Monthly Archives: June 2019

Proof U.S. Colleges Are Nothing More Than Communist Front Organizations For Youth Indoctrination.

download (17)

College Tries to Destroy “White Privilege” Family — Instead Loses $44 Million Judgment

TheNewAmerican.com

Written by Selwyn Duke

Saturday, 15 June 2019

Chalk one up for the deplorables. Imagine you’re victimized by a criminal who shoplifts from your store and who then, when you intervene, beats you with the help of two other men. Now imagine that though they end up pleading guilty and admitting you did no wrong, you’re targeted by their nearby college with defamation and for destruction. This is precisely what befell the owners of Gibson’s Bakery in Oberlin, Ohio. Yet this story has a happy ending (well, almost an ending): A jury has just awarded the Gibsons $44 million, to be paid by their tormentor, Oberlin College. (Five Gibsons are shown here with their attorney in the foreground.)

Gibson’s Bakery is a fifth-generation business established in 1885 and had long had contracts with the college. But this didn’t stop the institution of “higher learning” from taking the low road after the owner wouldn’t allow himself to be victimized by one of its students. American Greatness relatessome background:

The lawsuit stems from a November 2016 shoplifting incident in which a student tried to buy alcohol with a fake ID and shoplift items. He was chased from the store by Allyn D. Gibson. The two got into an altercation outside, and two more students joined [and beat Gibson]. The students are black, while the Gibsons are white. Following the incident, other students protested, alleging a pattern of racist behavior by the Gibsons….

The students involved in the shoplifting incident all pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, and stated their culpability in court while noting Gibson’s reaction was not racially motivated.

Despite the facts, the “college joined in with the protests against the business [and] severed its catering relationship with the bakery,” American Greatness further relates.

The school’s aggressiveness was reflected in the jury finding that “the school and Oberlin’s vice president and dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, [were] guilty of libel after Raimondo allegedly helped pass out flyers claiming that the bakery was ‘racist’ and had a history of ‘racial profiling and discrimination,’” reports Fox News.

This accusation was false. In fact, if it had been true, why would Oberlin have maintained its long relationship with the bakery?

“The jury also found that the college (not Raimondo) was guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress for [sic] the owner, David Gibson, as well as libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress on his son,” Fox continues.

As a result, the jury awarded family members more than $11 million in actual or compensatory damages and, later, added $33.2 million in punitive damages. (Ohio law will likely limit the latter, however, to twice the $11 million figure.) Oberlin will have to pay the Gibsons’ legal fees as well.

If this seems extreme, realize how egregious the school’s behavior was. The Gibsons are hard-working, middle-American people who long woke up, probably in the wee hours, to bake goods for Oberlin’s students. Yet the school treated these victims like victimizers, participating in a pattern of destruction that forced the Gibsons to lay off most of their staff, stop taking salaries for two years, and almost go out of business.

Moreover, Oberlin then used their torments as leverage, at one point telling the Gibsons that they’d renew their lucrative contracts if the bakers dropped the charges against the criminal students (the contracts were eventually renewed, anyway). David Gibson’s post-verdict comments (video below) reflect the emotional distress the school inflicted.

Gibson praised the jury’s bravery, but his family deserves similar recognition. They could have bent to the blackmail but held firm — and beat a Goliath.

The school used every trick in the book, too. “Oberlin argued at trial that it isn’t liable because its students, not the college, were to blame for harming Gibson’s,” wrote Paul Mirengoff of Powerline. “Then, at the damages phase, Oberlin argued that the college shouldn’t be slammed with a big damages assessment because that outcome would harm its students.” (If the school is so concerned about them, perhaps it could lower the attendance costs — $71,330 annually.)

Note also when hearing Oberlin plead poverty that its endowment is $887.4 million and it has more than $1 billion in assets.

Unfortunately, the school is unrepentant and vows to appeal the verdict, in what may “turn out to be a lengthy and complex legal process,” as Oberlin’s president, Carmen Twillie Ambar, put it.

