Rashawn Ray and Alexandra Gibbons November 2021
FIXGOV---BROOKINGS
Fox News has mentioned “critical race theory” 1,300 times in less than four months. Why? Because critical race theory (CRT) has become a new bogeyman for people unwilling to acknowledge our country’s r****t history and how it impacts the present.
To understand why CRT has become such a flash point in the culture, it is important to understand what it is and what it is not. Opponents fear that CRT admonishes all white people for being oppressors while classifying all Black people as hopelessly oppressed victims. These fears have spurred school boards and state legislatures from Tennessee to Idaho to ban teachings about r****m in classrooms. However, there is a fundamental problem: these narratives about CRT are gross exaggerations of the theoretical framework. The broad brush that is being applied to CRT is puzzling to academics, including some of the scholars who coined and advanced the framework.

Rashawn Ray
Senior Fellow - Governance Studies
@SociologistRay
A
Alexandra Gibbons
Research Intern - Governance Studies
CRT does not attribute r****m to white people as individuals or even to entire groups of people. Simply put, critical race theory states that U.S. social institutions (e.g., the criminal justice system, education system, labor market, housing market, and healthcare system) are laced with r****m embedded in laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that lead to differential outcomes by race. Sociologists and other scholars have long noted that r****m can exist without r****ts. However, many Americans are not able to separate their individual identity as an American from the social institutions that govern us—these people perceive themselves as the system. Consequently, they interpret calling social institutions r****t as calling them r****t personally. It speaks to how normative racial ideology is to American identity that some people just cannot separate the two. There are also people who may recognize America’s r****t past but have bought into the false narrative that the U.S. is now an equitable democracy. They are simply unwilling to remove the blind spot obscuring the fact that America is still not great for everyone.
Scholars and activists who discuss CRT are not arguing that white people living now are to blame for what people did in the past. They are saying that white people living now have a moral responsibility to do something about how r****m still impacts all of our lives today. Policies attempting to suffocate this much-needed national conversation are an obstacle to the pursuit of an equitable democracy. Supporters of CRT bans often quote Martin Luther King Jr’s proclamation that individuals should be viewed by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin, ignoring the context of the quote and the true meaning behind it.
To better understand how widespread these efforts are to ban critical race theory from U.S. classrooms, we did an assessment of anti-CRT state legislation. Here’s what we found:
o Nine states (Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Arizona, and North Dakota) have passed legislation. Arizona’s legislation was overturned in November by the Arizona Supreme Court.
o None of the state bills that have passed even actually mention the words “critical race theory” explicitly, with the exception of Idaho and North Dakota.
o The legislations mostly ban the discussion, training, and/or orientation that the U.S. is inherently r****t as well as any discussions about conscious and unconscious bias, privilege, discrimination, and oppression. These parameters also extend beyond race to include g****r lectures and discussions.
o State actors in Montana and South Dakota have denounced teaching concepts associated with CRT. The state school boards in Florida, Georgia, Utah, and Alabama introduced new guidelines barring CRT-related discussions. Local school boards in Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Virginia also criticized CRT.
o Nearly 20 additional states have introduced or plan to introduce similar legislation.
You can find a summary of this legislation in the appendix to this post.
The approach of some Republican-led state legislatures is a method for continuing to roll back racial progress regarding everything from v****g rights to police reform. This is a horrible idea and does an injustice to our kids. Laws forbidding any teacher or lesson from mentioning race/r****m, and even g****r/sexism, would put a chilling effect on what educators are willing to discuss in the classroom and provide cover for those who are not comfortable hearing or telling the t***h about the history and state of race relations in the United States. Ironically, “making laws outlawing critical race theory confirms the point that r****m is embedded in the law,” as sociologist Victor Ray noted.
Some parents are worried about their kids learning things in school that they do not have the capacity to address. As a college professor who does teach CRT as one of the many theoretical frameworks that I bring into the classroom, students are alarmed by how little they have learned about ine******y. They are upset at their schools, teachers, and even their parents. So, this is the conundrum: teachers in K-12 schools are not actually teaching CRT. But teachers are trying to respond to students asking them why people are protesting and why Black people are more likely to be k**led by the police.
Ultimately, we cannot employ colorblind ideology in a society that is far from colorblind. Everyone sees it, whether they acknowledge it consciously or not. As I wrote in a previous Brookings article on whether the U.S. is a r****t country, s******c r****m can explain racial disparities in police k*****gs, C****-**, and the devaluing of homes in Black neighborhoods. If we love America, we should want it to be the best it can be. Rather than run from the issue of r****m in America, we should confront it head on. Our kids and country will be better for it.
Appendix: Legislative and administrative actions regarding CRT
Last updated: November 21, 2021

https://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=5325

Share this article:

