Immediately after news broke that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, Gov. Roy Cooper took to Twitter to support women’s health.
“Now more than ever, governors and state legislatures must stand up for women’s healthcare,” Cooper wrote on the evening of May 2.
The next day, Cooper also joined 16 other governors to call on Congress to “protect access to women’s health care,” he wrote in another tweet.
“Reproductive healthcare decisions are deeply personal and should be made by patients in consultation with their health care providers, not by politicians,” the letter signed by Cooper stated, to push Congress to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act.
But according to N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein, Roe being overturned means North Carolina will revert to abortion being legal for the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy.
Gov. Cooper, there are bigger challenges to women’s health in North Carolina right now.
If Cooper wants to discuss women’s health, then the first thing that must be confronted are the negative impacts of two years of lockdowns on women’s health, including: mask mandates, social distancing, vaccine mandates, vaccines with unknown long-term effects, boosters with unknown long-term effects — both especially on women’s reproductive health — and that’s not to mention dealing with the lockdown’s effects on their children.
The governor declared a State of Emergency on March 10, 2020, and immediately imposed lockdowns and mandates statewide — on a mere seven cases of COVID total in North Carolina. Two years later, that State of Emergency remains in place despite much public outcry and furor from women who want the right to control their own health — the decisions of which should be made with their doctors, not by politicians.
Adding to the insanity of a two-year-long State of Emergency is Cooper’s refusal to answer basic questions.
For example, is North Carolina still actually in an emergency? He will not answer.
During the press conference on March 17 to announce a “new phase” of combatting COVID — during which Cooper also said he will not waive the gas tax temporarily as other states have done to help workers — a reporter asked: The State of Emergency. Is that coming to an end?
Cooper’s response: “It gives flexibility to health care providers to help with surges that come. And it helps health providers distribute vaccines and treatment to people. We’ve presented to the General Assembly we can pass to end it.”
The reporter then asked: But where are the surges and with many people having taken the vaccines? Why is the state of emergency needed? Are we really facing an emergency anymore?
Cooper did not answer that question. Instead he said, “It’s a legal tool that we are using to provide the flexibility that’s needed. And when the legislature passes a law to give that flexibility that’s needed, then we’ll do away with it.”
So this is particularly concerning. If the governor can’t even say whether or not we are in an emergency, why is the order needed?
And if the governor cannot say whether there is an emergency, why would the state legislature give him the tools with which to implement it?
If the governor cannot even say whether there is an emergency in North Carolina before taking control of health decisions, why should women listen to him about our health, about our reproductive health?
Other important moments from the March 17 press conferenceand some questions they raise:
“Over the last two years, we’ve written a history of hardship and resilience, setbacks and successes. But now, we enter the next phase, one of individual responsibility, preparedness, and prosperity. It’s time to chart the new course. This virus will still be with us, but it won’t disrupt us. We must remain prepared for the potential of future surges though, and this will mean some specific changes in the way we move forward from here.”
Question: If the next phase is one of individual responsibility, why is the Emergency order in place? Why are people in North Carolina not allowed to control our own health?
Kody Kinsley, Secretary of N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, said there are four principles with the new phase moving forward: “Empowering individuals, maintaining health system capacity, collaborating with local partners, and prioritizing equity.”
People want to return to their normal routines, which they can do because of free and effective vaccines, boosters and other tools that help people manage their risk.
We will continue to ensure access for information and resources, especially for historically marginalized populations, people with disabilities, and older North Carolinians. Data will continue to drive our response as it has through the entire pandemic.
Then, Kinsley said positive test counts will no longer be the focus of NCDHHS. Instead, the metrics to determine if the public is healthy will be: Wastewater surveillance; COVID-like illness; Hospital admissions; Case trends; Boosters; Prevalence of variants; CDC Community Level metric;
Question: Why is NCDHHS employing more rigorous metrics now that COVID is subsiding? Why are positive tests of the actual virus not counted, but “COVID-like illness” is? Why are case counts and vaccination rates no longer necessary in a pandemic necessitating a State of Emergency?
Secretary of Commerce Machelle Sanders said North Carolina’s economy has returned to pre-COVID levels:
… The pandemic taught us that conditions can change rapidly and our workforce, businesses and communities must be skilled enough to adapt and grow.
Kinsley on new variants from Europe:
But the immunity from Omicron and vaccines remains most protective against the most important thing, which is severe disease, ending up in the hospital. We’re ready for those waves. We’ll remain vigilant. We’ll remain communicating about what we’re seeing as that comes.”
Susan Kansagra, head of the Chronic Disease and Injury Section of DHHS:
We are incredibly concerned about what the lack of funding at a federal level means to us at a state level. We know certainly, vaccine allocations, purchase of antibodies, those things need to happen in advance with manufacturers to make sure there is enough supply.
Another immediate impact is that providers will no longer be able to bill through the HRSA uninsured program. … Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to providers in North Carolina to provide this care.
Federal investment keeps the production of tests and treatments high, which is what we want. We’ve seen how fast a surge can come. So we have to be ready. And already, they’ve talked about because Congress failed to pass the additional funding in this last legislation, we’ve already seen a 30 percent reduction in monoclonal antibody treatment that we’ve received from the federal government. We can manage that now because things are low, but that’s the kind of thing that we really can’t afford.
One reporter asked about the availability of vaccines for children in K-12. Cooper said:
“We are encouraging vaccines for everyone who is eligible, including children.”
The worst question at the press conference was on boosters:
So many people across the state got their boosters, roughly six months ago. By that six-month rule, a lot of people would be eligible for another booster kind of in the springtime. Is there any plan to make a fourth vaccine available to this population?
Question: Why would you need a booster shot for anyone before they are even sick?
Although the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been held up by the pro-choice movement and feminist organizations as an icon of feminism, widely assumed to support Roe v. Wade, what the movements have been ignoring are Ginsburg’s own words on the decision.
Ginsburg had strong criticisms of Roe over the decades, and was consistent in her points of criticism. Ginsburg even called the landmark 1973 decision, which legalized abortions nationwide, a “regime.” Her words are now echoed by Justice Samuel Alito’s recent leaked draft opinion to overturn the decision.
The Court had “fashion(ed) a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force,” Ginsburg wrote forcefully in 1992 in the wake of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Ginsburg thought Roe took the debate on abortion out of state legislatures — away from the legislative branch of government — and that’s where that debate had been up to that point and should have stayed.
