Tag Archive for: Critical Race Theory

BLM Leader Declares They Have a ‘Right to Use Violence’

We should remember that the BLM movement is based on the Marxist concept of Critical Race Theory which espouses that everyone are either the oppressed or the oppressor. Of course the oppressors are identified as mostly white people especially those who are law abiding Christian conservatives who believe all lives matter.

When George Floyd, a black criminal thug who had just committed a store robbery and was hyped up on drugs died allegedly killed by police (using a holding techique they had been trained to use), the result was rioting, looting, arson including burning of police cars and injury and death by BLM/CRT supporters in Democrat controlled cities including Minneapolis/St Paul, Minnesota.

Democrat politicians such as Kamala Harris, Maxine Watters, Illian Omar, etc. stated such lawlessness by the “oppressed” was justified. Tampon Tim Walz Governor of Minnesota refused to call out the National Guard until too lates and sympathized with Floyd and those rioting even though many were just criminals taking advantage of the situation.

Compare this to what happened when Christian conservative influencer Charlie Kirk was assassinated. His supporters did not riot, loot, commit arson or otherwise violate the law much less in the berserk fashion by those who broke the law in the name of Floyd who they proclaimed a hero.

Where does this absurdity come from?


Black Lives Matter Declares ‘We Have a Right to Violence’ Amid Iryna Zarutska Furor

Story by Harold Hutchison

The official Instagram account of Black Lives Matter posted a brief video clip appearing to justify violence on Wednesday in the wake of the Aug. 22 murder of a Ukrainian refugee in North Carolina.

Iryna Zarutska, who worked at an area pizza restaurant, was stabbed to death while returning home from work on a Charlotte light rail train by DeCarlos Brown, a black man with a lengthy criminal history.

The BLM account posted a reel from the “moviesofcolour” Instagram account that consisted of a 15-second clip from “Born in Flames,” a 1983 movie, on its Instagram Stories, videos that stay up for 24 hours before being deleted.

“We have a right to violence,” a character named Zella says in the clip.

“All oppressed people have a right to violence. And I want to tell you something, it’s like the right to pee. You got to have the right place. You got to have the right time. You got to have the appropriate situation. And I’m absolutely convinced that this is it!”

Continue reading

Black Lives Matter Says ‘Oppressed People Have Right to Violence’ Following Murder of Iryna Zarutska

Baxter Dmitry

An official Black Lives Matter account has defended the suspect in the Charlotte train stabbing that killed Iryna Zarutska, declaring that “oppressed people have a right to violence.”

Iryna Zarutska was tragically killed last week in what authorities are calling an “unprovoked attack” by Decarlos Brown Jr., 34, who had previous arrests and convictions spanning over a decade, and had been released after an arrest in January.

The BLM Instagram post came in response to news reports of the murder and said: “We have a right to violence. All oppressed people have a right to violence. And I’m going to tell you something. It’s like the right to pee. You gotta have the right place, you gotta have the right time, you gotta have the appropriate situation. And I’m absolutely convinced that this is it.”

People are furious. Comparing violence to peeing? Saying oppressed people “have a right to violence”? Critics say it’s completely irresponsible. Framing violence in racial terms will stir even more division.

Law experts say posts like this are dangerous. Even if it’s “just words,” telling millions of followers that violence is okay can have serious consequences. And right now, tensions are already high.

Supporters of BLM try to defend it, saying it’s just about frustration with injustice, not a real call to hurt anyone. But most people aren’t buying it.

“These people are violent dangerous racists” social media influencer Tim Poole said. “It’s not inspiring justice—it’s telling people it’s okay to be violent. That’s messed up,” said an X user in reply.

Continue reading.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Man Tramples Charlie Kirk Memorial, Immediately Regrets It

BLM Leader Appears To Call For Black People To Kill White People Following Daniel Penny Verdict

BLM Posts “Right to Violence” Video Amid Fury Over Ukrainian Refugee’s Charlotte Murder

Official Black Lives Matter Account Appears To Justify Violence In Wake Of Charlotte Stabbing

Anti-Trump Historian Claims With Straight Face Left Wing Wasn’t ‘Celebrating’ Charlie Kirk Assassination

TMZ Releases Video Of Alleged Kirk Assassin Before Shooting

Alleged Charlie Kirk Assassin Not Cooperating With Law Enforcement, Gov Says

2 Ways the Left Encourages and Legitimizes Political Violence

Shortly after Charlie Kirk took his dying breath, now-former MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd uttered the words on live cable TV that cost him his job, while also providing Americans with a chilling illustration of one of the most common ways the Left legitimizes and thereby encourages political violence against its opponents.

“He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in,” Dowd declared in a conversation with MSNBC host Katy Tur (emphasis added).

Shortly after those comments were broadcast, MSNBC issued an apology, followed by Dowd’s termination.

Dowd began his career as a political strategist working for multiple Democrats, but he switched to the GOP to help President George W. Bush win re-election in 2004. More recently, Dowd returned to the Democratic Party and tangled with Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) with remarks in 2019 for which he subsequently apologized.

Hate as a Label

To see how precisely Dowd captured one of the Left’s most terrifying convictions, re-read the italicized words in his statement. Note the progression: Hateful thoughts produce hateful words produce hateful actions. That progression has long been at the heart of the Left’s sabotage of the First Amendment’s guarantee of every American’s right to freedom of expression and opinion.

Here’s how they do it: Nobody questions that people can be prompted to act recklessly on what they hear. Crowds of Ku Klux Klansmen, for example, were indeed incited during the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras by horrendously false accusations to lynch innocent black men.

What the Left does in this process is redefine what constitutes “hate speech” as anything espoused by those opposed to the Left. Thus, Matthew Dowd reframed Charlie Kirk’s message — about the love of Christ, the blessings of individual liberty, and the need for civil debate and tolerance of divergent views — as the worst hate speech that produces hateful, violent, actions. This is how Dowd comes to the position that Kirk’s speech brought on his own assassination. The assassin who pulled the trigger was merely responding to Kirk’s alleged provocation. Thus, the real perpetrator of political violence is actually the victim of hate speech by the Left’s opponents.

The Aggressor as Victim

The Matthew Dowds of the world can make such connections because they operate in the context of the Left’s mindless ideological obsession with identity politics, especially those rooted in critical theory. For example, Americans are constantly told by lawmakers on the Left, multicultural “experts” in academic and bureaucratic circles, and mainstream media talking heads that all American cultural, economic, legal, and political institutions are products of a deadly “white supremacy.”

Critical race theory (CRT) argues that America has been a racist society since before its inception; indeed, according to The New York Times and the 1619 Project, it is impossible to conceive of the present America without understanding that white supremacy and chattel slavery are the root of all the country’s major institutions and societal structures.

“The goal of The 1619 Project is to reframe American history by making explicit how slavery is the foundation on which the United States of America is built, and by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as the nation’s birth year,” according to the Times.

Note the qualifier, “reframe American history.” Several generations of American college graduates were thus filled with the CRT version of American history, and typically with no serious examination — that is, fact-based rather than ideology-based — of alternative analyses of the nation’s colonial roots, the Constitution, and the historical development since.

The drive for race-based “reparations” to black Americans for the sufferings of their enslaved ancestors is a direct product of the CRT view that everything about this country has been the result of the abuses by the white majority of the black slave populations and their descendants down to the present day.

A number of states, including California, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey, either presently have or are considering establishing official panels for exploring approaches to race-based reparations. Multiple cities have functioning reparations programs, including San Francisco, Palm Springs, Providence, Asheville, and Evanston. Benefits range from $25,000 for housing expenses and investments of tax funds to minority neighborhoods and businesses, to direct lump sum payments and targeted job opportunities.

But the vast majority of states and municipalities have no interest in establishing race-based reparations programs. How long before teams of screaming leftists point to the marked absence of reparations programs, condemn American society as irretrievably racist, and incite riots, insurrection, and mayhem in major cities across the country? When it happens, the Left will tell us all that it’s our fault, not that of the rioters.

Let us instead follow the example left by Charlie Kirk in his continuous civility and reasoned engagement with those who disagreed with him, as Scripture instructs us in 1 Peter 3:15: “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

AUTHOR

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

House Democrats Object to Prayer for Charlie Kirk’s Family

Charlie Kirk to Receive Medal of Freedom

PERKINS: Charlie Kirk and America’s Turning Point

4 Reflections on Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

Charlie Kirk, Mi Hermano

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

NEW DOCUMENTS: Biden White House and AG Garland Colluded to Weaponize DOJ to Label Parents at School Board Meetings “Domestic Terrorists”

After colluding with the NSBA to produce a letter calling for a crackdown on concerned parents, Biden DOJ officials rushed to draft a memo to weaponize the federal government against those parents, emails show.

“WH has been in touch.”

Pure evil. The Inevitable results of a stolen election, a coup. Garland should be behind bars. All of them must be brought to justice.

These new documents expose the Biden White House’s involvement in AG Garland’s memo targeting parents — and reveal that career lawyers at DOJ warned that there was no federal authority or legal basis to target these parents in the first place because their speech is protected by the First Amendment.

The documents show that after receiving the National School Board Association (NSBA) memo, which called on DOJ to use the Patriot Act to prevent parents from objecting to mask mandates in schools and Critical Race Theory in the curriculum, DOJ’s political leadership worked to identify anything — any authority — they could use to bring the full weight of the Justice Department down on parents.

The problem was that all the advice from the DOJ career lawyers was that there was no law within the Justice Department’s purview that applied to parents speaking at school board meetings…

Despite setting off a weekend fire drill to find “any authorities CRT enforces” so that DOJ could act quickly to respond to the NSBA, Sparkle Sooknanan was explicitly advised that the instances cited by the NSBA “likely fall outside of our jurisdiction.”

A conservative legal group revealed a tranche of correspondence on Friday from the Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) shedding new light on the behind-the-scenes discussions about a controversial directive former Attorney General Merrick Garland gave about school boards.

The document dump included an email from a deputy attorney general aide that said the DOJ was searching for a “federal hook” to use to address a letter the National School Boards Association (NSBA) wrote to the White House raising alarm about parents who were, at the time, expressing outrage at school board meetings across the country over COVID-19 mandates, critical race theory, and transgender policies.

“We’re aware; the challenge here is finding a federal hook. But WH has been in touch about whether we can assist in some form or fashion,” deputy attorney general aide Kevin Chambers wrote to a colleague on Oct. 1, 2021.

Documents: Biden AG and White House Conspired to Chill Local Parents’ School Board Protests

By: Lowell Cauffiel, Breitbart, 19 Jul 2025

Damning revelations in federal documents obtained by a conservative watchdog group show the Biden administration’s Justice Department sought a “federal hook” so they could investigate and criminally charge parents protesting school policies related to COVID, transgenderism, critical race theory, and other issues.

Career attorneys in the DOJ argued in the released correspondence that such a move was legally baseless and would trample the First Amendment rights of parents.

