America
If you are not acquainted with Hillsdale College https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/ you should be.
‘The following is adapted from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College reception in Rogers, Arkansas, on November 17, 2020.
On September 17, Constitution Day, I chaired a panel organized by the White House. It was an extraordinary thing. The panel’s purpose was to identify what has gone wrong in the teaching of American history and to lay forth a plan for recovering the truth. It took place in the National Archives—we were sitting in front of the originals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—a very beautiful place. When we were done, President Trump came and gave a speech about the beauty of the American Founding and the importance of teaching American history to the preservation of freedom.
This remarkable event reminded me of an essay by a teacher of mine, Harry Jaffa, called “On the Necessity of a Scholarship of the Politics of Freedom.” Its point was that a certain kind of scholarship is needed to support the principles of a nation such as ours. America is the most deliberate nation in history—it was built for reasons that are stated in the legal documents that form its founding. The reasons are given in abstract and universal terms, and without good scholarship they can be turned astray. I was reminded of that essay because this event was the greatest exhibition in my experience of the combination of the scholarship and the politics of freedom.
The panel was part of an initiative of President Trump, mostly ignored by the media, to counter the New York Times’ 1619 Project. The 1619 Project promotes the teaching that slavery, not freedom, is the defining fact of American history. President Trump’s 1776 Commission aims to restore truth and honesty to the teaching of American history. It is an initiative we must work tirelessly to carry on, regardless of whether we have a president in the White House who is on our side in the fight.
We must carry on the fight because our country is at stake. Indeed, in a larger sense, civilization itself is at stake, because the forces arrayed against the scholarship and the politics of freedom today have more radical aims than just destroying America.
I taught a course this fall semester on totalitarian novels. We read four of them: George Orwell’s 1984, Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, and C.S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength.
The totalitarian novel is a relatively new genre. In fact, the word “totalitarian” did not exist before the 20th century. The older word for the worst possible form of government is “tyranny”—a word Aristotle defined as the rule of one person, or of a small group of people, in their own interests and according to their will. Totalitarianism was unknown to Aristotle, because it is a form of government that only became possible after the emergence of modern science and technology.
The old word “science” comes from a Latin word meaning “to know.” The new word “technology” comes from a Greek word meaning “to make.” The transition from traditional to modern science means that we are not so much seeking to know when we study nature as seeking to make things—and ultimately, to remake nature itself. That spirit of remaking nature—including human nature—greatly emboldens both human beings and governments. Imbued with that spirit, and employing the tools of modern science, totalitarianism is a form of government that reaches farther than tyranny and attempts to control the totality of things.
In the beginning of his history of the Persian War, Herodotus recounts that in Persia it was considered illegal even to think about something that was illegal to do—in other words, the law sought to control people’s thoughts. Herodotus makes plain that the Persians were not able to do this. We today are able to get closer through the use of modern technology. In Orwell’s 1984, there are telescreens everywhere, as well as hidden cameras and microphones. Nearly everything you do is watched and heard. It even emerges that the watchers have become expert at reading people’s faces. The organization that oversees all this is called the Thought Police.
If it sounds far-fetched, look at China today: there are cameras everywhere watching the people, and everything they do on the Internet is monitored. Algorithms are run and experiments are underway to assign each individual a social score. If you don’t act or think in the politically correct way, things happen to you—you lose the ability to travel, for instance, or you lose your job. It’s a very comprehensive system. And by the way, you can also look at how big tech companies here in the U.S. are tracking people’s movements and activities to the extent that they are often able to know in advance what people will be doing. Even more alarming, these companies are increasingly able and willing to use the information they compile to manipulate people’s thoughts and decisions.
The protagonist of 1984 is a man named Winston Smith. He works for the state, and his job is to rewrite history. He sits at a table with a telescreen in front of him that watches everything he does. To one side is something called a memory hole—when Winston puts things in it, he assumes they are burned and lost forever. Tasks are delivered to him in cylinders through a pneumatic tube. The task might involve something big, like a change in what country the state is at war with: when the enemy changes, all references to the previous war with a different enemy need to be expunged. Or the task might be something small: if an individual falls out of favor with the state, photographs of him being honored need to be altered or erased altogether from the records. Winston’s job is to fix every book, periodical, newspaper, etc. that reveals or refers to what used to be the truth, in order that it conform to the new truth.