Ambar also states that “none of this will sway us from our core values.” But what might they be? What kind of “values” causes you to torment innocent victims with a hate hoax and seek their destruction? What values are represented by Dean Raimondo who, in emails released during the trial, “attacked her own colleagues who defended the Gibsons and discussed, quote, “unleashing the students on Gibson’s bakery,” as Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson reported Friday evening (video well worth watching below)?

Carlson’s guest, Cornell Law School professor Bill Jacobson, weighed in on those values. “[B]ecause of the crazed … so-called social-justice movement on our campuses,” he said, the Gibsons “were immediately designated an oppressor, in part because of their skin color, in part because they’re the owner of a business.” He said they were thus pigeonholed as “racists” and racial profilers — and no one cared about the facts.

This conclusion is inescapable. When innocent victims are viewed as unquestionably guilty, regardless of the facts — and those judging them aren’t making money off the persecution — prejudice is the only explanation.

Oberlin’s behavior reflected the vile “white privilege” racial ideology now status quo on college campuses. Leftists, who once trumpeted Martin Luther King’s enjoinment to judge others by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, have in their topsy-turvy, morally inverted world turned that on its head. White=guilty/black=innocent was all Oberlin needed to know.

As to what they know now, many commentators believe the jury verdict sends the message that normal Americans are fed up with ivory-tower types’ abuse and that social-injustice-warrior persecution won’t be tolerated. Unfortunately, here’s the message I suspect academia has gotten:

Don’t get caught.

Be more careful.

Don’t detail your malicious machinations in writing.

Also note that while Oberlin will almost assuredly have to pay out, personal accountability is unlikely here. With academia’s phenomenon of “failing upwards,” as Professor Jacobson put it, Dean Raimondo probably won’t be on the unemployment line. After all, Marvin Krislov, president of Oberlin when the Gibson persecution began, is now out of that job.

He’s now president of Pace University in New York City, a bigger institution where, if his predecessor is any indication, he’s commanding a salary of $700,000 a year.

Taxpayers To Pay For Sex-Change Surgery For Minors In Vermont.

download (16)

TheNewAmerican.com

Written by R. Cort Kirkwood

Saturday, 15 June 2019

The same state that nearly sent a man who says he’s a woman to the governor’s mansion has just upped the ante. Vermont’s health insurance managers will now require taxpayers, via Medicaid, to pay for “sex reassignment surgery” for minors.

“Sex reassignment” is impossible of course, but that scientific fact won’t stop the state’s Dr. Frankensteins who would experiment on mentally-ill children.

So if a 10-year-old boy on Medicaid in the “Green Mountain State” says he is a girl trapped in a boy’s body, if he wants to have the reassignment surgery, and if his parents support having him mutilated, then Vermont will be there, scalpel in hand.

“Woke” Parents

The new rule came down in May. Not only will minors be allowed to get the surgery (with parental consent), the Burlington Free Press reported, but Medicaid — meaning taxpayers — will foot the bill. Twenty-five percent of the state’s residents and 50 percent of them under 18 years old use Medicaid, the newspaper reported.

Noting that the “gender-affirming surgeries include 16 types of genital surgery, as well as breast augmentation or mastectomy, a surgery that removes the whole breast,” the newspaper permitted the director of a “transgender health clinic” to explain why the plan is a great idea: “Having young people have to wait until they were 21 just didn’t really make any sense.”

Another booster noted that a “‘staggering percentage’ of transgender and non-binary youth have reported considering suicide,” which is unremarkable given that such kids are mentally ill and need psychiatric help.

The newspaper’s scribe apparently forgot to find someone who might think taxpayer-financed mutilation of children isn’t such a bright idea. One critic of the policy worried on Twitter about “woke” parents who might actually permit a doctor to butcher their child.

“So it’s within the realm of possibility that one of the toddlers identified as ‘trans’ by Woke parents and their doctors could be a candidate for genital surgery,” tweeted 4thWaveNow. “Why not? If they’re ‘true trans,’ what would be the reason to wait? Cue the next specialty: Preschool SRS surgeons.”