The government documents, obtained by America First Legal, “conclusively prove” a memo from former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland “mobilized the full force of the federal government’s firepower against concerned parents—not to protect schools, but to silence dissent”  and the ensuing investigation was “politically orchestrated and coordinated with the Biden White House,” America First Legal charged Friday.

The AFL in an extensive release on its website reported:

These never-before-seen documents—uncovered only because of AFL’s relentless efforts over the past three and a half years—expose not only the Biden White House’s involvement in pushing a weaponized DOJ, but also strong dissent from careers within the Department’s Civil Rights Division, who warned that there was no federal authority or legal basis to target these parents in the first place because their speech is protected by the First Amendment.

The photocopies of emails and documents involved were also published on the website.

In one letter obtained by AFL, Kevin Chambers, an aide to the attorney general, wrote to a colleague on Oct. 1, 2021: “We’re aware; the challenge here is finding a federal hook. But WH has been in touch about whether we can assist in some form or fashion.”

Fox News reported that Garland issued a directive on Oct. 4, 2021, that directed the FBI to assist local law enforcement partners with a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against school administrators.

Garland told a congressional hearing soon thereafter that he had given the directive after the National School Board Association (NSBA) sent a letter to the White House that had asked the Biden administration to investigate parents displaying threatening behavior at school board meetings as possible “domestic terrorists,” the news network reported.

The NSBA later retracted the request.

Career DOJ lawyers were concerned about any legal effort to take action on that letter, documents show.

One DOJ attorney wrote to colleagues in an email on October 3, 2021:

I read the letter from NSBA, and looked at the links for a handful of footnotes, and it appears to me that the vast, vast majority of the behavior cited cannot be reached by federal law. I only saw three stories that involved what sounded like a possible “true threat” … Almost all the language used is protected by the First Amendment; the main issue seems seems to be the disruption and obstruction of school board meetings, which can be reached by local trespassing laws or disturbance of the peace laws, but nothing remotely federal. So it seems we are ramping up an awful lot of federal manpower for what is currently non-federal conduct.

As Breitbart News reported in 2022, two Republican congressmen said that a whistleblower alleged that the FBI launched dozens of investigations into parents after Garland directed the agency to do so.

Gene Hamilton, America First Legal president, said:

The Biden Administration appears to have engaged in a conspiracy that was ultimately aimed at depriving parents of two fundamental rights—the right to speak, and the right to direct the upbringing of their children. They did so with political intentions, most immediately by attempting to influence the Virginia gubernatorial election, and to more broadly chill dissent across the United States.

Some of the most publicized school board protests were in Virginia.

Fox News’s reporting on the released documents also cited Garland’s frequent response when asked by lawmakers — that his DOJ always worked independently of the White House on high-profile legal matters.

The new emails about the school board letter contradict that message, the news outlet pointed out.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: Conservative Org Lays Out Roadmap To Rebuild America’s Crumbling Education System

The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal released recommendations Thursday to reform teacher training programs across the nation as student test scores have plummeted to historic lows and schools have become increasingly defined by radical ideology.

The organization, a conservative public policy group focused on higher education, first shared the blueprint with the Daily Caller News Foundation, outlining recommendations to improve university education certification programs and contending that the changes would result in improved outcomes for K-12 children. The memo recommends schools of education at universities to take steps to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) requirements and set standards to equip future teachers with the knowledge necessary to educate children.

“Too many teacher preparation programs ignore subject matter expertise to focus on pedagogical fads or trendy ideologies,” Jenna Robinson, president of the center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Robinson added that one of the causes of low student achievement in schools is the “irresponsible schools of education” training the teachers.

The blueprint further recommends that lawmakers better regulate such programs to ensure universities are teaching fundamentals and not indoctrinating students who will go on to do the same to the next generation. The center also suggests that policymakers consider creating alternative paths to obtaining a teaching certification — such as demonstrating mastery in a field rather than attending corrupted teacher education programs. Current state licensure requirements should be placed under scrutiny to ensure programs are not being overrun with divisive ideology and teachers are being properly equipped with the skills to teach students reading and math skills, the blueprint says.

Some states have taken steps to lower the bar for teaching candidates, no longer requiring aspiring educators to pass a basic reading, writing and math test for certification.

The blueprint cites a recent report from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which found that as many as one-third of eighth grader students failed to reach the NAEP’s reading assessment benchmark in 2024, the largest percentage ever recorded, and 40% of fourth graders tested below NAEP’s reading proficiency, the largest percentage recorded since 2002.

While some of these failures can be attributed to the learning losses suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic, when schools remained closed for over a year and students struggled under remote learning, much of the responsibility also falls on schools prioritizing teaching divisive concepts over fundamental education, the center argues in its blueprint.

“When teachers focus on inequity or social-emotional learning instead of teaching students to read using proven methodologies, they send two messages,” Robinson said. “One is that students are destined to fail. The other is that reading isn’t important.”

Under the Biden administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) poured over $100,000,000 into DEI efforts for K-12 schools, funding projects aimed toward “LGBTQ inclusion” in which “anti-racism and anti-oppression are embedded.” Upon taking office, President Donald Trump immediately got to work eliminating some of the radical topics from schools, signing a series of executive orders banning critical race theory, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and gender ideology from being taught in federally-funded schools.

“I hope this Blueprint will encourage state legislatures and university boards to take a hard look at what’s going on in their schools of education,” Robinson continued. “Schools of education must change if we want students to succeed.”

AUTHOR

Jaryn Crouson

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Soaring Levels Of Non-English Speaking Students May Be Driving National Reading Test Scores Into Ground

Trump Quashes Elite University’s Endless Summer Vacation

ROOKE: Democrats Angry College Kicked Drag Queens Off Campus Must Have Missed November Election

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Transgenderism Not ‘Honorable, Truthful’ or Compatible with Military Service: Trump EO


President Donald Trump has signed two executive orders reorienting the U.S. military away from liberal indoctrination by banning extreme gender ideology —including transgender pronouns — and DEI policies aimed at advancing critical race theory. The actions brand transgender ideology a “falsehood” that prevents its adherents from living an “honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”

President Trump’s new policy will “end invented and identification-based pronoun usage” and stop members of one sex from using the opposite sex’s “sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities” except under “extraordinary operational necessity,” such as in war zones. It classifies “gender ideology” and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) as “radical, extremist, and irrational theories” and will set about “abolishing the DEI bureaucracy.”

Transgender Identity Shows Dishonor ‘Even in One’s Personal Life’

President Trump signed an executive order “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” on Monday night.

“It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” the transgender executive order states. “This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria. This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.”

Anyone “expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service,” states the executive order. “Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

The order cites existing military policy (DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6130.03) that enlistees must be “[f]ree of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization.” It notes this would apply to “conditions that require substantial medication or medical treatment to bipolar and related disorders, eating disorders, suicidality, and prior psychiatric hospitalization” — comorbidities which tend to occur in greater preponderance among people who identify as transgender.

Transgender procedures took trans-identifying soldiers out of readiness about half the year, according to a comprehensive report authorized in the first Trump administration. The memorandum found the nation’s 994 active duty servicemembers who identify as transgender accounted for more than 30,000 mental health visits. In all, “transitioning Service members in the Army and Air Force have averaged 167 and 159 days of limited duty, respectively, over a one-year period,” constituting a “readiness risk.”

The new policy builds on a previous executive order which rescinded 78 Biden executive orders — including his transgender military service order: Executive Order 14004 of January 25, 2021 (“Enabling All Qualified Americans To Serve Their Country in Uniform”) — on day one.

Executive Order 2: Abolishing DEI in the Military

President Trump’s second executive order, “Restoring America’s Fighting Force,” refocuses the military on excellence, lethality, and deterrence rather than DEI.

“Unfortunately, in recent years civilian and uniformed leadership alike have implemented Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and their attendant race and sex preferences within the Armed Forces. These actions undermine leadership, merit, and unit cohesion, thereby eroding lethality and force readiness,” says the order. With his latest action, Trump will wipe out “any vestiges of DEI offices, such as sub-offices, programs, elements, or initiatives established to promote a race-based preferences system that subverts meritocracy, perpetuates unconstitutional discrimination, and promotes divisive concepts or gender ideology.”

The move furthers his policy of rooting out “race-based and sex-based discrimination” throughout the government, including within the U.S. military. “No individual or group within our Armed Forces should be preferred or disadvantaged on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color, or creed,” states the order. With this action, the federal government will no longer “violate Americans’ consciences by engaging in invidious race and sex discrimination.” The secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security will issue guidance for implementing this order within 30 days, then document their progress in carrying it out within six months. DEI programs cost the military $114.7 million in 2024 alone.

Trump Actions ‘Return the Military to Lethality’: Congressman

Conservatives and veterans praised the president’s decision to bleed social experimentation out of the military. “This is absolutely necessary. It was perfect tone by the president. We will return the military to lethality, to deterring our adversaries across the world,” said Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas), a retired Army lieutenant colonel who sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, on “Washington Watch” Tuesday. “This will help with recruiting. This will help with training. This will help with morale. This is the way it’s done.”

“Leadership makes a difference in the military. And our commander in chief demonstrated that leadership yesterday with these executive orders,” Self added.

“I was thrilled to see that he went back to the same policy that he enacted” in his first term, “one that we worked with him to get done, and that was to return our military to focusing on its mission to fight and win our wars, not modeling the latest cross-dressing camouflage,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a Marine veteran.

“Wokeism, which comes in many forms, takes progressivism to extremes and imposes it with coercion, even if it hurts the institution,” Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, told The Washington Stand.

The move should prove popular with others who have served, as well. A YouGov poll found an overwhelming 94% of veterans oppose racial and gender preferences in military promotions.

But some decried the policy, which reverses secular progressive political grains. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who chairs a congressional caucus dedicated to advancing LGBTQ radicalism, called the Trump policy “beyond shameful.”

Undoing Nine Years of Democratic Social Tinkering

Former President Barack Obama paved the way for the military crisis by allowing individuals with active gender dysphoria to join the military. He added “gender identity” as a protected class in the military’s non-discrimination policies. President Donald Trump authorized a report on the issue in August 2017. The 45th president ultimately adopted the February 2018 memorandum declaring gender dysphoria incompatible with military service, but grandfathering in those who began receiving transgender injections since Obama’s order or who had been “stable” for 36 months and could be deployed.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Law (which sometimes brands itself “Glad Law”) filed a lawsuit, Jane Doe 2 v. Trump, but lost the judgment from Judge Stephen F. Williams, a Reagan appointee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. “[T]here is no constitutional right for, say, biological males who identify as female to live, sleep, shower, and train with biological females. Whether allowing such flexibility in military service is a good idea or not is of no concern to the courts; that is a question for the people acting through their elected representatives,” ruled the late judge. The case never came before the Supreme Court before the Biden-Harris administration restored and expanded the Obama-Biden administration’s policies.

