General Michael Flynn’s Persecution Continues: Corrupt DC Judge Sullivan and His Accomplice Gleeson to Hold Court September 29

The General Michael Flynn case is at the heart of Barack Obama’s attempt to set up and destroy President Trump and have him removed from office. 

(The above picture from Sara Carter shows General Flynn and his attorney Sidney Powell and corrupt Judges Emmet Sullivan and John Gleeson)

The persecution of General Michael Flynn continues.  The General knew too much and had to be set up and indicted.  The Obama gang just cannot let him go.

General Flynn’s family came out with a statement this morning regarding their brother and hero:

Sara Carter reported:

The litany of evidence collected during the investigations led the Justice Department to request a dismissal Flynn’s case. Unfortunately, the request to dismiss the case was politicized by Judge Sullivan, who is overseeing Flynn’s case. He has been fighting the request and accusing Barr of intervening on behalf of Trump. Because of this, Sullivan appointed an amicus curiae, a friend of the court, to argue on his behalf as to why the case should not be dismissed until he reviews it further.

Powell fought back against Sullivan’s unusual actions but could not persuade the appellate court last week to order Sullivan to dismiss the case against Flynn based on the Justice Department’s motion to have his case dismissed.

In effect, Flynn and his family have faced an extraordinary ordeal over the past three years that has left the three-star general and war hero depleted of funds and emotionally strained.

The Flynn case is at the heart of Obama’s attempt to set up and destroy President Trump and have him removed from office.  Flynn had to be stopped because he knew where the most alarming criminal acts of the Obama Administration likely occurred.  Sidney Powell stated that Obama went after Flynn because he was going to audit Obama’s Intel Agencies where billions of off-balance sheet transactions were hidden and covered up.

The corrupt case devised by corrupt agents working with corrupt prosecutors was reviewed by DC outsiders and the DOJ decided to end the case.  So corrupt DC judge Emmet Sullivan and the corrupt DC court brought in corrupt and outspoken Judge John Gleeson.  Now no one really knows what the hell is going to happen.

Today there was an announcement that the hearing in the case will be held in September:

Of course, Judge Sullivan chose the last day possible to hold the hearing:

This railroad job of one of America’s greatest hero’s continues.  It is a travesty of justice!  Look for more of this in the future if Democrats gain power.  They are nothing but street thugs.

The post General Michael Flynn’s Persecution Continues: Corrupt DC Judge Sullivan and His Accomplice Gleeson to Hold Court September 29 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Breaking: Good News! President Trump Bans Hateful and Divisive Critical Race Theory from Federal Agencies

Earlier this week investigative journalist Chris Rufo went on with Tucker Carlson to discuss the “critical race theory” and its use by the federal government.

Today, thanks to the divisive Obama regime, federal employees are forced to attend critical race theory sessions and workshops to focus on “white privilege” and “microaggressions.”

The discipline is pure Marxism and hate being pushed on US government employees. Several US corporations also push this on their employees in workshops and seminars. It is a lucrative business for the far left based on pseudoscience, hate and victimhood.

Mark Rufo called on President Trump to eliminate this hateful indoctrination from the federal government.

On Friday night President Trump announced he was eliminating the use of critical race theory in the federal government.

This is great news for the American public. This Marxist indoctrination will no longer be foisted on federal employees.

Reason Magazine has more on this outrageous doctrine.

National Nuclear Lab’s Employees Sent to Seminar That Claimed ‘Rugged Individualism’ and ‘Hard Work’ Are ‘White Male Culture’

The post Breaking: Good News! President Trump Bans Hateful and Divisive Critical Race Theory from Federal Agencies appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

HAWORTH: If Trump Acted Like Obama, The Left Would Explode: 5 Examples

Donald Trump is the Left’s ultimate scapegoat. He is the sole cause of everything that is wrong, was once wrong, and will one day be wrong in the world. To be fair, the President is far from perfect, and like all leaders has caused problems during his time in the White House. However, there are countless examples of instances where the Democrats and the mainstream media have disingenuously relied on their familiar condemnation of “orange man bad” in their partisan bid to unseat the President. The easiest way to understand the blatant partisan nature of the mainstream media, and the utter hypocrisy of the Democrats, is to compare Trump to the administration that preceded him.

