CONGRESS DRAFTS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND WILL SEEK TO HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP REMOVED BEFORE THE INAUGURATION OF JOE BIDEN ON THE 20TH

Echoing threats she made on Thursday, Pelosi on Friday said that Congress would move forward with new articles of impeachment if Pence did not act — comparing Trump’s acts to those of President Nixon in the Watergate scandal. “Yesterday, Leader Schumer and I placed a call with Vice President Pence, and we still hope to hear from him as soon as possible with a positive answer as to whether he and the Cabinet will honor their oath to the Constitution and the American people,” she wrote. “If the President does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action,” she warned. It’s unclear if Pence and his cabinet will take such a dramatic and destabilizing act in the final two weeks of Trump’s presidency. 

democrat-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-second-articles-of-impeachment-donald-trump

by Geoffrey GriderJanuary 8, 2021

Articles of impeachment accusing President Trump of “inciting an insurrection” have been drafted by Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats in the wake of the deadly Capitol siege and will be formally introduced on Monday, according to reports.

Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats will go back to the well one more time to impeach President Trump, hoping this time they have popular sentiment on their side. For the past 4 years, they have done nothing but object, obstruct, hinder and delay President Trump, failing in every one the wars they started to destroy him. This time they are sure have they him backed into a corner, and are now about to pounce. Careful, Nancy…sic semper tyrannus.

“But the LORD shall endure for ever: he hath prepared his throne for judgment.” Psalm 9:7 (KJB)

Politics is a brutally demonic environment, one where you sell whatever is left of your conscience, if you still have one, on a daily basis to make the next slimey deal with the various liars and cheats you work with. A person may go into politics as a Christian, but so far none have ever come out the other side as a Christian with their testimony for the Lord intact. Not a single one. Can you imagine at the next session of Congress, someone stands up and says “I will not vote for this legislation, the Lord Jesus would never approve of it.”, and then not back down when they apply the pressure for you to compromise? Show me that person, you can’t do it.

The dream of the Democrats was never about “beating Trump”, it has always been about seeing him humiliated and dragged out in handcuffs. Starting Monday, chief demon of the House Nancy Pelosi will use every dirty trick at her disposal, call in every favored owed, and will threaten and hiss until she gets her way. She will likely get what her black heart craves, and with it, the last vestiges of freedom, decency and fairness in America will be flushed down the drain. I have never been more ashamed to be an American than I am right now watching the evil that has taken over this country.

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.”1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 (KJB)

You can hate Trump all you want, but at least he tried to stop the madness, and for a short season was successful. Thank you for your service, Mr. PresidentI voted for you in 2016, I voted for you in 2020, and now I will retire my vote and withdraw from this pusillanimous disgrace called the Republican party. They are not one bit better than the Democrats, may the Lord judge swiftly and bring about His Isaiah 28 ‘strange act’ soon.

Articles of impeachment sparked by Capitol siege drafted by House Democrats

FROM THE NY POST: The document, which has over 150 sponsors, accuses Trump of violating his Constitutional duty by encouraging a crowd of his supporters to fight the vote to certify Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory.

“IN ALL OF THIS, PRESIDENT TRUMP GRAVELY ENDANGERED THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. HE THREATENED THE INTEGRITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM, INTERFERED WITH THE PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER, AND IMPERILED A COORDINATE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT,” THE DOCUMENT READS.

It is the second time that Congress has moved to impeach Trump. He was impeached by acquitted at trial by the Senate last year after he was accused of improperly pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden.

No president has ever been impeached twice.

Dozens of Democrats and a growing number of Republicans have called on Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump, claiming he is no longer fit for office.

Echoing threats she made on Thursday, Pelosi on Friday said that Congress would move forward with new articles of impeachment if Pence did not act — comparing Trump’s acts to those of President Nixon in the Watergate scandal.

“YESTERDAY, LEADER SCHUMER AND I PLACED A CALL WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, AND WE STILL HOPE TO HEAR FROM HIM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WITH A POSITIVE ANSWER AS TO WHETHER HE AND THE CABINET WILL HONOR THEIR OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,” SHE WROTE. “IF THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT LEAVE OFFICE IMMINENTLY AND WILLINGLY, THE CONGRESS WILL PROCEED WITH OUR ACTION,” SHE WARNED.

It’s unclear if Pence and his cabinet will take such a dramatic and destabilizing act in the final two weeks of Trump’s presidency.

At least two cabinet members and multiple staff members have quit in protest over the president’s handling of the deadly riot which killed five people. White House senior counselor Hope Hicks is also reportedly heading for the exits.

A growing number of Democrats, including House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) have announced their support for impeaching Trump as early as next week, but any move is likely to follow the same fate as the impeachment of Trump last year over the Ukraine pressure scandal

Israels Trouble

THE COMING EVENT OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION AS FOUND IN THE TIME OF JACOB’S TROUBLE EXPLAINED IN GLORIOUS DETAIL

When God decided to test Job, and thoroughly purge him of his self-righteousness, He used a very unlikely means by which to accomplish it. God sent Satan to put Job through a fiery trial that brought him certainly to the end of himself, and nearly to the end of his life. In the time of Jacob’s trouble, God will again send Satan against His chosen people the Jews, and in that time obedience to God will absolutely come at the cost of your own life. 

time-of-jacobs-trouble-great-tribulation-antichrist-selah-petra

by Geoffrey GriderNovember 10, 2018

God’s covenant with Israel and the Jews is eternal, and cannot be broken, and God is not going to leave them in their fallen condition. The time of Jacob’s trouble is going to be the means by which He restores His chosen people back to a right relationship to Himself.

There is a time coming where God will execute judgment over the whole world, and it will be a literal, physical and visible display of His power on a world that has rejected Him. It is discussed in great and graphic detail in both the Old and New Testaments, and there is more prophecy related to this time period than any other in the whole of the Bible.

It is the time of Jacob’s trouble. Who’s trouble? Jacob’s trouble! And what was Jacob’s name changed to? Israel.

“Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.”Jeremiah 30:7 (KJV)

There is so much information on this subject that putting it into a single article like this is a daunting task. No matter what I write, I will be leaving out so many other details. But the Lord has put on my heart in my personal Bible study over the last few weeks to talk about this, so I have every confidence that the Holy Spirit will say what needs to be said on this topic.

First of all, the time of Jacob’s trouble is the exact same event Jesus mentions in Matthew 24 where He prophesies about the coming time of great tribulation that will target the entire world in general, and the Jews in particular.

“But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” Matthew 24:20,21 (KJV)

The entire chapter of Matthew 24 shows how the Jews and Israel are the main focus of this judgment, but it will affect the entire world. The angel Gabriel in the book of Daniel, in talking about this time period, tells us very clearly what people and what place are the main subjects.

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression…” Daniel 9:24 (KJV)

Who were Daniel’s people? His fellow Jews, of course. What was the holy city? Only one city the Bible ever says was the holy city, and that is Jerusalem. What is the purpose of the time of Jacob’s trouble? It will be the time when God will reclaim and restore His Bride, the Jewish people.

Israel was destroyed in 70 AD, and the Jews were scattered according to prophecy. In 1948, they were miraculously regathered in exactly the same place from which they were dispersed. But their regathering was a physical one, not a spiritual one. Israel in 2018 is no closer to God than any other nation on the face of the earth, and in some respects, is much farther away.

TEL AVIV LGBTQ PRIDE WEEK IS WORLD’S LARGEST CELEBRATION OF WHAT GOD DESTROYED BOTH SODOM AND GOMORRAH FOR

Tel Aviv is the gay capital of the world, surpassing even than that of ultra-Liberal San Francisco. Hospitals in Israel perform lots of abortions and even many Third Trimester abortions. Yes, they like to reference their connection to the scriptures, it certainly boosts tourism, but modern-day Israel bears no resemblance to the Israel of the Old Testament where the Spirit of God dwelt in the Temple.

God’s covenant with Israel and the Jews is eternal, and cannot be broken, and God is not going to leave them in their fallen condition. The time of Jacob’s trouble is going to be the means by which He restores His chosen people back to a right relationship to Himself. But it is going to come at a horrific cost that rightly cannot be properly imagined, no matter how much you study it in the scriptures.

Here are a few easy-to-digest bullet points on how that restoration will happen:

  • GOD WILL USE SATAN AS HIS ROD OF JUDGMENT: “O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.” Isaiah 10:5,6 (KJV). When God decided to test Job, and thoroughly purge him of his self-righteousness, He used a very unlikely means by which to accomplish it. God sent Satan to put Job through a fiery trial that brought him certainly to the end of himself, and nearly to the end of his life. In the time of Jacob’s trouble, God will again send Satan against His chosen people the Jews, and in that time obedience to God will absolutely come at the cost of your own life. When Jesus opens the First Seal in Revelation 6, Antichrist is released, and the Jews will follow him as thinking that he is their promised Messiah.
  • THIS JUDGMENT COMES BECAUSE OF ISRAEL’S DISOBEDIENCE: “Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Judah, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have despised the law of the LORD, and have not kept his commandments, and their lies caused them to err, after the which their fathers have walked: But I will send a fire upon Judah, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem. Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes;” Amos 2:4-6 (KJV). The Jews have forgotten that they are God’s chosen people, and the time of Jacob’s trouble is their wake-up call to return to Him. Even in most Jewish synagogues today, there is no real mention of the Law of the Lord, there is no relationship between the Jews and God. Yes, the call themselves the ‘people of the Book’, but that’s mostly lip service. The Jews are still serving other gods, and the actual God who swore a covenant with Abraham, will not all that to stand. He would be neither a good or righteous God if He did.
  • ONLY A REMNANT OF THE JEWS WILL SURVIVE: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness. For the Lord GOD of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined, in the midst of all the land.” Isaiah 10:20-23 (KJV). Matthew 24 amplifies the prophecies of Isaiah, and show us that the Jews will flee to the red rock city of Selah Petra. That will be the only safe hiding place throughout the entire time of Jacob’s trouble. Everyone else has one of two choices they can make. Either take the Mark of the Beast and live through the tribulation but be damned to Hell, as seen here –  “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” Revelation 14:9-11 (KJV). Or you can become a tribulation saint and get your head cut off. “And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.” Revelation 6:11 (KJV).

So where will the Church be when all this is taking place? The Bible clearly shows us that the Church is removed from the earth just before the start of the time of Jacob’s trouble. We call this event the Pretribulation Rapture, and it is the next event on the timetable to take place. The Church, made up of born again Jews and Gentiles, is not removed for any other reason than we simply don’t belong there.

When we got saved, we were judged, found guilty, and redeemed by the precious Blood of the Lamb slain at Calvary. We have already been reclaimed, and no further action is needed. We will have the Judgement Seat of Christ in Heaven, yes, but that is a judgement on works and has nothing to do with salvation. The time of Jacob’s trouble will deal with the salvation of God’s people.

In closing, allow me to address one more point that seems to confuse a lot of inexperienced students of scripture. The false teaching that the Church will be taken out halfway or three-fourths of the way through the time of Jacob’s trouble, the so-called Pre-wrath Rapture heresy, came about by wrongly dividing verses like these:

“Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” Revelation 12:12 (KJV)

People have read verses like that, and wrongly made a division between the time of Jacob’s trouble, the wrath of the Devil and the wrath of the Lamb. All of it, the entire 7 year period, is the wrath of God, and as previously noted, God uses Satan as His ‘rod of judgment’. The Prewrath Rapture people say that the Church will be here for the first 3.5 years, then taken out when the Antichrist forces people to take the Mark of the Beast. The Bible teaches no such thing. Antichrist is sent out over the world as the very first event of the time of Jacob’s trouble, and who sends him out? Jesus does! Antichrist is the ‘strong delusion’ that comes upon people after the Rapture of the Church takes place.

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” 2 Thessalonians 2:11 (KJV)

The pre-wrath rapture was conceived in the 1970’s by a man named Robert Van Kampen, who died in 1999. This view was then picked up and endorsed by Marvin Rosenthal who wrote his book ‘The Pre-Wrath Rapture Of The Church‘. The “Pre-Wrath” view of the Rapture argues that the first three-fourths of the Tribulation is the wrath of Man and the wrath of Satan, and not the wrath of God. Therefore, the proponents of this view argue that the Church will suffer through the first three-quarters of the Tribulation since the Church is promised protection only from the wrath of God.

THE COMING LITERAL, VISIBLE AND PHYSICAL THOUSAND YEAR REIGN OF JESUS CHRIST ON THIS EARTH FROM JERUSALEM

The time of Jacob’s trouble ends at the Battle of Armageddon with the arrival of King Jesus and His warrior Church army on white horses at the Second Coming. This will establish a period of time the Bible calls the Thousand Year Reign of Christ. Satan will be bound for that time, and then let out once more just prior to his being cast into the Lake of Fire after the Battle of Gog and Magog.

I hope this has shed a little more light on the massive subject of the coming time of Jacob’s trouble, who this time period is for, and the reason why God has determined it to be so. If you have any questions, please comment below and I will be my best to answer them.

Please read these related articles on this subject:

THIS IS ALL ABOUT ELIMINATING GOD FROM AMERICA. THIS IS A WAR ON GOD.

SECULAR DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA

Restoring Constitutional Secularism and Patriotic

Pluralism in the White House

Prepared exclusively by Secular Democrats of America PAC for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris Transition Team

Presented by Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jared Huffman Endorsed by Representative Jerry McNerney

Preamble………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Legal Landscape………………………………………………………………………………3 Section I. Government Funding: Evidence-Based, Nonsectarian, andNondiscriminatory…………………………………………………………………………….5 Section II. Restoring Constitutional Secularism and Scientific Integrity………...8 Section III. Religious Freedom Abroad…………………………………………………..14 Section IV. Patriotism Pluralism and Sincere Inclusion: Protecting the Rights and Dignity of Nontheists………………………………………………………………………..15 Appendix (List of Trump Administration Actions)……………………………………..18 Congressional Freethought Caucus Membership…………………………………….26 Humanists for Biden Advisory Council Endorsements………………………………27Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………27

Preamble

The Secular Democrats of America PAC (SDA) has prepared this document for the Biden- Harris campaign to provide recommendations that will not only reverse the damage done by the Trump administration but boldly restore a vision of constitutional secularism and respect in the land for religious and intellectual pluralism.