Unsurprisingly, the rules say, “Vermont Medicaid does not cover reversal or modification of the surgeries approved under this rule,” which inspired this skeptical tweet from 4thWaveNow:

Meanwhile, nearly every day a new detransitioner/desister appears on social media — people who transitioned as teens or even early 20s. But grammar school kids just “know” their identities and shouldn’t be questioned. How long will it take before the runaway train is slowed down?

SRS Doesn’t Help

That concern, that SRS doesn’t help these poor folks because they are severely mentally ill, is the reason John Hopkins Hospital stopped the procedures in 1979, largely because of Dr. Paul McHugh, former chief of psychiatry there.

McHugh has been fighting a losing battle against transgender ideology, but in 2015 explained in Public Discourse that sex change is not possible. The idea, he wrote, like “the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’ In that lies their problematic future.”

In other words, the surgery doesn’t help men who think they are women, and women who think they are men. When the cutting is done, they’re still mentally ill:

When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people — extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered — documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

McHugh avers that “transgenders” need psychiatric care, not a surgeon with drugs, scalpel, forceps, and sutures. They need “evidence-based care,” not ideological support from left-wing activists and those who suffer the same mental illness:

Continued McHugh:

Gender dysphoria — the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex — belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.

In 2017, Hopkins restarted the mutilations.

Facebook Watching Your Offline Activity to Label You a “Hate Agent”.

download (15)

TheNewAmerican.com
Written by R. Cort Kirkwood

Friday, 14 June 2019

The Big Tech’s oligarchy’s campaign to code and trace the activities of social media users, then shut them down as haters, is worse than anyone thought.

Facebook is now collecting information about its users’ offline activity so it can label them “hate agents” if they run afoul of the shifting set of rules the social media giant employs to control speech.

But Facebook’s move is no surprise. The Social Justice Warriors who control social media have been waging a war against their enemies — meaning conservatives and anyone else who doesn’t agree with social justice warriors — for some time.

Indeed, what the SJW’s at Google, Twitter, and Facebook are waging isn’t just war. It’s a reign of terror. Anyone they don’t like can be deplatformed, demonetized, and, should they earn their daily bread online through those platforms, ruined financially.

Facebook’s Watching

The latest news comes from a source inside Facebook who spilled the beans to Breitbart.com’s Allum Bokhari, who might himself be labeled a “hate agent” for publishing the truth.

Facebook, again, watches what its users do offline, not just on Facebook or other platforms. Then, it acts.

Reported Bokhari:

Facebook monitors the offline behavior of its users to determine if they should be categorized as a “Hate Agent,” according to a document provided exclusively to Breitbart News by a source within the social media giant.

The document, titled “Hate Agent Policy Review” outlines a series of “signals” that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a “hate agent” and banned from the platform.

Those signals include a wide range of on- and off-platform behavior. If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.”

The document also explains that Facebook has concocted myriad ways to label you a hate agent:

Facebook may also categorize you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a “Designated Hateful Ideology,” if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity” (one of the examples cited by Facebook as a “hate entity” includes Islam critic Tommy Robinson), or if you have “tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans.” (The document cites no examples of these, but the media and “anti-racism” advocacy groups increasingly label innocuous items as “hate symbols,” including a cartoon frog and the “OK” hand sign.)

Facebook will also categorize you as a hate agent for possession of “hate paraphernalia,” although the document provides no examples of what falls into this category.

Even worse, Facebook might also use something you say in private to label you.

Examples of Facebook’s labeling? It banned the highly popular Paul Joseph Watson because he praised and interviewed British anti-immigration activist Tommy Robinson, and “star conservative pundit Candace Owens and conservative author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel were also on the list, as were British politicians Carl Benjamin and Anne Marie Waters,” Breitbart reported.

Such is Facebook’s totalitarian dragnet that even neutral commentary can invite the label. That’s how Benjamin received his, Bokhari reported. “Facebook also accuses Benjamin, a classical liberal and critic of identity politics, as ‘representing the ideology of an ethnostate’ for a post in which he calls out an actual advocate of an ethnostate.”

Last month, Facebook banned Alex Jones and his Infowars empire, the flamboyant homosexual provocateur, Milos Yiannapoulos, and Nation of Islam crackpot Louis Farrakhan.