1. H1N1 and Dumb Luck

It is widely assumed that the Obama administration “handled” the H1N1 pandemic. Also known as “swine flu,” this pandemic lasted for 19 months between January 2009 and August 2010, and has long since faded from public memory. This political amnesia is not a mistake, and certainly won’t be applied to Trump in 11 years time.

In reality, the difference in impact between H1N1 and COVID-19 had nothing to do with the occupant of the White House. Indeed, Ron Klain, Biden’s chief of staff during the H1N1 pandemic, stated that it was simply a matter of dumb luck that the United States emerged reasonably unscathed.

In an action which would stun the American Left today, the CDC abruptly advised states to cease testing for H1N1 in July 2009 after the Obama administration concluded “Why waste resources testing for H1N1 flu when the government has already confirmed there’s an epidemic?”

It is estimated that between 700 million and 1.4 billion people may have been infected by H1N1, and yet the Washington Post scoffed at “Trump’s bizarre effort to tag Obama’s swine flu response as ‘a disaster.’” Would they work as hard to defend Trump if he instructed the CDC to close down national testing for COVID-19? After all, we already know it’s a pandemic! Why bother?

2. Political Attorney Generals

Both Attorney Generals under Trump have been accused of partisanship. The current Attorney General, Bill Barr, was described by MSNBC as occupying a position which should be “filled by someone who wants to be ‘the people’s lawyer,’ not a partisan operative.” Asking the question “is an Attorney General independent or political,” the New York Times claimed that Barr “rekindles” this debate. Reacting in his stereotypically dramatic fashion, Chris Cuomo recently exclaimed “Can you believe the attorney general of the United States is playing dumb about something like that? And why? Just to help his boy. Because he’s a trumpet. He’s a pawn.”

Stepping back in time, let’s look at President Obama’s first Attorney General Eric Holder, who previously served as United States Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton. In 2013, Holder’s words didn’t seem to spark the same level of concern from the media. “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

It doesn’t take a powerful imagination to determine how MSNBC would react if Bill Barr or Jeff Sessions referred to themselves as Trump’s “wingman,” or his “boy.” Additionally, how would the mainstream media react if Congress held Bill Barr in contempt if he refused to hand over documents relating to an investigation? Presumably, with significantly more vitriol than they did when Holder did just that during the “Operation Fast and Furious” scandal. If it was Trump’s Justice Department who “lost track of thousands of guns it had allowed to pass into the hands of suspected smugglers,” one of which was used in the “fatal 2010 shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry,” would his administration be described as “scandal free?”

3. Immigration Control

The subject of immigration control was one of the central pillars to Trump’s 2016 campaign, and therefore one of the central pillars of the argument against him. Justifiably, his infamously insensitive statement “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people” sparked bipartisan outrage, as did his reaction to the San Bernardino shooting in December 2015: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

During Trump’s first term, his critics relied on these distasteful and arguably bigoted statements as their basis for all further criticism. The travel ban announced in his first week in office, which barred entry to refugees and immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, was cynically labeled as a “Muslim ban.” Border policies which detained illegal immigrants and separated adults and children were described as “concentration camps” with “children in cages” by politicians and journalists alike. Trump’s campaign promise of a border wall has been reduced to a “racist dog whistle.”

While the rhetoric may have differed, many of these policies were shared by the Obama administration. Trump’s “travel ban” targeted the same seven countries singled out by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security as “countries of concern” from which travel was restricted. As for “Trump putting kids in cages”: According to the Associated Press, “the reference to cages is misleading and a matter that Democrats have persistently distorted,” with Trump using facilities that were “built during the Obama-Biden administration to house children at the border.” Last, but certainly not least, we should note that Democrats who now describe the border wall as “racist” supported increased border security and fencing in 2006.