We urge you to lead our nation on a path that revives the Founders’ vision of religious freedom in our government and promotes a unifying patriotic pluralism—not dogmatic religious chauvinism—in American society. We believe that this is a moment not only to enact policies to advance constitutional secularism but to position the Democratic Party to take back the mantle of religious freedom and pluralism from the Republican Party. As people of private religious faith and public constitutional faith, President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris can bridge the deep divisions that President Trump has exploited and exacerbated over the past four years. Biden and Harris can bring millions of Americans of all faiths and millions of nonreligious Americans together around a shared vision of government seeking the common good while defending religious pluralism and the unbridled freedom of conscience.

We urge you not to underestimate the institutional strength of what we refer to (interchangeably) in this document as the “Christian nationalist movement” or the “religious right.” This movement is extraordinarily well-funded and well-organized, and the manifestation of its extreme and sectarian agenda is on constant display under the Trump- Pence administration. Its political ideology is anti-democratic and anti-scientific. It provides constant cover for white supremacy. And it advances a reactionary economic policy, tax policy, and dominionist view of the environment that undermines our capacity and will to address the climate crisis. Its agenda rests on a pinched interpretation of biblical principles preached by Christian nationalist leadership and thought leaders. With their political agenda sanctioned by a higher power, their base of support is disciplined, motivated, and deeply committed to a vision that does not align with our basic constitutional values and democratic principles.

We ask that you counter this movement’s narrative by actively working to dismantle its grip on our government and counter its inaccurate and revisionist messaging around our nation’s founding. It is no longer enough just to champion the rights of minorities and marginalized communities or to promote inclusion and equality. We urge you to champion America’s original constitutional secularism and the separation of church and state as core governing principles that protect religious freedom for people of all faiths—and none at all. We implore you to help educate the American public by reasonably defining what religious freedom really means: that every American has a right to practice his or her religion without interference, but no religious group can impose religious dogma or orthodoxy on other

1

citizens and other faiths and belief systems. Americans of all spiritual faiths and of secular beliefs must recognize that the founding constitutional principles of religious free exercise and no establishment of religion are intertwined and stand best when they stand together.

The constant entanglement of religion and government—promoted by the religious right and intensified by the Trump administration—sweeps far beyond hot-button “culture war” issues like abortion and contraception. It permeates every aspect of government policy— healthcare, public and private education, foreign policy, tax policy, environmental policy, military policy, and more, all of which will be addressed in this document.

Policy decisions that should be guided by science and evidence—on matters ranging from climate change to comprehensive sex education to federal funding for stem cell research— have been skewed or blocked entirely by powerful religious interest groups and further undermined at every turn by the Trump administration. There is no example more grave than this administration’s lethal mishandling of the COVID-19 global pandemic, which has brought death to hundreds of thousands of Americans. Disregard for science and disdain for expertise have reached an all-time high in this Administration of magical thinkers and conspiracy theorists, but these policy distortions did not begin with the Trump administration and will not end without deliberate action to restore rationalist, scientific and pragmatic policy methods and judgment. We believe that now is the right time to make the case for reviving a Jeffersonian approach to governance that favors reason, science, and evidence, and to disentangle government policy from the influence of sectarian religious interests that have become dangerously entrenched at all levels of government.

The remainder of this document will focus on four major areas that are critical to secularists and the nonreligious community. The first three are areas where we believe President Trump has violated basic constitutional principles and elevated religious privilege over the Bill of Rights and the common good. The fourth area of focus is protecting the rights and dignity of nontheists. Nontheistic Americans and non-Christian religious minorities, like most Americans, care deeply about and contribute immensely to their country. And like all Americans, they deserve to be both fairly recognized and respected.

For far too long, the religious right has scapegoated nonbelievers, falsely stating that nonbelievers believe in no public morality while at the same time framing advocacy for our original secular values—science, pluralism, the rule of law, the right to dissent—as an attempt to impose our beliefs on society. When our community is attacked, we ask you to stand with us just as President Barack Obama stood with us on a number of occasions when he made history by mentioning nonbelievers positively in his public remarks and going out of his way to include nonbelievers in the democratic community.

2

We are optimistic that, under your leadership, it will no longer be a momentous and historic occasion when nontheists are acknowledged and treated with equal respect with our brothers and sisters of faith. According to Gallup, the most mistrusted religious minorities in the United States are atheists and Muslims. Acknowledging the rights and dignity of these communities would have a bottom-up effect. We hope that you share our belief that government secularism is a core constitutional principle indistinguishable from religious freedom. We believe that there can never be religious freedom in the United States without the separation of church and state, and that constitutional secularism allows pluralism to thrive in our nation.

Thank you for your consideration and for your leadership. We stand ready to provide support and additional information.

Legal Landscape

Recent decisions by the Supreme Court have upended decades of settled precedent, and it appears more than likely that future decisions will continue in the same vein. The understanding of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause has shifted in ways that will significantly change how any future government defines and implements public policy.

Government Funding

Decisions in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza have changed the requirements on when funding is required to be given to religious entities. While it is unclear yet how far the Court will take Espinoza, it is at least certain that any government decision excluding religious groups from funding because they are religious groups will be seen as violating the Free Exercise Clause. Any attempt to prevent government money from being spent on religious purposes should therefore focus on the use of the money rather than the identity of the recipient.

Religious Exemptions

Since Employment Div. v. Smith, the Court has held that there is no First Amendment right to religious exemptions from laws of general applicability. As a result, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed to impose them legislatively. Although RFRA was invalidated as applied to the states by the Supreme Court (in City of Boerne v. Flores), it was allowed with respect to the federal government as a form of self-regulation. Since then, in decisions like Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court has not only treated RFRA as a “super- statute,” granting it near constitutional status, but transformed the status of private for-profit corporations by endowing them with religious rights and spiritual existence. The Court is heard arguments on November 4 in Fulton v. City of Pennsylvania, which, inter alia, seeks to overturn Employment Div. If it does that, religious exemptions from universal secular laws

3

will be seen as presumptively required by the First Amendment; even if it does not, the Court will likely continue interpreting RFRA broadly to require such exemptions. In order to best succeed in proofing legislation from such exemptions, close attention should be paid to statements of facts in bills, demonstrating clearly the compelling government interest involved, and the damage to that interest that will occur if exemptions are granted.

4

Section I
Government Funding: Evidence-Based, Nonsectarian, and Nondiscriminatory

A secular government governs on the basis of reason, science, and evidence. Science was on the ballot in 2020 because this administration’s dangerous disdain for expertise, shocking denial of facts it dislikes for ideological reasons, and naked interference in what should be nonpartisan scientific inquiry, have cost more than 260,000 American lives. Government-wide policies on scientific integrity should be adopted by all federal agencies to ensure that federal analysis is free from political and religious bias and that government funding is used to support evidence-based programs.

Additionally, taxpayer dollars should not be funneled either to contractors or grantees that discriminate on the basis of religion, or to programs that promote a sectarian agenda, such as private religious schools, crisis pregnancy centers, and abstinence-only sex education.

The federal government has an obligation to exercise good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Therefore, it should not do business with organizations or contractors that will use government funds to advance a sectarian agenda, or discriminate against its employees or program beneficiaries on the basis of religion. If performing the duties of a government contract comes into conflict with the requesting grantee or contractor’s sincerely held religious beliefs, it can and should seek funding elsewhere. No institution, religious or secular, is entitled to access taxpayer funding.

● Utilize every mechanism at the administration’s disposal to ensure that the Department of Education does not funnel taxpayer dollars to private schools. Any private schools receiving taxpayer funding, whether directly or indirectly, should be held to the same nondiscrimination and accommodation requirements of public schools and expected to meet curriculum standards for secular subjects, including science and history. Where Supreme Court decisions are held to require government funding for religious schools, or other religious programs, the
administration should seek to ensure that such funding cannot be used for religious purposes; where it funds religious groups providing secular services, it should use the authority that comes with the provision of such funding to ensure that the services provided are delivered equally and without favor, and reach the level of quality that publicly provided services reach. If receiving government
funds, religious schools should be required to teach curricula in accordance with national secular standards, particularly in areas such as the teaching of science.

5

● All rules, regulations, memoranda, and other actions regarding federally administered health care programs that sanction denial of care on the basis of religion must be repealed. When federal funding is made available to community or faith-based organizations to provide healthcare, that funding should go to organizations that will provide the services required, not organizations that will deliberately choose not to provide the full spectrum of services intended by the program and that will not serve all program beneficiaries equally.
● Reverse all executive orders, rules, memoranda, and other actions that exempt faith-based organizations contracting with the federal government from nondiscrimination requirements that apply to secular organizations, including employment discrimination. This includes the following (please see Appendix for additional examples).

Dismantle the Department of Justice Religious Liberty Task Force

Dismantle the HHS Conscience and Religious Freedom Division
Repeal Executive Order 13798, Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty and reverse its implementation across various executive agenciespage7image449015120page7image449015424page7image449016080

●  Rescind and replace the Department of Justice Memorandum, Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty●  We urge your administration to disincentivize state funding for programs that are 
not evidence-based and which can cause harm by spreading misinformation, such as crisis pregnancy centers and abstinence-only education programs. These programs are an ineffective use of taxpayer dollars and they cause demonstrable harm to vulnerable communities.● Work with Congress to incentivize states to increase their vaccination rates by repealing all nonmedical exemptions to mandatory vaccination for children in schools and day care centers. States like California and New York have taken such actions, but only after experiencing severe outbreaks of measles and whooping cough. Parents and children have the right to a school environment
free of vaccine preventable diseases. The most vulnerable among us who are medically ineligible for vaccination depend on herd immunity to protect them.● Reverse the Trump administration policies that have allowed faith-based government-funded contractors to provide adoption and foster care services to
discriminate on the basis of religion and work with Congress to pass the Every Child Deserves a Family Act.

6

  • ●  Fully and robustly fund comprehensive, medically-accurate sex education.
  • ●  Reverse DHS/FEMA policies enacted under President Trump that allow disaster relief to be used to directly fund houses of worship for sectarian purposes, including public funds for disaster related facility repair, if those funds are not made available for all private nonprofits. Prior to the Trump administration, the long-standing policy was to reimburse houses of worship for damage sustained while providing disaster relief services to the affected general public. It is precisely in times of crisis that the federal government must be steadfast in protecting the Constitution—the federal government should not grant privileges to houses of worship suffering from natural disasters that are not available to secular non-profits and institutions that equally suffer from these tragedies.
  • ●  The Trump administration took advantage of the urgency surrounding COVID-19 relief to issue new rules and guidance at the Small Business Administration that egregiously violated the separation of church and state, upended long standing policy, and privileged houses of worship by exempting them from standards applied to all other 501(c)(3) organizations and businesses applying for assistance.In past administrations, SBA policy held that “businesses principally engaged in teaching, instructing, counselling or indoctrinating religion or religious beliefs, whether in a religious or secular setting” were not eligible for receiving business or economic disaster loans. As a result, millions of federal dollars from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) have funded explicitly religious activities, including paying clergy salaries, rent, and utilities. Given that houses of worship are exempt from requirements that apply to all other 501(c)(3) organizations, including filing the Form 990, this funding amounts to a taxpayer funded giveaway to sectarian interests of which the government has no means to conduct oversight and the recipients are not held accountable to American taxpayers. We urge you to restore previous SBA policies and ensure that future COVID-19 relief is allocated in a constitutional manner.

7

Section II
Restoring Constitutional Secularism and Scientific Integrity

Donald Trump has empowered the religious right in ways no other administration has before, making significant advances in enacting their Christian nationalist agenda. The following recommendations serve not just as a guide to reversing these policies, but to proactively implement policies that restore secularism to federal governance and disentangle entrenched religious interests from federal policy.

In addition to our recommendations pertaining to executive agencies, we propose working with Congress and Governors to advance a secular agenda at all levels of government, taking into account the current makeup of the federal courts and new, unfavorable precedents that your administration will have to contend with (please see Legal Landscape on page 3).

We strongly recommend coordinating closely with the Congressional Freethought Caucus

(CFC) on issues in Congress affecting religious freedom, separation of church and state,

and scientific integrity. In 2018, the CFC was founded in large part to stand up to a deluge

of startling attacks on the secular character of our government by the Trump administration.

This will be the first Democratic administration that will have the opportunity to partner with

a congressional caucus committed and focused specifically on these issues.

Representatives Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Jared Huffman of California serve as the

Caucus Co-Chairs. Please see page 26 for the full list of CFC Members.

The mission of the caucus is to: promote public policy formed on the basis of reason,

science, and moral values; protect the secular character of our government by adhering to

the strict Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state; oppose

discrimination against atheists, agnostics, humanists, seekers, religious and nonreligious

persons and to champion the value of freedom of thought and conscience worldwide; and

provide a forum for members of Congress to discuss their moral frameworks, ethical

values, and personal religious journey.

Scientific Integrity

● The nation’s addiction crisis has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19
pandemic. As your administration tackles this issue, we urge you to expand access to secular, evidence-based mutual aid peer recovery support programs that expressly support Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT). This will protect

8

the constitutional right to a secular recovery option for members of the armed forces, our veterans, and in our criminal justice system. It will also ensure that every American in need of peer recovery support services has access to a variety of options and the opportunity to choose what is most helpful to them.

Dr. Elinore McCance-Katz, chief medical officer of SAMHSA under the Obama- Biden administration (and current Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use) has written that the “gold standard” for treatment of opioid and

other substance use disorders is a combination of MAT, psychosocial therapies, and community-based recovery support. Individuals suffering with substance use disorders will benefit from President Biden’s officials having the same position, which is widely supported by the research and considered best practices.

evidence-based mutual aid peer recovery support programs that expressly

support MAT.