The latest battle zone in the Russia-Ukraine war was in the quiet, mostly mannerly halls of the United Nations. There, in the UN's iconic New York headquarters, the world v**ed on Russia's largest invasion since World War II -- revealing fractures and fissures in global support for democracy.

Suspending Russia from the UN Human Rights Council was technically the issue put before the delegates. But every diplomat knew it was really a v**e on Russia's assault on Ukraine. The consensus for democracy and self-determination was fragile: only 93 states (out of 193) v**ed for removing Russia from the UNHRC, and therefore condemning its actions against its smaller, weaker neighbor.

Another 24 nations (including China) v**ed with Russia. Most worrisome, 58 countries abstained, refusing to take sides in what many see as a duel between the great powers. Others feared that energy, food, and fertilizer prices might continue to climb if the conflict escalates. (Both Russia and Ukraine are major producers of oil, gas, wheat, and fertilizing petrochemicals -- all of which are a matter of life and death for developing nations.) Fear and food are more important to many developing nations than democratic ideals.

American and European policy makers will have to face a hard t***h: while Russia is diplomatically isolated, it is not entirely alone, and many countries do not side with Ukraine and its democratic hopes.

The view from the rubble of Kyiv's suburbs isn't hopeful. Ukraine's democratically elected leaders know that they could be captured, wounded, or k**led. And they also know that the history of sanctions, the weapon of choice of the Western coalition, shows that they almost always fail to tame invaders. All of these facts were known to the UN delegates. Indeed, they would have heard them directly from Ukrainian diplomats. But high ideals and real desperation didn't move them.

Let's look more closely at why 100 nations decided not to support Ukraine in the UN v**e.

In Africa, Russia has forged long-standing relations with Libya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mali, and often deploys a postcolonial pattern, which suggests that Russia supports the independent, emerging nations over their former colonial masters. This line of rhetoric is a continuation of the theme first promoted in the days of the Soviet Union, particularly from the 1950s onwards.

In Latin America, a form of anti-Americanism among the educated classes has t***slated into a reluctance to openly criticize Putin. This is amplified by messages vocally propagated by Cuba and Venezuela.

China's initial abstention is seen more as a sign of embarrassment in the face of the belligerent aims of its Russian partner, than as a show of their interest in a rapprochement with the West. In Western capitals, many want to believe that Beijing has an interest in an early ceasefire, so as not to hinder its economic growth.

In reality, China sees no reason to anger Russia, a major supplier of oil, gas, and coal, especially since Western nations are discouraging the production of the very f****l f**ls that China needs. Policy-making circles in Beijing are not crowded with idealists, and its decisions are invariably self-interested and pragmatic.

India, for its part, is a long-standing ally of Russia, one of its major arms suppliers. New Delhi believes that it will need those weapons in the face of the Chinese military build-up in the region, as well as in the face of unresolved issues with Pakistan.

Arab nations do not intend to abandon their relations with Russia, which has established itself as a force to be reckoned with when it saved Syria's President Bashar al-Assad through its military intervention; nor with China, the largest buyer of oil and gas from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Indeed, Arab leaders are unhappy with the Biden administration for its precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan last year, its ongoing negotiations with the threatening regime in Iran, and its laxity in the face of the Yemen-based Houthi terrorist and rocket attacks. For the first time, Arab leaders are asking questions, publicly, about the sustainability of the American political system and the coherence of American foreign policy.

On the Iranian nuclear dossier, Israel, one of the firmest allies of the US in the region, fears that the Biden administration wants at all costs to conclude an agreement with the Iranian regime without taking into account the possible impact on the regional aggression of Tehran.

The Israeli minister of defense even called for the implementation of a "solid plan B" to deal with the Iranian nuclear program. As a result, neither the Arabs nor the Israelis were enthusiastic about supporting the US at the UN -- although they did line up in the end.