One man, of course, can’t do this alone. There’s a film based on 1984 starring John Hurt as Winston Smith. In the film they depict the room where he works, and there are people in cubicles like his as far as the eye can see. There would have to be millions of workers involved in constantly re-writing the past. One of the chief questions raised by the book is, what makes this worth the effort? Why does the regime do it?
Winston’s awareness of this endless, mighty effort to alter reality makes him cynical and disaffected. He comes to see that he knows nothing of the past, of real history: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified,” he says at one point, “every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. . . . Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” Does any of this sound familiar?
In his disaffection, Winston commits two unlawful acts: he begins writing in a diary and he begins meeting a woman in secret, outside the sanction of the state. The family is important to the state, because the state needs babies. But the women are raised by the state in a way that they are not to enjoy relations with their husbands. And the children—as in China today, and as it was in the Soviet Union—are indoctrinated and taught to spy and inform on their parents. Parents love their children but live in terror of them all the time. Think of the control that comes from that—and the misery.
There are three stratums in the society of 1984. There is the Inner Party, whose members hold all the power. There is the Outer Party, to which Winston belongs, whose members work for—and are watched and controlled by—the Inner Party. And there are the proles, who live and do the blue collar work in a relatively unregulated area. Winston ventures out into that area from time to time. He finds a little shop there where he buys things. And it is in a room upstairs from this shop where he and Julia, the woman he falls in love with, set up a kind of household as if they are married. They create something like a private world in that room, although it is a world with limitations—they can’t even think about having children, for instance, because if they did, they would be discovered and killed.
In the end, it turns out that the shopkeeper, who had seemed to be a kindly old man, is in fact a member of the Thought Police. Winston and Julia’s room contained a hidden telescreen all along, so everything they have said and done has been observed. In fact, it emerges that the Thought Police have known that Winston has been having deviant thoughts for twelve years and have been watching him carefully. When the couple are arrested, they have made pledges that they will never betray each other. They know the authorities will be able to make them say whatever they want them to say—but in their hearts, they pledge, they will be true to their love. It is a promise that neither is finally able to keep.
After months of torture, Winston thinks that what awaits him is a bullet in the back of the head, the preferred method of execution of both the Nazis and the Soviet Communists. In Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, the protagonist walks down a basement hallway after confessing to crimes that he didn’t commit, and without any ceremony he is shot in the back of the head—eradicated as if he were vermin. Winston doesn’t get off so easy. He will instead undergo an education, or more accurately a re-education. His final stages of torture are depicted as a kind of totalitarian seminar. The seminar is conducted by a man named O’Brien, who is portrayed marvelously in the film by Richard Burton. As he alternately raises and lowers the level of Winston’s pain, O’Brien leads him to knowledge regarding the full meaning of the totalitarian regime.
As the first essential step of his education, Winston has to learn doublethink—a way of thinking that defies the law of contradiction. In Aristotle, the law of contradiction is the basis of all reasoning, the means of making sense of the world. It is the law that says that X and Y cannot be true at the same time if they’re mutually exclusive. For instance, if A is taller than B and B is taller than C, C cannot be taller than A. The law of contradiction means things like that.
In our time, the law of contradiction would mean that a governor, say, could not simultaneously hold that the COVID pandemic renders church services too dangerous to allow, and also that massive protest marches are fine. It would preclude a man from declaring himself a woman, or a woman declaring herself a man, as if one’s sex is simply a matter of what one wills it to be—and it would preclude others from viewing such claims as anything other than preposterous.
The law of contradiction also means that we can’t change the past. What we can know of the truth all resides in the past, because the present is fleeting and confusing and tomorrow has yet to come. The past, on the other hand, is complete. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas go so far as to say that changing the past—making what has been not to have been—is denied even to God. Because if something both happened and didn’t happen, no human understanding is possible. And God created us with the capacity for understanding.