According to Politico, Alito wrote in his majority draft opinion: “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. … It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Alito’s opinion is on the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, on Mississippi’s law banning abortions after 15 weeks, except in cases of fetal abnormality or medical emergency.
Roe v. Wade was settled on the right to privacy, using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and established the trimester framework for abortion. “Jane Roe” had become pregnant with her third child and filed suit in Texas, which had the strictest law in the country, allowing no abortion except when it was necessary to save the mother’s life.
In 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey walked back Roe’s trimester framework and replaced it with the “undue burden” standard, with greater emphasis on fetal viability.
Most notable in what Ginsburg has said about Roe — as well as Casey — was her continued insistence in dialogue, in political involvement, and her belief in the legislative process to ultimately establish the equal rights of women. There were states that were more liberal than Texas in allowing abortion in 1973, including her own state, New York. And like the growing acceptance of no-fault divorce, Ginsburg thought the incremental progress that had been happening up until that time in the courts and in legislatures should have been allowed to continue.
Although Ginsburg is not on public record as having commented on nationally codifying Roe through the Women’s Health Protection Act, it is difficult to imagine that she would have supported another “regime” to replace the existing one.
What Ginsburg thought of Roe and abortion, in her own words:
Ginsburg was definitely a feminist and thought the choice of whether or not to have an abortion — to have a child — was an important part of equal rights for women.
At her confirmation hearing in 1993, here is how she put it:
“This is something central to a woman, to her life, to her dignity. It’s a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”
When it came to Roe, Ginsburg’s thoughts were crystallized by 1992 in an article she wrote in the New York University Law Review. Over the years, she added observations to that but the fundamental criticisms she had of Roe were unchanged: The ruling went too far. The Supreme Court should have given a decision that allowed the legislative branch to get involved. The abortion issue should have been decided by the states.
In fact, Ginsburg thought Roe unnecessarily fueled controversy in the decades to come, to the detriment of underprivileged women who were the most vulnerable in society.
In July 2020, she said at a talk with David Rubenstein, chairman of Duke University’s Board of Trustees:
The court had an easy target because the Texas law was the most extreme in the nation. Abortion could be had only if it was necessary to save the woman’s life. Doesn’t matter if her health would be ruined, if she was the victim of rape or incest.
I thought Roe v. Wade was an easy case and the Supreme Court could have held that most extreme law unconstitutional and put down its pen. Instead, the court wrote an opinion that made every abortion restriction in the country illegal in one fell swoop.
Some women felt I should have been 100 percent in favor of Roe v. Wade, because I wasn’t.
In May 2013, Ginsburg had an interesting observation about Roe while at the University of Chicago Law School with Professor Geoffrey Stone, pointing out that it was more about the doctor and not the woman. The decision, afterall, was about privacy and not equal rights.
Ginsburg said bluntly:
Another feature of Roe is Roe really isn’t about the woman’s choice, is it? It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best. Read the Roe opinion. You will never see the woman standing alone. It was always the woman in consultation with her physician. So the picture I got from that decision was tall doctor and little woman needing his advice and care. It wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered. Roe was not just restricting the woman’s choice. It was telling the doctor even if it is in your best medical judgment that this person have an abortion, you can’t exercise that best medical judgment. I don’t know if any of the justices on the court appreciated that aspect of it. That it was very much about the doctor’s freedom to practice his profession.
First, she criticized Roe for being a rushed decision:
Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication. Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade.
And because Roe was rushed and vast, it fueled controversy instead of reducing it, Ginsburg wrote:
Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court’s splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey?
She lamented the fact that Roe kept the abortion issue out of the political process during a time when abortion, like divorce, was becoming more accepted in American society.
Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court. In 1973, when Roe issued, abortion law was in a state of change across the nation. As the Supreme Court itself noted, there was a marked trend in state legislatures “toward liberalization of abortion statutes.” That movement for legislative change ran parallel to another law revision effort then underway — the change from fault to no-fault divorce regimes, a reform that swept through the state legislatures and captured all of them by the mid-1980s.
In her opinion, this fueled controversy and the rise of the Moral Majority and the right to life movements in the subsequent decades:
No measured motion, the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conforming to the Court’s delineation of abortion regulation still permissible. Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.
(Ginsburg said the same thing at the University of Chicago talk: “What a great organizing tool it was. The court had given the opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly. It seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change.”)
She pointed out that Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a “retreat” from Roe and was concerned about the impact of the Court’s decisions on women who were less privileged in society:
In most of the post-1970 gender-classification cases, unlike Roe, the Court functioned in just that way. It approved the direction of change through a temperate brand of decision-making, one that was not extravagant or divisive. Roe, on the other hand, halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue. The most recent Planned Parenthood decision notably retreats from Roe and further excludes from the High Court’s protection women lacking the means or the sophistication to surmount burdensome legislation.
In concluding the article, Ginsburg found hope in the political involvement of the American people, which was where she had faith that equality for women will someday be reached:
The latest decision (Planned Parenthood) may have had the sanguine effect, however, of contributing to the ongoing revitalization in the 1980s and 1990s of the political movement in progress in the early 1970s, a movement that addressed not simply or dominantly the courts but primarily the people’s representatives and the people themselves.
That renewed force, one may hope, will — within a relatively short span — yield an enduring resolution of this vital matter in a way that affirms the dignity and equality of women.
Shock and anger were the reactions of many North Carolinians after news broke on Monday night that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.
A draft of the majority opinion by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito had been leaked to Politico. The 1973 landmark decision will be overturned, reverting the issue of abortion back to state legislatures.
Protests broke out across the country on Tuesday, including at Moore Square in Raleigh. President Joe Biden also lashed out at the MAGA crowd on Wednesday, calling them “Ultra MAGA.” Vice President Kamala Harris said of Republican lawmakers, “How dare they tell a woman what she can do and cannot do with her own body?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in particular had a very strong reaction as she joined protesters in front of the Supreme Court.
Pro-life organization N.C. Values Coalition issued a statement on Tuesday. “If Roe and Casey are overturned, as the draft opinion indicates, we must build consensus for the strongest protections possible for unborn children and women in North Carolina, and we are ready for this moment in history,” said Executive Director Tami Fitzgerald.