4. Politicization of The White House

Trump has been criticized for his use of the White House for political means on multiple occasions. The airing of a citizenship ceremony during the Republican National Convention held in the “hallowed site of the White House” was condemned for its partisan nature. Days later, critics slammed “Trump for transforming the White House grounds into a campaign rally.” Richard Stengel, a former Obama administration official, suggested that such an action was “the clearest conceivable violation of the Hatch Act.”

Did Stengel feel differently when Obama was in the White House? When the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, Obama illuminated the White House in “rainbow colors.” Explaining the decision to CNN’s Jim Acosta, Obama stated, “I had a chance to do the Rose Garden celebration of the court decision around same-sex marriage. I did not have a chance to comment on how good the White House looked in rainbow colors. That made it a really good week. To see people gathered in an evening outside on a beautiful summer night, and to feel whole, and to feel accepted, and to feel that they had a right to love, that was pretty cool.”

Luckily, Obama is “cool” and Trump is not. Obama used selfie sticks in the White House. He “goofily” stared lovingly at his own reflection. He chose not to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but was sure to meet with YouTube star GloZell Green known for pouring milk and Fruit Loops onto herself in a bathtub and eating them in the White House’s East Room.

Heaven forbid that the “hallowed site of the White House” be used for political purposes.

5. Dictators

Justifiably, Trump has been criticized for his propensity to lavish praise on authoritarian dictators, usually in return for their praise. Trump has spoken kindly of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, Turkey’s Erdogan, China’s Xi Jinping, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. All evil men. All clearly undeserving of praise. Trump’s tone regarding dictators like Putin has helped fuel the conspiratorial claim that Trump’s election victory was a product of “Russian collusion” and was also used to refute any claim that Trump has been “tough” on adversarial nations like China and Russia.

While the mainstream media and the political Left are correct to criticize such behavior, one should ask why such an attitude began in 2017. While the American Left now present Russia as a gargantuan threat to our physical and electoral security, Obama’s foreign policy was “firmly grounded in the premise that Russia was not a national security threat,” and was cheered for his “burn” on Mitt Romney in 2012, starting “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” If Trump had asked the Russian President for “flexibility” on the subject of missile defense, the Left would scream with outrage. The media and the Democrats would like you to forget that Obama actually did this in 2012.

What about the Middle East? The same media who largely ignored the once-in-a-generation peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates brokered by Trump cheered when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.” One must assume that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has an alternative definition of the word “extraordinary” given that, under Obama’s careless watch, the world witnessed the implosion of Libya, the birth and growth of ISIS, and the emergence of Iran as a regional superpower. If Trump “misled Congress” and “tried and failed to give Iran secret access to US banks,” would the media celebrate his Nobel Prize?

More from Ian Haworth: What Riots? Over 80 Examples Of The Mainstream Media Gaslighting About ‘Protests’

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Hillsborough State Attorney Pursuing 260+ Charges Including Attacking Police and Looting


Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren on Friday announced that he will pursue over 260 charges connected to violent unrest on May 30, while he would be dropping charges against others.

The Tampa Bay Times reports:

Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren announced Friday he was dropping charges against several key anti-racism protest organizers. The county’s top prosecutor also announced he was pursuing more than 260 charges — including looting and attacking police — stemming from a night of civil unrest May 30. […] The news release says more than 120 people will be charged in connection to late May’s unrest. The charges also include burglary and theft as well as criminal mischief in connection to a vandalized police car.

According to the Tampa Police Department, around 23 businesses, including an AT&T store and Walmartwere looted during the late May evening of unrest.

ABC Action News also obtained footage of looters breaking into a Gold N Diamond. Police reports say at least five individuals were arrested for attempting to steal at least $50,000 in goods from the jewellery store. Officers also arrested multiple juveniles, including a 15-year-old-girl and a 16-year-old boy. Both were Tampa Bay residents.

Further, Warren has opted against pursuing charges against protesters behind a “Back the Blue” mural installed outside the Tampa Police Department.

“They’re being defunded and things that they need and require to do their job are not going to be provided anymore,” one of the mural’s organizers, Kristen Krutz, said in early August. “Obviously, that would make anybody feel unappreciated, unwanted, and that’s the opposite of what we wanted them to see with the mural on the street.”