That’s the law of contradiction, which the art of doublethink denies and violates. Doublethink is manifest in the fact that the state ministry in which Winston is tortured is called the Ministry of Love. It is manifest in the three slogans displayed on the state’s Ministry of Truth: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” And as we have seen, the regime in 1984 exists precisely to repeal the past. If the past can be changed, anything can be changed—man can surpass even the power of God. But still, to what end?
Why do you think you are being tortured? O’Brien asks Winston. The Party is not trying to improve you, he says—the Party cares nothing about you. Winston is brought to see that he is where he is simply as the subject of the state’s power. Understanding having been rendered meaningless, the only competence that has meaning is power.
“Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution,” O’Brien says.
We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. . . . There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. . . . All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.
Nature is ultimately unchangeable, of course, and humans are not God. Totalitarianism will never win in the end—but it can win long enough to destroy a civilization. That is what is ultimately at stake in the fight we are in. We can see today the totalitarian impulse among powerful forces in our politics and culture. We can see it in the rise and imposition of doublethink, and we can see it in the increasing attempt to rewrite our history.
***
“An informed patriotism is what we want,” Ronald Reagan said toward the end of his Farewell Address as president in January 1989. “Are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world?”
Then he issued a warning.
Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn’t get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.
But now, we’re about to enter the [1990s], and some things have changed. Younger parents aren’t sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. . . . We’ve got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It’s fragile; it needs protection.
So, we’ve got to teach history based not on what’s in fashion but what’s important—why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who’d fought on Omaha Beach. . . . [S]he said, “we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.” Well, let’s help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won’t know who we are. I’m warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit.
American schoolchildren today learn two things about Thomas Jefferson: that he wrote the Declaration of Independence and that he was a slaveholder. This is a stunted and dishonest teaching about Jefferson.
What do our schoolchildren not learn? They don’t learn what Jefferson wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just,” he wrote in that book regarding the contest between the master and the slave. “The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.” If schoolchildren learned that, they would see that Jefferson was a complicated man, like most of us.
They don’t learn that when our nation first expanded, it was into the Northwest Territory, and that slavery was forbidden in that territory. They don’t learn that the land in that territory was ceded to the federal government from Virginia, or that it was on the motion of Thomas Jefferson that the condition of the gift was that slavery in that land be eternally forbidden. If schoolchildren learned that, they would come to see Jefferson as a human being who inherited things and did things himself that were terrible, but who regretted those things and fought against them. And they would learn, by the way, that on the scale of human achievement, Jefferson ranks very high. There’s just no question about that, if for no other reason than that he was a prime agent in founding the first republic dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The astounding thing, after all, is not that some of our Founders were slaveholders. There was a lot of slavery back then, as there had been for all of recorded time. The astounding thing—the miracle, even, one might say—is that these slaveholders founded a republic based on principles designed to abnegate slavery.
To present young people with a full and honest account of our nation’s history is to invest them with the spirit of freedom. It is to teach them something more than why our country deserves their love, although that is a good in itself. It is to teach them that the people in the past, even the great ones, were human and had to struggle. And by teaching them that, we prepare them to struggle with the problems and evils in and around them. Teaching them instead that the past was simply wicked and that now they are able to see so perfectly the right, we do them a disservice and fit them to be slavish, incapable of developing sympathy for others or undergoing trials on their own.
Depriving the young of the spirit of freedom will deprive us all of our country. It could deprive us, finally, of our humanity itself. This cannot be allowed to continue. It must be stopped. ‘https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/orwells-1984-today/?utm_campaign=imprimis&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=103982981&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8-lcprsPyz866N6mzqGQea_WF7HOZL30e7tnLlMjKf0etusDbwt89b3sR9PRqKyWX3ctkGH9_8I3ZD30splqUNc70XVw&utm_content=103982981&utm_source=hs_email
No doubt, China is an enemy of liberty and freedom! One of the ways China makes an inroad into a free country is through their Belt & Road initiative. The Australian state of Victoria has signed on to the China Belt & Road Initiative because the Victorian government are Leftist/Marxist leaning politicians. This is sadly the case around the world. Now, ‘For many, the problem of a rising China appears to be an issue for future generations.