But most of the reactions in N.C. were from pro-choice groups and Socialist organizations. Democratic Party candidates spoke out. Some local residents also were clamoringon social media for places to protest.
The News & Observer rolled out no less than five stories on the news this week.
Axios’ new Raleigh bureau, with two reporters recruited from the N&O, was all over this as well.
On Monday night, shortly after the news broke, Gov. Roy Cooper stated on Twitter: “Now more than ever, governors and state legislatures must stand up for women’s health care.” Later in the week, he went to Asheville to visit an eatery and a barbershop.
N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein on Thursday clarified what the state will revert to after Roe: Abortions will still be legal for the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy.
Elsewhere around the country, the extremist liberal group Ruth Sent Us doxxed Supreme Court justices and called for protests in churches on Mother’s Day. Google later disabled the map with the justices’ homes from the group’s web site. (Main photo: The group protesting in front of Chief Justice John Roberts’ house in April.)
Mary Trump weighed in on liberal media site MeidasTouch.
In Western media’s gaslighting, exploitative coverage of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the worst coverage so far has been the battles in Mariupol.
Mariupol is a port city in the Donetsk region, which has fought for independence from Ukraine since 2014. It is a pro-Russian city. Mariupol in reality is a city that is under siege from Ukraine. The destruction in the city is well-documented. In this OSCE report in 2015, shelling from Ukrainian forces resulted in 30 civilians dead and 150 injured. Western media has got it backwards.
Here is the most recent example of Western media’s semi-delusional coverage of Mariupol and the Russia-Ukraine conflict in general:
The picture that CNN paints is that Russia decided against storming the steel plant because of, well, a loss of guts.
But in Russian media outlet TASS, the country was celebrating securing Mariupol with the exception of the one steel plant.
Mariupol had been won. This is what Russian President Vladimir Putin said:
“In this case, we need to think about – I mean, we always need to think about it, but particularly in this case – we need to think about preserving the life and health of our soldiers and officers. There’s no reason to penetrate through these subterranean pathways and beneath these industrial facilities,” the head of state explained.
He ordered that Azovstal be blocked “so that even a fly can’t get in or out” and everyone be offered to lay down their arms.”
Putin decided against storming the plant in order to protect Russian soldiers. There was no need for that when the rest of the city was already under Russian control.
To Western media, what Putin and Russia say and do are never reported at face value, as facts.
Any news out of Russia is dismissed as “Russian propaganda” or “Russian disinformation.” And Putin himself is painted as an unhinged despot, no matter what he actually says.
If anyone is still confused by the reaction to Russia, this is exactly what objectification and bigotry stemming from racism looks like: The real person, the real subject never gets to assert their identity and be judged on their actions, by the content of their character — in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. They are perpetually viewed and judged through the racist lens of those who are oppressing and exploiting them.
This is an impossible situation deliberately set up by the Western media, which is siding with people who are ignorant, bigoted and racist. These are people who desperately want to believe Russia is “corrupt and backward,” and Western countries are superior and infallible. Their incompetence and corruption depend on that delusion.
Of course, this was never true, even during the Cold War, except in the imagination of racist people.
Even more than that, since the “Russian collusion” scandal in 2017, the media has been engaged in a years-long, international gaslighting with the goal of preventing U.S.-Russia relations from improving. That would bring about changes to the industries of both countries that would make it obvious those same racist people are incompetent, and have been all along.
So the media has been abusing Putin, Russia, and a significant part of the American workforce at the same time. The point is to keep all parties exhausted, objectified, and very importantly, separate.
The media has not simply been selling war propaganda. It has been actively on the side of authoritarians, even valuing Neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian army above Putin and Russia, and attacking other countries and people at home. This has all happened with the full backing of incompetent and corrupt governments headed by Joe Biden in the United States, Boris Johnson in Great Britain, Emmanuel Macron in France, and others in Germany and elsewhere.
“Putin.” “Russia.” “Ukrainians.”
What the media has done is make a psychological trick so overwhelming that the meaning of “Putin,” “Russia,” and “Ukrainians” have become completely projections and unidentifiable from who they really are.
The real Putin has handled this war and the economic and cultural sanctions of his country with a steady hand. The real Russia is a solid people who have consistently shown more concern for the Ukrainian people and other global affairs than even their own leaders and international organizations. The real Ukrainians is a people who stood by for eight years while their government shelled their own countrymen.
By contrast, these are the shorthands for Putin, Russia and Ukrainians used by Western media:
Putin = unhinged despot
Russia = coldness, authoritarianism
Ukrainians = oppressed working people
This way, Putin and his country have been used to bully and control a significant part of the American workforce for years now.
The game with the media and the Biden administration has been to time an “invasion,” i.e. an event possibly orchestrated by the real life Ukraine, with an “invasion,” when certain authoritarian people, corporate executives, government officials (“Putin,” “Russians”) would bring the hammer down on a vulnerable, hard-working part of their workforce (“Ukraine”).
This way, the chaos of both a fake Russian invasion in real life will coincide with a destruction of a part of the American workforce. And somehow, the politics and industries of Ukraine and corporate management of workers in this country have become such that structural changes in industries would occur, and American workers would never recover.
When the real Russian war in Ukraine began, the media signaled and helped authoritarians in Western countries duplicate the “Russian invasion” exactly upon workers back home. Any Russian military offense in reality was matched by an attack back home. This way, both Russia and American workers would be kept abused.
What has been going on is an attack on basic human dignity, on the simple right to have our actions count where we are.
The most terrifying week
Early March was the most terrifying time in this conflict, when the media was on the verge of being able to direct the Russia-Ukraine war — the tail wagging the dog, with the most destructive consequences imaginable.
Real information about the war was not allowed, dismissed as “Russian propaganda” and conspiracy theories. The American public did not even have a transcript of Putin’s speech. We weren’t allowed to listen to him and judge his words for ourselves. Celebrities like Stephen King horrifyingly seized the opportunity to bully American workers, making sure they knew he sided with the Ukrainians over “Ukrainians.” Meanwhile, other celebrities like Kirstie Alley who raised common-sense questions about the media’s coverage were bullied into silence.
During the first weeks of this war, the Russian military offensive in Ukraine had been used successfully for a duplicate “Russian war on Ukraine” in America.
