If you live in Australia this is a MUST! ‘Professor Augusto Zimmermann outlines the truth found in the Australian Constitution for us as citizens to resist the unlawful imposition of any vaccine mandate.’
Constitution
‘Nancy Pelosi is putting our Constitution through a paper shredder, so Marjorie Greene shreds her mask mandate letter.’ Good on Marjorie for she did to Pelosi’s stupid letter what Pelosi did to President Trump’s speech! Good on you, Marjorie Greene!!!!
I encourage you to listen to Vivek’s whole speech on this subject and then share. Perhaps what he says will WAKE UP that Woke friend!
Biden has made the US government WOKE and WEAK! Now, ‘The United States Army’s Assistant Secretary for Installations, Energy and Environment released a memo on May 14 that identifies climate change as a “serious threat to U.S. national security interests and defense objectives.” According to the memo, the president and secretary of defense have directed the Army to prioritize “climate change considerations in its threat picture, strategic plans, operations, and installations.” In January, Defense News reported that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin wants the Department of Defense (DOD) to “change its carbon footprint.” In April, Secretary Austin called climate change “an existential threat.”
To that end, the memo states that the Army convened a 24-member “Army Climate Change Working Group (ACCWG)” in early March to develop the Army’s “Climate Strategy and Army Climate Action Plan.” The plan includes “energy reform,” which calls for the “development and use of renewable energy, energy and water efficiency and consumption, and other environmental initiatives that steward the land, air and water to enable Army operations and maximize readiness.” The Army, the memo continues, is “[p]oised to lead the way in technology development for tactical vehicles that balances increased capability with decreased climate impacts.” One member of DOD’s Climate Action Team said that the group is taking a “holistic approach” that extends to “environmental justice.”’https://spectator.org/army-climate-change/
One doesn’t have to be a prophet to see that if things do not change the USA will be a vassal state of China before the next Presidential election.
Canada is no longer a free country. This video shows just how much the Canadian government is frightened of a pastor who will not bend the knee to their bidding. The CCP China virus has been a tool used to take away freedoms and in this case the freedom of those who worship. Democratic governments have been too quick to shut things down for the HEALTH SAFTY OF ITS CITIZENS!!! If this video doesn’t disturb you then you are ripe for the total control of the CCP.
The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on March 30, 2021.
‘Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it—and of those who have, many don’t understand it. It’s time for this to change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.
In explaining critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism. Originally, the Marxist Left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: the workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class, and usher in a new socialist society.
During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million of their own people. They are remembered for their gulags, show trials, executions, and mass starvations. In practice, Marx’s ideas unleashed man’s darkest brutalities.
By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West had begun to acknowledge these failures. They recoiled at revelations of Soviet atrocities and came to realize that workers’ revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, where there were large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living. Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream—the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work, and good citizenship.
But rather than abandon their Leftist political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s. Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.
Fortunately, the early proponents of this revolutionary coalition in the U.S. lost out in the 1960s to the civil rights movement, which sought instead the fulfillment of the American promise of freedom and equality under the law. Americans preferred the idea of improving their country to that of overthrowing it. The vision of Martin Luther King, Jr., President Johnson’s pursuit of the Great Society, and the restoration of law and order promised by President Nixon in his 1968 campaign defined the post-1960s American political consensus.
But the radical Left has proved resilient and enduring—which is where critical race theory comes in.
WHAT IT IS
Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s, built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks, and school curricula.
There are a series of euphemisms deployed by its supporters to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.
In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines. Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government, and would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others who are deemed insufficiently “antiracist.”
One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since according to Kendi, “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” In other words, identity is the means and Marxism is the end.
An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority. Historically, the accusation of “anti-Americanism” has been overused. But in this case, it’s not a matter of interpretation—critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.
HOW IT WORKS
What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.
This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.” In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”
I’m just one investigative journalist, but I’ve developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration—from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.
This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions were presented as neutral, technocratic, and oriented towards broadly-held perceptions of the public good. Today, under the increasing sway of critical race theory and related ideologies, they are being turned against the American people. This isn’t limited to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., but is true as well of institutions in the states, even in red states, and it is spreading to county public health departments, small Midwestern school districts, and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.
FUTILE RESISTANCE
Thus far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, too many Americans have developed an acute fear of speaking up about social and political issues, especially those involving race. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of conservatives are afraid to share their political beliefs publicly. Worried about getting mobbed on social media, fired from their jobs, or worse, they remain quiet, largely ceding the public debate to those pushing these anti-American ideologies. Consequently, the institutions themselves become monocultures: dogmatic, suspicious, and hostile to a diversity of opinion. Conservatives in both the federal government and public school systems have told me that their “equity and inclusion” departments serve as political offices, searching for and stamping out any dissent from the official orthodoxy.