● Work with Congress to pass the Scientific Integrity Act and the Preserve Science

interest, not dictated by religion or pseudoscience.

● Rescind Executive Order 13957, Creating Schedule F In The Excepted Service,

which effectively shifts many federal civil servant positions to political

appointments. This will have a profoundly damaging impact on scientific integrity,

as political appointees will not be afforded the same protections from political

institutional memory may be fired.

● Repeal Executive Order 13875, “Executive Order on Evaluating and Improving

the Utility of Federal Advisory Committees,” which directed agencies to eliminate

at least one-third of their current advisory committees and arbitrarily limited the

total number of government advisory committees to 350. A substantial number of

advisory committees are related to science and science ethics.

Restoring Constitutional Secularism

● Work with the Attorney General to reverse former Attorney General Jeff

Sessions’ Memorandum on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty. In its

place, issue a memorandum instructing all executive agencies to interpret

religious freedom in such a way that protects the separation of religion and

government, prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, and prohibits

government funding of explicitly religious activities. Oppose religious displays on

government property and recognize this issue’s importance as a matter of basic

constitutional respect that is not, as it is sometimes portrayed, only of concern to

nontheists. Keeping the government from using religious symbols is as much

about inclusion of embattled religious minorities as it is about respecting freedom

of thought and the separation of church and state.

● Rescind Presidential Proclamation 9645, “Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats,” also known as the Muslim Ban, which restricted travel to the United States by individuals from Muslim- majority counties. Reverse all subsequent Trump administration policies that: limit the ability of individuals to travel based on their nationality or religion; and thwart the ability of individuals to seek asylum and refuge in the U.S.

Congress to pass H.R.2214/S.1123, the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination

Work with

for Nonimmigrants Act, or NO BAN Act. The Trump administration’s actions were

a thinly veiled exclusion motivated by religious bias and discrimination. The

United States government should never apply religious tests for entering our

country.

● Appoint an Attorney General to the Department of Justice who will support

Governors whose emergency declarations and/or executive orders require even-

handed universal restrictions on indoor gatherings, including at houses of

worship, to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. The Department of Justice

organizations and activities.

● Issue guidance that clarifies the duty and obligation of government officials to separate their personal religious beliefs from their work. Public services are inherently nonsectarian and so are public offices and government property. We must establish a new standard for appropriate constitutional conduct by all public
officials—whether a county clerk like Kim Davis or a U.S. Cabinet official like Secretary Mike Pompeo—which puts the Constitution and the rights of taxpaying citizens first and ensures that public officials never use their positions and offices to discriminate, proselytize or promote religious dogma.● Should the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships be re- established, ensure that it: engages advisors from the full spectrum of the interfaith community, including the nonreligious; includes humanists and other nontheistic communities and organizations as eligible for any faith-based community grants made available; is required to include the secular community in any interfaith programming; and prohibits any eligible grantees from discriminating on the basis of religion in their employment policies or conditioning services to beneficiaries on religious participation.
● Instruct the Internal Revenue Service to: enforce the Johnson Amendment as the
law and one component of the broader set of campaign finance measures that we need to strengthen the institutions that Trump has weakened; crack down on nonprofits operating as businesses, including megachurches; and work with Congress to pass legislation that would strengthen enforcement of the Johnson Amendment and increase transparency among nonprofits by requiring all 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations to file the Form 990, including houses of worship.

● While RFRA was intended as a shield for religious practice, it has become a sword to impose religious based prejudice. It has moved from permitting an individual to smoke peyote as part of a religious ceremony, to permitting a corporation with annual revenues in excess of half a billion dollars to deny female employees access to insurance that includes contraception. RFRA fundamentally privileges putatively “religious” actions over nonreligious ones. The identical action warrants an exemption if undertaken for a religious reason, as opposed to when undertaken for a nonreligious purpose. The repeal of RFRA eliminates this unconstitutional privilege. However, even if repeal is not feasible, it remains vital

11

that while the rights of Americans to worship freely is protected, religion is not treated as a license for corporations to burden the rights and lives of innocent third parties. One way of achieving this is through passage of the Do No Harm Act, which represents a return of RFRA to its original core purpose.

If the Supreme Court in Fulton v. Philadelphia overturns Employment Div. v. Smith and finds a First Amendment based constitutional right to religious exemptions, it becomes all the more important to raise the rights of third parties burdened by such exemptions, and place the Supreme Court in a position where
it must directly determine if the intent of exemptions is to permit harm to others.

● Work with Governors to educate and combat Project Blitz and encourage the introduction of the Do No Harm Act at the state level.

  • ●  Ensure that Religious Freedom Day Proclamations highlight the importance of the Establishment Clause and why it is a critical component of the First Amendment that creates the conditions for religious pluralism to thrive. We recommend using the proclamation and any accompanying White House ceremony as an opportunity to educate Americans about our nation’s proud history as a secular nation, and to ensure that if clergy are invited to participate in a ceremony or public event, to invite representatives of the nonreligious community as well.
  • ●  Nominate judges who recognize that a robust interpretation of both the Establishment

Clause and the Free Exercise Clause is necessary to guarantee the religious freedoms of all Americans, and that recent decisions, such as Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, regarding the application of RFRA, Town of Greece v. Galloway, regarding legislative prayer, and Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, represent a new and ungrounded privileging of corporate religious power over essential civil rights and civil liberties.

● Instruct the Department of Education to be responsive to religious freedom

complaints, and update the current guidelines to clarify the constitutional boundaries

of religious expression in public schools. As the nation becomes increasingly diverse,

and particularly with the rapidly increasing number of religiously unaffiliated

Americans, such guidance should emphasize the impact of these issues on

nonreligious and religious minority students. While affirming students’ right to pray in

schools is important, counter to the religious right’s rhetoric, it is not under threat. The

updated guidance should expand upon the importance of balancing Free Exercise

rights with schools’ constitutionally required adherence to the Establishment Clause,

and help school administrators and educators understand the increasingly diverse

12

student body that they serve.

● Suggest the Attorney General confer with the Department Office of Legal Counsel to

issue a memorandum regarding enforcement of the Establishment Clause in public

schools, including students’ protection from school-sponsored proselytizing and

teaching accurate, evidence-based, secular curriculum rather than creationism in the

schools.

● The rise of white Christian nationalism is a national security threat. We recommend you: encourage the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to dedicate resources to deradicalization programs aimed at hate groups, including, but not limited to, white nationalists; increase monitoring of such groups, including the online environment, and take action to address increased hate crimes toward minority faith communities; and shift rhetoric to label violent white nationalist extremists as terrorists.

13

Section III Religious Freedom Abroad

Thousands of people of all religious faiths and none at all are suffering under religious

oppression—including imprisonment, execution, and state-sanctioned mob violence for

blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy—all over the world. The United States and its allies

should take the lead in freeing people from religious imprisonment and persecution, and

defending the dignity and equal rights of all believers and non-believers at home and

abroad.

  • ●  Appoint a nonreligious representative to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF).
  • ●  As your administration recommits the U.S. to its longstanding tradition of accepting and welcoming refugees, please ensure that atheist asylum cases, often individuals who are the targets of persecution through blasphemy, apostasy, and heresy laws, are given special consideration as a persecuted group.

● Work with Congress to pass H.Res. 512/S.Res. 458, a bipartisan resolution that

calls for the global repeal of blasphemy, apostasy, and heresy laws. In June

2020, Tahir Naseem, a U.S. citizen who was lured to Pakistan and imprisoned for

two years on charges of blasphemy, was murdered by a vigilante while on trial.

The United States must send a strong message that this heinous violation of

human rights is unacceptable, and leverage its influence abroad to advocate for

the right to religious freedom for believers and nonbelievers alike.

14

Section IV
Patriotism Pluralism and Sincere Inclusion: Protecting the Rights and Dignity of Nontheists

Government plays an important role in setting the agenda for public discussion, and when it does, it should do so in a way that is nonsectarian and as inclusive as possible. Words matter, and there is language ingrained in our culture that has a profound impact
on how Americans see ourselves as a nation and how they view their fellow Americans.For far too long the nonreligious have been stigmatized, marginalized, and scapegoated. The Obama administration took historic steps to include our community, however there is much more that can be done to truly and sincerely include our constituency. Below are recommendations for ways to ensure that your administration’s outreach and rhetoric send a message of inclusion to our huge and diverse community and demonstrate to elected officials, faith and community leaders across the nation what true pluralistic engagement looks like.Reframing Patriotism
● Disentangle the conflation of faith and patriotism. In public statements, avoid phrases like “God and country” and any implication that service members as a
whole are guided by faith, as approximately 30 percent are not affiliated with religion. When administration officials, including the President and Vice President, discuss their faith publicly, we encourage them to do so in a pluralistic way that does not inadvertently denigrate the patriotism of nontheists.● With the rise of Christian nationalism, there is an urgent need to reframe public discourse surrounding patriotism. Dissent and peaceful protest—even if it’s kneeling during the national anthem or refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance— is a constitutionally protected right that our service members have fought and died for. Symbols, particularly when used by the President and Vice President,
have immense cultural power and must be used judiciously. We urge you to be judicious about your use of symbolism, striving to lift up the values of pluralism and inclusion.● Instruct the Department of Defense to: ensure that humanist and nontheist
chaplains serve in each branch of the military; strengthen protections for the rights of service members who are religious minorities and nonreligious, including freedom from proselytization; institute pluralistic training requirements for

15

chaplains across all military branches and ensure that nonreligious service members are provided full, equal pastoral care that acknowledges and welcomes their nonreligious worldview; and ensure that the chaplaincy is broadly representative of the American population from which our service members are drawn. (According to data from the Defense Manpower Data Center, approximately 30 percent of service members listed no religious affiliation in 2018).

Inclusion of Nontheists

●  At all interfaith ceremonies in which clergy are invited, include nonreligious representatives.●  When listing faiths in public remarks or talking about religious pluralism, always include nonreligious people. Phrases like “all faiths and none,” “religious and nonreligious,” “believers and nonbelievers,” “atheists, agnostics, and humanists,” or “secular Americans” all work. Avoid phrases like “and even nonbelievers” because this framing implies that there is something novel or surprising about including us, and can be perceived as an afterthought.●  Recognize that nonreligious Americans celebrate their own holidays and traditions just like people of faith, and many also celebrate Christmas which, by
nature of being a federal holiday, is a secular holiday Americans of all faiths and none can take part in. The secular community has a rich tradition of humanist and nontheistic clergy serving nontheistic congregations, as well as humanist and secular celebrants who facilitate life cycle ceremonies for the nonreligious.● When responding to national crisis and tragedy, the President plays a critical role as Healer-in-Chief by demonstrating moral leadership, providing comfort, and bringing the nation together. In these moments, it is critical to keep in mind that millions of Americans who do not pray or subscribe to a religious faith must feel included in the President’s message to the nation. Prayer or scriptural references
must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of the nonreligious, who have just as much of a need to heal and feel part of a greater good as everyone else.● Avoid naming programs, initiatives, or government titles as “faith” (e.g. Faith Director, Faith Engagement, etc.). The word “interfaith” is much more inclusive
and always more preferable than “faith,” as nontheists often participate in interfaith efforts. However, the most inclusive term to use is “conscience.” A “Conscience Coalition” is a more inclusive phrase than “Interfaith Coalition”

16

because, rather than centering faith as the de facto source of morality, it centers the moral conscience of the individual. Clearly for many Americans, faith informs their morality, while for millions of other Americans, we arrive at our moral positions from a secular perspective. While our journeys may be different, what we all share is a commitment to ethics and the aspiration for a more perfect union.

● Whenever possible, we urge you to reference and quote the original United

States national motto, E Pluribus Unumout of many, one. The current motto, “In God We Trust,” is a relic of McCarthyism and the anti-atheist hysteria of the 1950s, and it has been invoked by Christian nationalists to reinforce their historically revisionist narrative of our nation’s founding. They characterize the United States’ founding as a “Christian nation” based in biblical principles, rather than as a secularist nation based in revolutionary democratic ideas. The original motto, which we hope to see restored by Congress, is inclusive of all faiths and none, while “In God We Trust” excludes nontheists and polytheists.

● We urge you to avoid invoking the phrase “Judeo-Christian values,” as it has been weaponized by the religious right to advance an agenda that has the veneer of inclusivity but actually undermines religious freedom and tolerance and does not represent tens of millions of Americans implicitly excluded from its formulation.

17

Appendix

Note: While this is not an exhaustive list, we stand ready to work with you to identify additional opportunities to reverse the damage done to religious freedom by the Trump administration, and identify strategies to build upon the Obama-Biden administration’s legacy to implement strong protections for constitutional secularism.

White House Executive Orders

Policy

EO 13798, Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty

EO 13831, Establishment of a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative

EO 13875, Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory Committees

The Mexico City Policy (Global Gag Rule)

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Description

This EO creates sweeping protections that allow religious concerns to supersede all other government priorities. This EO was the impetus for Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ 2017 memorandum, which requires all departments and agencies to prioritize religious concerns in employment, rulemaking, and enforcement and to apply an expansive interpretation of religious freedom.

This EO established a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative and eliminated protections established by presidents Bush and Obama that required federally-funded faith-based organizations to provide public services in a nonsectarian manner.

This EO directed agencies to eliminate at least one-third of their current advisory committees and limited the total number of government advisory committees to 350, an arbitrary number. This has had a substantial impact on advisory committees whose missions involve science and science ethics.

This memorandum reinstates the “global gag rule” that prohibits family planning providers receiving U.S. foreign aid grants from providing abortion services, counseling, or referrals.