So when lawmakers in the U.S. in both parties called for weapons to Ukraine, many really meant for workers to empower themselves against Fascists, but ended up sending weapons to the Neo-Nazi military in Ukraine instead, harming the very workers they wanted to help.
The psychological trick employed by the media, the corrupt governments of Ukraine and Western countries was so thorough, it had cornered political leaders into an intellectual vacuum.
Most horrifyingly, Ukrainians amid the chaos demanded a “no-fly zone,” duplicating the psyches of workers who were left suddenly exposed to authoritarians. If lawmakers and political pundits had not been more careful, World War III would have been underway because of this psychological trick.
In the end, like a knot that tightens the more you try to break free, there was no way out of this psychological bind but to stop feeding into it and wait.
The problem with the Donetsk region
Why it has been difficult if not impossible for the public to get out from under this vicious game the media is playing is because of the Donetsk region.
The Donbass is two regions, Donetsk, and Luhansk which is closer to Russia, geographically and culturally.
Luhansk and its leader are genuinely interested in independence. The Donetsk’s leader Denis Pushilin, unfortunately, is not. Pushilin is a double-crossing element in this conflict and his actions should be seen as an extension of the Ukrainian military.
When Pushilin talks about Russia, he means the media shorthand, “Russia” as a projection of coldness and authoritarianism. When Pushilin planted a flag on top of a government building, he was asserting a win in the media game and his loyalty to global authoritarianism. He was able to time it so that that message was clear.
Why is Pushilin silent about Mariupol, which is the second biggest city in Donetsk?
Why is Pushilin going out of his way to award a fighter with Neo-Nazi symbols on his uniform? So that Putin and the Russian military would snap him back into place — in which case, Pushilin can again raise a flag for “Russia,” for authoritarianism?
The media game is never-ending.
Pushilin’s behavior raises other questions about what has been going on in the Donbass. Putin and Russian officials have said what’s going on is a genocide of Russian-speaking people. Is there more?
Is what’s been going on a kind of forced homogenization by Zelenskyy’s government?
The leader of Luhansk has emphasized their connection to their land. Is the Ukrainian government’s shelling of the region specifically meant to disrupt that connection?
The independent journalists who have been in the region and having to report on Donetsk and Luhansk together would have experienced this firsthand. Maybe someday soon, they can tell us what they really saw.
World leaders, celebrities and even social media figures have revealed where they truly stand on some fundamental attitudes during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
One of the best moments has been from Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Prime Minister. On March 13, a day after Iran launched missiles toward the American consulate in Iraq, it was not our President Joe Biden who provided assurances and clarity on what was going on, but Netanyahu.
Here was Netanyahu warning the American public about a new nuclear deal with Iran and the possibility of Iran developing intercontinental missiles that could strike this country.
Netanyahu in that moment showed what responsible leadership when it comes to military power could look like on the world stage. It was also normal leadership, the kind that used to take place more predictably during the Aughts.
When another country attacks our country abroad, it shouldn’t be the Israeli Prime Minister to tell us what happened. The media used to at least ask the basic questions. But it’s 2022, and the media helped the Biden administration sweep the missile attack under the rug.
Other leaders have not been as responsible as Netanyahu. This is a blog post looking at the warmongers of the political elite in America, to narcissistic virtue-signalling in Hollywood, and also the MAGA crowd’s opportunistic use of the conflict to shame women — and China at the same time, amazingly.
A moment from the House Budget Committee hearing on Wednesday shocked people on social media when the HHS head Xavier Becerra admitted he would use government funds for sex change operations in children.
In the tense exchange, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., hammered Becerra on what his agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, is doing with “gender-affirming care.”
“So for the record, you favor HHS funding being used for sex reassignment for surgeries on minors?” Boebert asked.
Secretary Becerra replied in the affirmative.
“I will do everything I can to defend any American, including children… If they’re talking about gender-affirming care, I’m there to protect the rights of any American,” he said.
The full video here:
More than that moment, the entire stunning exchange laid bare just how politically driven, scientifically empty and lacking in actual healthcare goals the Biden administration’s push for gender-affirming care is. And that “care” is focused on “gender identity,” not actual transgender children.
First, Becerra followed in Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s footsteps and could not provide a simple definition on what a transgender child is.
“A child in America is a child in America,” he said.
Then Becerra showed he did not know what mastectomies, penectomies, and hysterectomies are off the top of his head. He also refused to say whether HHS have funded such operations on minors. “I could use the help of my wife who is an OB-GYN,” Becerra said with a laugh.
A hint to the secretary: Those are the surgeries involved in sex change operations.
In order, they are surgeries for removing breasts, penis reduction or removal, and removing the uterus. If the head of Health and Human Services did not know about penectomies, which are rare, he at the very least should have known about the other two because breast cancer and uterine cancer have been health crises for adult women in this country.
More alarmingly, Boebert then went on to point out the following from the “Gender-affirming Care is Trauma Care” document, released by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network in association with the HHS:
“In this document, you clearly state that gender-affirming care includes puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries for minor children. You go on to assure parents that there is no scientifically sound reason to doubt that hormones and surgeries are helpful to minor children,” she said.
“You also discuss in this document that the potential for removing children from their parents is on the table if they’re not providing gender-affirming care. Mr. Secretary, do you think that parents who believe in two genders only should have their children removed from them?”
The chairman of the Budget board, Rep. John Yarmuth, D-K.Y., moved to block Becerra from answering.
But Becerra answered anyway, saying: “Congresswoman, I believe in supporting transgender youth. I believe that they along with their parents and caregivers will make the best decisions. And I would really urge politicians like you to stay out of their business.”
But you don’t know what a transgender child is, Secretary Becerra.
Becerra’s answer was the kind of political answer we’ve seen too much of in recent years. They are designed to make it seem like people who are asking reasonable questions are bigots when the opposite is true. It is Becerra who has no interest in actually supporting transgender children and their parents.
The HHS has released other documents on “gender-affirming care” in recent months, showing its neglect of and attack on children and on women.
The agency’s Office of Population Affairs released a document titled, “Gender-Affirming Care and Young People,” outlining the kinds of “care” that are available to young people, such as “gender-affirming” restrooms and pronouns, which the document states can be used at any age.
On March 2, the HHS Office on Civil Rights released a guidance saying that pursuant to Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, any health care provider who does not treat patients in accordance with their gender identity could be investigated.