After all, despite the meteoric rise of the communist giant’s economy, military and culture, the People’s Republic lacks the basic ability to project power and maintain a force abroad thanks to its second-rate navy.
Now, however, it seems that in the chaos of 2020, China is not only rapidly increasing production of advanced arms but is actively working on an Atlantic Ocean foothold less than 100 miles from American shores.
As far back as 2019, Chinese defense officials publicly expressed their plan to shore up military cooperation with islands in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.
According to state-operated Xinhua News, Chinese State Councilor and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe framed the expansion around America as part of China’s Belt and Road initiative.
After scrambling the world order with a viral pandemic fueled by its lies, China is taking full advantage of distracted nations to further the interests of the People’s Republic.
Near the end of 2019, China Merchants Port Holdings, through a joint venture with a French company, began to gobble up naval infrastructure around the globe. Although the staked ports are spread all over the world, one is uncomfortably close to the continental United States.
According to shipping logistics network Atlas, CMPH’s joint venture gained a major foothold in ports in India, Ukraine, Singapore and Jamaica.
The Jamaican terminal, Kingston Freeport, sits less than 100 miles from the Florida coast.
Although CMPH controls only 49 percent of the joint holding securing ports around the world, the Chinese government’s habit of leaning on domestic companies for the furtherance of state interests means the Communist Party of China will now likely hold sway over several foreign terminals.
Where the communist regime can’t gain a foothold, it is putting in work to build up clout in nations surrounding the United States.
In Cuba, Chinese laborers worked alongside islanders beginning in 2017 to modernize a port on the socialist island, according to Xinhua News. Financed largely by a China-backed loan, the massive undertaking would open the area for larger ships.
There’s no doubt China has been playing the long game by building up relationships with its Belt and Road program. Through the initiative, Chinese loans have gone toward foreign construction projects and infrastructure repair around the world.’https://www.westernjournal.com/china-building-foothold-less-100-miles-continental-us/
Don’t bother me with the facts! That seems to be what the political elite seem to be saying. However, ‘Using a new observational approach to an old but most important question, CLINTEL President Guus Berkhout finds that about 62% of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to natural sources, not human emissions. The study then looks at the implications for drastic CO2 reduction measures, finding that these measures will not stop the atmospheric increase. Actually, they will have very limited effect. Hence the title of the report is “Managing the Carbon Dioxide Content in the Earth’s Atmosphere“.
Professor Berkhout’s approach is based on proven technology in geophysical imaging. He calls his method spectral ‘fingerprint detection (FPD)’, because it looks at the relationship between fine-grained details of the atmospheric CO2 increase and anthropogenic emissions over time by computing auto and cross correlation functions.
Note that in the spectral FPD approach knowledge about the existence of different CO2 isotopes (C12 and C13) is not required. This is consistent with the current decarbonization practice, where minimization of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is the target, whatever the isotopic composition.
Note also that spectral FPD reveals that a lot of information is hidden in the variability of observations. Therefore, spectral FPD starts with decomposing observations into trends and changes along the trends.
The study puts it this way:
“The fine-grained variability of the anthropogenic emission represents the ‘fingerprintof the human CO2-source, telling us that most of the anthropogenic CO2-emission is absorbed by the land-ocean reservoir (fingerprint detection). It also reveals the existence of internal oscillations between the atmosphere and the land-ocean reservoir.”
There is a lot of math here, including least-squares minimization, but the results are clear. An estimated 62% of the increased CO2 concentration is entirely natural.
The study then applies these findings to determine the impact of four different emission reduction scenarios, as follows:
“Four policy scenarios for decarbonization purposes have been built: ‘Business as Usual’, ‘Stabilizing the Emission’, ‘Reducing the emission’ and ‘Making use of CCS’. A big impact conclusion for policy making is that zero anthropogenic emission – being a major achievement– does not mean at all that the atmospheric accumulation becomes zero.”