NCLR and Glad Law filed a new lawsuit on Tuesday asserting the military readiness policy is not “based on any legitimate governmental purpose.” Instead, “the ban reflects animosity toward transgender people.”

Additional Executive Orders Reinstate Soldiers Who Refused the COVID-19 Shot, Establish Missile Defense

Trump also signed an executive order reinstating all soldiers whom Joe Biden dismissed or left the U.S. armed services for refusing to take the COVID-19 shot. The more than 8,000 soldiers will “revert to their former rank and receive full back pay, benefits, bonus payments, or compensation.” The president’s action includes not only those forcibly removed from service but also those who voluntarily left the military rather than obey Biden’s order to take the controversial shot, which has been tied to heart problemsstrokesneurological disorders, and an as-yet-unnamed condition that mimics the symptoms of long COVID.

An inspector general’s report found Biden-Harris administration bureaucrats denied religious exemptions en masse to all but those already scheduled to retire or leave the services, spending just 12 minutes analyzing requests. Some 70% of the early servicemembers removed from service over the shot received the lower “general discharge,” rather than an “honorable discharge.”

President Trump’s new order gives the Defense and DHS secretaries 60 days to show they have followed through.

Trump also signed an executive order Tuesday authorizing the establishment of “The Iron Dome for America,” a missile defense system. “The United States will provide for the common defense of its citizens and the [n]ation by deploying and maintaining a next-generation missile defense shield,” states the order.

The executive order states the U.S. military will try to provide or enhance missile defense capabilities for U.S. allies. The executive order calls into question the Trump administration’s commitment to a non-interventionist foreign policy, stating it will “[i]mprove theater missile defenses of forward-deployed United States troops and allied [foreign] territories, troops, and populations.”

The policy captured public imagination thanks to Ronald Reagan’s televised address on Strategic Defense Initiative on March 23, 1983. Over stiff Democratic opposition and diplomatic pressure from the Soviet Union, the U.S. developed a limited missile-defense system in fits and starts over the next four decades. President Bill Clinton slow-walked the advancement of national missile defense, deferring it altogether late in his administration. In December 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and enhanced missile defense research.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

DEI Training Makes You More Likely to Agree With … Literally Hitler: Study

At the beginning of his administration, President Joe Biden explained why he planned to institute Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across the federal government. “[O]ur soul will be troubled as long as systemic racism is allowed to persist,” he said. Yet a new study finds that being exposed to DEI training or materials makes people more likely to agree with statements made by Adolf Hitler — yes, “literally Hitler.”

Researchers had subjects read “anti-oppressive DEI educational materials frequently used in interventional and educational settings.” Then they presented subjects with a series of statements based on quotations from Adolf Hitler, replacing the word “Jews” with “brahmins,” the favored class in India’s caste system. The subjects “exposed to the DEI content were markedly more likely to endorse Hitler’s demonization statements, agreeing that Brahmins are ‘parasites’ (+35.4%), ‘viruses’ (+33.8%), and ‘the devil personified’ (+27.1%),” the study found. “These findings suggest that exposure to anti-oppressive narratives can increase the endorsement of the type of demonization and scapegoating characteristic of authoritarianism.”

Rather than engendering racial harmony, DEI training made subjects hypersensitive to sleights and likely to detect offense where none was given, researchers discovered. “[W]hile purporting to combat bias, some anti-oppressive DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment,” added the researchers from Rutgers University Social Perception Lab and the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in their study titled “Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias.”

Further, they concluded, DEI trainings’ extreme and often distorted view of race relations creates participants’ “demands for more anti-oppressive DEI training, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of suspicion and intolerance.”

“Diversity, Equity and Inclusion — those are three words that sound great but, when implemented into the policy by the Biden administration, have been very devastating, even toward the stated goals that they claim to espouse,” Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) told “Washington Watch” last week.

The chairman of the anti-discrimination organization Do No Harm, Stanley Goldfarb, had previously linked DEI to anti-Semitism. Hitler regularly accused Jews of discriminating against ethnic Germans and conspiring to enrich themselves from German labor — much as DEI and allied radical theories accuse white people of doing today.

DEI Promotes Racial Discrimination

DEI self-consciously bases itself on critical race theory (CRT). The Marxist-inspired ideology holds that all differences in outcome between ethnic groups stem exclusively from racial discrimination, that American society systemically discriminates against minorities, and that all white people share in unearned privilege. “[N]o white member of society seems quite so innocent,” wrote CRT pioneers Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic in their book “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.” Teachers in Buffalo, New York, taught students that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism.”

To overturn alleged “systemic racism,” CRT/DEI activists urge the federal government and private employers to discriminate in favor of racial minorities. Ibram X. Kendi wrote in his bestselling book, “How to be an Antiracist”:

“[R]acial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity [minority wealth], then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached. The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Kendi removed this passage from the Kindle version of his book sometime last year, complaining it had “been heavily quoted by the conservators of racism to attack me and this book.” Kendi made a stealth edit, allegedly to make it “harder to distort the meaning of these sentences.” The updated passage changes the words but not the meaning, stating:

“The only remedy to negative racist discrimination that produces inequity is positive antiracist discrimination that produces equity. The only remedy to past negative racist discrimination that has produced inequity is present positive antiracist discrimination that produces equity. The only remedy to present negative racist discrimination toward inequity is future positive antiracist discrimination toward equity.”

Public opposition to DEI’s advocacy of racial discrimination against white people has led numerous corporations to step away from the controversial ideology. Walmart recently walked back its DEI policies, joining such corporate titans as Caterpillar, Boeing, and Toyota.

Yet DEI and CRT currently thrive on college campuses. Two out of three major universities require students to take courses in DEI, according to the Goldwater Institute. The Supreme Court ruled last June that racial discrimination in college admissions violates the 14th Amendment. “To rigorously enforce yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, I will eliminate all ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ programs across the entire federal government,” promised then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

For threatening to ding DEI, Democrats denounced the 45th president as a fascist. Biden charged Trump with “echoing the same exact language used in Nazi Germany.” After receiving the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination — despite bypassing the primary process — Vice President Kamala Harris closed her campaign by calling Trump a threat to “our democracy,” falsely accusing the former president of threatening to use the military against “the enemy within” on election day 2024, and agreeing with the statement that “Donald Trump is a fascist.” The Associated Press reported that two-thirds of Kamala Harris supporters named the so-called threat to democracy as their top issue.

DEI and Acts of Political Violence

President-elect Trump and those close to him have suffered as a result. He experienced two attempted assassinations on the campaign trail this summer. On Wednesday morning, the day before Thanksgiving, the Trump campaign announced several Cabinet nominees faced “violent, unAmerican threats to their lives and those who live with them.” The threats included bomb threats and “swatting” — falsely calling the SWAT team to target a family. “This is what happens when you call a major party candidate ‘literally Hitler’ and ‘a threat to [d]emocracy’ for years,” observed former Michigan State Representative Brett LaFave.

DEI concepts have exploded into violence in the past. The target of Nashville school shooter Audrey Hale, who identified as a transgender man named Aiden and killed six people at Covenant School last March, exhibited signs of CRT-based self-loathing. In her journals, Hale referred to herself as a “white nothingness” festooned in thoughts of “white privilege [sic], an embarrassment to self.” Later, she wrote, “I am nothing. Brown love is the most beautiful kind.” She referred to her future victims as “white privileges.”

The federal government’s caricature of Trump voters has denied them aid after this summer’s hurricanes. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2022-2026 Strategic Plan ranks as “Goal 1: Instill Equity as a Foundation of Emergency Management.” A FEMA worker, Marn’i Washington, instructed canvassers to avoid storm-ravaged Florida homes that sported signs supporting Donald Trump for president. Washington later said she was “simply following orders” from above: FEMA characterized Trump supporters as anti-government and potentially violent.

“I can tell you for this particular incident, at the direction of our employee, 20 homes were skipped,” testified the Biden administration’s FEMA administrator, Deanne Criswell, before the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability on November 19.

The same day, the committee passed the Dismantle DEI Act (H.R.8706), introduced by Cloud, by a 23-17, party-line vote. Among its other provisions, the Dismantle DEI Act would end all federal training that requires employees to agree “that a particular race, color, ethnicity, religion, biological sex, or national origin is inherently or systemically superior or inferior, oppressive or oppressed, or privileged or unprivileged.”

“DEI programs masquerade as fairness while instead fostering division, inefficiency, and discrimination in our institutions,” commented Cloud in an email sent to The Washington Stand. “The Dismantle DEI Act takes aim at this harmful ideology and will root it out of our government.”

“True justice is — and must remain — blind. It should not consider race, sex, or other characteristics when evaluating an individual. Instead, it must focus on fairness, merit, and equal opportunity,” Cloud told the committee before the vote. DEI represents “a dangerous detour that risks erasing the strides we’ve made toward a more perfect union. By dismantling these harmful policies, we can reaffirm our commitment to the ideals of equality, merit, and justice that make our nation great.”

Outgoing conservative Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) introduced two bills to right DEI-inspired discrimination emanating out of the government into the private sector. The No Discrimination in Housing Act (H.R.10195) would prevent large corporate landholders that have a DEI initiative, such as Vanguard and Blackstone, from receiving the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). The Flexibility in Housing Act of 2024 (H.R.10194) would halt the implementation of a Biden-Harris administration rule from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requiring HUD grant recipients to implement equity-driven housing plans.

Christians Oppose the Suspicion and Offense at the Heart of DEI/CRT

Christians should welcome bills that eliminate DEI, CRT, and other forms of left-wing discrimination from government, education, and broader society. Further, Christians must make clear such racial discrimination is incompatible with the word of God. Christian love “is not easily provoked” (I Corinthians 13:5). “He who busies himself with the sins of others, or judges his brother on suspicion, has not yet even begun to repent or to examine himself so as to discover his own sins,” wrote St. Maximos the Confessor. Conversely, the Greek word translated as “the devil” (δι?βολος) literally means the “accuser, slanderer.”

Ironically, DEI supporters will likely impute false racist motivations to these bills, while slouching toward endorsing the words of the most racially focused totalitarian of the 20th century — and the spiritual power that stands behind all forms of ungodly oppression.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

State Dept. Promotes Woke Ideology Worldwide. Can Trump’s Administration Stop It?

Trump Cabinet Nominees Receive Bomb Threats

Dem Officials Labeled ‘Insurrectionists’ for Opposing Mass Deportations

Biden’s Ukraine Escalation ‘Morally Corrupt,’ Pushes U.S. Toward ‘Catastrophic War’: Congressman

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Pete Hegseth Must Reform ‘Woke’ Military: Congressman

As Democrats deride President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense, one congressman says Hegseth is just the man to turn the Biden-Harris administration’s “woke and weaponized” military into a “strong and focused” fighting force. The president’s proposal to remove underperforming or politicized generals would actually depoliticize a Pentagon that once again failed its annual audit, he added.