Other Sites, Other Targets

Last week, YouTube demonetized the videos of conservative comedian and entertainer Steven Crowder because he “bullied” a homosexual writer. The move backfired and actually helped his brand, but the Robespierres in charge of Big Tech’s cyber-guillotine have lopped off the heads of others, too.

Patreon, the video-monetizing service, banned conservative journalist Lauren Southern after she joined an effort to stop non-governmental organizations from abetting the illegal-alien invasion of Europe. Southern had produced a documentary about the illegal-alien invasion, Borderless, which showed that open-borders leftists from NGOs were coaching illegal-alien Africans in Europe to lie about needing asylum. YouTube initially censored the documentary, but Southern uploaded a backup that is still there.

After Robert Spencer of JihadWatch set up a Patreon account, the platform quickly notified him that Mastercard had said Spencer can’t use its services to collect money for his work.

David Horowitz and his Freedom Center prevailed in their fight against Visa and Mastercard, which tried to shut down his using the credit cards for donations at the behest of the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, which now faces multiple lawsuits for its false and defamatory claims about conservatives and others it dislikes.

Climate Change Science And Politics: It’s All About Creating Fear.

Merchants-of-fear-432-
TheNewAmerican.com
Written by James Murphy
Wednesday, 12 June 2019

With the climate hysteria movement, fear is everything. How much fear can they ignite in the population is the key to their future governmental plans. Unfortunately for them, people like freedom, and it turns out and they have to be petrified in order to give it up.

On Monday, radio’s Rush Limbaugh spoke about a good example from the not-too-distant past that shows the depths to which the climate alarmist community is willing to go to instill fear in the public about climate change.

On his show, Limbaugh said, “it illustrates just how wrong and fearmongering the entire climate change, global warming (now ‘extreme weather’) crowd is.”

Back in 2015, the good folks at the Media Research Center uncovered an excellent example of the type of sky-is-falling propaganda and deceit that the climate alarmist community is capable of. In 2008, ABC News presented a documentary style program called Earth 2100, a feature that made several predictions about a dystopian future, in which mankind fails to act on global warming in time to forestall climate disaster.

The full film wasn’t actually broadcast until 2009, which makes its failed prognostications of 2015 one year more ridiculous. But in June of 2008, ABC’s Good Morning America aired a trailer of the film and interviewed reporter Bob Woodruff about the upcoming film. Woodruff narrated the film, telling then-GMA anchor Chris Cuomo that it “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.”

The film follows a fictional character known as Lucy through her life. In the beginning of the film, Woodruff is careful to say that events shown in the story are not “a prediction about what will happen, but what might happen.”

Lucy’s 2015 was a pretty awful place, with a gallon of milk costing just under $13.00. Gasoline was over $9.00 per gallon with lines stretching for blocks to get it. In fact, gas stations were forced to close due to lack of product. Miami, where Lucy lives, is wilting under the worst heatwave in history and then, on cue Miami is hit by the largest hurricane in history.

Interspersed throughout the film are “climate experts” such as Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and CNN’s Van Jones giving their “expert” opinions on the climate crisis. Though, technically a work of fiction, the show is presented in a dishonest documentary style.

And, of course, America is the villain in all of it. Led by America, the world doesn’t act to cut greenhouse emissions. In fact, in one of the more ridiculous prophecies contained in the film, America acts to build dozens of new coal-fired energy plants.

Had the show been promoted as a comedy with a laugh track, it would have made more sense. As some sort of prophecy based on climate science, it failed miserably, at least for its 2015 prognostications.

In the actual 2015, you could buy a gallon of milk for about $3.40. Gas at the time was selling at an average of $2.75 per gallon — no supply shortages noted. Today, in 2019, the average national price for a gallon of gasoline is only $2.72.

And, of course, Miami and indeed all of Florida rode out what storms it did see, as the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico were in the middle of a 12-year-drought of serious hurricanes, which ended in 2017 when Hurricane Maria hit Texas.