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Fmr Acting AG Whitaker: Facebook, Twitter Algorithms Could Be Viewed by DOJ as an ‘Illegal Campaign Contribution’


Friday, during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker argued for a Department of Justice investigation into how Facebook and Twitter were altering their algorithms for the sake of politics.

Whitaker told host Tucker Carlson he did not see American democracy surviving another election cycle under the circumstances by which those social media outlets function.

“Yes, I actually do believe we are going to get to the bottom of this insidious, really, censorship of mostly conservative voices on social media,” he said. “And I think the Department of Justice has been looking at this issue, and I also believe that because of the way the algorithms that Facebook and Twitter and the like use to provide your news feed, I think that could be viewed, and maybe viewed by this Department of Justice, as a campaign contribution, an illegal campaign contribution, that ultimately, I think, they will step in and take action.”

“[I] think what is also happening among these companies, Facebook in particular — they have so much data on their individual users that they can essentially manipulate what you see, how you see it, and therefore, based on the feedback loop that is provided, they can then try to influence you to, whether it is to use a product, vote for a candidate,” Whitaker added. “It’s really, again, insidious. I think the Department of Justice has to act because our democracy can probably not stand this for another election cycle.”

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

GRAHAM: PolitiFact’s Pants-On-Fire Claims Of Neutrality

Apparently, the proper role of the “independent fact-checker” during today’s presidential campaign is to present the consistent opinion that Joe Biden is a force for truth and light, and President Donald Trump is a rampaging liar who never says anything true.

No one should suggest that these “fact-checker” groups need to parcel their rulings out in a completely even fashion so everyone gets a participation trophy for being half-right. But the dramatic tilt in these “fact-checkers” betrays an obvious partisan bias.

Just look at PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter rulings for Biden for the month of August: Mostly True, Mostly True, Mostly True, Mostly True, Mostly True and Half True.

Now let’s compare that to Trump’s August Truth-O-Meter rulings: one Half True, two Mostly False, 11 False and four Pants on Fire.

The shock is that PolitiFact threw in one Half True. What drives you batty is that PolitiFact employed one of its typical tropes, saying: “President Trump and Housing Secretary Ben Carson claimed a San Francisco lawmaker pushed ‘to abolish single-family zoning in California.’ Housing experts say the claim is technically correct but leaves out key context.”

Overall, from the start of 2019 through August 2020, Trump has gotten 197 Truth-O-Meter ratings, and Biden has only gotten 64. Trump rated Mostly False or worse in 156 of them (79%). He was only Mostly True or True in 17 ratings (8.6%). By contrast, Biden rated Mostly True or True in more than half: 33 of 64 (52%), and then there are 29 Mostly False or worse (45%).

Does anyone less partisan than Brian Stelter think these “fact-checkers” should boast of their “independence”?

Some might suggest this is just about a serious aversion to Trump’s casual relationship with the truth. So let’s take a broader view. Take the dates of the party conventions, from the start of the Democratic one, on Aug. 17, to the aftermath of the Republican one, on Aug. 28. Over those 12 days, PolitiFact checked Republicans and their affiliated PACs and pundits 32 times and only checked Democrats and their equivalents 11 times. The disparity of checks alone implies a partisan tilt.

The Democrats drew eight Mostly True or True ratings, two Half Trues and one Mostly False, a 10-to-1 true-false ratio. During their convention, former first lady Michelle Obama scored a True, and former President Bill Clinton was Mostly True — as usual?

Then look at the Republicans. There were four Mostly Trues and one Half True … out of 32. The other 27 ratings were Mostly False or worse. Trump drew two Pants on Fire ratings. Donald Trump Jr. and Rush Limbaugh also received a Pants on Fire. This all adds up to almost a 1-to-8 true-false ratio.

On July 17, PolitiFact posted a YouTube video of executive editor Angie Drobnic Holan to answer the question “What is PolitiFact’s agenda?” Holan declared, “Our agenda is simple: It’s to give citizens the information they need to govern themselves in a democracy.” That’s what all the left-wing journalists say.