Hegseth, an Ivy League graduate who served in the military, has been “wrongly criticized” as a lightweight, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” on Monday. “We’re going to get a strong and focused military. Pete Hegseth has written books about it. He’s a well-educated, very successful combat veteran as an infantry officer, and I think he’s the right kind of leader. We have to get him confirmed.”

Trump’s Warrior Board Will Cut ‘Bloated’ Military

Democrats and the legacy media lumped in criticism of Hegseth with concern over President-elect Trump’s proposed executive order establishing a Warrior Board to review, and possibly remove, three- and four-star generals who moved up the ranks due more to their political views than their military prowess.

“Our senior ranks are already bloated. We have one officer for every nine enlisted soldiers. When we won World War II, we had one officer for every 30 enlisted soldiers,” Davidson told Perkins. “We’re very top heavy.”

Removing military officers has occurred numerous times under Democratic presidents. Barack Obama purged 197 military officers over five years. In 1941, during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s third term, General George C. Marshall removed 600 officers over age or physical fitness concerns.

The Left has tried to portray this as part of the president-elect’s “war on democracy” and “norms.” On Sunday, “ABC This Week” host Martha Raddatz asked if Trump plans to “fire or arrest” generals “he considers woke, or those close to former Chairman Mark Milley.” Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), just elected Michigan’s next senator, dismissed the tribunal as a “kangaroo court” that would, for the first time, introduce politics into the military. “I think we’re really at risk of politicizing the military in a way that we can’t put the genie back in the bottle,” said Slotkin.

But Davidson says the board would reverse the damage done by the Biden-Harris administration.

Observers Say Clinton, Obama-Biden-Harris Politicized the Military, Not Trump

The Clinton and Obama-Biden-Harris administrations politicized the military by using it as a tool for social experimentation, critics say. Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy allowed closeted homosexuals to join the military for the first time in 1993. Barack Obama liberalized the policy, and the Biden-Harris administration extended it to transgender-identifying Americans. The Democratic administrations forced soldiers to sit through LGBTQ political propaganda at each step of the way. Biden-Harris also emphasized critical race theory and so-called Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

The U.S. Navy produced a widely mocked video in 2022 schooling soldiers on how the “proper” use of pronouns helps create “a safe space for everybody.” A video in the Navy’s online recruitment pilot program the following May featured a drag queen who uses the name “Harpy Daniels” (2nd Class Petty Officer Joshua Kelly). The entire DOD referred to male and female service members with the gender-neutral pronoun “themself” in its Manual of Military Decorations and Awards last August 7, before reversing itself weeks later.

“One of the key woke elements they created is this three letter acronym, DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” said Davidson. But DEI officers “are really just political officers” who “politicize every department, and they’re clearly doing it in the Department of Defense.” The Biden-Harris administration requested $114.7 million for the Pentagon to teach “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) to the U.S. armed forces and deeply embed “DEIA values, objectives, and considerations in how we do business and execute our missions” last year.

That built on the administration’s commitment to critical race theory (CRT). As The Washington Stand’s Dan Hart reported, in 2022, “more than 600 documents were uncovered showing that West Point cadets are being immersed in CRT, with lessons on how ‘whiteness’ is ‘a location of structural advantage, of race privilege,’ how ‘racism is ordinary’ and ‘White Americans have primarily benefited from civil rights legislation.’” The materials directed cadets to use CRT principles to form their answers.

The Washington Stand’s Suzanne Bowdey produced a list of 25 incidences of the military promoting the woke agenda in the Biden-Harris administration’s first 21 months:

  1. January 2021: Biden Welcomes Transgenderism back into the Military, Scrapping Trump Policy
  2. January 2021: Army Punishes Chaplain for Opposing Transgenderism in the Ranks
  3. March 2021: Pentagon Launches Extremist Stand-Down
  4. March 2021: White House Announces Taxpayer-Funded Gender Reassignments for Troops
  5. March 2021: Navy under Fire for Reading List that Promotes America as ‘Systemically Racist’
  6. May 2021: Space Force Suspends Lt. Colonel for Denouncing Marxism
  7. June 2021: DOD Asks for Money to Combat Climate Change
  8. June 2021: Critical Race Theory Infiltrates U.S. Military Academies
  9. June 2021: Military Defends Drag Show at Largest Training Center as ‘Essential to Morale’
  10. June 2021: Pentagon Warns Chaplains to Affirm the LGBT Lifestyle
  11. February 2022: Army Introduces Strategy to Fight the ‘National Security Threat’ of Global Warming
  12. April 2022: Military Offers ‘Compassionate Reassignments’ for Service Members in Red States
  13. April 2022: Defense Secretary Considers Adding Nonbinary or ‘Polygender’ Troops to Ranks
  14. May 2022: Air Force Library Forced to Cancel Drag Queen Story Hour after GOP Pressure
  15. June 2022: Marines Celebrate Pride Month with Rainbow Bullets
  16. June 2022: Gratuitous Pride Tweets Circulate across the Branches
  17. June 2022: Pentagon Hosts ‘Transgender Visibility and Progress’ Event
  18. June 2022: Langley Air Force Base Hosts a Taxpayer-Funded Drag Queen Show
  19. June 2022: Democratic Leaders Resurrect Push for Women in the Draft
  20. June 2022: Navy Launches Training Video on the Correct Use of Personal Pronouns
  21. June 2022: Army Investigates Chaplain for Celebrating the End of Roe v. Wade
  22. June 2022: Pentagon Expands Access, Leave, and Travel for Service Member Abortions
  23. September 2022: Veterans Affairs Announces the Start of Taxpayer-Funded Abortions
  24. September 2022: Military Accused of Indoctrinating Kids with Woke Gender Ideology, CRT in Base Schools
  25. September 2022: Air Force Cadets Warned Not to Use ‘Gendered’ Words like ‘Mom,’ ‘Dad’

The Biden-Harris administration also denied religious exemptions for those who refused to take the COVID-19 jabs, firing thousands of soldiers who refused to take the then-experimental shot.

Biden officials “know that, by and large, the vast majority of men and women who serve in the military lean to the Right. And those 260,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who did not take the vaccine are probably far more conservative,” said Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) at the time. Only 43 of the roughly 8,000 soldiers dismissed for refusing to take the untested injection had sought to reenlist in the armed forces, according to military data furnished to CNN last October, the last full fiscal year of the Biden-Harris administration.

All of these ideas have impacted recruitment. The Army exceeded its 2023 recruitment goal of 55,000 by a mere 300 enlistees. The other service branches posted similar numbers. The number of men volunteering for military service has declined by 35% over the last decade, much of it during the Obama-Biden-Harris years.

Slotkin acknowledged in passing that “there’s issues with recruiting” but felt the Pentagon’s “equity” agenda remains worthwhile, because “we want a diverse force.”

“You inherently build a diverse unit [when] you take the most talented people at each of the skill sets required to succeed,” replied Davidson, “and the unit flourishes.” Unit cohesion and “the ability to shoot, move, and communicate lethal force is what makes our military strong.”

The news comes as the Pentagon has once again failed its audit.

Defense Department Fails Seventh Audit in a Row

On Sunday, the Biden-Harris administration’s Defense Department announced it had failed an audit for the seventh time, failing to account for how it spent its $824 billion budget. Of the 28 components of the Pentagon’s audit, only nine passed with an unmodified opinion; more than half (15 of 28) received a failing report with disclaimers.

Administration figures dismissed claims they were guilty of nonfeasance. “I do not say we failed,” said Michael McCord, the Biden-Harris administration’s undersecretary of Defense comptroller and chief financial officer, last Friday. “We have about half clean opinions; we have half that are not clean opinions. So, if someone had a report card that is half good and half not good, I don’t know that you call the student or the report card a failure.”

A 50% grade is, indeed, a failing grade even under the most generous grading system.

The DOD, which has never passed an audit since they became legally mandated in 2018, is the only major government agency not to pass an audit.

McCord says passing an audit by 2028 is achievable — but not at the DOD’s current performance. “If you draw a trend line … back from when we started, from year one to year seven, I don’t think it’s going to show you’re getting there in time if you don’t continue to pick up the pace,” said McCord.

Concerns have percolated for years about Pentagon accountability. Liberal comedian Jon Stewart broached the topic during an April 2023 interview with Biden administration Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks, calling it a potential sign of “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

“The fact that DOD has not passed an audit is not suggestive of waste, fraud, and abuse. That is completely false right there,” deflected Hicks. “It’s suggestive that we don’t have an accurate inventory of what we have where.”

“So, in my world, that is waste,” replied Stewart.

As Hicks laughed dismissively at his argument, a staid Stewart replied, “I’m not looking to pick a fight with you, but I am surprised that the reaction to these questions is, ‘You don’t know what an audit is, Bucko.’”

The 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires the Pentagon to have a clean audit by 2028. “The fiscal and national security benefits that will come with the Pentagon finally being able to account for all of its assets are literally immeasurable and will continue to be until it gets its financial house in order,” said U.S. Taxpayers for Common Sense. “Congress should help push it over the finish line.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Truth Breeds Trust, Deceit Breeds Destruction

Americans’ trust in mass media has stumbled to 31%, the lowest measurement since Gallup first asked the question in 1972, while those with absolutely no trust in the media has climbed to 36%. Trust in the media is higher among Democrats (54%) than Republicans (12%) and among senior citizens (43%) than those aged 18-29 (26%), but the media is now the least trusted of all civic and political institutions included in the survey.

How could this happen? If you’re reading The Washington Stand, you likely already know. Mass media, as an institution, lost Americans’ trust by behaving less like the neutral arbiters of objective information they claimed to be and more like partisan organs dedicated to getting candidates who shared their ideology elected.

In other words, they lied — or at least significantly misrepresented themselves. If the media were open about their biases and allowed consumers to reach they own conclusions, they might enjoy greater public trust than they do today.

In fact, the media’s problem with accurate reporting was “highlighted this week,” noted Family Research Council Action President Jody Hice on “Washington Watch,” in a “CBS news interview with [Vice President] Kamala Harris and … an interview with [House] Speaker [Mike] Johnson.” On one hand, CBS News faced accusations of selectively editing Harris’ answers, as well as giving her multiple chances to respond to the same question when her first attempt was unsatisfactory. On the other hand, Johnson accused CBS News of selectively cutting out the most persuasive parts of his interview.

While the media may be the worst offender, Americans’ distrust of institutions is not confined to the evening paper. “Trust in our institutions is eroding” more broadly, warned David Closson, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Biblical Worldview, “whether it’s the courts, whether it’s our school system, even the military.”

“Why is that?” Closson asked. “It’s because of decisions that our leaders have made.”

“Thinking of the military,” he continued, “why are recruitment levels so low? Well, think of the woke ideology that’s been introduced into our service branches.” The military is not supposed to be a partisan or ideological entity. Yet servicemembers were subjected to critical race theory trainings, celebration of transgenderism, and DEI performance objectives. Not only was the military drifting away from its critical mission, it was also becoming unmoored from objective reality and truth.