Much like their failed climate models, the climate hysterics behind this show couldn’t get anything right. ABC’s Earth 2100 was nothing but fear-porn based on misunderstood science. Though it claimed not to make “predictions,” the scientists, politicians, and journalists involved with the show were clearly hinting that such things were going to happen.

Despite being continually wrong, the climate alarmist movement persists. Any extreme weather event is treated as “proof” that the climate is changing for the worse. And those claims are always anchored to calls for the governments of the world to “do something.” It must be terrible being a part of a movement which has to root for disaster and death to occur in order to make their point.

And even if any of this were true, the governments of the world would be the last entities we should trust to do anything about it. Especially any corrupt “global” government based out of the United Nations.

Climate hysterics like to claim that their assertions are all about “science.” But the ironic reality shows us that it’s true scientific inquiry that the movement fears. When President Trump, an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, suggested a special White House panel to study the issue and determine if climate change (so-called) is truly an existential threat, climate hysterics went predictably bananas. NASA climate scientist Katie Marvel said such a panel was “like assembling a panel of gravity skeptics who insist it’s safe to jump off tall buildings.”

Marvel’s reaction is not that of a true scientist but more like a religious fanatic whose beliefs are challenged. Real scientists welcome review of their work, especially skeptical review. If the science is truly “settled” and conclusive, why the fear of another climate panel?

Photo: Meindert van der Haven/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Communist Party USA Is 100 Years Old This Year.

02e285f9eb235db1b9d54bc053b4a8b1_M
Written by Steve Byas
Thursday, 23 May 2019
TheNewAmerican.com

It was in 1919 that a majority of the membership of the Socialist Party of the United States voted to join the Comintern, established by the Bolsheviks who had seized power in Russia in late 1917, as a way of promoting world revolution.

This year, 2019, marks 100 years of the Communist Party USA, founded as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Soviet Union, yet the importation of communist ideas to America precedes even the founding of the United States. The notion that communal, or communist, ownership of property was morally and practically superior to the private ownership of property actually goes back to the earliest days of American history. Both the colonists at Jamestown and the colonists at Plymouth attempted what can best be described as “small c” communism, leading to starvation.

Despite this example of the foolhardiness of such a plan, when the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth, they believed that they could make a communal system work. They couldn’t, of course, and Governor William Bradford explained what happened in his book, Of Plymouth Plantation: “This community … was found to breed such confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.… They deemed it a kind of slavery.”

One would think that such history would have been enough, yet throughout American history there have always been some with sympathy for such a system. For example, Horace Greeley was the publisher of the New York Tribune and a member of the Communist International. He even hired Karl Marx, the author of The Communist Manifesto, as a European correspondent. Another prominent American member of the Communist International was Senator Charles Sumner.

Many such examples could be offered, but it was not until the Bolsheviks staged a violent coup d’etat against the Russian government in 1917 that revolutionary communism had actually captured a country. They quickly formed the Third Communist International (the Comintern), and plotted world revolution. Hungary briefly went communist and Germany almost followed.

Cooking Up Communism in America

But no greater prize could be imagined in the Communist Conspiracy to establish their one-world government than to take over the United States, and this was the avowed goal in the establishment of the Communist Party USA in 1919.

This group was led by John Reed and Benjamin Gitlow, but they were denied admission into the Socialist convention. Reed had been in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, and was so thrilled with what had transpired that he wrote a book about it — Ten Days That Shook the World. (Not surprisingly, Hollywood eventually made a laudatory movie, Reds, based on Reed’s book). Reed, Gitlow, and others then met on August 31 and formed the Communist Labor Party of America (CLP).

Among those who helped swell the ranks of this new fledgling Communist Party were members of the communistic International Workers of the World (I.W.W.). I.W.W. members, sometimes known as “Wobblies,” had used sabotage and violence to protest during the First World War. The Soviet Union’s leaders quickly saw how important an American Communist Party would be to their ultimate goal of world revolution and world government, and dispatched C.A. Martens to give the American communists direction.