She later proclaimed: “The PolitiFact agenda is: Don’t take sides with any politician or party.” Really? There’s no political tilt? She claimed: “We’re independent, and we work hard to find the truth. So we follow the facts wherever they take us, regardless of who made the claim.”

Fact check: Pants on Fire.

Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Scott Jennings Upset the CNN Libs by Raising Kamala, Bidenites Bailing Out Rioters

On Tuesday’s New Day on CNN, conservative analyst Scott Jennings was infuriating the liberals on set by raising the issue of Kamala Harris and the Biden campaign staff bailing rioters out of jail. Liberal analyst Bakari Sellers jumped all over Jennings, pretending he had no point, and that Democrats were bailing out peaceful protesters in the style of John Lewis. 
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, I think some of the words Joe Biden said yesterday were the correct message, although I’m left wondering, "What am I supposed to believe?" On the one hand, he says, "Do I look like I have a soft spot for radicals?" And on the other hand, his running mate, Kamala Harris, has tweeted out links asking people to bail them out of jail — the people who’ve committed violence — and, in fact, several staffers on the Biden campaign have done just that. And so, just as a consumer of information, I hear Joe Biden’s words, and then I see his ticket’s action, and then I’m left to wonder, "What’s the truth?"
JOHN BERMAN: Bakari, you want to weigh in there?
SELLERS: Yeah, I mean, I don’t know, Scott woke up this morning, got coffee, and is deciding to spin stuff that doesn’t make any sense. Look, there is a clear difference between rioters … there’s a clear difference between peaceful protesters who were arrested for their civil disobedience. We just had this entire life lesson. I’m talking about people like C.T. Vivian and John Lewis. There are many people who went and protested civilly, disobediently, who were arrested, and we tried to help bond them out of jail. There is a difference between bonding them out of jail and talking about people who are rioters. And the fact that that’s the only talking point you have this morning is disappointing.
Even more importantly, my question to you would be, while you want to get up in arms, it’s not about the words versus bonding out peaceful protesters. Your President — the President of the United States — the person who carries the Republican mantle — cannot disavow the actions of Kyle Rittenhouse. He cannot talk about the fact that Jacob Blake should not be paralyzed today. So let’s talk about that. Let’s have a real conversation, not turn yourself into a pretzel with talking points.
So the conversation turned to Rittenhouse, and Jennings quickly agreed Rittenhouse should not have been at the scene, but he did not argue that Rittenhouse has a case for self-defense, as video demonstrates. 
Sellers denied that Kamala Harris had helped raise money that went to bail violent rioters out of prison even though it has been documented that that is how some of the funding was used, as was reported Monday night by Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson. 
 
Jennings is a rarity on CNN, actually making points that conservatives would make. The typical "conservative" contributor is more like Trump-bashing Matt Lewis, who on Tuesday  sounded like a stereotypical liberal analyst as he invoked Willie Horton and Lee Atwater and complained about President Trump making a campaign issue of violent crime:
 
MATT LEWIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think it’s so sad and transparent — Donald Trump believes that this is the only way he can win the election. This is his Richard Nixon, Lee Atwater, Willie Horton, whatever it is. This is his play — it’s all he has left. And I think what’s interesting about this, though, is he’s not even hiding it. These aren’t even dog whistles. He’s being very transparent.
Crime is "all he has left"? Matt Lewis doesn’t think there’s any issue not only in defunding police and abolishing bail, he doesn’t think there’s any issue in "Medicare for All" or the Green New Deal or the Biden-Bernie Sanders platform. 

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Trump lays a trap for Dems with a first move against abusive, anti-White ‘systemic racism’ brainwashing sessions in federal bureaucracy


A memorandum from Russell Vought, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, has opened a new strategic front in President Trump’s re-election battle. In 461 words (full text below, annotated with my comments), the recently-confirmed OMB director virtually invites pushback from the Democrats’ ticket and their media allies, and that’s a battle they can’t win.

[Don’t worry about me clueing them in. They are so arrogant that they don’t take seriously anything that conservative websites may write. Moreover, the opportunity to pummel the Trump administration as “racist” is irresistible.]