U.S. Department of Defense

U.S. Department of Education

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged and General Provisions; Technical Amendment

Direct Grant Programs, State-Administered Formula Grant Programs, Non Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program, Strengthening Institutions Program, Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program, and Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions Program

Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Direct Grant Programs, State-Administered Formula Grant Programs, Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program, and Strengthening Institutions Program

Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

This final rule expands religious exemptions in higher education and allows student groups to discriminate on the basis of religion.

This proposed rule would expand access to government grants for religious organizations.

This guidance does not create new religious protections but emphasizes free exercise in a way that favors the Christian Right, with little attention to the needs of the nonreligious or religious minorities.

Secondary Education Act of 1965

Guidance Regarding Department of Education Grants and Executive Order 13798

To implement EO 13798, this guidance prevents the government from exercising discretion regarding allocation of federal funding to religiously affiliated grantees that may discriminate, and allows “indirect federal Financial assistance,” such as “a voucher, certificate, or other similar means of government-funded payment” to be used for explicitly religious purposes. It also calls Blaine amendments/ “no aid” clauses in State constitutions “unconstitutional.” Blaine amendments protect the separation of church and state by prohibiting the use of taxpayers’ dollars to fund religion. The guidance cites Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer.

U.S. Department of Energy

Strengthening and Improving Membership on EPA Federal Advisory Committees

Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science

Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science (Supplemental Notice)

This directive banned scientists who receive federal research grants from serving on EPA advisory committees. Simultaneously, it eased restrictions for industry representatives to serve on these advisory committees.

This proposed rule banned, retroactively and proactively, the use of scientifically collected data in rulemaking, unless such data include certain types of information that are either prohibitive or unethical to collect, such as personal information of public health survey respondents. Should this rule be finalized, many existing environmental protections would be invalidated, and many new environmental public health impacts would become effectively impossible to study.

20

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Nondiscrimination in Health and Health Education Programs or Activities, Delegation of Authority

Compliance With Statutory Program Integrity Requirements

Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority

Ensuring Equal Treatment of Faith-Based Organizations

Good Guidance Practices

Conscience and Religious Freedom Division

This final rule repeals provisions of the 2016 Final Rule for Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which stipulated that sex discrimination included discrimination on the basis of gender identity and/or termination of a pregnancy.

This final rule

.

This final rule not only rescinds the Title X family planning program’s requirement that grantees provide abortioncounseling or referrals, it also prohibits referrals.

This final rule allows health care providers to cite religious or moral objections to deny care to patients.

This proposed rule would rescind Obama-Biden nondiscrimination protections for beneficiaries receiving services from federally contracted religious organizations.

This proposed rule would create new regulations for releasing and maintaining guidance documents that would make it more difficult for HHS to impose obligations on regulated parties.

Religious Exemptions and Accommodations

for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services

Under the Affordable Care Act

Moral Exemptions and Accommodations for

Coverage of Certain Preventive Services

Under the Affordable Care Act

Equal Participation of Faith-Based Organizations in DHS’s Programs and Activities: Implementation of Executive Order 13831

21

Equal Participation of Faith-Based Organizations: Implementation of Executive Order 13831

Making Admission or Placement Determinations Based on Sex in Facilities Under Community Planning and Development Housing Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

Implementation of Memorandum on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty

This proposed rule would rescind Obama-Biden nondiscrimination protections for beneficiaries receiving services from federally contracted religious organizations.

This proposed rule would rescind Obama-Biden nondiscrimination protections for beneficiaries receiving services from federally contracted religious organizations.

Equal Participation of Faith-Based

Programs and Activities: Implementation of

Religious Liberty Task Force

2019-08-15-HBCU-Capfin — Religious Restrictions on Capital Financing for Historically Black Colleges and Universities

U.S. Department of Labor

Equal Participation of Faith-Based Organizations in the Department of Labor’s Programs and Activities: Implementation of Executive Order 13831

Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause’s Religious Exemption

Guidance Regarding Federal Grants and Executive Order 13798

Directive 2018-03

U.S. Department of State

Clause of the First Amendment does not pose a barrier to the Academy’s receipt of such aid.”

This proposed rule would rescind Obama-Biden nondiscrimination protections for beneficiaries receiving services from federally contracted religious organizations.

This proposed rule would expand nondiscrimination exemptions to Title VII for religious organizations.

This guidance warns that “any grant rule or policy that penalizes or disqualifies a religious organization from the right to compete for a grant or contract because of that organization’s religious character could violate the FreeExercise Clause…A rule or policy that imposes a substantial burden on an organization’s exercise of religion may also, depending on the circumstances, violate RFRA.”

23

U.S. Department of the Interior

Political retaliation against Interior employees for speaking about climate change

Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Acy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

A senior whistleblower alleged that more than 50 science personnel in the Department were transferred to issues outside their field of expertise as retaliation for speaking up about the science of climate change and its impact on domestic populations.

Under the guise of “streamlining,” this Order set arbitrary limits on scientific review of the environmental impacts of government projects, undermining our government’s ability to make data-driven and evidence- based decisions that have a profound impact on the environment.

13831

Small Business Administration

IFR issued by SBA regarding the Paycheck Protection Program and special exemptions granted to religious organizations 1

IFR issued by SBA regarding the Paycheck Protection Program and special exemptions granted to religious organizations 2

IFR issued by SBA regarding the Paycheck Protection Program and special exemptions granted to religious organizations 3

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Participation of Faith-Based Organizations in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (EIDL)

relief.

such loans.

This guidance expands the circumstances in which
houses of worship are eligible for federal economic

25

Congressional Freethought Caucus Membership

Rep. Jared Huffman (Co-Chair and Founding Member)

Rep. Jamie Raskin (Co-Chair and Founding Member)

Rep. Dan Kildee (Founding Member)

Rep. Jerry McNerney (Founding Member)

Rep. Don Beyer

Rep. Sean Casten

Rep. Steve Cohen

Rep. Pramila Jayapal

Rep. Hank Johnson

Rep. Zoe Lofgren

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton

Rep. Mark Pocan

Rep. Rashida Tlaib

26

Humanists for Biden Advisory Council Endorsements

The following individuals serve on the Secular Democrats of America’s Humanists for Biden Advisory Council and have endorsed this document:

Greg Epstein, Chair Debbie Allen
Ryan Bell
Jason Callahan Vanessa Gomez Brake Hemant Mehta

Dr. Juhem Navarro-Rivera Dr. Anthony B. Pinn Sasha Sagan
Roy Speckhardt

Acknowledgements

The following individuals contributed invaluable expertise and input to this document:

Courtney Callejas Caroline Mala Corbin Larry T. Decker Nicholas J. Little Jason Lemieux Sarah M. Levin Rebecca Markert

27

DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS NOW BACKING A GROUP CALLING TO SILENCE CHRISTIANS ON THE ‘RELIGIOUS RIGHT’ AND A PURGE OF ‘BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES’ IN AMERICA

The document, presented by Reps Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Jared Huffman, D-Calif., and endorsed by Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., states that an incoming Biden administration must “educate the American public,” particularly those identified as the “religious right,” on the need to keep their “religious dogma” to themselves. The document calls for a purge of social conservatives from all levels of government, labeling them as “white nationalist” and “conspiracy theorists.”

secular-democrats-of-america-christian-purge-religious-right-evangelicals

by Geoffrey GriderDecember 19, 2020

A group backed by congressional Democrats touting a ‘Secular America’ has sent a 28-page document to the Biden transition team advising him to strip First Amendment rights from Christians who advocate traditional biblical positions on the sanctity of life, marriage, education and the nuclear family.

Back on September 15th, at the Human Rights Campaign’s 2018 annual dinner at the Washington Convention Center, president-elect Joe Biden gave a startling speech that should have sent shock waves across America, but somehow it didn’t. Joe Biden stood up and unleashed a viscous attack on the 73,000,000 Americans who would vote to elect Donald Trump in November, and Biden called  them the ‘dregs of society’ that needed to be purged. You can see that video below, I suggest you watch it so you know what’s coming. And it is coming.

“But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. And the gospel must first be published among all nations. But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.”Mark 13:9-11 (KJB)

They call themselves the ‘Secular Democrats of America’ and they have strong support from the Democratically-controlled Congress, and are right now demanding that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support their agenda to purge Christians and the Bible from our society. Welcome to 2021.

Christian Purge Envisioned During Biden/Harris Administration

FROM TECHNOCRACY NEWS: The group, calling themselves theSecular Democrats of America, sent the letter to Biden’s team under the title “Restoring Constitutional Secularism and Patriotic Pluralism in the White House: Prepared exclusively by Secular Democrats of America PAC for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris Transition Team.”

The document, presented by Reps Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Jared Huffman, D-Calif., and endorsed by Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., states that an incoming Biden administration must “educate the American public,” particularly those identified as the “religious right,” on the need to keep their “religious dogma” to themselves. The document calls for a purge of social conservatives from all levels of government, labeling them as “white nationalist” and “conspiracy theorists.”

“They don’t have a problem with churches, they have a problem with conservative churches that voted for Donald Trump,” Brannon Howse, a conservative radio host who aired a program on the document Monday night, told LeoHohmann.com. “And some of the people promoting this are members of the leftist neo-evangelical community.”

He said vengeful Democrats are making enemy lists and have their sights set on the traditional Catholic community as well as the conservative evangelical Protestant community – two groups that voted for Donald Trump in droves.

“AS LONG AS YOU’RE TEACHING A LEFTIST PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST RELIGIOSITY YOU’LL BE JUST FINE, BUT IF YOU PREACH ANYTHING THAT IS WRAPPED AROUND A JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUE SYSTEM THEY’RE COMING AFTER YOU,” HOWSE SAID. “THEY’RE TELLING BIDEN DON’T USE THE TERM JUDEO-CHRISTIAN. THEY DON’T LIKE THAT TERM.”

The document states:

“THE CONSTANT ENTANGLEMENT OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT—PROMOTED BY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND INTENSIFIED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION—SWEEPS FAR BEYOND HOT-BUTTON ‘CULTURE WAR’ ISSUES LIKE ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION. IT PERMEATES EVERY ASPECT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY— HEALTHCARE, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EDUCATION, FOREIGN POLICY, TAX POLICY, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, MILITARY POLICY, AND MORE, ALL OF WHICH WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.”

It goes on to support the most draconian governmental responses to the COVID-19 virus and climate change, which sounds eerily similar to the World Economic Forum’s proposed “great reset” of the global economic and social order [this is a plan to replace free-enterprise capitalism with a type of scientific dictatorship run by unelected technocrats].

The document chastises President Trump for not following all of the arbitrary, constantly changing rules coming from the World Health Organization and “experts” like Dr. Anthony Fauci:

“POLICY DECISIONS THAT SHOULD BE GUIDED BY SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE — ON MATTERS RANGING FROM CLIMATE CHANGE TO COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION TO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH — HAVE BEEN SKEWED OR BLOCKED ENTIRELY BY POWERFUL RELIGIOUS INTEREST GROUPS AND FURTHER UNDERMINED AT EVERY TURN BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. THERE IS NO EXAMPLE MORE GRAVE THAN THIS ADMINISTRATION’S LETHAL MISHANDLING OF THE COVID-19 GLOBAL PANDEMIC, WHICH HAS BROUGHT DEATH TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS. DISREGARD FOR SCIENCE AND DISDAIN FOR EXPERTISE HAVE REACHED AN ALL-TIME HIGH IN THIS ADMINISTRATION OF MAGICAL THINKERS AND CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, BUT THESE POLICY DISTORTIONS DID NOT BEGIN WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND WILL NOT END WITHOUT DELIBERATE ACTION TO RESTORE RATIONALIST, SCIENTIFIC AND PRAGMATIC POLICY METHODS AND JUDGMENT. WE BELIEVE THAT NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME TO MAKE THE CASE FOR REVIVING A JEFFERSONIAN APPROACH TO GOVERNANCE THAT FAVORS REASON, SCIENCE, AND EVIDENCE, AND TO DISENTANGLE GOVERNMENT POLICY FROM THE INFLUENCE OF SECTARIAN RELIGIOUS INTERESTS THAT HAVE BECOME DANGEROUSLY ENTRENCHED AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.”

Labeling traditional Christian views as ‘white supremacist’

Trevor Loudon, an author and filmmaker specializing in communist revolutionary movements throughout history, described the document in an interview Monday with Howse at Worldview Weekend TV as “an advisory to what they hope is going to be President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris basically to clamp down on religious liberty in this country.”

The document demonizes conservative Christians as enemies of the state, equating them with “white nationalists” and “white supremacy,” which to the left is code for fascism, deserving of extreme retribution and ostracizing them from society.

The paper states:

“WE URGE YOU NOT TO UNDERESTIMATE THE INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTH OF WHAT WE REFER TO (INTERCHANGEABLY) IN THIS DOCUMENT AS THE ‘CHRISTIAN NATIONALIST MOVEMENT’ OR THE ‘RELIGIOUS RIGHT.’ … ITS EXTREME AND SECTARIAN AGENDA IS ON CONSTANT DISPLAY UNDER THE TRUMP-PENCE ADMINISTRATION. ITS POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC AND ANTI-SCIENTIFIC. IT PROVIDES CONSTANT COVER FOR WHITE SUPREMACY.”

Loudon told Worldview TV that this could be interpreted as a recommendation to send conservative Christians to re-education camps.

“Well it was definitely talking about re-educating, and reprograming people who have a traditional Christian point of view,” Loudon said. “From their perspective, these are dangerous people. They’re racist, they’re nationalist and they really need to be reprogrammed and there needs to be programs developed to do that, to deprogram them.”

Loudon, who has spent decades studying the speeches, papers, articles and books put out by radical leftists, says that when the left says they’re going to “unbrainwash you,” what they’re really saying is they want to brainwash you in their way of thinking.

“This is a document that the communists would be proud of. It is couched in the same sort of manner that I read in the communist press,” Loudon said. “They use certain weasel words that you can figure out what it means, and it is very, very scary stuff.”

Preparing for a Maoist Cultural Revolution?