Before the new American Communist Party was allowed full membership in the Comintern, however, its officers were required to sign the “Twenty-one Conditions of Admission.” These 21 conditions of admission to the Comintern made it quite clear that the Communists in the Soviet Union would dictate what happened in America’s Communist Party. In 1953, the U.S. Subversive Activities Control Board concluded after several hearings and investigations, “We find upon the whole record that the evidence preponderantly establishes that [the leaders of the Communist Party USA] and its members consider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate to their loyalty and obligations to the Soviet Union.”

Among the 21 conditions were the following: “The Communist Party [of the USA] must carry on a clear-cut program of propaganda for the hindering of the transportation of munitions of war to the enemies of the Soviet Republic.” Another said, “All decisions of the Communist International … are binding upon all parties belonging to the Communist International,” while another stipulated that, “The duty of spreading Communist ideas includes the special obligation to carry on a vigorous and systematic propaganda in the Army. Where this agitation is forbidden by exceptional laws, it is to be carried on illegally.”

Labor unions were to be targeted for takeover: “Every party wishing to belong to the Communist International must systematically and persistently develop a Communist agitation within the trade-unions.” Similar agitation was to be employed in rural areas. “Iron discipline” was to be maintained, and “periodic cleanings” of membership rolls were necessary to get rid of dissenters. Finally, any member who rejected these conditions and the “theses of the Communist International, on principle, must be expelled from the party.”

From the very beginning, however, American communists had to contend with factionalism and differences in advancing their cause. A rival to the Communist Labor Party did not believe that the Labor Party was truly communistic, and the CLP responded in kind. The rival group called itself the Communist Party of America. It was led by Charles Ruthenberg (he died in 1927 and his ashes are buried in the Kremlin), and was launched on September 1, 1919.  Yet another splinter group in Michigan was the Proletarian Party.

Another problem was that a strong majority of the “American” communists were not native-born, with some even having difficulty speaking English. The Communist lamented in June of 1920, “The Communist Party, from the very beginning of its existence found its work hampered because it had in its ranks only a few men capable of expressing Communist principles in the English language.”

The Executive Committee of the Com-intern soon ordered the rival parties to consolidate “in the shortest possible time.” In case there was any misunderstanding, the directive was emphatic: “Unity is not only possible, but absolutely necessary. The Executive Committee categorically insists on its immediate realization.”

With a representative of the Comintern present, a “unity” convention was held in May 1920 at Bridgman, Michigan, which resulted in the formation of the United Communist Party of America. Still, some refused to go along with this “united” Communist Party, with some desirous of the right to leave the party, or differ with the Comintern on some issues.

It took another year of bickering, but finally, in May 1921, the United Communist Party and some splinter groups formed the Communist Party of America, at Woodstock, New York. They agreed to work together for violent revolution, as “armed insurrection” was the “only means of overthrowing the capitalist state.” They also reiterated their complete subservience to Moscow.

The party would have both a legal element, which would disseminate communist propaganda in the public arena and run candidates for office (the Workers Party), and an underground aspect to conduct illegal activities, such as operating a spy network for the Soviet Union. In this regard, many American communists — William Z. Foster, Earl Browder, Jay Lovestone, Benjamin Gitlow, and John Reed — made several trips to Moscow.

Foster remarked that a 1921 visit with  Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin “was one of the most inspiring moments” of his life.

Gitlow, who later left the Communist Party, wrote in his book The Whole of Their Lives about the very early days that he was inspired by what Lenin had accomplished in Russia and believed a successful revolution was imminent in the United States. “On September 2, 1919, the communist movement was officially launched. September 9 the Boston Police strike began. September 22, the nation-wide Steel strike led by William Z. Foster started. At the end of October, the soft-coal miners under the leadership of John L. Lewis staged a nation-wide coal strike stretching from the Appalachian coal range to the Pacific in defiance of a government order not to strike.”

Taylor Swift Just Another Anti-Christian, Anti-Family Mouth Piece For Communist Gay Pride Movement.

SwiftBigotry-1
Related Articles From CantonTruth.blogspot.com & Fourhorsemen66.com

Did you know that the ‘Gay-Pride’ Flag Actually Mocks God?

Ben Carson Explains How Gay Marriage Is A Communist Plot To Impose The ‘New World Order’.