The only people who like the “anti-racism” training are the consultants who make out like bandits, and the executives who order them foisted on their helpless employees, thereby proactively defending against charges of racism and potential litigation.  The obnoxious anti-White struggle sessions are right out of China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and, when exposed to the light of day, are indefensible. Ask Goodyear.

Within the federal government, the exposure of the abusive training regimen imposed on managers of Sandia National Laboratories, which builds and manages the nation’s nuclear weapons, revealed highly abusive practices.

Christopher Rufo, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation… writes, participants were told that the “roots of white male culture”

consists of “rugged individualism,” “a can-do attitude,” “hard work,” and “striving towards success”—which sound good, but are in fact “devastating” to women and POCs.

In fact, the trainers claim that “white male culture” leads to “lowered quality of life at work and home, reduced life expectancy, unproductive relationships, and high stress.” It also forces this “white male standard” on women and minorities.

The seminar also asked white males to recite a series of “white privilege statements” and “male privilege statements.” It concluded with its white male participants writing letters of apology to marginalized people whom they may have harmed, according to Rufo, who made the documents available on his website.

Vought’s letter is phrased in language that will lure Democrats and their media allies into defending the indefensible. Here is what it says:

It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date “training” government workers to believe divisive, anti American propaganda.

For example, according to press reports, employees across the Executive Branch have been required to attend trainings where they are told that “virtually all White people contribute to racism” or where they are required to say that they “benefit from racism.” According to press reports, in some cases these training have further claimed that there is racism embedded in the belief that America is the land of opportunity or the belief that the most qualified person should receive a job.

Relying on press reports is like hanging a “kick me” sign on one’s backside. It is inviting critics to contest whether or not the reports are true. But those reports are true. All it will take is exposure of the PowerPoint slides used in actual trainings being run by the federal government. That’s what happened to Goodyear, when an employee photographed a slide used in a training session.

These types of “trainings” not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce. We can be proud that as an employer, the Federal government has employees of all races, ethnicities, and religions. We can be proud that Americans from all over the country seek to join our workforce and dedicate themselves to public service. We can be proud of our continued efforts to welcome all individuals who seek to serve their fellow Americans as Federal employees. However, we cannot accept our employees receiving training that seeks to undercut our core values as Americans and drive division within our workforce.

This positions President Trump as a defender of federal employees, and those who ally themselves with the trainers as attacking them.

The President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions. Accordingly, to that end, the Office of Management and Budget will shortly issue more detailed guidance on implementing the President’s directive. In the meantime, all agencies are directed to begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on “critical race theory/ “white privilege,” or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil. In addition, all agencies should begin to identify all available avenues within the law to cancel any such contracts and/or to divert Federal dollars away from these un American propaganda training sessions.

This is obviously well within the charter of the OMB. And it will start the production of an endless stream of examples that will horrify all but the racialist left, which will never vote for Trump anyway.

The President, and his Administration, are fully committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals in the United States. The President has a proven track record of standing for those whose voice has long been ignored and who have failed to benefit from all our country has to offer, and he intends to continue to support all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed. The divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.

Once again, this positions critics as defenders of claims that the United States is inherently racist. While fanatics believe this, the majority of Americans do not.

It will be very hard for the propaganda media to avoid goading Biden and Harris into this controversy.  They are already positioning Vought’s memo as kinda racist, doncha know. Trump is against racial sensitivy.

Trump Moves to Curb Racial Sensitivity Training in U.S. Agencies

Go ahead, make our day.

A memorandum from Russell Vought, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, has opened a new strategic front in President Trump’s re-election battle. In 461 words (full text below, annotated with my comments), the recently-confirmed OMB director virtually invites pushback from the Democrats’ ticket and their media allies, and that’s a battle they can’t win.

[Don’t worry about me clueing them in. They are so arrogant that they don’t take seriously anything that conservative websites may write. Moreover, the opportunity to pummel the Trump administration as “racist” is irresistible.]

The only people who like the “anti-racism” training are the consultants who make out like bandits, and the executives who order them foisted on their helpless employees, thereby proactively defending against charges of racism and potential litigation.  The obnoxious anti-White struggle sessions are right out of China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and, when exposed to the light of day, are indefensible. Ask Goodyear.