Or, “think about the thousands of service members that were discharged because they didn’t want to get the COVID-19 shot,” Closson added. In fact, public officials in many arenas squandered trust profligately during the COVID pandemic. “Think of all of us that were told to wear masks, and how none of that was actually based on science,” recalled Closson.

Indeed, the brazen lies and arbitrary orders issuing from public institutions during COVID created a “run” on public trust that went beyond just the issues at hand. Backed by the media and powerful government agencies, public health officials demanded that citizens comply with draconian mandates, including stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, vaccine passports, and social distancing farces. These officials traded on their scientific reputation as public health experts, when in fact few to none of the recommendations they issued were based on science.

As a result, Americans jaded by their COVID-era interactions with government are more willing to question the government on unrelated points. If public health officials were willing to lie about the efficacy of the COVID jabs, for example, then why should they be trusted on the rest of the recommended vaccine regimen? This, combined with a wide-open southern border — another example of gaslighting — has led to the resurgence of diseases once on the verge of eradication. Drug companies are now paying for advertisements that aren’t selling new products, but which are simply begging Americans not to turn their backs on longstanding vaccine recommendations. Building trust takes much longer than destroying it.

The collapse of public trust in America holds lessons for Christians to take to heart. “As Christians, we believe in an objective order, right and wrong,” concluded Closson. “And we believe in speaking the truth in love. And, too often, people in positions of power are abusing their authority, and that is eroding trust we have. And that’s not sustainable for any society in the long term.”

Three thousand years ago, David lamented that “Everyone utters lies to his neighbor; with flattering lips and a double heart they speak” (Psalms 12:2). But, rather than giving in to despair, David placed his trust in the Lord. “The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6).

Because God speaks the truth, his children should also be known for their truthfulness. Paul describes how God has given the church pastors and teachers to “equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,” so that we may not be misled “by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Ephesians 4:12, 14-15).

The goal is unity and mutual edification (Ephesians 4:16), but the means are truth and love. Truth fosters trust, but deceit leads to destruction. This holds as true for the church as it does for the society at large. So, rather than be discouraged and disillusioned by the maelstrom of brazen lies swirling through our public discourse, Christians should consider in what ways they are walking in the truth, and how that can contribute to building up the body of Christ.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Critical Race Theory

Just as Karl Marx interpreted all of human history as a fight between the “proletariat” (oppressed) and the “capitalists” (oppressors) using a method I can only call “Illogical Abstractionism,” so also do the “critical race theorists” use a rigid abstraction to divide all of mankind into one of two groups.

Karl Marx had no understanding of history or the time course in human affairs. He never set foot in the situations he wrote about with such stupid certainty. The “revolt of the proletariat” never happened, because the people whose strengths did not include invention of machinery, or founding of factories, (the proletariat) became much more comfortable and wealthier as a result of the existence and work of those whose strengths did include those things (the capitalists). The capitalists provided useful work, and it was an enormous benefit to the workers (proletariat).

Could humanity have managed without refrigerators and automobiles? We did so for millennia. Do you want to return to a world without refrigeration or the other comforts brought to u you thanks to capitalism?

To take abstract theories and apply them with deadly force to human beings does not appear to me to be a viable formula for happiness, or for unchaining anybody from any kind of oppression. In fact, we have history as our guide in judging the result of the abstract theories of Marxism as it was imposed in the Soviet Union. In all places where Marxism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and Socialism have been imposed, the major result is not tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, but millions of corpses.
Where less force has been used, the most benign result of these economic and political systems has been economic stagnation and the blighting of human lives.

At least a few people do well. Not necessarily the people who are so eaten up with the abstract theories that they have decided they must be imposed on everyone, but those who survive the brutal political power struggle—like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and the Kims in North Korea. They live in luxury while people starve and suffer all around them.

Marxists like Patrisse Cullors, the “Black Lives Matter” queen, may hope to remain on top but should remember that the revolution devours its children.

Critical Race Theory’s view of the oppressor (whites) and oppressed (people of color) classes quickly leads to logical contradictions. Where is Barack Obama? He is half “White” on his mother’s side, and half “Black” on his father’s side, whether his father was the elder Obama or Frank Marshall Davis.

So, is half of Barack Obama oppressing the other half? Sounds schizoid, but of course, that’s why we have psychiatrists. The question also arises, which half is which? Does the left half oppress the right? The right side of the brain is not exactly the same as the left half, so right away we run into a problem. Same with the front side fighting the back. There are no eyes in the back of the head, so they are not exactly equal halves. I suppose maybe each cell could line up its mitochondria, and uncurl its chromosomes, and
each divide into half. Obviously crazy, but crazier than dividing society by skin tone?

More conundrums ”Are Arabs people of color?” They enslaved “Black” Africans for centuries. In fact, they bought “Black” people as slaves from other “Black” people in Africa, and sold them to British slave-traders, or took them east to their lands, where they were enslaved. Arabs also enslaved “White” people. Do those “White” people somehow become “Black” because they were oppressed? Do “Black” people who enslaved other “Black” people get transmogrified into “White” people?

Perhaps an easier solution would be for all oppressed people to identify as oppressed victims. It works for gender, so why not for race?

As we see, human beings and productive enterprises are not all that Critical Race Theory, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and Socialism kill. They also kill reason and logic. They kill love and hope. They also try to kill faith in Jesus Christ, whose teachings led William Wilberforce to get rid of the slave trade in the British Empire.

Think about it.

©2024. Dr. Tamzin A. Rosenwasser, M.D. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Voters Are Increasingly Ditching The Democratic Party For The GOP In Crucial Swing State

How Liberal Pollsters Are Recreating The 2016 Wave Of Silent Trump Voters

Tim Walz’s Political Origin Story Is Reportedly Full Of Holes

‘You’re A Huge Liar’: Bill Maher Pans Walz, Harris For ‘Insulting My Intelligence’ During CNN Interview

Video Shows Police Take Down Man Allegedly Attempting To Breach Trump Rally’s Media Area

The NextGen Marxist Movement That Wants to Fundamentally Change America

Some may wonder why conservatives talk so much about “the Left.” Are we overgeneralizing, or is there really an organized movement to tear down and reshape America into a completely different country? The answer is: there is a highly influential movement within the Left that actually is an organized, international, and well-funded Marxist movement that has been on the rise for years.

It started to become mainstream in American universities in 1989 and now runs rampant in our culture through the implementation of critical race theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies. Authors Mike Gonzalez and Katharine Gorka thoroughly researched and exposed the history and organization of the Left in their new, eye-opening book, “NextGen Marxism.”

Thankfully, not only do Gonzalez and Gorka reveal how organized, international, and powerful the Left is, but they also show how powerful and effective passionate citizens — especially parents — have been at stopping it in recent years. They provide straightforward action steps for those of us who love America and its freedoms and want to continue fighting for them on behalf of freedom-loving people around the world.

What Is NextGen Marxism?

NextGen Marxism (or cultural Marxism) is a philosophy implemented by “social justice” warriors (led by Black Lives Matter) through DEI policies that — over the last four years especially — companies and schools are expected to implement. If they don’t, they are labeled as heteronormative, sexist, white supremacist oppressors, and likely to be canceled.

Gonzalez and Gorka explain:

“This book makes the case that the social upheaval we are experiencing in the United States today is the result of a zero-sum view of the world, a world of irreconcilable antagonisms, one in which the open exchange of ideas is replaced by a rigid orthodoxy, in which there is no room for dissent, in which people are reduced to their skin color or sexual orientation. It is a worldview that sees the United States as fundamentally flawed and for which the sole antidote is its destruction and rebuilding.

“The [Black Lives Matter] leaders who shared this view well before they founded BLM made use of [George] Floyd’s tragedy to try to deliver a knockout blow against the US constitutional order in 2020 and were able to convince the managers and leaders of all our top institutions to buy in to the idea that the United States is systematically racist and oppressive, and thus in need of total transformation. It is this phenomenon that accounts for what has happened to American society.”

In The Heritage Foundation’s online forum, “NextGen Marxism: What It Is and How to Combat It,” Gonzalez and Gorka discuss how they discovered that in 1989 (when the Berlin Wall came down and many thought that Marxism and communism were dying), in reality Marxism became mainstream in American universities’ humanities and law departments, CRT was created, and Eric Mann formed his Marxist Labor/Community Strategy Center in Los Angeles. (Several years later, Mann recruited Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of Black Lives Matter.)

Who Are “The Oppressors” and “The Oppressed,” according to Next Gen Marxists?

Today “the oppressors” are the “privileged”: whites, Americans, Israelis, Christians, Jews, heterosexuals, and males, according to NextGen Marxists. “The oppressed” is everyone else: those in the minority based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and those who were once colonized. They claim that Americans cannot work together to solve the supposed fundamental/systemic problems in our country, so they have to fight. They want to bring down the oppressors because they’re the “victimizers.”

From Economic Marxism to Cultural Marxism: “Abolish the Family”

Marxists believe that humankind can be perfected and that utopia can be attained here on earth (whereas Christians know that humans have been sinful since the fall and only will experience paradise in the new heaven and new earth). In order for Marxists to attain utopia, they believe they must tear down norms and traditions, the “trinity of the most monstrous evils”: private property, religion, and marriage. Gonzalez and Gorka write:

“One can draw a straight line from the anti-family, anti-morality position of [Robert] Owen and other utopians and socialists of the 1800s to BLM in 2020, which posted on its website (and subsequently removed following heavy criticism) the goal of destroying the nuclear family: “[W]e disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear-family-structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another.”

In a video that he released in 2023, filmmaker and Florida educator Chris Rufo explained:

“In the late 1980s, a group of writers, including Judith Butler, Gail Rubin, Sandy Stone, and Susan Stryker established the disciplines of queer theory and transgender studies. They argued that gender was a social construct, used to oppress racial and sexual minorities. They denounced the categories of man and woman as false binary that upholds a system of hetero-normativity, the white male heterosexual power structure. These writers made the case that these systems must be ruthlessly deconstructed and turned to dust, and the most visceral, dramatic way to achieve this is transgenderism. If a man can become a woman, if a woman can become a man, they believed the entire structure of creation could be toppled.”

These views espoused by the leftist elite influence America’s schools and culture. The nonprofit Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) writes in its guidelines on comprehensive sex education for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Sex education has the power to spark large-scale social change. SIECUS is not a single-issue organization because sex ed, as SIECUS envisions it, connects and addresses a variety of social issues. Sex ed sits at the nexus of many social justice movements — from LGBTQ rights and reproductive justice to the #MeToo movement and urgent conversations around consent and healthy relationships.” They add, “Controlling the formation of sexual identities through racialized stereotypes and the reproduction of racial and ethnic minority groups is central to effective population controls.”