 

Dear Taylor: Please stop being a hateful, intolerant, anti-Christian bigot.

By FireBreathingChristian

-April 10, 2019

What once was a crowd of God-hating nutjobs screeching incessantly about “keeping religion out of politics” has interestingly (but not surprisingly) metastasized into a raging mob that’s all too willing to use its religion as a political tool by which to bludgeon, shame, and crush all who dare dissent from their more-obviously-insane-by-the-minute agenda. (Remember: These people actually think that Bruce Jenner is a woman…and that to publicly oppose that flagrantly moronic position is an expression of “hate”.)

In recent weeks we’ve been treated to several examples of this newfound public/political religious zealotry on the Left, including Taylor Swift’s open promotion of hate, intolerance, and anti-Christian bigotry…all in the name of promoting peace, love, and tolerance, of course.

The Washington Post, property of Jeff Bezos (another prominent advocate of marriage/family-destroying “progress”), glowingly covered Swift’s religion-and-politics mingling attack on orthodox Christianity this way:

“Look what you made her do.

Taylor Swift, the pop megastar whose recent political awakening has been something to watch, donated $113,000 on Monday to an LGBTQ advocacy group in her adopted home state of Tennessee.

Swift informed the Tennessee Equality Project of her donation — the equivalent of one year’s operating budget for the organization — in a handwritten note addressed to its director, Chris Sanders.

“I’m writing to you to say that I’m so inspired by the work you do,” Swift wrote. The TEP and a group of Tennessee’s religious leaders are actively opposing bills moving through the state’s Republican-run legislature that specifically target LGBTQ individuals.

In her letter, Swift refers to the “Slate of Hate,” six bills that advocates say are discriminatory. The legislation covers topics such as adoption by LGBTQ parents, transgender students and workplace protections.

For years, Swift kept her politics close to the vest — or sparkly leotard in her case — and critics pounced. But in a piece published last month in Elle magazine, Swift wrote that she had wanted to educate herself before speaking up.”

To get a better sense of Taylor’s infusion of religion into her attack on orthodox Christianity, here’s her letter:

Taylor-Swift-Note-Of-Idiocy

It’s hard to overstate the amount of hate, intolerance, and bigotry flowing through both Swift’s letter/check combo and WaPo’s coverage of it.

For them, openly venting hatred against the most basic of orthodox Christian views on family, sexuality and marriage is…get this: an expression of love.

For them, openly trampling the religion of orthodox Christians is infinitely less significant than “hurting the feelings” of an LGBTQRSTD-type anywhere at any time.

For them, intolerance of orthodox Christianity is essential to…the pursuit of tolerance.

See how that works?

They get to be aggressively intolerant…in the name of opposing intolerance.

They get to use their religion to crush and silence ours…in the name of promoting tolerance.

Neat, huh?

Makes almost as much sense as claiming Bruce Jenner is a woman…

But wait, it gets better:

For them, anti-Christian bigotry is not only a viable option, but a necessity.

Orthodox Christianity and those unenlightened enough to cling to it must be shamed and politically oppressed at every turn.

That’s how “tolerance” works best in the depraved minds of Swift & Company.

Orthodox Christianity must be silenced.

It must be shut down.

That’s what happens when you let satanic worldviews out of the closet (see: Romans 1). Once out, they inevitably strive toward shaming, persecuting, and hating Christianity into silence. They inevitably strive to make evil into good and good into evil.

In this context, the bizarrely hypocritical and destructive actions of programmed slaves to the Progressive agenda like Taylor Swift should come as no surprise, but they should be pointed out for what they are at every opportunity.

Taylor Swift funds and encourages anti-Christian hate groups.

Taylor Swift is passionately intolerant of orthodox Christians.

Taylor Swift is openly hateful toward orthodox Christianity.

These are simple facts.

Taylor Swift is a hateful, intolerant, anti-Christian bigot.

We need not be angry or snarl when we share such truths. We should instead be as gracious and sober-minded as possible as we go about the important business of clearly, calmly, and publicly confronting the likes of Taylor Swift and her many advocates in dinosaur media with the fact that we see them for what they are.