Yet, this document will undoubtedly find a receptive ear in the Biden camp, which has already been infiltrated by Chinese-supporting communist sympathizers. One such person is Anita Dunn, who Biden hired last summer to be the chief strategy adviser. Dunn was caught on audio saying her favorite political philosopher is Chairman Mao Tse Tung, the godfather of Chinese communism who was responsible for launching the Chinese Cultural Revolution that brutally forced the Chinese people to submit to his strict anti-freedom, anti-God, anti-religion policies that erased Christianity from public life and enthroned the state as the one and only acceptable god in that country.

While they don’t call themselves communists, radicalized Democrats plan to launch a similar cultural revolution in America if Biden gets in power, said Loudon.

“THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS NOW A MARXIST PARTY,” LOUDON SAID. “THIS DOCUMENT IS AIMED AT THE MARXISTS’ MAIN ENEMY IN THIS COUNTRY, WHICH IS TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY. IT’S VERY, VERY CLEAR.”

Authors include Rep. Jamie Raskin, son of Marcus Raskin, the founder of the Institute for Policy Studies, which Loudon said has connections to the Soviets dating back to the 1970s.

“Jamie Raskin has long connections to the Democratic Socialists of America, he’s written for their publication, and he’s what I call a ‘small c communist,’ meaning he’s not actually a member of the Communist Party but he’s a sympathizer and a collaborator with a neo-communist organization.”

Another author is Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which was established by socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders. Also listed as a co-author is Rep. Jerry McNerney.

The document calls on Biden to make the following changes:

  • Eliminating government support for all crisis pregnancy centers and all abstinence-only education programs in schools.
  • Deny free speech and religious liberty to select Americans based on their religious beliefs.
  • Incentivize states to strip parents of all non-medical exemptions to mandatory vaccinations for children in schools or daycare centers.
  • Remove “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency.
  • Repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
  • Rescind and replace the Trump DOJ’s federal protections for religious liberty.
  • Appoint an attorney general who will support governors whose emergency COVID-19 executive orders restrict gatherings at houses of worship.
  • Reverse the Trump administration policies that have allowed faith-based government-funded contractors to provide adoption and foster care services and work with Congress to pass the Every Child Deserves a Family Act.
  • Fully and robustly fund “comprehensive” sex education, which to the leftist means encouraging elementary and middle school-age children to declare themselves one of dozens of made-up non-biological gender identities and learn how to engage in various deviant forms of sex.
  • Work with governors to educate and combat Project Blitz and encourage the introduction of the Do No Harm Act at the state level. [Project Blitz is a pro-family lobbying group described by the Secular Democrats as “a coordinated effort by Christian Nationalists to inject religion into public education, attack reproductive healthcare, and undermine LGBTQ equality using a distorted definition of ‘religious freedom.’”
  • The document tells Biden: “We urge you to avoid invoking the phrase ‘Judeo-Christian values,’ as it has been weaponized by the religious right to advance an agenda that has the veneer of inclusivity but actually undermines religious freedom and tolerance and does not represent tens of millions of Americans implicitly excluded from its formulation.

Among those endorsing the document as part of the Congressional Free Thought Caucus are the following members of Congress, all Democrats:

  • Rep. Jared Huffman (Co-Chair and Founding Member)
  • Rep. Jamie Raskin (Co-Chair and Founding Member)
  • Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich. (Founding Member)
  • Rep. Jerry McNerney, (Founding Member)
  • Rep. Don Beyer Jr., D-Va.
  • Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill.
  • Rep. Steve Cohen, D-TN
  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.
  • Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga.
  • Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.
  • Eleanor Holmes Norton, non-voting delegate from D.C.
  • Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc.
  • Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.
  • Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa.

Rashida Tlaib wrapped herself in the Palestinian flag on election night 2018, then went on a rant swearing to her young son that, when it came to Trump, “We’re going to impeach the Mother F’r.” Steve Cohen has ties toMemphis Socialist Party USA and to members of Liberation Road, a pro-China communist organization. He traveled to Cuba in 2011.

“THIS IS A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST OF AMERICA-INFLUENCED DOCUMENT. IT’S MARXIST TO THE CORE,” LOUDON SAID.

You can see from the flyer below that the Secular Democrats of America were preaching their hateful, divisive message before the election, slandering Christians who hold mainstream conservative views as part of a “white supremacy” conspiracy theory.Secular Democrats of America is a federal political action committee that represents secular Democratic individuals and organizations. 

The document sent to Biden explicitly singles out the “religious right” — Americans who have always leaned conservative, who elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Donald Trump in 2016.

“THIS IS AIMED DIRECTLY AT THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ALONE, THEY HATE THEIR POLITICS,” LOUDON SAID. “FROM THE LEFTIST POINT OF VIEW, FROM THE COMMUNIST POINT OF VIEW, THEY HAVE CONTROL OF HOLLYWOOD, THEY CONTROL THE EDUCATION SYSTEM, THE MEDIA, MOST OF OUR INSTITUTIONS; THE ONLY THING THEY DON’T CONTROL IS CONSERVATIVE BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS. THEY VOTED FOR RONALD REAGAN AND THEY VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP.”

It was these same Christian conservatives who were seen as having blocked Hillary Clinton’s coronation as the rightful heir to Barack Obama.

“She was supposed to finish off the communization of America and these Christians went out and voted for Donald Trump,” Loudon said.

They turned out for Trump again in 2020, in record numbers [Trump was the first incumbent president in American history who received more votes in his second run and yet supposedly did not win re-election].

“So the left understands, they have to get on top of Christianity, they have to suppress it, or pervert it into their own direction,” Loudon said.

Clinton stated in her 2016 campaign that people with “deep-seated religious and cultural beliefs, cultural codes and structural biases have to be changed,” a bigoted comment that garnered her no negative press from the establishment media. Joe Biden in 2018 called the same body of believers, those who voted for Trump, the “dregs of society.”

Joe Biden Calls Christian Trump Supporters The ‘Dregs Of Society’

Former Vice President Joe Biden unleashed a vicious attack on supporters of President Donald Trump. His remarks came at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner at the Washington Convention Center on September 15.

Their strategy calls for redefining conservative churches and Christians as “white nationalist” and target them for attacks in the media, on social media, and by weaponizing the federal Department of Justice against these declared enemies.

All Christians who love their country, God and the Constitution will be targeted. Black churches and black pastors will not get a pass.

“EVEN IF YOU’RE BLACK YOU CAN BE A ‘WHITE NATIONALIST’ IN THESE FOLKS’ EYES AND YOU’RE A DANGER TO SOCIETY,” LOUDON SAID. “YOU’RE RESIDING IN A COUNTRY WHOSE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE SAYS YOUR RIGHTS COME FROM GOD, YOU BELIEVE IN BORDERS, FREEDOM, BUT IF YOU BELIEVE IN THAT ACCORDING TO THESE PEOPLE, YOU’RE AN ENEMY OF THE STATE.”

“IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, YOU NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN, REPROGRAMED AND PUT OUT OF BUSINESS.”

The Secular Democrats of America publishes on its website a list of atheist and humanist elected officials who support its agenda of wiping all vestiges of Christianity from public life, from the federal level all the way down to the state and local levels

THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO RIG THE ELECTION ARE HARD AT WORK

Facebook Braces Itself for Trump to Cast Doubt on Election Results

August 21, 2020

Facebook Braces Itself for Trump to Cast Doubt on Election Results

SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook spent years preparing to ward off any tampering on its site ahead of November’s presidential election. Now the social network is getting ready in case President Trump interferes once the vote is over.

Employees at the Silicon Valley company are laying out contingency plans and walking through postelection scenarios that include attempts by Mr. Trump or his campaign to use the platform to delegitimize the results, people with knowledge of Facebook’s plans said.

Facebook is preparing steps to take should Mr. Trump wrongly claim on the site that he won another four-year term, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Facebook is also working through how it might act if Mr. Trump tries to invalidate the results by declaring that the Postal Service lost mail-in ballots or that other groups meddled with the vote, the people said.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, and some of his lieutenants have started holding daily meetings about minimizing how the platform can be used to dispute the election, the people said. They have discussed a “kill switch” to shut off political advertising after Election Day since the ads, which Facebook does not police for truthfulness, could be used to spread misinformation, the people said.

The preparations underscore how rising concerns over the integrity of the November election have reached social media companies, whose sites can be used to amplify lies, conspiracy theories and inflammatory messages. YouTube and Twitter have also discussed plans for action if the postelection period becomes complicated, according to disinformation and political researchers who have advised the firms.

The tech companies have spent the past few years working to avoid a repeat of the 2016 election, when Russian operatives used Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to inflame the American electorate with divisive messages. While the firms have since clamped down on foreign meddling, they are reckoning with a surge of domestic interference, such as from the right-wing conspiracy group QAnon and Mr. Trump himself.

“We don’t have experience with that in the United States,” Mr. Stamos added.

Facebook may be in an especially difficult position because Mr. Zuckerberg has said the social network stands for free speech. Unlike Twitter, which has flagged Mr. Trump’s tweets for being factually inaccurate and glorifying violence, Facebook has said that politicians’ posts are newsworthy and that the public has the right to see them. Taking any action on posts from Mr. Trump or his campaign after the vote could open Facebook up to accusations of censorship and anticonservative bias.

In an interview with The New York Times this month, Mr. Zuckerberg said of the election that people should be “ready for the fact that there’s a high likelihood that it takes days or weeks to count this — and there’s nothing wrong or illegitimate about that.”

A spokesman for Facebook declined to comment on its postelection strategy. “We continue to plan for a range of scenarios to make sure we are prepared for the upcoming election,” he said.

Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, said, “President Trump will continue to work to ensure the security and integrity of our elections.”

Google, which owns YouTube, confirmed that it was holding conversations on postelection strategy but declined to elaborate. Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Twitter’s vice president of public policy, said the company was evolving its policies to “better identify, understand and mitigate threats to the public conversation, both before or after an election.”

Facebook had initially focused on the run-up to the election — the period when, in 2016, most of the Russian meddling took place on its site. The company mapped out almost 80 scenarios, many of which looked at what might go wrong on its platform before Americans voted, the people with knowledge of the discussions said.

Facebook examined what it would do, for instance, if hackers backed by a nation-state leaked documents online, or if a nation-state unleashed a widespread disinformation campaign at the last minute to dissuade Americans from going to the polls, one employee said.

To bolster the effort, Facebook invited those in government, think tanks and academia to participate and conduct exercises around the hypothetical election situations.

An idea that came up during one exercise — that Facebook label posts from state media so users know they are reading government-sponsored content — was put into effect in June, said Graham Brookie, director of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, who joined the session.

“We can see that their policy decisions are being affected by these exercises,” he said.

But Facebook was less decisive on other issues. If a post suggested that mail-in voting was broken, or encouraged people to send in multiple copies of their mail-in ballots, the company would not remove the messages if they were framed as a suggestion or a question, one person who advised the company said. Under Facebook’s rules, it takes down only voting-related posts that are statements with obviously false and misleading information.

In recent months, Facebook turned more to postelection planning. That shift accelerated this month when Mr. Trump said more on the issue, two Facebook employees said.

On Aug. 3, Mr. Trump questioned whether the Democratic primary in New York’s 12th Congressional District should be rerun because of long delays in counting mail-in ballots.

“Nobody knows what’s happening with the ballots and the lost ballots and the fraudulent ballots, I guess,” he said.

The next day, Mr. Trump broadened his attack, falsely stating that mail-in ballots lead to more voter fraud nationwide. “Mail ballots are very dangerous for this country because of cheaters,” he said. “They go collect them. They are fraudulent in many cases.”

Mr. Trump’s comments alarmed Facebook employees who work on protecting its site in the U.S. election. On the group’s internal chat channels, many wondered whether Mr. Trump would launch even more attacks against mail-in voting, one employee who saw the messages said. Some asked whether the president was violating Facebook’s rules against disenfranchising voters.

Those questions were ultimately sent to Mr. Zuckerberg, as well as top executives including Joel Kaplan, the global head of public policy, the employee said.

In a staff meeting later that week, Mr. Zuckerberg told employees that if political figures or commentators tried declaring victory in an election early, Facebook would consider adding a label to their posts explaining that the results were not final. Of Mr. Trump, Mr. Zuckerberg said the company was “in unprecedented territory with the president saying some of the things that he’s saying that I find quite troubling.” The meeting was reported earlier by BuzzFeed News.

Since then, executives have discussed the “kill switch” for political advertising, according to two employees, which would turn off political ads after Nov. 3 if the election’s outcome was not immediately clear or if Mr. Trump disputed the results.

The discussions remain fluid, and it is unclear if Facebook will follow through with the plan, three people close to the talks said.

In a call with reporters this month, Facebook executives said they had removed more than 110,000 pieces of content between March and July that violated the company’s election-related policies. They also said there was a lot about the election that they didn’t know.

“In this fast-changing environment, we are always sort of ‘red teaming’ and working with partners to understand what are the next risks?” said Guy Rosen, vice president of integrity at Facebook. “What are the different kinds of things that may go wrong?”

So, The Demonicrats Have Never Accepted The 2016 Results And Made Every Possible Accusation That Trump Cheated, Did Mr. Zuckerberg Throw The Kill Switch Then? Why The One Sided Plans In 2020 Misleading Readers That Only Trump May Dispute The Results? What If The Dems Do? Pathetic….6 Reply

jamma

Add title

August 21, 2020

Facebook Braces Itself for Trump to Cast Doubt on Election Results

SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook spent years preparing to ward off any tampering on its site ahead of November’s presidential election. Now the social network is getting ready in case President Trump interferes once the vote is over.

Employees at the Silicon Valley company are laying out contingency plans and walking through postelection scenarios that include attempts by Mr. Trump or his campaign to use the platform to delegitimize the results, people with knowledge of Facebook’s plans said.