Second, critical race theorists have constructed their argument like a mousetrap. Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias,” or “internalized white supremacy.” I’ve seen this projection of false consciousness on their opponents play out dozens of times in my reporting. Diversity trainers will make an outrageous claim—such as “all whites are intrinsically oppressors” or “white teachers are guilty of spirit murdering black children”—and then when confronted with disagreement, they adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.”
Third, Americans across the political spectrum have failed to separate the premise of critical race theory from its conclusion. Its premise—that American history includes slavery and other injustices, and that we should examine and learn from that history—is undeniable. But its revolutionary conclusion—that America was founded on and defined by racism and that our founding principles, our Constitution, and our way of life should be overthrown—does not rightly, much less necessarily, follow.
Fourth and finally, the writers and activists who have had the courage to speak out against critical race theory have tended to address it on the theoretical level, pointing out the theory’s logical contradictions and dishonest account of history. These criticisms are worthy and good, but they move the debate into the academic realm, which is friendly terrain for proponents of critical race theory. They fail to force defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the realm of politics.
POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT
No longer simply an academic matter, critical race theory has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, it is fast achieving “cultural hegemony” in America’s public institutions. More and more, it is driving the vast machinery of the state and society. If we want to succeed in opposing it, we must address it politically at every level.
Critical race theorists must be confronted with and forced to speak to the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed”? Do they support mandatory curricula teaching that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism”? Do they support public schools instructing white parents to become “white traitors” and advocate for “white abolition”? Do they want those who work in government to be required to undergo this kind of reeducation? How about managers and workers in corporate America? How about the men and women in our military? How about every one of us?
There are three parts to a successful strategy to defeat the forces of critical race theory: governmental action, grassroots mobilization, and an appeal to principle.
We already see examples of governmental action. Last year, one of my reports led President Trump to issue an executive order banning critical race theory-based training programs in the federal government. President Biden rescinded this order on his first day in office, but it provides a model for governors and municipal leaders to follow. This year, several state legislatures have introduced bills to achieve the same goal: preventing public institutions from conducting programs that stereotype, scapegoat, or demean people on the basis of race. And I have organized a coalition of attorneys to file lawsuits against schools and government agencies that impose critical race theory-based programs on grounds of the First Amendment (which protects citizens from compelled speech), the Fourteenth Amendment (which provides equal protection under the law), and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race).
On the grassroots level, a multiracial and bipartisan coalition is emerging to do battle against critical race theory. Parents are mobilizing against racially divisive curricula in public schools and employees are increasingly speaking out against Orwellian reeducation in the workplace. When they see what is happening, Americans are naturally outraged that critical race theory promotes three ideas—race essentialism, collective guilt, and neo-segregation—which violate the basic principles of equality and justice. Anecdotally, many Chinese-Americans have told me that having survived the Cultural Revolution in their former country, they refuse to let the same thing happen here.
In terms of principles, we need to employ our own moral language rather than allow ourselves to be confined by the categories of critical race theory. For example, we often find ourselves debating “diversity.” Diversity as most of us understand it is generally good, all things being equal, but it is of secondary value. We should be talking about and aiming at excellence, a common standard that challenges people of all backgrounds to achieve their potential. On the scale of desirable ends, excellence beats diversity every time.
Similarly, in addition to pointing out the dishonesty of the historical narrative on which critical race theory is predicated, we must promote the true story of America—a story that is honest about injustices in American history, but that places them in the context of our nation’s high ideals and the progress we have made towards realizing them. Genuine American history is rich with stories of achievements and sacrifices that will move the hearts of Americans—in stark contrast to the grim and pessimistic narrative pressed by critical race theorists.
Above all, we must have courage—the fundamental virtue required in our time. Courage to stand and speak the truth. Courage to withstand epithets. Courage to face the mob. Courage to shrug off the scorn of the elites. When enough of us overcome the fear that currently prevents so many from speaking out, the hold of critical race theory will begin to slip. And courage begets courage. It’s easy to stop a lone dissenter; it’s much harder to stop 10, 20, 100, 1,000, 1,000,000, or more who stand up together for the principles of America.