Within the federal government, the exposure of the abusive training regimen imposed on managers of Sandia National Laboratories, which builds and manages the nation’s nuclear weapons, revealed highly abusive practices.

Christopher Rufo, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation… writes, participants were told that the “roots of white male culture”

consists of “rugged individualism,” “a can-do attitude,” “hard work,” and “striving towards success”—which sound good, but are in fact “devastating” to women and POCs.

In fact, the trainers claim that “white male culture” leads to “lowered quality of life at work and home, reduced life expectancy, unproductive relationships, and high stress.” It also forces this “white male standard” on women and minorities.

The seminar also asked white males to recite a series of “white privilege statements” and “male privilege statements.” It concluded with its white male participants writing letters of apology to marginalized people whom they may have harmed, according to Rufo, who made the documents available on his website.

Vought’s letter is phrased in language that will lure Democrats and their media allies into defending the indefensible. Here is what it says:

It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date “training” government workers to believe divisive, anti American propaganda.

For example, according to press reports, employees across the Executive Branch have been required to attend trainings where they are told that “virtually all White people contribute to racism” or where they are required to say that they “benefit from racism.” According to press reports, in some cases these training have further claimed that there is racism embedded in the belief that America is the land of opportunity or the belief that the most qualified person should receive a job.

Relying on press reports is like hanging a “kick me” sign on one’s backside. It is inviting critics to contest whether or not the reports are true. But those reports are true. All it will take is exposure of the PowerPoint slides used in actual trainings being run by the federal government. That’s what happened to Goodyear, when an employee photographed a slide used in a training session.

These types of “trainings” not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce. We can be proud that as an employer, the Federal government has employees of all races, ethnicities, and religions. We can be proud that Americans from all over the country seek to join our workforce and dedicate themselves to public service. We can be proud of our continued efforts to welcome all individuals who seek to serve their fellow Americans as Federal employees. However, we cannot accept our employees receiving training that seeks to undercut our core values as Americans and drive division within our workforce.

This positions President Trump as a defender of federal employees, and those who ally themselves with the trainers as attacking them.

The President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions. Accordingly, to that end, the Office of Management and Budget will shortly issue more detailed guidance on implementing the President’s directive. In the meantime, all agencies are directed to begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on “critical race theory/ “white privilege,” or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil. In addition, all agencies should begin to identify all available avenues within the law to cancel any such contracts and/or to divert Federal dollars away from these un American propaganda training sessions.

This is obviously well within the charter of the OMB. And it will start the production of an endless stream of examples that will horrify all but the racialist left, which will never vote for Trump anyway.

The President, and his Administration, are fully committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals in the United States. The President has a proven track record of standing for those whose voice has long been ignored and who have failed to benefit from all our country has to offer, and he intends to continue to support all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed. The divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.

Once again, this positions critics as defenders of claims that the United States is inherently racist. While fanatics believe this, the majority of Americans do not.

It will be very hard for the propaganda media to avoid goading Biden and Harris into this controversy.  They are already positioning Vought’s memo as kinda racist, doncha know. Trump is against racial sensitivy.

Trump Moves to Curb Racial Sensitivity Training in U.S. Agencies

Go ahead, make our day.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Latest Data Proves COVID-19 Doesn’t Justify Postal Bailout

A stream of apocalyptic predictions and strained conspiracy theories have turned the once-sleepy world of U.S. Postal Service operations into front-page news.

Lawmakers focused on the topic are being confronted with an approaching deadline. By the end of 2021, the Postal Service is on pace to run out of funds needed to continue current operations.

Several proposed and potential pieces of legislation would provide a bailout worth tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to the Postal Service, supposedly justified by the COVID-19 pandemic.

>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.

Yet there’s a big problem with this line of thinking: The pandemic has had a minimal effect on the Postal Service’s bottom line.

As a result, a COVID-19 bailout would be the equivalent of giving someone a blood transfusion while ignoring gaping wounds.