Facebook is preparing steps to take should Mr. Trump wrongly claim on the site that he won another four-year term, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Facebook is also working through how it might act if Mr. Trump tries to invalidate the results by declaring that the Postal Service lost mail-in ballots or that other groups meddled with the vote, the people said.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, and some of his lieutenants have started holding daily meetings about minimizing how the platform can be used to dispute the election, the people said. They have discussed a “kill switch” to shut off political advertising after Election Day since the ads, which Facebook does not police for truthfulness, could be used to spread misinformation, the people said.

The preparations underscore how rising concerns over the integrity of the November election have reached social media companies, whose sites can be used to amplify lies, conspiracy theories and inflammatory messages. YouTube and Twitter have also discussed plans for action if the postelection period becomes complicated, according to disinformation and political researchers who have advised the firms.

The tech companies have spent the past few years working to avoid a repeat of the 2016 election, when Russian operatives used Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to inflame the American electorate with divisive messages. While the firms have since clamped down on foreign meddling, they are reckoning with a surge of domestic interference, such as from the right-wing conspiracy group QAnon and Mr. Trump himself.

“We don’t have experience with that in the United States,” Mr. Stamos added.

Facebook may be in an especially difficult position because Mr. Zuckerberg has said the social network stands for free speech. Unlike Twitter, which has flagged Mr. Trump’s tweets for being factually inaccurate and glorifying violence, Facebook has said that politicians’ posts are newsworthy and that the public has the right to see them. Taking any action on posts from Mr. Trump or his campaign after the vote could open Facebook up to accusations of censorship and anticonservative bias.

In an interview with The New York Times this month, Mr. Zuckerberg said of the election that people should be “ready for the fact that there’s a high likelihood that it takes days or weeks to count this — and there’s nothing wrong or illegitimate about that.”

A spokesman for Facebook declined to comment on its postelection strategy. “We continue to plan for a range of scenarios to make sure we are prepared for the upcoming election,” he said.

Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, said, “President Trump will continue to work to ensure the security and integrity of our elections.”

Google, which owns YouTube, confirmed that it was holding conversations on postelection strategy but declined to elaborate. Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Twitter’s vice president of public policy, said the company was evolving its policies to “better identify, understand and mitigate threats to the public conversation, both before or after an election.”

Facebook had initially focused on the run-up to the election — the period when, in 2016, most of the Russian meddling took place on its site. The company mapped out almost 80 scenarios, many of which looked at what might go wrong on its platform before Americans voted, the people with knowledge of the discussions said.

Facebook examined what it would do, for instance, if hackers backed by a nation-state leaked documents online, or if a nation-state unleashed a widespread disinformation campaign at the last minute to dissuade Americans from going to the polls, one employee said.

To bolster the effort, Facebook invited those in government, think tanks and academia to participate and conduct exercises around the hypothetical election situations.

An idea that came up during one exercise — that Facebook label posts from state media so users know they are reading government-sponsored content — was put into effect in June, said Graham Brookie, director of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, who joined the session.

“We can see that their policy decisions are being affected by these exercises,” he said.

But Facebook was less decisive on other issues. If a post suggested that mail-in voting was broken, or encouraged people to send in multiple copies of their mail-in ballots, the company would not remove the messages if they were framed as a suggestion or a question, one person who advised the company said. Under Facebook’s rules, it takes down only voting-related posts that are statements with obviously false and misleading information.

In recent months, Facebook turned more to postelection planning. That shift accelerated this month when Mr. Trump said more on the issue, two Facebook employees said.

On Aug. 3, Mr. Trump questioned whether the Democratic primary in New York’s 12th Congressional District should be rerun because of long delays in counting mail-in ballots.

“Nobody knows what’s happening with the ballots and the lost ballots and the fraudulent ballots, I guess,” he said.

The next day, Mr. Trump broadened his attack, falsely stating that mail-in ballots lead to more voter fraud nationwide. “Mail ballots are very dangerous for this country because of cheaters,” he said. “They go collect them. They are fraudulent in many cases.”

Mr. Trump’s comments alarmed Facebook employees who work on protecting its site in the U.S. election. On the group’s internal chat channels, many wondered whether Mr. Trump would launch even more attacks against mail-in voting, one employee who saw the messages said. Some asked whether the president was violating Facebook’s rules against disenfranchising voters.

Those questions were ultimately sent to Mr. Zuckerberg, as well as top executives including Joel Kaplan, the global head of public policy, the employee said.

In a staff meeting later that week, Mr. Zuckerberg told employees that if political figures or commentators tried declaring victory in an election early, Facebook would consider adding a label to their posts explaining that the results were not final. Of Mr. Trump, Mr. Zuckerberg said the company was “in unprecedented territory with the president saying some of the things that he’s saying that I find quite troubling.” The meeting was reported earlier by BuzzFeed News.

Since then, executives have discussed the “kill switch” for political advertising, according to two employees, which would turn off political ads after Nov. 3 if the election’s outcome was not immediately clear or if Mr. Trump disputed the results.

The discussions remain fluid, and it is unclear if Facebook will follow through with the plan, three people close to the talks said.

In a call with reporters this month, Facebook executives said they had removed more than 110,000 pieces of content between March and July that violated the company’s election-related policies. They also said there was a lot about the election that they didn’t know.

“In this fast-changing environment, we are always sort of ‘red teaming’ and working with partners to understand what are the next risks?” said Guy Rosen, vice president of integrity at Facebook. “What are the different kinds of things that may go wrong?”

Exposing The Challenge Of Marxism

by Tyler DurdenFri, 08/21/2020

Authored by Yoram Hazony via Quillette.com,

I. The collapse of institutional liberalism

For a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, most Americans and Europeans regarded Marxism as an enemy that had been defeated once and for all. But they were wrong… 

A mere 30 years later, Marxism is back, and making an astonishingly successful bid to seize control of the most important American media companies, universities and schools, major corporations and philanthropic organizations, and even the courts, the government bureaucracy, and some churches. As American cities succumb to rioting, arson, and looting, it appears as though the liberal custodians of many of these institutions—from the New York Times to Princeton University—have despaired of regaining control of them, and are instead adopting a policy of accommodation. That is, they are attempting to appease their Marxist employees by giving in to some of their demands in the hope of not being swept away entirely.

We don’t know what will happen for certain. But based on the experience of recent years, we can venture a pretty good guess. Institutional liberalism lacks the resources to contend with this threat. Liberalism is being expelled from its former strongholds, and the hegemony of liberal ideas, as we have known it since the 1960s, will end. Anti-Marxist liberals are about to find themselves in much the same situation that has characterized conservatives, nationalists, and Christians for some time now: They are about to find themselves in the opposition.

This means that some brave liberals will soon be waging war on the very institutions they so recently controlled. They will try to build up alternative educational and media platforms in the shadow of the prestigious, wealthy, powerful institutions they have lost. Meanwhile, others will continue to work in the mainstream media, universities, tech companies, philanthropies, and government bureaucracy, learning to keep their liberalism to themselves and to let their colleagues believe that they too are Marxists—just as many conservatives learned long ago how to keep their conservatism to themselves and let their colleagues believe they are liberals.

This is the new reality that is emerging. There is blood in the water and the new Marxists will not rest content with their recent victories. In America, they will press their advantage and try to seize the Democratic Party. They will seek to reduce the Republican Party to a weak imitation of their own new ideology, or to ban it outright as a racist organization. And in other democratic countries, they will attempt to imitate their successes in America. No free nation will be spared this trial. So let us not avert our eyes and tell ourselves that this curse isn’t coming for us. Because it is coming for us.

In this essay, I would like to offer some initial remarks about the new Marxist victories in America – about what has happened and what’s likely to happen next…

II. The Marxist framework

Anti-Marxist liberals have labored under numerous disadvantages in the recent struggles to maintain control of liberal organizations. One is that they are often not confident they can use the term “Marxist” in good faith to describe those seeking to overthrow them. This is because their tormentors do not follow the precedent of the Communist Party, the Nazis, and various other political movements that branded themselves using a particular party name and issued an explicit manifesto to define it. Instead, they disorient their opponents by referring to their beliefs with a shifting vocabulary of terms, including “the Left,” “Progressivism,” “Social Justice,” “Anti-Racism,” “Anti-Fascism,” “Black Lives Matter,” “Critical Race Theory,” “Identity Politics,” “Political Correctness,” “Wokeness,” and more. When liberals try to use these terms they often find themselves deplored for not using them correctly, and this itself becomes a weapon in the hands of those who wish to humiliate and ultimately destroy them.

The best way to escape this trap is to recognize the movement presently seeking to overthrow liberalism for what it is: an updated version of Marxism. I do not say this to disparage anyone. I say this because it is true. And because recognizing this truth will help us understand what we are facing.

The new Marxists do not use the technical jargon that was devised by 19th-century Communists. They don’t talk about the bourgeoisieproletariatclass strugglealienation of laborcommodity fetishism, and the rest, and in fact they have developed their own jargon tailored to present circumstances in America, Britain, and elsewhere. Nevertheless, their politics are based on Marx’s framework for critiquing liberalism (what Marx calls the “ideology of the bourgeoisie”) and overthrowing it. We can describe Marx’s political framework as follows:

1. Oppressor and oppressed
Marx argues that, as an empirical matter, people invariably form themselves into cohesive groups (he calls them classes), which exploit one another to the extent they are able. A liberal political order is no different in this from any other, and it tends toward two classes, one of which owns and controls pretty much everything (the oppressor); while the other is exploited, and the fruit of its labor appropriated, so that it does not advance and, in fact, remains forever enslaved (the oppressed). In addition, Marx sees the state itself, its laws and its mechanisms of enforcement, as a tool that the oppressor class uses to keep the regime of oppression in place and to assist in carrying out this work.

2. False consciousness
Marx recognizes that the liberal businessmen, politicians, lawyers, and intellectuals who keep this system in place are unaware that they are the oppressors, and that what they think of as progress has only established new conditions of oppression. Indeed, even the working class may not know that they are exploited and oppressed. This is because they all think in terms of liberal categories (e.g., the individual’s right to freely sell his labor) which obscure the systematic oppression that is taking place. This ignorance of the fact that one is an oppressor or oppressed is called the ruling ideology (Engels later coined the phrase false consciousness to describe it)and it is only overcome when one is awakened to what is happening and learns to recognize reality using true categories.

3. Revolutionary reconstitution of society
Marx suggests that, historically, oppressed classes have materially improved their conditions only through a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large—that is, through the destruction of the oppressor class, and of the social norms and ideas that hold the regime of systematic oppression in place. He even specifies that liberals will supply the oppressed with the tools needed to overthrow them. There is a period of “more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution” and the “violent overthrow” of the liberal oppressors. At this point, the oppressed seize control of the state.

4. Total disappearance of class antagonisms
Marx promises that after the oppressed underclass takes control of the state, the exploitation of individuals by other individuals will be “put to an end” and the antagonism between classes of individuals will totally disappear. How this is to be done is not specified.

Marxist political theories have undergone much development and elaboration over nearly two centuries. The story of how “neo-Marxism” emerged after the First World War in the writings of the Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci has been frequently told, and academics will have their hands full for many years to come arguing over how much influence was exerted on various successor movements by Michel Foucault, post-modernism, and more. But for present purposes, this level of detail is not necessary, and I will use the term “Marxist” in a broad sense to refer to any political or intellectual movement that is built upon Marx’s general framework as I’ve just described it. This includes the “Progressive” or “Anti-Racism” movement now advancing toward the conquest of liberalism in America and Britain. This movement uses racialist categories such as whites and people of color to describe the oppressors and the oppressed in our day. But it relies entirely on Marx’s general framework for its critique of liberalism and for its plan of action against the liberal political order. It is simply an updated Marxism.

III. The attraction and power of Marxism

Although many liberals and conservatives say that Marxism is “nothing but a great lie,” this isn’t quite right. Liberal societies have repeatedly proved themselves vulnerable to Marxism, and now we are seeing with our own eyes how the greatest liberal institutions in the world are being handed over to Marxists and their allies. If Marxism is nothing but a great lie, why are liberal societies so vulnerable to it? We must understand the enduring attraction and strength of Marxism. And we will never understand it unless we recognize that Marxism captures certain aspects of the truth that are missing from Enlightenment liberalism.

Which aspects of the truth?

Marx’s principal insight is the recognition that the categories liberals use to construct their theory of political reality (liberty, equality, rights, and consent) are insufficient for understanding the political domain. They are insufficient because the liberal picture of the political world leaves out two phenomena that are, according to Marx, absolutely central to human political experience: The fact that people invariably form cohesive classes or groups; and the fact that these classes or groups invariably oppress or exploit one another, with the state itself functioning as an instrument of the oppressor class.

My liberal friends tend to believe that oppression and exploitation exist only in traditional or authoritarian societies, whereas liberal society is free (or almost free) from all that. But this isn’t true. Marx is right to see that every society consists of cohesive classes or groups, and that political life everywhere is primarily about the power relations among different groups. He is also right that at any given time, one group (or a coalition of groups) dominates the state, and that the laws and policies of the state tend to reflect the interests and ideals of this dominant group. Moreover, Marx is right when he says that the dominant group tends to see its own preferred laws and policies as reflecting “reason” or “nature,” and works to disseminate its way of looking at things throughout society, so that various kinds of injustice and oppression tend to be obscured from view.

For example, despite decades of experimentation with vouchers and charter schools, the dominant form of American liberalism remains strongly committed to the public school system. In most places, this is a monopolistic system that requires children of all backgrounds to receive what is, in effect, an atheistic education stripped clean of references to God or the Bible. Although liberals sincerely believe that this policy is justified by the theory of “separation of church and state,” or by the argument that society needs schools that are “for everyone,” the fact is that these theories justify what really is a system aimed at inculcating their own Enlightenment liberalism. Seen from a conservative perspective, this amounts to a quiet persecution of religious families. Similarly, the pornography industry is nothing but a horrific instrument for exploiting poor women, although it is justified by liberal elites on grounds of “free speech” and other freedoms reserved to “consenting adults.” And in the same way, indiscriminate offshoring of manufacturing capacity is considered to be an expression of property rights by liberal elites, who benefit from cheap Chinese labor at the expense of their own working-class neighbors.