Over the last 10 years, the Marxist Left has been successful at influencing schools, businesses, and the entertainment industry by making catchphrases such as “racial reckoning,” “marginalized groups,” and “heteronormative” a part of America’s everyday vocabulary. The New York Times columnist Bret Stephens described this as the “great American cultural revolution of the 2010s, in which traditional practices and beliefs — regarding same-sex marriage, sex-segregated bathrooms, personal pronouns, meritocratic ideals, race-blind rules, reverence for patriotic symbols, the rules of romance, the presumption of innocence and the distinction between equality of opportunity and outcome — became, more and more, not just passé, but taboo.”

Americans Are Successfully Pushing Back against Marxism

FRC’s Senior Fellow for Education Studies, Meg Kilganon, told The Washington Stand:

“When the vast majority of universities in America, including Christian and Catholic universities, have adopted ideas and concepts of Marxism that are antithetical to Judeo-Christian western civilization, the teachers, doctors, lawyers, bankers they produce will have been influenced by or will have accepted revolutionary ideals. This will make it very difficult for us to build and maintain organizations and institutions that are not vulnerable to take over. But that is exactly why we must fight to protect what we build and reclaim what has been stolen. The future depends on our devotion to God and his people.”

“Ten Tactics for Patriots”

Gonzalez and Gorka are encouraged by the successes that motivated Americans, including the impact that Family Research Council, Parents Defending Education, and Moms for Liberty have had at fighting back against NextGen Marxists. The Marxists’ “ideas must be exposed for the lies they are, their utopia as nothing more than a formula for tyranny and suffering.” They offer “Ten Tactics for Patriots”:

  1. Expose
  2. Network
  3. Follow the money
  4. Live within the truth
  5. Vote with your wallet
  6. Engage
  7. Show up
  8. Play the long game
  9. Focus internationally, nationally, and locally
  10. Reclaim the culture

If We Believe That All Humans Are Created in the Image of God, We Should Fight Marxism

Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement, Joseph Backholm, told TWS:

“From a biblical perspective, NextGen Marxism as with old Marxism, is born out of a rejection of the idea that we are created in the image of God. If the fact that we are all created in the image of God is the most important thing about us, it’s something we share in common with every other person we ever encounter. That idea is inherently equalizing and unifying.

“But if we reject that as the basis of our identity, we root our identity in superficial things like our class, race, sexual proclivities, sex, intelligence, or capacity. Once we do that, the most important thing about me is something that puts me at odds with many of the people around me. After all, if we are not created equal, then we are not equal. Just look around, we are significantly different, and human pride tempts us to use those differences to consider ourselves better than others. Marxism correctly identifies the fact that people are different and those differences lead to exploitation and abuse, but the gospel provides the only solution because it provides a basis for equality.”

Thankfully, we have leaders in the highest levels of the federal government that recognize the severe threat that NextGen Marxism poses to our country. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) recently told “Fox & Friends” cohost, Brian Kilmeade:

“I do have a great reverence for this country and for our great experiment in self-governance. And you know, we’re only going to be 248 years old on July 4th. We don’t know how long a constitutional republic like ours can last. The Founders didn’t know, but they gave us their advice on how to preserve it. And what we have to do every day here is defend those founding principles so that we can preserve them, so that we can pass along liberty, opportunity, and security for the next generation.”

He went on to say:

“There are a rising number of people who don’t appreciate the founding principles of the country and many of them want to trade it in for something else. I mean, we have elected members of Congress who would prefer that we be some sort of European-style socialist utopia or something that’s Marxism that leads to all sorts of evil ends, and so we’re in a battle right now not just between Republicans and Democrats Brian, but between two competing visions, two competing worldviews, for who we are as Americans and how we’re going to preserve this great republic.”

Thanks to the work of Gonzalez and Gorka and many others, more and more Americans are waking up to NextGen Marxism, fighting against it, and are working to protect the democratic republic that America’s founders established. As President Abraham Lincoln said, the Founders “meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.”

AUTHOR

Kathy Athearn

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Pride Month’ is a Myth Based Upon a Lie and It’s Not Okay

Report: A ‘Dramatic Shift’ in American Worldview Leads to ‘The New Morality’ Dominating Culture

RELATED VIDEO: Boston Mayor Michelle Wu Backs Do-Not-Prosecute List for Many Crimes | TIPPING POINT

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Biden, Democrats ‘Intent on Destroying Our Military’ through DEI, CRT: Congressman

President Joe Biden’s insistence that the military indoctrinate soldiers in left-wing orthodoxy by demanding a record-setting budget for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) proves he is “intent on destroying our military by dividing us further,” a congressman says.

The Biden administration’s Department of Defense has requested $114.7 million to teach “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) to the U.S. armed forces and deeply embed “DEIA values, objectives, and considerations in how we do business and execute our missions.” The budget request in the pending National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) shows the budget dedicated to teaching the race-based ideology in the U.S. military increasing from $68 million in 2022 to $86.5 million in the last fiscal year.

Democrats, who have often been accused of transforming the military from an elite fighting force into an experiment for social engineering, seem to want to transform the U.S. military into a safe space, according to the Biden administration’s official Fiscal Year 2024 budget request. “The Department is committed to building a safe environment to serve. This includes fully embracing a diversity of backgrounds, experience, and thought to build unity within the DoD,” says the document, released in March.

It notes the Biden administration “continues its efforts to eliminate” alleged “extremism, and discrimination” in the military. “Furthering DEI” will allow the administration to create a purported “climate of inclusion that supports diversity … free from problematic behaviors.”

DEI teaches “principles that are critical … They are not simply about building a workforce; they are the cornerstone of the human element of warfighting and national security.”

The document mentions the term “diversity” 18 times.

The Defense Department’s more recent Strategic Management Plan (SMP) for Fiscal Years 2022 – 2026 mentions “diversity” 27 times.

The Democrats’ plan to foist DEI and other left-wing orthodoxies on the armed services is “doing nothing but divide us in the military, dividing our nation,” said Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.”

“This administration and the Obama administration before them are intent on destroying our military by dividing us further,” Alford told Perkins. The refusal of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to consider House amendments stripping left-wing ideological funding from the NDAA is “part of this master plan to keep this DEI and the CRT [critical race theory] going in the military after we have offered successfully amendment after amendment to get rid of these programs.”

House Republicans’ version of the NDAA, which funds U.S. military priorities for the coming year, would “take out the critical race theory and DEI stuff” in order “to limit the abuses and the Woke” agenda the Biden administration wants to push on the military, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told Perkins on Wednesday.

Both congressmen emphasized the fact that divisive left-wing ideology that reduces all transactions to “power” based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity corrodes military unit cohesion and retards readiness. “There is a reason that they wear uniforms in the military, that is to make people uniform and to concentrate on skin color or what gender they use,” said Alford. “The Communist Chinese simply don’t care” about these concepts, as they prepare for a potential showdown with the U.S. Navy in the South Pacific in a potential clash over Taiwan.

Roy agreed that Biden’s single-minded focus on promoting DEI and “abortion tourism” represents a distraction” from the military’s purpose.

The budget request drew sharp backlash from Republican House members this week. “The Biden admin’s focus on progressivism over warfighting continues to exacerbate the military recruiting crisis and calls into question our level of military preparedness,” said Republicans on the House Oversight Committee. “Does Joe Biden want the military to be a lethal fighting force or a clown show?” asked Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on X.

The Biden administration has long signaled its commitment to DEI and critical race theory, an ideology created by professed Marxists in the 1970s that has become the dominant organizing principle of U.S. institutions after the 2020 death of George Floyd. In June 2021, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley told Congress he read CRT books, because “I want to understand white rage.”

But critics say the Biden administration’s focus on DEI/CRT, the use of preferred pronouns, the deadly U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the continued threat of intervening in wars of choice such as Ukraine have led to a military recruitment emergency. Milley’s branch of the armed services, the U.S. Army, fell 10,000 soldiers short of its 65,000 soldier recruitment goal in the past year.

“I would imagine we’ll settle on something lower than 65,000 for 2024,” admitted Christine Wormuth, Biden’s secretary of the Army.

“We need our military laser-focused on defending the nation, not on woke training seminars,” said Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.). “Congress can’t continue to rubber-stamp this superfluous spending.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: U.S. Police Face Hiring Crisis: ‘I’m Drowning in This Politically-Charged Atmosphere’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘White Rage’: General Mark Milley Leaves Behind A Checkered Legacy

  • Gen. Mark Milley retired Friday after serving four years as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under both presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
  • Some view Milley as an upstanding adviser and protector of democracy, but many conservative leaders deride him as a political actor too willing to make his views on controversial progressive policies known.
  • “It’s his nature to pitch into a fight if he sees one going on,” retired Lt. Col. Thomas Spoehr, who served with Milley in the Pentagon, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Gen. Mark Milley retired Friday after serving four years as the top military adviser to the president and the secretary of defense. He is perhaps the most well-known individual to ever serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a development that seems likely to color his legacy for years to come.

Milley’s term was punctuated with crises: the Afghanistan withdrawal, nuclear tensions with Iran and North Korea, defense of Taiwan and Ukraine against would-be conquerors, and domestic turmoil. While some venerate Milley as an American hero who shepherded democracy through a chaotic administration turnover, many conservatives deride him as a political actor who obediently went along with the Biden administration’s progressive agenda.

“General Milley destroyed the U.S military’s 250-year tradition of staying above partisan politics. That’s his legacy,” Republican Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, a Navy reserve veteran who serves on the Armed Services Committee and leads the House Anti-Woke Caucus, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Milley was a brash, combative former special operations officer with strong opinions informed by his four decades of experience in the Army and his deep affinity for history and literature, retired Lt. Col. Thomas Spoehr, who served with Milley in the Pentagon, told the DCNF.

Former President Donald Trump, who appointed Milley as chairman, is thought to have appreciated Milley’s machismo and appearance as the general’s general.

“​​He kind of really seemed to have a warrior’s mentality. He was clearly an officer who wasn’t afraid to say what he thought. Or so it seemed,” retired Maj. Chase Spears, a former Army public affairs officer, told the DCNF.

The DCNF spoke to multiple current and former officials who served alongside Milley as well as several military experts to form a fuller picture of the former chairman’s tenure. Milley, through a spokesperson, did not respond to questions.

As chairman, Milley’s job was to advise the president and the secretary of defense on national-security threats and operations abroad and maintain military communication channels with friends and adversaries.

“Sometimes, that advice would be misinterpreted or purposely used by others for political purposes despite trying very hard to avoid politics,” Col. Dave Butler, Milley’s spokesman, told the DCNF.

Yet, Milley has shown willingness to delve into political fights and mud sling when it suits him, experts told the DCNF. In his farewell speech, Milley said the military does not answer to a “wannabe dictator,” which many interpreted as a jab at former President Trump.

In a June 2021 House Armed Services Committee hearing, Milley gave a full-throated defense of the Biden administration’s budget request for funding to purge “domestic extremists” from its ranks.

“There is no room in uniform for anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the values of the United States of America,” Milley said during the hearing.