The financial status of the Postal Service burst into view in March, when leadership of the House Oversight and Reform Committee warned that bankruptcy was imminent due to COVID-19. Congress included a $10 billion loan to the Postal Service in the CARES Act based on these fears.

Just a few weeks later, it became apparent that warnings of an immediate collapse were unwarranted. While revenue from letter mail was down, demand for package deliveries increased strongly enough to compensate, meaning that the organization is not going belly-up in 2020.

This trend was confirmed in the latest quarterly report detailing the Postal Service’s performance from April through June. At first glance, the numbers appear grim: In just three months, the organization suffered a $2.21 billion loss.

However, placing that number in context tells a different story. The Postal Service lost $2.26 billion during the same period of 2019, and $4.52 billion for the first three months of 2020.

If COVID-19 were the reason for the Postal Service’s difficulties, we would expect the losses to be worse during the first months of the economic lockdown, not better.

The Postal Service has lost money every year since 2007, even during periods of strong economic growth. There are two big reasons for this troubling trend.

First, as communication increasingly moves online, the number of letters has plunged from its peak in 2001. That means less revenue to maintain postal facilities and pay employees.

Second, Congress has handcuffed the Postal Service when it comes to controlling costs. The largest expense, employees, can be reduced only through layoffs, rather than through lowering the generous compensation of $97,588 per worker.

Many potential operational changes, such as switching from six deliveries per week to five, also are barred by law.

Even when the Postal Service does have the ability to cut costs, it can result in a swift backlash from Capitol Hill. That was evident in recent weeks as lawmakers chastised Postmaster General Louis DeJoy regarding the removal of sorting machines, which was set in motion before he arrived and has been taking place for years.

Rather than drafting legislation to reform the Postal Service and make it financially sustainable, both chambers of Congress seem intent on the shortsighted approach of a taxpayer-funded bailout.

The House passed a $25 billion bailout that wrongly includes further restrictions on cost-cutting. A bipartisan Senate bill provides up to $25 billion to cover postal losses “resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic,” a definition that could potentially be used to cover any postal losses during the pandemic, regardless of the actual cause.

Senate leadership is considering whether to turn the $10 billion CARES Act loan into a grant. That would improve the Postal Service’s bottom line at the expense of adding to the national debt.

DeJoy has requested supplemental funds from Congress to cover additional expenses related to COVID-19, such as providing masks to employees and installing transparent dividers at retail locations. The amount needed to address those costs would not be $10 billion or $25 billion, but instead closer to $1 billion.

Another common justification for a bailout is the upcoming election, which is expected to feature record levels of mail-in voting. DeJoy has repeatedly explained that there’s no need for extra funding to cover mailed ballots.

Even if every vote this year were sent by mail within a few days, that would amount to about 5% of a typical week’s volume. Since mail-in ballots are sent over the course of months, and since letter-mail volume is down this year, the Postal Service will have no problem delivering ballots.

Unfortunately, the largest bailout idea of all is still gaining traction on the left; namely, turning the Postal Service, which is supposed to be self-sufficient, into a standard federal agency.

Such a move would socialize postal losses of billions of dollars per year and add the organization’s massive unfunded liabilities to the nation’s already unsustainable financial future, for the sake of providing a service that is growing less relevant over time.

Rather than using the hard-earned money of millions of Americans to preserve an antiquated vision of the Postal Service, Congress should get to work on legislation that would end chronic deficits and eliminate widespread inefficiencies.

Heritage Foundation analysts (including the now-deceased James Gattuso) produced a paper this spring, “Congress Should Free the Postal Service, Not Bail It Out,” which identifies a variety of postal policy options available to legislators.

Those include reforming underwater Postal Service retirement plans, adjusting onerous service requirements, and seriously considering privatization. The latter has already taken place in Germany and the United Kingdom.

Tackling the Postal Service’s many problems will be no small task. However, this is precisely the sort of problem that we should expect our nation’s leaders to address in a responsible manner, rather than temporarily “fixing” it through pricey bailouts.

The post Latest Data Proves COVID-19 Doesn’t Justify Postal Bailout appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/