The analysis comes with a warning:
“Each scenario has its own phase diagram, showing the relationship between atmospheric concentration and anthropogenic emission. It is advised that decarbonization policies are designed such that the transition path in the phase diagram is technically, economically and socially feasible.” (Emphasis added)
Given that even the most stringent (and hugely expensive) scenario does not stop the natural CO2 increase, their rationale is greatly diminished. Also, given that most of the past increase is natural, we can stop blaming ourselves for it.
Professor Berkhout says this is just the first step in applying spectral FPD to the science of climate change:
“By considering spectral fingerprint detection on any source variability, there will be a lot of applications. Apart from CO2 variability, we will look at solar-irradiation variability, cloudiness variability, etc. to determine their individual influence on atmospheric temperature. It leads to a multidimensional causality determination. Again, without any theoretical assumptions. It is all based on observations.”
In science new methods often yield surprising results. I look forward to this multidimensional causality determination with great interest. In the meantime, the climate science and policy communities need to rethink the contribution of human emission to the atmospheric CO2 increase, especially with regard to the potentially destructive mitigation actions.
Combining this conclusion with the evidence that more CO2 will make our planet greener, what the h… are politicians up to? Are they racing to see who can enact the worst policies?’https://papundits.wordpress.com/2020/12/20/clintel-study-finds-most-of-the-co2-increase-is-natural/
This video will introduce you to Christian Concern which exists ‘to protect the freedom to live and speak for him, and to empower Christians to be compassionate and courageous ambassadors.’ Please make it a habit to visit their web site often and to remember them in prayer as they seek to serve the Lord.
One would have to be one of the dead Biden voters not to see that China played a part in the 2020 Presidential election.
‘US intelligence agencies reportedly possess intelligence that suggest China sought to interfere in the 2020 presidential election, pushing a narrative through state-controlled media organizations that tried to smear Donald Trump as a white supremacist.
The so-called intelligence community is notoriously loathe to provide evidence backing up assertions with great implications, but One America News Network reported Wednesday that career officials of federal intelligence agencies support Trump administration Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe’s suspicions of Chinese interference. Other federal employees are trying to sweep the intelligence suggesting Chinese interference under the rug.
Ratcliffe has informed liberal elements of the intelligence community that he won’t sign off on reports that ignore evidence of Chinese interference in the election.’https://dcswampwatch.org/intelligence-agencies-have-information-suggesting-china-interfered-in-2020-presidential-election-against-trump/
‘President-elect Joe Biden on a daily basis has been announcing high-level appointments to his administration that will take control of the federal executive branch on January 20th. None of the individuals come as a shock, but they are no less objectionable in terms of the radical policy shift they portend for America, particularly on climate policy and energy development.
Mr. Biden is expected to appoint Gina McCarthy to be “Domestic Climate Coordinator,” a new position to be housed in the White House Executive Office of the President. From this perch, she will ensure the multitude of federal agencies regulate and manage their responsibilities around reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Mr. Biden did announce this week cabinet appointments that will implement climate policy overseen by Ms. McCarthy. They include Jennifer Granholm for Secretary of Energy, who was Michigan Governor and champion of “renewable” solar and wind energy; and Michael Regan for the Environmental Protection Agency, an African American who is the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and espouses “environmental justice” for communities of color. The president-elect is expected to name Congresswoman Deb Haaland of New Mexico for Secretary of the Interior, who is opposed to decades long energy development on federal lands.
This appointment of Ms. McCarthy would follow Biden’s naming of former Secretary of State, John Kerry, as “Special Envoy” for climate change with a seat on the National Security Council. These new elevated positions, which overlay all domestic and foreign policy, clearly show the seriousness of the incoming Biden-Harris administration to shift climate and energy policies in a radical, domineering direction.