That guidance equates gender identity with discrimination on the basis of sex.
“Section 1557 protects the right of individuals to access the health programs and activities of recipients of federal financial assistance without facing discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity,” the agency stated.
To sum up, like many other horrible things happening in our society right now, the people who are in power under Joe Biden’s presidency are not only incompetent but want to hide that by focusing on the sexuality of children.
Why is the HHS even talking about “gender-affirming care” and not simply caring about the health of children, which has been under attack and wrecked by COVID lockdowns, mask mandates, even talk of vaccines for 5-year-olds and even toddlers? Why is the HHS also not concerned about the vaccine’s effect on adult women, and the trauma that women who were pregnant and giving birth experienced during lockdown?
There is breathtaking incompetence and corruption in the health care industry and public health at this point. And the question, from the OCR guidance, is also how much the Affordable Care Act under President Barack Obama allowed the corruption to get this out of control.
The New York Post’s bombshell story in October 2020 of Hunter Biden’s laptop, full of suspicious emails and much personal debauchery, was not “Russian disinformation” afterall.
The New York Times confirmed on Wednesday that the infamous laptop does belong to Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden.
Buried in a story updating the progress of the Department of Justice investigation on Biden’s taxes, the Times wrote:
People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.
Conservatives cheered the revelation as White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki tried to shut down questions from reporters this week:
No, Hunter Biden isn’t a government employee, but his father is. And when the son of the vice president uses that connection to help foreign companies and land well-paying jobs for which he is not qualified, people will want answers. People will also wonder about how he is using that connection currently, and whether his father benefits.
Here is how Joe Biden responded to a question on Hunter’s conflict of interest during his 2020 presidential campaign:
Separately from the laptop scoop, Tony Bobulinski, former U.S. Navy lieutenant and former business partner of Hunter Biden also came forward on Oct. 22, 2020, less than a week after the Post story and on the day of the final presidential debate. Bobulinski provided statements on Biden’s business dealings in China, including the “10 percent for the big guy” peek behind the curtain, as well as Hunter referring to his father as “the chairman.”
It has to be pointed out that both before and after the Post’s scoop in October 2020, others in the media were also raising concerns about Hunter Biden’s involvement in Ukraine and other countries.
“By taking the job at Burisma, Hunter exploited his father’s public power for private gain in a manner that undermined U.S. interests, according to several Obama administration officials,” wrote New York Magazine in 2019.
In September 2021, Business Insider reported from emails obtained separately from the laptop that Hunter Biden wanted a retainer of $2 million annually to unlock billions of Libyan assets frozen by the Obama administration.
That was the country the Obama administration, including then Vice President Joe Biden and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bombed in 2011 and drove into civil war. Ten years later, their assets are still frozen under Biden’s presidency.
So along with the denials and refusal to answer questions from our leaders is also a troubling trend on the part of the media: The media, especially conservative media, is so obsessed with the laptop and its seedy contents, they might have put Hunter Biden in control of the narrative, letting him sell whatever image of himself he wants.
Witness Jimmy Kimmel interviewing Biden extensively about his crack habit last April. At this point, Hunter Biden is somehow even beyond the usual coddling of celebrities, in a space that has no accountability or pushback whatsoever.
Not even Brad Pitt could get away with this self-serving victimhood.
Has a movie star ever gotten such sympathetic interview on their drug addiction? And imagine the Obama girls, the Trump children, and Chelsea Clinton laughing on national television about smoking crack in restaurants.
Where is the moral authority, not to mention poise and dignity, that a country demands of its leaders and people around them?
Finally, the strangest thing that no one in the media — including the reporters at the Post — wants to admit about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal is how orchestrated it is.
Sure, Hunter Biden could have recorded himself smoking crack. But why would he put his phone on a dresser or turn on his laptop camera and record himself sitting in bed naked, with a naked woman, and talk about his business dealings? And let’s say one of the women he was with took this infamous picture of him passed out with a crack pipe dangling from his mouth. Wouldn’t a man who had some power as the son of the vice president immediately delete the photo? Why would he upload the photo onto a laptop? And finally, why would he identify himself on camera with his driver’s license, to make sure that we all know this is Hunter Biden?
Why does it look like the contents of this laptop were created specifically for third party viewing? And if the laptop and the photos and videos were planned and orchestrated, who was behind the camera?
Did the laptop as it came to the Post look like a normal laptop, with junk files, photos of pets, household bills and receipts? Or was it scrubbed clean save for a folder of incriminating photos and videos, along with select emails? What else is on the laptop?
The laptop story was a real journalistic triumph. The corruption detailed on it is real, but this question also needs to be asked: Are we seeing the real picture, or are we still just seeing what the Bidens want to show us?
On Monday, President Vladimir Putin of Russia announced that his government would formally recognize the independence of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Russia would also send troops into the region for “peacekeeping.”
This came after nearly a week of the Biden administration’s steady drumbeat of a “Russian invasion” in the media despite the scheduled date of invasion, Feb. 16, having come and gone without any sign of trouble. The Biden administration also said he would hold a meeting with Putin soon, supposedly to show off President Joe Biden’s diplomatic skills and talk Putin down from any further invasions.
On Monday afternoon, Putin put his foot down: Enough.
Putin’s speech sent shockwaves through the Biden administration, its allies in Europe and elsewhere, and the media that had become used to the public and even political leaders swallowing the warmongering narrative without any pushback.
It was a stunning move.
Everyone expected Putin to keep playing along. He refused. “Show your cards,” his actions said. “You’ve got nothing.”
And he is right.
Let’s look around this table of incompetent, corrupt warmongers.
Ukraine: The American general public is led to believe that this situation harkens back to the Cold War. Russia is still like the former Soviet Union and Ukraine is its neighbor who is a buffer between Russia and Democratic countries in Europe. That’s not true anymore. This is no longer the Ukraine of Oksana Baiul. It’s the Ukraine of Petro Poroshenko, former president, who is now being tried for treason, and Volodymyr Zelensky, who is even worse. The truth is Ukraine has become much more corrupt than Russia.
The Biden administration: No credibility. The Russian invasion was supposed to happen last Wednesday, Feb. 16. That day came and went. Nothing happened. Russia had withdrawn troops the day before. But undeterred by reality, President Joe Biden kept up the drumbeat of war rhetoric. No, no. A Russian invasion is definitely going to happen. And then Biden wanted to line up a summit with Putin “on the condition that Russia does not invade Ukraine.”