Truth and justice are on our side. If we can muster the courage, we will win.’https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/critical-race-theory-fight/?utm_campaign=imprimis&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=121792381&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9MbG_CCSTOxYtkWZIAJ6rPkKi91EAgHQcSl9wvcQk7Duk9NL0XocHqKLjJPQq52cC63XkDVbJoesoZn8_BAitcX85Vog&utm_content=121790319&utm_source=hs_email
Life isn’t worth much to some! ‘An Australian nurse who refered to herself as the “angel of death” lost her nursing license on March 19 but will unlikely face criminal charges.
On March 10, the Queensland (Australia) Civil And Administrative Tribunal of the nursing and midwifery board of australia, in the Bannister case decided to:
disqualify her from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of two years from the date of this decision, and
prohibit, under the National Law s 196(4), from providing any health service for a period of two years from the date of this decision.
An article by Lydia Lynch published in the Brisbane Times stated:
Maura Kathryn Bannister, 60, administered an unprescribed dose of morphine to an elderly and frail family friend who was receiving palliative care at home after a fall.
Knowing the woman had already taken one dose or morphine that morning, Ms Bannister then gave another dose “greater than that prescribed, without any direction from the general practitioner to do so”.
“Thereafter she did not render or arrange medical assistance for the lady, who passed away later that morning,” the findings read.
Lynch reports that Bannister referred to herself as the “angel of death” and stated that she was proud of what she had done.
The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) (August 3, 2017) published a Netherlands study titled: End-of-Life Decisions in the Netherlands over 25 years.
The study indicates that in 2015 there were 7254 assisted deaths (6672 euthanasia deaths, 150 assisted suicide deaths, 431 terminations of life without request) in the Netherlands. The Netherlands euthanasia law did not prevent 431 terminations of life without request.
The euthanasia lobby will argue that legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide will regulate and prevent these types of deaths, but in fact it normalizes it as an acceptable medical practise and makes it impossible to prevent or even censure someone who carries out similar acts.’https://familyvoice.org.au/news/australian-nurse-angel-of-death-will-not-face-criminal-charges-for-killing-a-patient-but-loses-nursing-license-for-two-years
‘TAIPEI, TAIWAN – Hong Kong’s legislature will undergo major changes to its format and structure as a result of Beijing’s approval of a political shakeup that will expand its control over the semiautonomous city.
China’s National People’s Congress, the Communist Party’s rubber-stamp legislative body, passed a resolution earlier this month proposing the overhaul, which would make it harder for candidates from Hong Kong’s pro-democracy opposition to be elected.
The revamp, signed into law Tuesday by President Xi Jinping, reduces the number of directly elected seats on Hong Kong’s Legislative Council and increases the number of pro-Beijing voices.
Those seeking office will face strict vetting by a special committee, which critics expect to shut out pro-democracy forces and ensure that “patriots” govern the Chinese city.
Lee Cheuk Yan, a veteran pro-democracy activist and former lawmaker, told VOA that it’s a “disastrous act” for Hong Kong.
“I think it’s closer to the National People’s Congress, which also have the candidates before any election takes place. There will not be any more credibility for this Legislative Council in the future,” he said.
Fewer selections by public
In its current form, the Legislative Council has 70 members, of which 35 are selected every four years by popular vote from various municipal constituencies and district councils.
Under the reforms, Legislative Council seats will increase to 90, of which the public will vote for only 20, down from 35. The lawmaking body’s Election Committee, which is heavily pro-Beijing and tasked with appointing Hong Kong’s chief executive, will be expanded to 1,500 members from 1,200.
Lee said during his time as a Legislative Council lawmaker from 1995 to 2016, the aim was to gradually increase the number of seats to be filled by public elections.
“Don’t go too quick, too fast — we have to make a gradual step,” he said. “The debate was always about the speed, never about the direction. But now this time, the direction is backwards and it’s really a shock to us.”
The former lawmaker believes those seeking greater democracy will have to wait for more opportunities in the future.
“I think we have to prepare ourselves to be outside the system for some time to come, for years to come, wait it out,” Lee told VOA. “Wait for Hong Kong people to continue [voicing protest], if possible on the street, to work it out in civil society.”
Lee is due in court Thursday to learn his fate on a charge of illegal assembly in relation to pro-democracy protests in 2019. He has four cases outstanding.’https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/beijing-led-electoral-reforms-hong-kong-redefine-democracy-critics-say
The way things are going in the West this may be our future as well!