No, Marxist political theory is not simply a great lie. By analyzing society in terms of power relations among classes or groups, we can bring to light important political phenomena to which Enlightenment liberal theories—theories that tend to reduce politics to the individual and his or her private liberties—are systematically blind.

This is the principal reason that Marxist ideas are so attractive. In every society, there will always be plenty of people who have reason to feel they’ve been oppressed or exploited. Some of these claims will be worthy of remedy and some less so. But virtually all of them are susceptible to a Marxist interpretation, which shows how they result from systematic oppression by the dominant classes, and justifies responding with outrage and violence. And those who are troubled by such apparent oppression will frequently find themselves at home among the Marxists.

Of course, liberals have not remained unmoved in the face of criticism based on the reality of group power relations. Measures such as the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly outlawed discriminatory practices against a variety of classes or groups; and subsequent “Affirmative Action” programs sought to strengthen underprivileged classes through quotas, hiring goals, and other methods. But these efforts have not come close to creating a society free from power relations among classes or groups. If anything, the sense that “the system is rigged” in favor of certain classes or groups at the expense of others has only grown more pronounced.

Despite having had more than 150 years to work on it, liberalism still hasn’t found a way to persuasively address the challenge posed by Marx’s thought.

IV. The flaws that make Marxism fatal

We’ve looked at what Marxist political theory gets right and why it’s such a powerful doctrine. But there are also plenty of problems with the Marxist framework, a number of them fatal.

The first of these is that while Marxism proposes an empirical investigation of the power relations among classes or groups, it simply assumes that wherever one discovers a relationship between a more powerful group and a weaker one, that relation will be one of oppressor and oppressed. This makes it seem as if every hierarchical relationship is just another version of the horrific exploitation of black slaves by Virginia plantation owners before the Civil War. But in most cases, hierarchical relationships are not enslavement. Thus, while it is true that kings have normally been more powerful than their subjects, employers more powerful than their employees, and parents more powerful than their children, these have not necessarily been straightforward relations of oppressor and oppressed. Much more common are mixed relationships, in which both the stronger and the weaker receive certain benefits, and in which both can also point to hardships that must be endured in order to maintain it.

The fact that the Marxist framework presupposes a relationship of oppressor and oppressed leads to the second great difficulty, which is the assumption that every society is so exploitative that it must be heading toward the overthrow of the dominant class or group. But if it is possible for weaker groups to benefit from their position, and not just to be oppressed by it, then we have arrived at the possibility of a conservative society: One in which there is a dominant class or loyalty group (or coalition of groups), which seeks to balance the benefits and the burdens of the existing order so as to avoid actual oppression. In such a case, the overthrow and destruction of the dominant group may not be necessary. Indeed, when considering the likely consequences of a revolutionary reconstitution of society—often including not only civil war, but foreign invasion as the political order collapses—most groups in a conservative society may well prefer to preserve the existing order, or to largely preserve it, rather than to endure Marx’s alternative.

This brings us to the third failing of the Marxist framework. This is the notorious absence of a clear view as to what the underclass, having overthrown its oppressors and seized the state, is supposed to do with its newfound power. Marx is emphatic that once they have control of the state, the oppressed classes will be able to end oppression. But these claims appear to be unfounded. After all, we’ve said that the strength of the Marxist framework lies in its willingness to recognize that power relations do exist among classes and groups in every society, and that these can be oppressive and exploitative in every society. And if this is an empirical fact—as indeed it seems to be—then how will the Marxists who have overthrown liberalism be able use the state to obtain the total abolition of class antagonisms? At this point, Marx’s empiricist posture evaporates, and his framework becomes completely utopian.

When liberals and conservatives talk about Marxism being “nothing but a big lie,” this is what they mean. The Marxist goal of seizing the state and using it to eliminate all oppression is an empty promise. Marx did not know how the state could actually bring this about, and neither have any of his followers. In fact, we now have many historical cases in which Marxists have seized the state: In Russia and Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, and Cambodia, Cuba and Venezuela. But nowhere has the Marxists’ attempt at a “revolutionary reconstitution of society” by the state been anything other than a parade of horrors. In every case, the Marxists themselves form a new class or group, using the power of the state to exploit and oppress other classes in the most extreme ways—up to and including repeated recourse to murdering millions of their own people. Yet for all this, utopia never comes and oppression never ends.

Marxist society, like all other societies, consists of classes and groups arranged in a hierarchical order. But the aim of reconstituting society and the assertion that the state is responsible for achieving this feat makes the Marxist state much more aggressive, and more willing to resort to coercion and bloodshed, than the liberal regime it seeks to replace.

V. The dance of liberalism and Marxism

It is often said that liberalism and Marxism are “opposites,” with liberalism committed to freeing the individual from coercion by the state and Marxism endorsing unlimited coercion in pursuit of a reconstituted society. But what if it turned out that liberalism has a tendency to give way and transfer power to Marxists within a few decades? Far from being the opposite of Marxism, liberalism would merely be a gateway to Marxism.

A compelling analysis of the structural similarities between Enlightenment liberalism and Marxism has been published by the Polish political theorist Ryszard Legutko under the title The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies (2016). A subsequent book by Christopher Caldwell, The Age of Entitlement (2020), has similarly documented the manner in which the American constitutional revolution of the 1960s, whose purpose was to establish the rule of liberalism, has in fact brought about a swift transition to a “Progressive” politics that is, as I’ve said, a version of Marxism. With these accounts in mind, I’d like to propose a way of understanding the core relationship that binds liberalism and Marxism to one another and makes them something other than “opposites.”

Enlightenment liberalism is a rationalist system built on the premise that human beings are, by nature, free and equal. It is further asserted that this truth is “self-evident,” meaning that all of us can recognize it through the exercise of reason alone, without reference to the particular national or religious traditions of our time and place.

But there are difficulties with this system. One of these is that, as it turns out, highly abstract terms such as freedom, equality, and justice cannot be given stable content by means of reason alone. To see this, consider the following problems:

1. If all men are free and equal, how is it that not everyone who wishes to do so may enter the United States and take up residence there?

By reason alone, it can be argued that since all men are free and equal, they should be equally free to take up residence in the United States. This appears straightforward, and any argument to the contrary will have to depend on traditional concepts such as nation, state, territory, border, citizenship, and so on—none of which are self-evident or accessible to reason alone.

2. If all men are free and equal, how is it that not everyone who wants to may register for courses at Princeton University?

By reason alone, it can be argued that if all are free and equal, they should be equally free to register for courses at Princeton on a first come, first served basis. This, too, appears straightforward. Any argument to the contrary will have to depend on traditional concepts such as private property, corporation, freedom of association, education, course of study, merit, and so on. And, again, none of this is self-evident.

3. If all men are free and equal, how can you justify preventing a man who feels he is a woman from competing in a women’s track and field competition in a public school?

By reason alone, it can be said that since all are free and equal, a man who feels he is a woman should be equally free to compete in a women’s track and field competition. Any argument to the contrary will have to depend on traditional concepts of such as man, woman, women’s rights, athletic competition, competition class, fairness, and so on, none of which is accessible to reason alone.

Such examples can be multiplied without end. The truth is that reason alone gets us almost nowhere in settling arguments over what is meant by freedom and equality. So where does the meaning of these terms come from?

I’ve said that every society consists of classes or groups. These stand in various power relations to one another, which find expression in the political, legal, religious, and moral traditions that are handed down by the strongest classes or groups. It is only within the context of these traditions that we come to believe that words like freedom and equality mean one thing and not another, and to develop a “common sense” of how different interests and concerns are to be balanced against one another in actual cases.

But what happens if you dispense with those traditions? This, after all, is what Enlightenment liberalism seeks to do. Enlightenment liberals observe that inherited traditions are always flawed or unjust in certain ways, and for this reason they feel justified in setting inherited tradition aside and appealing directly to abstract principles such as freedom and equality. The trouble is, there is no such thing as a society in which everyone is free and equal in all ways. Even in a liberal society, there will always be countless ways in which a given class or group may be unfree or unequal with respect to the others. And since this is so, Marxists will always be able to say that some or all of these instances of unfreedom and inequality are instances of oppression.

Thus the endless dance of liberalism and Marxism, which goes like this:

1. Liberals declare that henceforth all will be free and equal, emphasizing that reason (not tradition) will determine the content of each individual’s rights.

2. Marxists, exercising reason, point to many genuine instances of unfreedom and inequality in society, decrying them as oppression and demanding new rights.

3. Liberals, embarrassed by the presence of unfreedom and inequality after having declared that all would be free and equal, adopt some of the Marxists’ demands for new rights.

4. Return to #1 above and repeat.

Of course, not all liberals give in to the Marxists’ demands—and certainly not on every occasion. Nevertheless, the dance is real. As a generalized view of what happens over time, this picture is accurate, as we’ve seen throughout the democratic world over the last 70 years. Liberals progressively adopt the critical theories of the Marxists over time, whether the subject is God and religion, man and woman, honor and duty, family, nation, or anything else.

A few observations, then, concerning this dance of liberalism and Marxism:

First, notice that the dance is a byproduct of liberalism. It exists because Enlightenment liberalism sets freedom and equality as the standard by which government is to be judged, and describes the individual’s power of reason alone, independent of tradition, as the instrument by which this judgment is to be obtained. In so doing, liberalism creates Marxists. Like the sorcerer’s apprentice, it constantly calls into being individuals who exercise reason, identify instances of unfreedom and inequality in society, and conclude from this that they (or others) are oppressed and that a revolutionary reconstitution of society is necessary to eliminate the oppression. It is telling that this dynamic is already visible during the French Revolution and in the radical regimes in Pennsylvania and other states during the American Revolution. A proto-Marxism was generated by Enlightenment liberalism even before Marx proposed a formal structure for describing it a few decades later.

Second, the dance only moves in one direction. In a liberal society, Marxist criticism brings many liberals to progressively abandon the conceptions of freedom and equality with which they set out, and to adopt new conceptions proposed by Marxists. But the reverse movement—of Marxists toward liberalism—seems terribly weak in comparison. How can this be? If Enlightenment liberalism is true, and its premises are indeed “self-evident” or a “product of reason,” it should be the case that under conditions of freedom, individuals will exercise reason and reach liberal conclusions. Why, then, do liberal societies produce a rapid movement toward Marxist ideas, and not an ever-greater belief in liberalism?

The key to understanding this dynamic is this: Although liberals believe their views are “self-evident” or the “product of reason,” most of the time they are actually relying on inherited conceptions of what freedom and equality are, and inherited norms of how to apply these concepts to real-world cases. In other words, the conflict between liberalism and its Marxist critics is one between a dominant class or group wishing to conserve its traditions (liberals), and a revolutionary group (Marxists) combining criticial reasoning with a willingness to jettison all inherited constraints to overthrow these traditions. But while Marxists know very well that their aim is to destroy the intellectual and cultural traditions that are holding liberalism in place, their liberal opponents for the most part refuse to engage in the kind of conservatism that would be needed to defend their traditions and strengthen them. Indeed, liberals frequently disparage tradition, telling their children and students that all they need is to reason freely and “draw your own conclusions.”

The result is a radical imbalance between Marxists, who consciously work to bring about a conceptual revolution, and liberals whose insistence on “freedom from inherited tradition” provides little or no defense—and indeed, opens the door for precisely the kinds of arguments and tactics that Marxists use against them. This imbalance means that the dance moves only in one direction, and that liberal ideas tend to collapse before Marxist criticism in a matter of decades.

VI. The Marxist endgame and democracy’s end

Not very long ago, most of us living in free societies knew that Marxism was not compatible with democracy. But with liberal institutions overrun by “Progressives” and “Anti-Racists,” much of what was once obvious about Marxism, and much of what was once obvious about democracy, has been forgotten. It is time to revisit some of these once-obvious truths.

Under democratic government, violent warfare among competing classes and groups is brought to an end and replaced by non-violent rivalry among political parties. This doesn’t mean that power relations among loyalty groups come to an end. It doesn’t mean that injustice and oppression come to an end. It only means that instead of resolving their disagreements through bloodshed, the various groups that make up a given society form themselves into political parties devoted to trying to unseat one another in periodic elections. Under such a system, one party rules for a fixed term, but its rivals know they will get to rule in turn if they can win the next election. It is the possibility of being able to take power and rule the country without widespread killing and destruction that entices all sides to lay down their weapons and take up electoral politics instead.

The most basic thing one needs to know about a democratic regime, then, is this: You need to have at least twolegitimate political parties for democracy to work. By a legitimate political party, I mean one that is recognized by its rivals as having a right to rule if it wins an election. For example, a liberal party may grant legitimacy to a conservative party (even though they don’t like them much), and in return this conservative party may grant legitimacy to a liberal party (even though they don’t like them much). Indeed, this is the way most modern democratic nations have been governed.

But legitimacy is one of those traditional political concepts that Marxist criticism is now on the verge of destroying. From the Marxist point of view, our inherited concept of legitimacy is nothing more than an instrument the ruling classes use to perpetuate injustice and oppression. The word legitimacy takes on its true meaning only with reference to the oppressed classes or groups that the Marxist sees as the sole legitimate rulers of the nation. In other words, Marxist political theory confers legitimacy on only one political party—the party of the oppressed, whose aim is the revolutionary reconstitution of society. And this means that the Marxist political framework cannot co-exist with democratic government. Indeed, the entire purpose of democratic government, with its plurality of legitimate parties, is to avoid the violent reconstitution of society that Marxist political theory regards as the only reasonable aim of politics.