Oh, you mean the condition he has already met — by not invading? This is insufferable. Enough is enough.
The media: Dangerous misinformation and propaganda. The mainstream media refuses to cover what’s going on in Ukraine. Here are basic facts that never get mentioned: Donetsk and Luhansk voted for independence themselves in 2014. The Minsk Agreements were put in place to protect the regions. The fighting is between Donbass residents and the Ukrainian army — not Russia.
What is really happening in the Donbass and what needs to be done to stabilize the region? The media refuses to say.
Putin’s move cut through the media’s misinformation. Everyone in the world now has a perspective from which we can watch what’s happening there and judge for ourselves.
The United Nations: No word on authoritarianism in Australia’s COVID lockdowns and Canada’s response to truckers on a blockade. But the U.N. considers Russia intervening in the Donbass to be “a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and inconsistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,” said Under Secretary Rosemary DiCarlo.
But the people of Donbass have relied on Russia’s aid for defending themselves against Ukraine for years. Does the U.N. decry what Ukraine has been doing there?
Also, for a hint of the corruption at the U.N., read what the Russian mission there has been tweeting:
Are the U.N. and other countries refusing to abide by rules-based order, hence the hashtag “#UNCharterisourrules”? This is yet another issue the media has refused to cover.
Putin’s actions on Monday had to be done. There is too much corruption from all the parties and not enough transparency.
On Monday, Putin stood for truth and strength. He protected and did more good for people, including yes — the American public who desperately need some competence and transparency — than our own president, Joe Biden. This is a moment to remember.
If the U.S. will not provide leadership in the world, then Russia will.
Contrary to what the media would have the general public believe, there always have been criticisms of Critical Race Theory in academia and even in the media. Here are some examples:
Leroy Clark, professor emeritus at Columbus School of Law and former Legal Defense Fund counsel during the Civil Rights Movement, in the “Denver Law Review,” 1995:
Professor Bell’s “analysis” is really only accusation and “harassing white folks,” and is undermining and destructive. There is no love — except for his own group — and there is a constricted reach for an understanding of whites. There is only rage and perplexity. No bridges are built — only righteousness is being sold. A people, black or white, are capable only to the extent they believe they are. Neither I, nor Professor Bell, have a crystal ball, but I do know that creativity and a drive for change are very much linked to a belief that they are needed, and to a belief that they can make a difference. The future will be shaped by past conditions and the actions of those over whom we have no control. Yet it is not fixed; it will also be shaped by the attitudes and energy with which we face the future.
Writing about race is to engage in a power struggle. It is a non-neutral political act, and one must take responsibility for its consequences. Telling whites that they are irremediably racist is not mere “information”; it is a force that helps create the future it predicts. If whites believe the message, feelings of futility could overwhelm any further efforts to seek change. I am encouraged, however, that the motto of the most articulate black spokesperson alive today, Jesse Jackson, is, “Keep hope alive!” and that much of the strength of Martin Luther King, Jr. was his capacity to “dream” us toward a better place.
George Will’s column, “At Harvard Law, Intellectual Gerrymandering,” 1990:
This theory of racially distinctive and automatically validated scholarship is a particularly slipshod and patently political exercise in the “sociology of knowledge.” It asserts that race is an intellectual credential. Bell says: “Race can create as legitimate a presumption as a judicial clerkship in filling a teaching position” regarding civil-rights law.
This is intellectual gerrymandering, carving out for blacks an exemption from competition. One charm of this theory for its proponents is that they can be highly paid professors without forfeiting the coveted, lucrative status of victims. It rests on racial stereotyping – reactionary means for liberal ends. In this “progressive” version of segregation, blacks are supposed to be – indeed, are told to be – homogenized and conscripted into intellectual conformity, apart from the mainstream of American culture.
“If (Derrick Bell) finds the Supreme Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education an unwitting tool of American imperialism, what chance have I of escaping his doom if I disagree with him? This conference is about the freedom to engage in discourse about public issues. I cannot begin to discuss that subject in relation to the issue before this panel without emphasizing the need for greater tolerance of conflicting views. Professor Bell’s paper rests heavily on attributions of antidemocratic and antisocial motives to his colleagues.
Indeed, I assert that not only academic freedom, but democracy itself depends upon our mutual willingness to be tolerant, to refrain from the impulse to attribute evil purpose to those with whom we disagree.”
In 1994 I came across Mr. Bell’s book, “Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanance of Racism,” published two years earlier, and found much to disagree with — not least the second half of the title. So I shared my thoughts in a column that, I was told when I got to the office after it was published, generated about two dozen phone calls from miffed black students. It eventually drew a written rebuttal from Mr. Bell himself, who said I “didn’t understand the book” and that my description of racism as a problem of relationships, not power, was “defective.”
To many African-Americans, including my father, my late namesake was a hero for “standing up to the Man.” To me, however, he represented not only a modus operandi that never worked all that well but also a worldview that since has been proven obsolete.
If, in Bell’s view, it is not enough to tenure someone who “looks Black” but “thinks white” then he must believe that such a person is somehow less Black than someone who “thinks Black.” Is Bell prepared to decide, on the basis of how that person thinks, that he or she is not truly Black and, therefore, not fully deserving of membership in the community of persons who have ancestral roots in Africa?
Bell’s comment represents intolerance in its purest form. It establishes an orthodoxy of thought, and Blacks must embrace it or else face excommunication for their “white” views.
There is a second statement of Professor Bell’s that should disturb people, for it rejects the concept of human equality. Professor Bell stated that because of his gender, he was unable to understand fully the Black female students whom he teaches and who come to him for guidance. …
On a deeper level, what is disturbing about Bell’s comment is its message that human beings are fundamentally different from one another, that there is an insuperable divide of race and gender between us. Such a message is at odds with the lessons of history, so painfully learned.
It is at odds with the philosophy of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., a minister of the Gospels, that we are all God’s children, and that the liberation of society consists of individuals overcoming differences of race and religion which, in the final analysis, are superficial.”
In the summer of 1989, the leaders of Critical Race Theory held their fledgling movement’s first conference in Madison, Wis.
