. And that’s contrary to the very idea of freedom. Not only that, but it’s contrary to the dignity of the human person. Our thoughts not only cause our actions, they are the most personal possession we have.
While upholding human dignity is the most important reason to protect this freedom, it certainly isn’t the only reason.
If you want good ideas to have influence, you’ll support protections for the freedom of speech. The best ideas often come from the robust discussion and debate of many different ideas.
And this cannot exist without free speech.
What the freedom of speech is not.
Some might argue that the freedom of speech is just a piece of rhetoric used by those who want to say hateful things. But this is false.
Free speech is a right that every individual possesses as a human being created by God.
And this right isn’t just for those with certain beliefs. In fact, that’s the whole point. There are as many unique perspectives as there are people. Our ability to share our perspective with others is what free speech is all about.
As the Declaration of Independence says, “all men are created equal.” But this doesn’t mean that all ideas are equal. There will always be bad or even false ideas that we must address.
But the answer isn’t to shut down debate or silence the people sharing those ideas. The answer is more speech.
We can use our own speech to answer hateful statements with good and truthful ones. We can debate ideas we consider bad with those we believe are good.
No matter what, we need those with whom we disagree to be involved in the conversation.
Debate with our ideological opponents sharpens our ideas and may even allow us to see the truth in a new and unexpected way. Not only that, but our opponents’ right to free speech should be protected because they are human beings with dignity just like us. And if their right is taken away, then ours can easily be taken away too.
‘With the recent 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s death, many evangelical Christians have been celebrating his life. The Gospel Coalition hosted the MLK50: Gospel Reflections from the Mountaintop conference, lauding his life and work, and calling on the church to reflect on racial unity then and now.
Unorthodox Theology Martin Luther King Jr’s theology was very liberal. In papers he wrote during his time at Crozer Theological Seminary he made his views clear. He said that the evidence for the Virgin Birth is “is too shallow to convince any objective thinker.” He stripped the doctrines of the divine sonship of Christ, the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of all literal meaning, saying, “we [could] argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and [philosophically] untenable.” In another paper he wrote:
[A] supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominent in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose[d] to theological adaption to social and cultural change. … Amid change all around he is willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.
He did not believe these doctrines even though the Bible taught them. Instead he rejected them as superstition because they did not fit his notions of modern science. The doctrines he was rejecting are fundamental to Biblical Christianity.
After graduating from college, we do not see a radical change in King’s theology, or a repudiation of his former unorthodox views. Although he did not explicitly preach these liberal beliefs, his messages were still consistent with them. His message would fall under the banner of black liberation theology – he preached a form of Christianity that was reworked to apply to physical freedom of the slaves. The central theme of his Christianity was not Jesus Christ, the son of God coming to earth, it was the deliverance of the Israel from their slavery in Egypt. In his famous “mountaintop” speech, when he was listing the seminal events of history, he mentioned the Exodus, not Christ’s death and resurrection.
Liberation theology is a secularization of Christianity, using the Bible as a framework to speak to people’s longing for freedom. It is an abandonment of the message of the Bible. Instead of applying the full breath of scriptural to the hearers, it constructs a new theology to appeal to your worldly needs. This fits perfect with King’s denial of fundamental beliefs in the supernatural events scripture records. He didn’t need to believe them if he was just repurposing a few events from scripture to construct his own story of the world.
MLK at the University of Minnesota
Immoral Life There is substantial evidence that Martin Luther King Jr.’s private life and character was unworthy of a minister of the Gospel, or even of a Christian. The FBI monitored him for many years, wrongly and unconstitutionally using their surveillance powers to get damaging information to discredit him for political purposes. This monitoring included following him on his travels around the country and placing recording devices in his hotel rooms. The FBI claimed to have evidence, both anecdotal and on audio recording of King committing adulteries on many occasions. They even went to the point of sending him an anonymous letter threatening him with the release of this information and encouraging him to commit suicide. The FBI records on King will remain sealed until at least 2027.
We do not have to take the word of the FBI to believe that MLK was not a man who lived a righteous life. Dr. Ralph Abernathy, a close friend of King’s, admitted as much in his book, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. He wrote that even the night before his assassination, King had committed adultery with multiple women. The consensus among historians is that Martin Luther King Jr. was repeatedly unfaithful to his wife.
It is right to commend and remember King for what he got right, including the equality of all nationalities and non violent protests against injustice. But we must not ignore his failings. As with any other historical figure, we must be honest about King, complementing and emulating what he did well, and condemning him where he was wrong. Christians must not forget, in their rush to crown him their hero, that he lived a wicked life and denied the very basics of orthodox Christianity. It is deceptive and wrong for evangelical Christians to claim King as a brother in Christ, when all the evidence suggests that he was not.’http://discerninghistory.com/2018/04/was-martin-luther-king-jr-a-christian/
whatyareckon 