Ms. McCarthy is fanatical when it comes to climate change, that is, mankind’s tangential role in global warming. She previously served as an environmental regulator in Massachusetts and headed the Environmental Protection Agency in Barack Obama’s second term. She currently heads the Natural Resources Defense Council. One of the major black marks against her time as EPA chief was her mishandling of the catastrophic water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Yet, she will be more influential than ever in the Biden White House.
The enormous regulatory and financial power wielded by the federal government will be steered to all things climate change under Ms. McCarthy. Among the countless policy restrictions coming soon will affect oil and gas leasing on federal lands and offshore, emissions standards, and new mandates on the financial sector for more Green project investments.
Economic activity necessarily results in carbon emissions, including the products we produce and consume, the means by which we travel, and the heat and air conditioning in our homes and workplaces. Proposed Green New Deal policies to reduce carbon emissions necessarily will harm the economy; specifically many of the 300 million non-wealthy Americans whose jobs will be eliminated and the higher costs everyone will pay more for energy, goods and services across the board.
Ms. McCarthy’s obsession is for reducing carbon emissions, regardless of the resulting economic dislocation. Yet any “success” in doing so provides zero guarantees the Earth’s climate will change in a different direction from its present trajectory, which is unpredictable, especially 30 years hence.
As CFACT has frequently documented, actual science shows man-made carbon emissions are a tiny fraction of atmospheric gases, and a variety of other natural phenomena impact the planet’s climate. All of this is well beyond the reach of McCarthy, Kerry and the rest of the Biden-Harris team no matter how many trillions of tax dollars they spend on solar panels and retrofitting office buildings. Scientific climate realities also bereft in the pliant news media, which reports without scrutiny. National Public Radio, for example, when reporting on the McCarthy appointment, which dutifully propagated the falsehood that climate change has resulted in “record wildfires, hurricanes and flooding in recent years.”
During his 36 years in the U.S. Senate, Joe Biden was collegial and often considered moderate or mainstream in the Democratic Party, in contrast to more liberal senators. But the Party itself has shifted sharply to the political Left, especially on climate and energy policies, which are the priority of the Party’s mega-donors such as Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and George Soros. Mr. Biden has shifted accordingly, and these appointments are another example of that reality.
The immediate question becomes, what of the Republicans? Will they be a rubberstamp these Biden cabinet appointments, especially if they retain a majority in the U.S. Senate? That would be the easy route.
The climate and energy appointments by President-elect Biden demand a rigorous debate to check the radicalism that threatens the economy and standard of living of the U.S. With the pandemic expected recede in 2021 due to the vaccine, the climate agenda and energy restrictions that will be imposed by the fledging Biden-Harris team otherwise threaten a return to economic normalcy in America.’https://papundits.wordpress.com/2020/12/18/biden-harris-administration-taking-shape-beware/
If Biden gets the WH and you condemn what the governor of NC did regarding sodomites, you just may get jail time!
‘The governor of North Carolina is facing criticism from Christian groups and praise from LGBT advocacy groups after signing a proclamation establishing “Gender Expansive Parents’ Day” as part of an effort to recognize LGBT parents.
Gov. Roy Cooper, D-N.C., who just won reelection to a second term last month, designated Dec. 6 as “Gender Expansive Parents’ Day.” “All parents, regardless of gestational relationship to a child, gender identity, or gender expression, deserve to be celebrated for the love and nurturing they give to their children,” Cooper declared.
After citing statistics showing that more than two million children have a parent that identifies as LGBT and that LGBT people are six times more likely to adopt children, Cooper maintained that “many of these LGBTQ parents also exist outside a traditional gender binary.” Additionally, he concluded that “recognition of the work and sacrifice of non-binary, agender, and other gender expansive parents, as well as that of other non-traditional primary caregivers, is key to our efforts to create a more inclusive State.”’https://www.christianpost.com/news/nc-gov-signs-proclamation-honoring-gender-expansive-parents.html?uid=d3769f0ce2
THE WHITE IDENTITY CRISIS — VERTIGOPOLITIX – What do you think? Is there a reverse racism going on here? Is there a culture of the European countries and if there is how will it be changed by those immigrating from the Middle East, Asia and Africa?
whatyareckon 