For the first time, it was made official the academics who were devoted to the CRT cause beyond the main founder, Derrick Bell. Bell was the first tenured black professor at Harvard Law School who had written the definitive CRT treatise, “Race, Racism and American Law,” published in 1970. He died in 2011.
The event has been painted ever since as the time when minority and women professors found strength by coming together. It was about “support and survival within the white male-dominated legal academy,” an admirer would write as late as 2012.
There were 20 professors in attendance, including Bell, Richard Delgado, Kimberle Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, Patricia Williams, and Angela Harris, all of whom have been and are still teaching CRT in higher education.
But the CRT founders’ views on race show they are the opposite of being anti-racist:
Matsuda, for example, does not support removing quotas for Asian-American students at Harvard University. Crenshaw has jumped from topic to topic without following up for decades, but no one seems allowed to question her work. Bell once said, quoting an old black woman, “I lives to harass white folks.” But white people were the ones who opened doors to him all his life.
The truth is CRT is not about studying race or addressing problems in race relations at all. It is only about ensuring power for its proponents. One of the toxic characteristics of CRT is that it blocks genuine racial progress while it happens, and redirects that energy back to the founders.
What is Critical Race Theory? Here is how CRT founders and proponents, the self-described “race-crits,” define it:
“The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”
– “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic
That sounds vague and overly broad but the definition is accurate. The founders mean every word of what they say.
To put that definition in real world context, to hear what the founders really mean, there are three characteristics that I think need to be recognized, in fact are long overdue to be recognized, when it comes to CRT. They are:
1. CRT is about erasing and replacing the Civil Rights Movement.
2. Critical Race Theory actually hates race.
3. CRT is Fascist.
The founders of CRT are the biggest obstacle to true progress on racial harmony and justice in this country and have been for decades. The nationwide parents’ movement against CRT is just one part of what’s needed. Its place in universities has to end. It needs to be banned from workplaces. And its characteristics need to be identified and studied as a form of Fascism, so that it can be stopped in the future before it affects this country ever again.
1. Critical Race Theory is about erasing and replacing the Civil Rights Movement.
Despite the media’s efforts at painting the CRT founders as being on the side of or continuing the Civil Rights Movement, it’s obvious from Bell, Delgado and Stefancic’s writings that they are the exact opposite. Their work is about injecting cynicism and isolationism into people, keeping people separate, and giving the tools to racists to paint themselves as anti-racist, of course, by supporting CRT.
Take what Bell wrote about Brown v. Board of Education in “Race, Racism, and American Law,” as quoted in the National Black Law Review:
“(1) The difficulty in justifying official segregation and its implications of racial superiority after defeating, in World War II, forces that espoused super-race ideologies and resorted to racial genocide in their name; (2) the perceived need to compete with Communist powers for the friendship of emerging third world nations without the handicap of explaining official apartheid policies at home; (3) the refusal of more and more blacks, particularly those who had fought in the war, to return home to life under segregation; (4) the unacceptable restraints on full industrialization of the South imposed by rigid segregation laws; and (5) the perception by those in policy making positions that they could no longer afford to honor compromises of the past, in which poorer whites won segregation laws as an alternative to demands for social reform legislation and greater political power.”
In other words, there was no moral source for the Brown decision. There was no moral awakening that was dawning on American society at that point – probably as a result of the post-WWII prosperity. It came about solely for opportunism and expediency. A very cynical take that degrades a historic moment.
Anyone who hates what Brown accomplished can say that a black law professor said it wasn’t intended to be good to black people at all, thereby preserving their privilege and racism by passive-aggressively sneering at the landmark decision, with full support from Bell.
The author of the article also notes that Bell urged black people to continue seeking desegregation because black schools were behind academically. So Bell admitted that was the reality in 1970 in his book, but still would not actually support what the Civil Rights Movement accomplished.
Bell also degraded the significance of the Emancipation Proclamation, writing that it came about so the Union Army could recruit black people:
Actually, as a legal matter the proclamation freed no slaves, its terms having been carefully limited to those areas still under the control of the Confederacy, and us beyond the reach of federal law. Slaveholding territories which had sided with the Union were specifically excluded…. On the political front, the emancipation did open the way for the enlistment of blacks, and by war’s end, there were more than 200,000 blacks serving the Union Army.
The “Critical Race Theory” book by Delgado and Stefancic amazingly takes Bell’s opinion on the Brown decision a step further. The authors suggest that lawyers who want to “reform” the law not listen to what their clients want but instead litigate for specific ideological results. From the book:
“Derrick Bell has pointed out a third structure that impedes reform, this time in law. To litigate a law-reform case, the lawyer needs a flesh-and-blood client. One might wish to establish the right of poor consumers to rescind a sales contract or to challenge the legal fiction that a school district is desegregated if the authorities have arranged that the makeup of certain schools is half black and half Chicano (as some of them did in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education).
Suppose, however, that the client and his or her community do not want the very same remedy that the lawyer does. The lawyer, who may represent a civil rights or public interest organization, may want a sweeping decree that names a new evil and declares it contrary to constitutional principles. He or she may be willing to gamble and risk all. The client, however, may want something different—better schools or more money for the ones in his or her neighborhood. … These conflicts, which are ubiquitous in law-reform situations, haunt the lawyer pursuing social change and seem inherent in our system of legal remedies. Which master should the lawyer serve?”
If Brown v. Board of Education happened now, the lawyer adherents of Critical Race Theory would insist that it fit their ideological framework instead of working for the client, whatever their needs might be at the time. The “flesh-and-blood client” is considered to be just a tool for CRT’s agenda. This is the opposite of how the law can be a force for good.
2. CRT actually hates race.
The book, “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, was published in 2001. From its first pages, it’s clear the book is an attack on basic forms of relating and working together between people, of all backgrounds.
Who was overthinking basic interactions this much in 2001, or ever?
The answer is no one. How much envy and hatred would a reader of this book have to have, to get angry and want to browbeat and control people in these small, instinctive interactions?
So first, in 2001, this book would have been poison to a normal, good person who was sincerely wondering about how to have better interactions with people of different races. This book was exactly for hateful people who want to know how to control good people.
Second, the world that CRT wants to build is a complete nightmare.
It’s not about race. This needs to be understood about CRT: Race is just the tool CRT uses. CRT actually hates race. (“Race-crits,” get it?)