Simply put, the Marxist framework and democratic political theory are opposed to one another in principle. A Marxist cannot grant legitimacy to liberal or conservative points of view without giving up the heart of Marxist theory, which is that these points of view are inextricably bound up with systematic injustice and must be overthrown, by violence if necessary. This is why the very idea that a dissenting opinion—one that is not “Progressive” or “Anti-Racist”—could be considered legitimate has disappeared from liberal institutions as Marxists have gained power. At first, liberals capitulated to their Marxist colleagues’ demand that conservative viewpoints be considered illegitimate (because conservatives are “authoritarian” or “fascist”). This was the dynamic that brought about the elimination of conservatives from most of the leading universities and media outlets in America.

But by the summer of 2020, this arrangement had run its course. In the United States, Marxists were now strong enough to demand that liberals fall into line on virtually any issue they considered pressing. In what were recently liberal institutions, a liberal point of view has likewise ceased to be legitimate. This is the meaning of the expulsion of liberal journalists from the New York Times and other news organisations. It is the reason that Woodrow Wilson’s name was removed from buildings at Princeton University, and for similar acts at other universities and schools. These expulsions and renamings are the equivalent of raising a Marxist flag over each university, newspaper, and corporation in turn, as the legitimacy of the old liberalism is revoked.

Until 2016, America sill had two legitimate political parties. But when Donald Trump was elected president, the talk of his being “authoritarian” or “fascist” was used to discredit the traditional liberal point of view, according to which a duly elected president, the candidate chosen by half the public through constitutional procedures, should be accorded legitimacy. Instead a “resistance” was declared, whose purpose was to delegitimize the president, those who worked with him, and those who voted for him.

I know that many liberals believe that this rejection of Trump’s legitimacy was directed only at him, personally. They believe, as a liberal friend wrote to me recently, that when this particular president is removed from office, America will be able to return to normal.

But nothing of the sort is going to happen. The Marxists who have seized control of the means of producing and disseminating ideas in America cannot, without betraying their cause, confer legitimacy on any conservative government. And they cannot grant legitimacy to any form of liberalism that is not supine before them. This means that whatever President Trump’s electoral fortunes, the “resistance” is not going to end. It is just beginning.

With the Marxist conquest of liberal institutions, we have entered a new phase in American history (and, consequently, in the history of all democratic nations). We have entered the phase in which Marxists, having conquered the universities, the media, and major corporations, will seek to apply this model to the conquest of the political arena as a whole.

How will they do this? As in the universities and the media, they will use their presence within liberal institutions to force liberals to break the bonds of mutual legitimacy that bind them to conservatives—and therefore to two-party democracy. They will not demand the delegitimization of just President Trump, but of all conservatives.We’ve already seen this in the efforts to delegitimize the views of Senators Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, and Tim Scott, as well as the media personality Tucker Carlson and others. Then they will move on to delegitimizing liberals who treat conservative views as legitimate, such as James Bennet, Bari Weiss, and Andrew Sullivan. As was the case in the universities and media, many liberals will accommodate these Marxist tactics in the belief that by delegitimizing conservatives they can appease the Marxists and turn them into strategic allies.

But the Marxists will not be appeased because what they’re after is the conquest of liberalism itself—already happening as they persuade liberals to abandon their traditional two-party conception of political legitimacy, and with it their commitment to a democratic regime. The collapse of the bonds of mutual legitimacy that have tied liberals to conservatives in a democratic system of government will not make the liberals in question Marxists quite yet. But it will make them the supine lackeys of these Marxists, without the power to resist anything that “Progressives” and “Anti-Racists” designate as being important. And it will get them accustomed to the coming one-party regime, in which liberals will have a splendid role to play—if they are willing to give up their liberalism.

I know that many liberals are confused, and that they still suppose there are various alternatives before them. But it isn’t true. At this point, most of the alternatives that existed a few years ago are gone.

Liberals will have to choose between two alternatives:

  1. Either they will submit to the Marxists, and help them bring democracy in America to an end,
  2. Or they will assemble a pro-democracy alliance with conservatives.

There aren’t any other choices.

Criminal justice activist Donna Hylton, featured in DNC video, was convicted for role in grisly 1985 murder

Republicans say Hylton’s past shouldn’t be ignored

By Barnini Chakraborty | Fox News

(Hylton said she has been on the receiving end of social media threats since her appearance. )

Donna Hylton was known as inmate #86G0206 for 27 years.

She was behind bars for her role in the grisly murder and torture of Thomas Vigliarolo, a balding New York businessman found stuffed inside a steamer trunk and left to rot in Harlem. Hylton and six others let him die “in the most heinous circumstances,” the prosecutor said at their trial in 1985. On Thursday, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hailed Hylton as one of “America’s most impactful community leaders” and asked her to participate in a video reading of the Preamble to the Constitution during a televised portion of the convention.

Her appearance has left some people puzzled and others furious, wondering why the DNCwould rally behind a woman who was involved in the brutal rape, torture and murder of a 62-year-old man.

In a Thursday night tweet, Hylton said she has been on the receiving end of social media threats since her appearance.

“Getting hate messages and very un-Christian attacks on @Twitter. Learned a valuable lesson years ago from my Pastor *Give Unto Ceasar (sic) that which is Cesar’s* With that said, hope those filled w/hate find some peace. Stay focused #DemConvention,” she wrote.

Her tweet prompted quick support from some followers but also opened up Hylton and the DNC to a tsunami of criticism.

Adnan Khan wrote: “F$&k these bots and the cowards who don’t have a picture or use their real name. Look where you are! You clearly have more value than them. They should google me next. And the 10million+ of is [sic] out here after me. We could do this all day.”

Rodney H. tweeted, “The vitriol I’m seeing directed at my friend and colleague from dense, white racists is infuriating. Please go find something better to do with your time than harass a Black woman doing libertion [sic] work.”

Others sought to remind the public of her violent past.

One user wrote, “Did anyone notice listed under the DNC’s “America’s most impactful community leaders” was Donna Hylton? She’s a classy 55-year-old woman convicted for the kidnapping, rape, torture and murder of a 62-year-old Long Island real estate broker in 1986.”

Twitter user @Covidhomeschool weighed in: “You are the furthest thing from a Christian. Pretend all you want about loving Jesus. People who torture and murder do not go to heaven. There is no making up for what you did. Yet, you are monitizing [sic] off it! Just shows how you really are not sorry. Hell gates await you!”

Donna Hylton attends Global Citizen Week: At What Cost? at The Apollo Theater on Sept. 23, 2018 in New York City. (Noam Galai/Getty Images for Global Citizen)

Born in Jamaica, she was sold to an American couple in New York when she was 7 years old. She was allegedly told by her mother she was going to Disneyland but ended up spending years with an adoptive father who was a pedophile. Hylton said she would often hide from him in her closet, and when she saw a little sliver of light coming through the room, she knew he was on his way in to molest her. In and out of trouble for years, she saw some success in high school and became a local track star. But then things took a turn and at the age of 19, she was arrested for her role in the kidnapping and murder of Vigliarolo.

According to court records, Hylton and her cohorts drugged and kidnapped Vigliarolo at the behest of Louis Miranda who accused Vigliarolo of swindling him out of $139,000 on a con both of them ran. The kidnappers, three men and four women, held Vigliarolo prisoner for about 15 days during which they starved, burned, beat, sexually assaulted and raped him. He died of “asphyxiation and the deprivations of his imprisonment,” the prosecutor said.

Hylton, who was not present when Vigliarolo took his last breath, was eventually caught by the authorities after she delivered a ransom note and someone got a partial license plate of the car she was driving.

At trial, she claimed she participated in the crime under duress and said Miranda had threatened to kill her then 4-year-old daughter if she didn’t. A jury convicted her of second-degree murder and two counts of first-degree kidnapping. She was sentenced to 25 years to life in jail.

Behind bars, Hylton tried to turn her life around. She got her college degree in 1992 and a master’s degree to follow in women’s studies and English literature from Marymount Manhattan College. In 2011, she was ordained a Christian minister and a year later, she was paroled.

Hylton told Fox News on Friday she is innocent of the charges against her.

“As a 19-year-old survivor of human trafficking and sexual violence who was coerced into a horrible situation, I was powerless to stop what happened to him,” she said. “Yet, despite being innocent I was convicted and incarcerated for 27 years. What happened to Mr. Vigliarolo should not ever happen to anyone and I have spent my life since then fighting on the side of truth and justice for myself and countless others caught in the cycle of perpetual violence and victimization.”

Since her release, Hylton has been an outspoken advocate on prison reform, recidivism and gender inequality in America’s jails. She’s spoken at universities and seminars around the country and is frequently a guest expert on the topic.https://www.youtube.com/embed/JxLF2YSy6FU

She’s written a book and founded the From Life To Life organization that supports women who have been victims of abuse and the criminal justice system.

Hylton told Fox News that Americans are in a tough spot and that we “must reckon with the truth of how our society perpetuates these cycles, and we cannot do that unless we look at the entire story.”

Along the way, she’s also picked up a lengthy list of famous friends. On her website, she’s pictured with Scarlett Johansson, Steve Buscemi, Alicia Keys, Gloria Steinem and Annie Leibovitz, to name a few. Hylton was also front and center at the “Panel of Powerful Women” event for Sen. Bernie Sanders.

An email seeking comment from the DNC was not immediately returned.

The CIA Versus The Kennedys

by Tyler DurdenThu, 08/20/2020

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freed Foundation,

Former Congressman Ron Paul and his colleague Dan McAdams recently conducted a fascinating interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which focused in part on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, who was Kennedy Jr.’s uncle.

Owing to the many federal records that have been released over the years relating to the Kennedy assassination, especially through the efforts of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s, many Americans are now aware of the war that was being waged between President Kennedy and the CIA throughout his presidency. The details of this war are set forth in FFF’s book  JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne.

In the interview, Robert Kennedy Jr. revealed a fascinating aspect of this war with which I was unfamiliar. He stated that the deep animosity that the CIA had for the Kennedy family actually stretched back to something the family patriarch, Joseph P. Kennedy, did in the 1950s that incurred the wrath of Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA.

Kennedy Jr. stated that his grandfather, Joseph P. Kennedy, had served on a commission that was charged with examining and analyzing CIA covert activities, or “dirty tricks” as Kennedy Jr. put them. As part of that commission, Kennedy Jr stated, Joseph Kennedy (John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy’s father) had determined that the CIA had done bad things with its regime-change operations that were destroying democracies, such as in Iran and Guatemala.

Consequently, Joseph Kennedy recommended that the CIA’s power to engage in covert activities be terminated and that the CIA be strictly limited to collecting intelligence and empowered to do nothing else.

According to Kennedy Jr.,

“Allen Dulles never forgave him — never forgave my family — for that.”

about:blankabout:blank

I wasn’t aware of that fact.

I assumed that the war between President Kennedy and the CIA had begun with the CIA’s invasion at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. The additional information added by Kennedy Jr. places things in a much more fascinating and revealing context.

Upon doing a bit of research on the Internet, I found that the commission that Kennedy Jr. must have been referring to was the President’s Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities, which President Eisenhower had established in 1956 through Executive Order 10656. Eisenhower appointed Joseph Kennedy to serve on that commission.

That year was three years after the CIA’s 1953 regime change operation in Iran which destroyed that country’s democratic system. It was two years after the CIA’s regime-change operation in Guatemala that destroyed that country’s democratic system.

Keep in mind that the ostensible reason that the CIA engaged in these regime-change operations was to protect “national security,” which over time has become the most important term in the American political lexicon. Although no one has ever come up with an objective definition for the term, the CIA’s power to address threats to “national security,” including through coups and assassinations, became omnipotent.

Yet, here was Joseph P. Kennedy declaring that the CIA’s power to exercise such powers should be terminated and recommending that the CIA’s power be strictly limited to intelligence gathering.

It is not difficult to imagine how livid CIA Director Dulles and his cohorts must have been at Kennedy. No bureaucrat likes to have his power limited. More important, for Dulles and his cohorts, it would have been clear that if Kennedy got his way, “national security” would be gravely threatened given the Cold War that the United States was engaged in with the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and other communist nations.

Now consider what happened with the Bay of Pigs. The CIA’s plan for a regime-change invasion of Cuba, was conceived under President Eisenhower. Believing that Vice President Nixon would be elected president in 1960, the CIA was quite surprised that Kennedy was elected instead. To ensure that the invasion would go forth anyway, the CIA assured Kennedy that the invasion would succeed without U.S. air support. It was a lie. The CIA assumed that once the invasion was going to go down in defeat at the hands of the communists, Kennedy would have to provide the air support in order to “save face.”

But Kennedy refused to be played by the CIA. When the CIA’s army of Cuban exiles was going down in defeat, the CIA requested the air support, convinced that their plan to manipulate the new president would work. It didn’t. Kennedy refused to provide the air support and the CIA’s invasion went down in defeat.

Now consider what happened after the Bay of Pigs: Knowing that the CIA had played him and double-crossed him, John Kennedy fired Allen Dulles as CIA director, along with his chief deputy, Charles Cabell. He then put his younger brother Bobby Kennedy in charge of monitoring the CIA, which infuriated the CIA.

Now jump ahead to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which Kennedy resolved by promising that the United States would not invade Cuba for a regime-change operation. That necessarily would leave a permanent communist regime in Cuba, something that the CIA steadfastly maintained was a grave threat to “national security”— a much bigger threat, in fact, than the threats supposedly posed by the regimes in Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954.

And then Kennedy did the unforgivable, at least insofar as the CIA was concerned. In his famous Peace Speech at American University in June 1963, he declared an end to the entire Cold War and announced that the United States was going to establish friendly and peaceful relations with the communist world.

Kennedy had thrown the gauntlet down in front of the CIA. It was either going to be his way or the CIA’s way. There was no room for compromise, and both sides knew it.

In the minds of former CIA Director Allen Dulles and the people still at the CIA, what Kennedy was doing was anathema and, even worse, the gravest threat to “national security” the United States had ever faced, a much bigger threat than even that posed by the democratic regimes in Iran and Guatemala. At that point, the CIA’s animosity toward President Kennedy far exceeded the animosity it had borne toward his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, several years before.