Milley himself seemed to be aware of how he was being perceived. Speaking in November 2021 before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Milley lamented that he had “become a lightning rod for the politicization of the military,” targeted by both Republicans and Democrats, the transcript shows.

“It’s his nature to pitch into a fight if he sees one going on,” Spoehr told the DCNF.

Some congressional Democrats criticized Milley for defending the strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani, leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force in January 2020, according to CNN.

Then, Milley was blasted by Republicans when he apologized for having joined Trump in a march across Lafayette Square after the square had been cleared of people protesting the killing of George Floyd in 2020. Milley said he did not mean to give the impression the military had taken sides in a political fight.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, called Milley’s apology video “self-serving.”

The apology proved the first major incident in a trend lasting for the next four years of his career through two politically opposed administrations. Milley would often project disdain for interfering in politics, but then make exceptions in crisis situations or to defend core military values.

Milley “tried his hardest to actively stay out of politics,” but if extraordinary events demanded he step in, “so be it,” an unnamed official told CNN in July 2021.

Perhaps Milley’s most politically perilous moment came after he admitted holding two calls with his Chinese counterpart in October 2020 and January 2021 during the tumultuous administration handover. Lawmakers hammered Milley for his actions months later during a September 2021 hearing. Milley defended his actions as apolitical and in the interest of national security.

“I firmly believe in civilian control of the military as a bedrock principle essential to the health of this republic, and I am committed to ensuring the military stays clear of domestic politics,” he told Congress.

This was a refrain he would reiterate time and time again.

“He’s been saying those things for as long as I’ve known him. And I do think he’s true to those words,” said Spoehr.

‘A Tight Rope To Walk’

Others have pointed to Milley’s willingness to defend social policies in the military and to comment on broader trends in society as undermining the very norm of the apolitical military he claims to embrace.

Milley showed himself “willing to wade into topics that many including myself would argue are beyond the scope of the Joint Chiefs,” said Spears, the former Army public affairs officer.

In the days following the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, Milley took it upon himself to “land the plane” as he and other leading national security officials worried the former president was displaying increasingly erratic behavior, Bob Woodward and Robert Costa reported in their book “Peril.”

Woodward and Costa portray Milley’s acts — including convening a “secret” meeting of senior military officials involved in nuclear command and control on Jan. 8 to review the procedures for launching nuclear weapons — as orchestrating the peaceful transfer of power and restraining a rogue president from triggering an international crisis.

In November 2021, Milley told House lawmakers about a January 8 phone call he had with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who he described as “quite animated.” During this call, Milley sought to “assure her” of the security of the nation’s nuclear weapons systems.

“It’s clearly recognized that the President and only the President can authorize the launch,” Milley said, “so he, alone, can authorize the launch, but he doesn’t launch alone.”

“Best practice suggests that ‘regular order is your friend,’” Peter Feaver, an expert in civil-military relations who previously taught Milley, told the DCNF. But the military has no role in the democratic transfer of power from one administration to the next, Feaver said.

Many in the media framed Milley’s actions in the latter days of the Trump administration as heroic measures taken to safeguard democracy. Milley “saved the constitution” from Trump, The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in a glowing Nov. 2023 profile.

But, the savior of American democracy is not how Milley wants to be remembered.

“He would prefer not to be portrayed in that light,” a senior military official close to Milley told the DCNF.

While the chairman does not have command authority, he does serve at the top of the “chain of communication.” Some experts have argued this can give the chairman undue influence on policymaking.

“There’s a tightrope to walk here,” Bret Devereaux, a military historian who teaches at North Carolina State University, told the DCNF. “He’s expected to speak for the military as an institution and while, as an institution, the military does not have politics, it does have policies. In his capacity as an advisor, he advocates for certain policies.”

Milley repeatedly considered resigning during the Trump administration, according to reports. He felt Trump was “doing great and irreparable harm” to America and “ruining the international order,” according to a copy of the resignation letter included in Susan Glasser and Peter Baker’s “The Divider.” But resigning in protest of a legal policy with which he disagreed would be the “consummate political act,” Milley said, and he never submitted the letter.

“Milley concluded that difficult times do not release him from a duty to uphold those norms and traditions,” said Devereaux. “Milley was put in a situation where those two parts of the oath might conflict. He might have to say that the president himself was the constitutional danger.”

In the end, Milley testified to Congress that he never received an illegal order. Milley also admitted to speaking with reporters, including Woodward, who were working on books about the Trump administration. The former joint chief also said he spoke to Leonning and Rucker, for their book, and to Michael Bender, for his.

Milley’s expansive media presence “comes with some clear downsides since it means he becomes part of many stories that he probably could have stayed out of, or at least minimized,” Feaver explained.

“I don’t think that served him well. I don’t think it served the country well, for him to be talking to those guys,” Spoehr added.

‘White Rage’

Milley may also not have been served well by his outspoken defense of “woke” Biden administration defense policies and his willingness to wade into the culture wars.

“I want to understand white rage, and I’m white, and I want to understand it,” Milley said, deflecting criticism of Critical Race Theory being taught at West Point, during the June 2021 hearing. “What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America? What caused that? I want to find that out.”

Republicans in Congress who see CRT as antithetical to American values derided Milley.

“That was a partisan political question, framed in a particularly partisan way, and so he could have and should have deferred to the political figure on his side of the hearing table,” Feaver said.

In a CNN interview on Sept. 17, just weeks before his retirement, Milley pushed back against assertions the military had gone “woke.”

“The military is a lot of things, but woke, it’s not,” Milley said. “So I take exception to that. I think that people say those things for reasons that are their own reasons, but it’s not true. It’s not accurate. It’s not a broad-brush description of the U.S. military as it exists today.”

When Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville held up military promotions in opposition to a new Pentagon policy facilitating abortion access, Milley elaborated on the detrimental impact it could have on military readiness. But he declined to comment on the policy itself.

“I don’t want to enter into the whole discussion of abortion and the culture war. I’m staying out of all that,” he told the Washington Post.

The accusation of wokeness “certainly wasn’t something that we expected to have to deal with,” Butler, Milley’s spokesman, told the DCNF. “We did not expect that to be a new issue brought up by Congress or anybody else.”

Nor does the chairman have time to spend focusing or advising on internal personnel policies when he has global crises to attend to, Butler said. Butler estimated Milley spent 13 hours each day on external threats and operations, and maybe one on other issues.

‘Some Very Difficult Dives’

Just two months after the “white rage” comment, Milley would be dealing with a catastrophe abroad.

Afghanistan collapsed amid the U.S. military withdrawal much faster than administration analysts expected. Both Trump and Biden sought to wipe out the military’s footprint in Afghanistan and end the war. But they planned for the Afghan army to resist the Taliban. It didn’t.

At the September 2021 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Milley echoed Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina in calling the Afghanistan evacuation “a logistical success, but a strategic failure.”

Milley did not explicitly describe conversations with the presidents, but he made it easy to deduce both Biden and Trump had resisted his “best military advice” to maintain a contingent of American troops in Afghanistan. Military leaders’ advice to Biden in the lead-up to the withdrawal had not changed from the previous fall, and that his opinion was to keep 2,500 troops in country. He had also pushed back on a signed order directing a full withdrawal by January, according to his testimony. Trump rescinded the order.

“Based on my advice and the advice of the commanders, then-Secretary of Defense Esper submitted a memorandum on 9 November, recommending to maintain U.S. forces at a level between about 2,500 and 4,500 in Afghanistan until conditions were met for further reductions,” Milley said in his testimony.

A national security official close to the situation told the DCNF that Milley repeatedly warned Biden “of the risks of a poorly-timed withdrawal by recounting details from the chaotic 1975 Saigon evacuation.” in the hours before the president announced his decision in April 2021.

Likewise, Milley saw Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine coming, The New York Times reported.  He is blunt and level-headed in his assessment of Russia’s capabilities and Ukraine’s challenges — and he has often proven correct, according to Spoehr.

“He’s been a very good chairman,” Spoehr told the DCNF.

As Milley closed out his career, high-level military communication between the U.S. and China, America’s greatest competitor, had been stalled for more than a year. The war between Russia and Ukraine shows no signs of abating. And his successor, Air Force Gen. C.Q. Brown, faces the same culture war pressures.

Military leaders should be judged like Olympic divers, “taking into account the difficulty of the dive they have to do,” Feaver told DCNF. “Circumstances have conspired to force General Milley to do some very difficult dives. Even though he has kicked up some splash that does not necessarily mean he has under-performed.”

AUTHOR

MICAELA BURROW

Investigative reporter, defense.

RELATED ARTICLE: China Is On The Fast Track To Wage War Against Taiwan — And The US, Experts Say

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Florida Law Defunds DEI in Higher Ed

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) on Monday signed three bills to excise woke ideology from state higher education institutions and promote productive education goals.

SB 266 will “prohibit institutions from spending federal or state dollars on discriminatory initiatives, such as so called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)’ programs,” the governor’s office summarized in a press release. HB 931 will “prohibit Florida’s public institutions from requiring students, faculty, or staff to take political loyalty tests,” and SB 240 will “expand workforce education programs and increase access to career and technical education (CTE) programs.”

The first of these laws doubles down on Florida Republicans’ efforts last year to crack down on woke ideology in institutions of higher education. SB 266 forbids “a Florida College System institution” to “expend any state or federal funds” on “any programs or campus activities that: (a) Violate s. 1000.05; or (b) Advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion [DEI], or promote or engage in political or social activism.”

The first prohibited category (violations of s. 1000.05) refers to a section of Florida law dealing with discrimination in K-20 public education, which the Individual Freedom Act (a.k.a. Stop Woke Act) modified last year. The Stop Woke Act added paragraphs stating that “it shall constitute discrimination … to subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe any of the following concepts.” The list that followed included foundational tenets of critical race theory (CRT) and other leftist ideologies, such as “A person’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.”

In October, a federal judge in the Northern District of Florida temporarily blocked Florida officials from enforcing this section of the law, on the grounds that it ran afoul of First Amendment Freedom of Speech.

Following this legal setback, Florida Republicans devised a different approach to achieve their original objective — eliminating woke programming on academic campuses. It began with Governor DeSantis ordering all state universities and colleges “to provide a comprehensive list of all staff, programs, and campus activities” related to DEI or CRT. Within days, the same parties who had challenged the Stop Woke Act complained that Florida was violating the judge’s preliminary injunction against portions of the Stop Woke Act. However, the judge denied the motion on the grounds that the injunction had not been violated.

Perhaps in an effort to avoid another free speech challenge, SB 266 does provide an exception from its DEI funding ban for “student fees to support student-led organizations” and “use of institution facilities by student-led organizations.”

SB 266 also enacted other DeSantis objectives for higher education. It directed the Board of Governors to review the mission and curriculum of each university, gave university presidents (as opposed to less accountable academic departments) final authority over hiring full-time faculty, and prohibited left-wing loyalty pledges as a condition of employment. These changes are among those DeSantis set forth in his January 31 education agenda “to focus on promoting academic excellence, the pursuit of truth, and to give students the foundation so they can think for themselves.”