It hates people who are secure in their race, and confident enough to go to a car dealership and negotiate, trusting their own mind and their own instincts about what is or is not a fair price for a car. CRT hates people being able to make their own calls, having their own instincts, and having relationships of their own with people of different races that fall outside of CRT’s ideology.
CRT hates people living and working freely from the core of who they are, intention leading to action in a straight line, merit being earned through work in a fair society instead of bowing to power. Race is just the one aspect of our identities that CRT chooses to focus on.
If CRT did not focus on race in its foundational writings, it could have easily focused on sexuality — which is where it has expanded into in recent years. It’s not about race. CRT is inhumane in every way.
In every way, CRT turns good intentions and a capacity to relate back on the people who have an instinct for them the most. Starting with the book by Delgado and Stefancic, it wants to build an oppressive world in which good people cannot live freely. That is not an exaggeration. Imagine if you went through a week with everyone in the scenarios in that introduction subscribing to CRT, with every interaction managed, confused, made opaque, and changed on a whim according to the CRT founders. It would be a new “1984.” The only people who would be treated well in a CRT world are the ones who subscribe to CRT — power redirected back to the founders.
This is the world that’s being pushed by people who want to adopt CRT training in workplaces and in schools right now. CRT is about power, not about race.
3. CRT is Fascist.
Not only does CRT actively work to dismantle the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement, and not only does CRT look to disenfranchise good people in order to preserve power for a few, but it always makes sure to get in the way of real progress as it’s happening. It seems that every time there were positive changes in the world, Bell slammed his hand down in the middle of it. He stopped it with words and redirected the energy back to himself and CRT.
In 1992, Bell said to The New York Times that black Americans were more subjugated than at any other time since slavery. There was “a more effective, more sophisticated means of domination,” Bell said.
Really? In a year when black people thrived and led American culture, with Michael Jackson, Prince, Whitney Houston, Michael Jordan at the height of their popularity?
Bell said in 1988 to The St. Petersburg Times: “Whites who lack wealth and power are sustained in their sense of racial superiority, and thus rendered more willing to accept their lesser share, by an unspoken but no less certain property right in their ‘whiteness.’ ”
Was he trying to make working class white people feel guilty? That was his contribution to racial discourse during a year in which the Rev. Jesse Jackson led a rally for auto workers in Wisconsin to protest Chrysler closing their plant.
And then there was the Harvard Law School student protest for Bell in 1990. (This event attracted attention in 2012 during former President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.) Bell was waging war against the law school yet again, for not having a black female tenured professor. This time, students joined his cause.
News coverage of the event at the time shows the same kind of protest happening then as what is happening on college campuses across the country right now. There was the same reaction from college administrators. And the students elevating Bell, who had done much to damage race relations at the school, as a sage — in order to protect their status as “Harvard Law students.”
To the general public looking on, the news segment showed an aggrieved-looking black professor who might have needed the students’ support. But in the context of what was going on at Harvard, and had gone on for two decades, this was rotten. By 1990, Harvard should have pivoted toward merit. The students insisted on keeping it mired in politics.
This was the forerunner to the violent, “woke” protests happening on college campuses now.
What was the saving grace of the Harvard Law protest in 1990 was Jesse Jackson became involved at the request of the students.
Harvard at first refused his offer to help. But Jackson went to Harvard anyway and held a rally that was attended by 300 students. The “moral character” of Harvard was on trial, Jackson said.
”The university that sits highest on the hill is obligated to set an example,” Jackson said, reported The New York Times. ”To say in 1990 that there is no African-American woman qualified for appointment to Harvard Law School is both an error and a gross insult to our intelligence. It is humiliating.”
In effect, Jackson neutralized Bell’s divisive actions for the public, incorporating the event into the perspective of the Civil Rights Movement and the national conversation. The general public knew how much racism there still was at universities in 1990. That was a reality. What was going on at Harvard was too insular for the public to understand or care at the time.
After this controversy, throughout the ‘90s and ‘00s, Bell’s influence waned. He still taught at universities. But his ability to cause a firestorm and make headlines was done. Bell became more and more unknown to the general public. Harvard’s academic reputation remained intact.
Bell and CRT have been divisive, self-serving, and all about breaking real progress in order to preserve privilege for the few.
This is a form of Fascism.
The fact is there never has been a real movement inside academia to push back against CRT. And CRT has been one of the biggest problems, if not the biggest problem in academia over the past half century. Even after Bell died in 2011, its rotten impact unfortunately remained. Too much damage had been done.
Economist Thomas Sowell, a long-time critic of Bell, gave his assessment of the man to Fox News host Sean Hannity in 2012. Sowell is senior fellow on Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
In 1990, Sowell said, “He has also said that by ‘black,’ he does not mean skin color. He means those who are really black, not those who think white and look black. What he’s really saying is he wants ideological conformity… .”
“He’s an idealist, self-sacrificing and so on. I suppose one could have seen Hitler that way in his early days,” Sowell added.
“There is this ideological intolerance that Bell has,” Sowell said to Hannity in 2012. “He really has this totalitarian mindset. … You really have to understand Derrick Bell was put in an impossible position. He was hired as a full law professor at the Harvard Law School when he himself said that he did not have the kind of qualifications. … His option was to be a nobody among world-famous intellectuals or to go off on his own shtick and try to be important or significant in that way. He chose the low road.”
“(Bell) has turned his back on the ideal of a colorblind society. And he’s really for a ‘getting even’ society, a revenge society,” he added.
Without people like Sowell saying honestly what they think of Bell over the years, there would be no clarity on CRT at all.
Because the “revenge society” is exactly what has happened to this country in recent years, in no small part to people in power who insist on giving Bell and CRT status and legitimacy even while the public and American culture keep moving past it.
In 1990, CRT could have ended, Harvard students let it go on. In 2001, it could have ended then, but New York University printed Delgado’s book. In 2012 with Bell gone, Obama’s re-election and 2017 with Trump’s election, yet again, the public repeatedly said it had moved on but UNC Chapel Hill supporting Delgado and Stefancic and then NYU extended a hand.
Instead of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, CRT insists on “permanent racism.” Instead of President John F. Kennedy’s message of serving your country, it teaches people how to build entire careers out of tearing it down.
Nothing grows in the world CRT wants to build. In order for this country to move forward, CRT has to finally end.