What has been eroding for some years now is the commitment of American leaders to defend, maintain, and advance an international order in which states observe common rules and standards, embrace liberal economic systems, renounce territorial conquests, respect the sovereignty of national governments, and adopt democratic reforms.

In today's increasingly complex global environment, the US can only achieve its goals by leveraging its strength through a cohesive foreign policy that responds to the challenges posed by Russia and China. To do this, the US must deliberately strengthen and cultivate productive relationships with its allies, partners, and other nations with common interests.

The US must offer attractive political, economic, and security alternatives to China's influence in the Indo-Pacific, Africa, and beyond.

At the same time, the US must maintain a productive strategic dialogue with China that will clearly communicate US concerns and strive to understand Chinese interests and objectives.

Universal principles must be combined with the reality of other regions' outlooks. Western leaders must recognize that non-Western leaders aren't just living in another place, but rather, they are coming from another place intellectually. Henry Kissinger put it best in 2014: "The celebration of universal principles must go hand in hand with the recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures, and points of view on their security."

The UN v**e showed that universal principles aren't quite universal yet. Rather than condemn the nations that abstained from v****g against Russia, America must seek to understand why they thought sitting out the v**e was their best option. Next, America must make clear that it still supports the rule of law and the ideal of democracy and put steel behind its ideals.

Originally published at The Gatestone Institute - reposted with permission.

In all of my years of fighting the lies and insane policies of the radical Left, this is without doubt their DUMBEST plan ever – but it is also the MOST DANGEROUS that we have ever faced.
Thousands and thousands of acres of privately-owned, food-producing Midwest Corn Belt farmland are targeted for a new 1300-mile long pipeline. But NOT a pipeline to bring us desperately needed fuel.

No – the purpose of this pipeline is to capture carbon dioxide and T***SPORT IT UNDER GROUND!!!

I’m not kidding.

The scheme is to capture CO2 carbon dioxide and send it into tanks underground where it will be stored – all in an attempt to stop g****l w*****g!
Just as I’ve been warning for over thirty years, all of this is part of the plot as called for in Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, The Green New Deal and now the Great Reset. In their words, “A blueprint for the reorganization of human society.”

Now, America’s farmers are on the front lines of the ground war to enforce that reorganization. And this is just the beginning to get it all started.
The pipeline won’t be placed on the edges of the farm property- but will drive right through the middle, rendering all of the land useless.

As their land is confiscated, Farmers won’t be allowed to grow food. No crops will be grown. The first step in creating the pipeline will be to rip up the topsoil.
This land is the heart of our food industry. If you think shelves in your grocery are bare now, wait until all of this farmland is confiscated.

Two main forces are pushing these Carbon Dioxide Pipelines. They are private companies named Summit Carbon Solutions and Navigator CO2 Ventures.
These private companies have already sent out letters to farmers across Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota, informing them that their land is targeted for the pipeline. The letter is a threat – telling farmers they can either “voluntarily” surrender their land now – or it will be taken by Eminent Domain later. Some county officials have already surrendered to this tyranny, saying, “There’s not much we can do. It looks like it’s just going to happen.” They are wrong!

THE T***H IS – WE CAN STOP IT.

No land has yet been taken. Angry farmers and other landowners are showing up in public meetings in large numbers, and many city council and county commission members are opposed to the plan. I am going to travel to Iowa –which is the main target right now – and spend several days to help train activists to take effective action.
We need to organize the farmers and other affected industries to stand up to this disaster. And we need to spread the action to the other affected states.

AT LEAST CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN!!!

Source: Tom DeWeese
President-American Policy Center

Watching the video can sort of change your mind in terms of someone deserving to be slapped around a bit, this little turd did. What was he thinking about just being ridiculously annoying trying to piss Tyson off, and how much of that crap is a guy supposed to put up with?

Looking at the video a friend of this guy was taking they were laughing about how much this i***t was pissing Tyson off, it's like provoking him to get a settlement. Normally I don't hold with resorting to physical violence, but this guy got what he wanted, and I'd have to say it sort of looked like Tyson was more like b***h slapping him, a full Tyson punch could have k**led him. On one hand Tyson is probably going to have to pay some money, he should have really kicked his butt and made it worthwhile.

https://www.rawstory.com/2657192822/?cx_testId=4&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=4&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s