The Bible speaks of fornication, adultery and men with men working that which is unseemly, as sin! The following article is speaking abut what has become known in and out of the churches as sexual abuse. The ‘abuse’ spoken of in the following article began with an older man when the woman was 26 and ended when she was 38. I am not blaming the woman alone but I am saying these two professed to be ‘Christians’ when they were committing this sin! Personally, I believe both should be questioning their relationship with the Lord Jesus!
Now, there are many things that stand out in the articles being written on this ‘abuse’ matter but at least to this blogger there are three things that stand out.
One is that BOTH professed to know the Lord Jesus as their personal Saviour while committing fornication! There is definitely a heart (spiritual) problem here. Have these people considered the fact they may not be saved.? 2Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Secondly, while this sin continued this long this man, David Sills, was able to move about the Southern Baptist Convention teaching and preaching while committing adultery!!!! The word ‘ACCOUNTABILITY’ is thrown around a lot in the churches and ‘Christian’ organizations such as the schools and seminaries but where is the accountability?
Thirdly, it is stated https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/religion/2019/03/12/louisville-southern-baptist-seminary-professor-accused-sex-abuse/3130024002/ that this same man, ‘Sills had been hired at a missionary agency outside the Southern Baptist Convention’!!!! There’s always a job for one of the Good Ole Boys no matter what they have been doing!!!!
Those churches and organizations, in this case the Southern Baptist Convention, say they are preaching the Gospel when in reality they are not preaching the Gospel as found in the Word of God where there is repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 20:21! There’s sin in the camp and there is seemingly NO repentance or discipline administered in the churches or the denominational organizations and these things ought not so to be, James 3:10!!! Now, the articles say ‘Jennifer Lyell was trying to do the right thing.
In the spring of 2019, Lyell, then a well-respected leader in Christian publishing, decided to publicly disclose that she was a survivor of sexual abuse.
She did so after learning her abuser, a former Southern Baptist seminary professor, author and missionary, had recently returned to ministry. Lyell feared he would once again have the opportunity to abuse others and wanted to stop that from happening.
So she wrote up a statement detailing the abuse and shared it with a reporter from a Christian news organization. Then things went terribly wrong.
Instead of reporting she had been abused, Nashville-based Baptist Press, which is overseen by the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee, reported in March 2019 that Lyell, then a vice president at Lifeway Christian Resources, had admitted being involved in a “morally inappropriate relationship” with her former professor.
The fallout was quick and devastating. Lyell was labeled on social media as an “adulteress” rather than an abuse survivor, with users leaving scores of vile comments about her on Lifeway’s Facebook page and the Baptist Press website. Pastors and churches called for her to be fired. She lost her reputation, her job and even her health in the process.
The article was eventually retracted, but the damage was done.
Lyell told Religion News Service she wished she had never gone public. Instead of receiving support and compassion, she found herself trying to convince critics she was not responsible for the abuse she had experienced at the hands of the former professor.
“It takes years and years to recover from trauma, and no one should be in the position of having to explain it to the whole public while they’re still trying to do that,” she said.’ https://churchleaders.com/news/392768-how-complementarianism-fueled-a-culture-of-abuse-in-the-church-for-jennifer-lyell.html
More of this sad story may be read at https://julieroys.com/jennifer-lyells-life-fell-apart/?mc_cid=9d9bbc3a95&mc_eid=b13d34ad49 and https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/a-statement-from-baptist-press/ and https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/religion/2019/03/12/louisville-southern-baptist-seminary-professor-accused-sex-abuse/3130024002/
The China virus has been used by the West to move all of us closer to communism. Communism has always been anti-God and therefore against those who profess to be followers of the Lord Jesus Christ and called Christians. What the CCP does every day Canada is now doing to Canadian churches and Christians.
The Rebel reporter went to ‘Alberta’s favourite baptist church this weekend — Fairview Baptist Church — to see firsthand how the police, public health and bylaw officials would handle the church’s continued defiance of capacity restrictions.
It was a good news/bad news situation this weekend. Let’s start first with the good news.
Unlike previous weeks, the government officials stayed out of the church, unlike the past two weeks where they treated the church like a crime scene, taking pictures of the congregants inside during services.
The bad news, however, is that the church’s pastor, Tim Stephens, has received three summonses from the government for various infractions for contravening the COVID-19 restrictions.
Pastor Stephens vowed that his congregation is going to continue to gather in worship, so this story is not over yet as it remains to be seen whether the government will up the ante on enforcement against Fairview.’https://www.rebelnews.com/fairview_baptist_pastor_given_three_tickets_for_breaching_covid_rules?utm_campaign=rb_3_16_21&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
whatyareckon 