In addition to SB 266, DeSantis also signed HB 931, which states that “a public institution of higher education may not … Require or solicit a person to complete a political loyalty test as a condition of employment or admission into, or promotion within, such institution.” It also bars universities and colleges from giving “preferential consideration” for employment, admission, or promotion based on “an opinion or actions in support of: a. A partisan, a political, or an ideological set of beliefs; or b. Another person or group of persons based on the person’s or group’s race or ethnicity or support of an ideology or movement … that promotes the differential treatment of a person or a group of persons based on race or ethnicity.” This prohibition encompasses university diversity statements (not academic diversity but identity diversity), which require university staff to affirm a DEI agenda as a condition of employment.

While DeSantis’ educational initiatives make headlines for countering woke ideology, they reflect a fundamentally positive vision, not one that is negative or contrarian. Rather, the goal is to remove politics from education, thus “empowering students, parents, and educators to focus on creating opportunities for our younger generations,” said DeSantis. This mission, to prepare young people to be productive members of society, is reflected in the third bill DeSantis signed, SB 240, which will “expand workforce education programs and increase access to career and technical education (CTE) programs.”

Unsurprisingly, left-wing activists like the ACLU of Florida dislike Florida’s higher education reforms, which demolish the barriers protecting left-wing academic hegemony. But every significant reform will face opposition. Ray Rodrigues, Chancellor of the State University System of Florida, said the legislature and DeSantis were “re-orienting our distinguished universities to missions that treat people as individuals, that reward merit and achievement, and center on recruiting excellent faculty while creating the talent pipeline necessary to fuel Florida’s future.” Making the right enemies is worth it, for the right reasons.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is D.E.I. Going to D-I-E?

University of North Carolina med school renounces its own DEI framework

Florida Officially Bans Mutilation of Minors in Name of ‘Gender Affirmation’

How equality law grooms children for harm

RELATED VIDEO: Dr. Taylor Marshall: The LGBT Crowd is Not Oppressed- They’ve Conquered Nearly All of Society

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Critical Race Theory And Gender Ideology Are Ubiquitous In U.S. Schools, New Study Shows

Last month, the Manhattan Institute released a groundbreaking new study, titled “School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education.”

The study presents survey results of a representative sample of over 1,500 Americans aged 18-20. Their primary finding was that “Ninety-three percent of American 18- to 20-year-olds said that they had heard about at least one of eight [Critical Social Justice] concepts from a teacher or other adult at school, including ‘white privilege,’ ‘systemic racism,’ ‘patriarchy,’ or the idea that gender is a choice unrelated to biological sex.'” Also included on the list of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) concepts are the ideas that discrimination is primarily responsible for disparities, that America is built on stolen land, and that there are many genders.

This study is significant because, over the past two years, debates about education policy have occupied an increasingly prominent place in political discourse. In particular, ideas on the proper way to instruct on subjects like race and gender have been hotly disputed. Backlash over perceived indoctrination into extreme theories of race and gender — as well as the exclusion of parents in the educational process — have decided major elections in some states.

However, up to this point, there has been a glaring issue with these debates: they have been largely based on anecdotes. The findings of the Manhattan Institute’s study are important because they represent the first time we have been able to put some real numbers to phenomena that many have only observed anecdotally.

Thus, we should examine the findings in more detail to find out how we ought to move forward.

Ever since journalists such as Christopher Rufo and Bari Weiss began highlighting examples of “institutional capture” of the education system by politically-driven actors, skeptics have often claimed that CSJ concepts are not being taught in schools. This assertion has been promoted by the leaders of teacher unions, cable news hosts, and politicians.

The issue is, and this study confirms, that their claim is simply not accurate. As noted, 93 percent of respondents affirmed that they had heard at least one CSJ concept “from a teacher or other adult at school.”

If these concepts were being introduced as one perspective among many, then there would be no issue with the fact students have been exposed to them. After all, if one wishes to give students an accurate picture of the competing visions of society, then it would be dishonest to exclude all CSJ concepts.

The issue is that the Manhattan Institute study confirms that K-12 schools are effectively indoctrinating students into radical — revolutionary, even — political ideologies. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said that, when taught, “These concepts are introduced as the only respectable approach to race, gender, and sexuality in American society.” This means various perspectives were not weighed against one another, but rather kids are being led to believe that only one view is legitimate. When one considers how impressionable K-12 students are, along with the fact teachers have a fair amount of sway over the way their students think, the issue here becomes apparent.

Click here for Deltapoll Survey results.

This is also concerning because CSJ presents a vision of America that is at best unorthodox and at worst destructive. In Critical Race Theory: An Introduction — which is among the most influential textbooks on the subject — the authors write that “critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” In other words, critical race theory opposes the basic tenants of the American founding. Ibram X. Kendi, a leading “anti-racist” author — whose writing has been brought into many schools — has written that “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

There is simply no justification for schools across the country to present this as the only viable perspective.

The study demonstrates that the prevalence of CSJ concepts — and the way they have been introduced — is having real effects on students. Data presented in the report show that the more CSJ concepts kids have been exposed to, the more left-wing they are in their politics — as measured in a variety of ways in the study.

It should be clear that this approach is an improper use of the state — which should be educating, not indoctrinating, students. It not only gives children an incomplete picture of the world around them, but also creates a civil society that is more prone to intolerance of dissenting views. After all, if one was led to believe only one perspective was legitimate, then it is natural to then believe that it is important to shut out all “illegitimate” views — both socially and maybe even legislatively. This is concerning because pluralism and tolerance are indispensable to a healthy and vibrant political culture.

Critics of the educational approach detailed above often assume their enemies are the traditional public school system and public sector teacher unions. One thing that this study demonstrates, though, is that this problem is by no means exclusive to traditional public schools. Rather, this type of instruction on race and gender has made its way into private schools, parochial schools, and even homeschools; indeed, CSJ was shown to be just as prevalent in private schools as it is in public schools.

This observation is why the title of the study is “School Choice Is Not Enough.” The authors recognize that this issue is not relegated to traditional public schools, which means that advancing choice and privatization will not make the problem go away.

This is true, but it does not mean school choice should not still be promoted. After all, studies show that school choice programs are associated with better educational outcomes. Additionally, public sector teacher unions inflict considerable damage on the traditional public school system — and, by extension, the children in those schools. This means that we should recognize school choice as beneficial, but not as a panacea.

The fact that these ideas are being taught everywhere — not just in traditional public schools — suggests a deeper problem than is often assumed. It is not just about the traditional public school structure, but about an ascendant culture that — much like the instruction outlined — assumes that CSJ concepts are the capital-T Truth. Thus, in order to fight against it, and remove indoctrination in schools, it is important to address it on a cultural level. Private and parochial schools will only stop if, culturally, the tide turns decisively away from these ideas and towards those that have traditionally characterized American philosophy — ideas of liberty, virtue, pluralism, and meritocracy.

The significant exception to this “cultural argument” is when it comes to public schools. The reason is simple: the government decides the curriculum. Taking action on this front would therefore be a way of correcting government overreach. In particular, impartiality laws, curriculum transparency laws, and audits of existing instruction and employee training — as the study recommends — are reasonable measures to ensure the government is not being used as a tool of indoctrination for CSJ.

This would hopefully, in turn, help shift the culture towards a more balanced classroom in all schools.

This issue has been brewing for a long time, but only now do we have the data to back up our suspicions and anecdotal understanding. This study represents a comprehensive statement of the problem.

Now it is our job to fight back.

AUTHOR

Jack Elbaum

Jack Elbaum was a Hazlitt Writing Fellow at FEE and is a junior at George Washington University. His writing has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The New York Post, and the Washington Examiner. You can contact him at jackelbaum16@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @Jack_Elbaum.

RELATED TWEETS:

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Department of Critical Race Theory Neologisms: ‘To Racialize’

In an article on the website of the Canadian Public Health Agency entitled “Inequalities in Health of Racialized Adults in Canada,” one reads that “populations who are racialized in relation to a ‘white’ or non-racialized social group experience stressors including inter-personal and systemic discrimination throughout the life course,” that “racialized adults are less likely to feel that their health is either good or excellent,” and that “racialized Canadians are disproportionately impacted by inequalities in safe and stable housing.”)

As a linguist, I was struck by the repeated use in this article of a new past participle that I was not familiar with — “racialized”. I began to wonder about the implications underlying the use of this verb form, which implies the existence of a verb “to racialize”.

So I looked on the internet to see if I could find other forms of this verb. My search turned up examples such as the following: “Coleman Hughes on how America racializes its citizens”; “Not all racializers do the same thing when they racialize”; “Discourses that are racializing and othering muslim*women [sic] can sustain hegemony, by disguising their particularities”.

The past participle of this verb therefore represents the person or group to which it is applied as having undergone the action of being racialized by some agent who is represented as a racializer. This leads to the question as to who is doing the racializing. A further search on the internet showed that the answer to that question is invariably the same — whites.

Behind that little past participle “racialized”, consequently, there lies a whole worldview which sees the relations between different races in terms of racializer/racialized or, in other terms, oppressor/oppressed. As Robin Diangelo states in White Fragility, “white people raised in Western societies are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview because it is the bedrock of our society and its institutions,” and this worldview “brings into existence whites and nonwhites, full persons and subpersons.”

The name of this worldview is Critical Race Theory, and its underpinnings are essentially Marxist. It divides the world into two opposing power groups: the oppressor (capitalists/whites) and the oppressed (workers/nonwhites). Since everything is governed by power-relations in this system, the only recourse of the oppressed is to use whatever power they have to rise up against the oppressor and throw off his yoke: as one of the foundational thinkers of Critical Race Theory, Ibram X. Kendi, has written in How to be an Antiracist: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

One doesn’t have to be a linguist in order to see that the division of the world into racializer/racialized is a recipe for conflict and violence, and not for the resolution of unjust discrimination.

As Edward Feser points out in his book All One in Christ. A Catholic Critique of Racism and Critical Race Theory, “if one were to replace expressions like ‘whiteness’ and ‘white supremacy’ with terms such as ‘Jewishness’ and ‘Jewry’, it would be difficult to distinguish Critical Race Theory literature from the ugly propaganda of Nazism. Its claims are comparably extreme, even if it has not (yet?) led to comparable levels of violence.” Feser advocates that the way forward entails “not Critical Race Theory’s cancel culture and hermeneutics of suspicion, but rational discourse and mutual understanding. Not the demonization of any race as inherently oppressive, but solidarity and mutual respect.”

Amen to that.

AUTHOR

Patrick Duffley

Patrick Duffley is Professor of English Linguistics at Université Laval, in Canada. More by Patrick Duffley

RELATED ARTICLE: Norway to study if white paint is racist – Audio

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.