Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Another Big Step Toward MAGA

Andrea Widburg has the story at American Thinker, with plenty of documentary explanation: Trump strikes a second, massive blow against Critical Race theory. It's hard to overemphasize how important Trump's new move is. Trump's first executive order against Critical Race Theory indoctrination in government agencies--which he enforced when CDC tried to ignore it--was a big first step toward healing the nation from Leftist inflicted hate mongering. This new executive order extends the ban on CRT indoctrination to: 

the military, 

government contractors, and 

"grantees" (i.e., among others, institutions of education).

The scope of this ban is now, essentially, society wide. It adds the ban to two more fundamental societal institutions--the military, with its vast network of contractors, and education--taking them out of the indoctrination game, bringing the Gramscian long march of the Left through our basic institutions to a grinding halt. Control of indoctrination in the military and in educational institutions has been key to the poisoning of our youth's minds with Leftist ideology. Universities can "resist" the ban, but they'll be doing it without federal money. 

Obviously this is still the first step. Trump's reelection is an essential next step if we are to see the full fruits of this bold initiative. In particular, if we are to see how far the provision regarding "grantees" and contractors may extend. For example, do social media and tech companies qualify as "government contractors". My guess is that most of them do, in one way or another. This executive order could be a far more effective and expeditious way of addressing the problem of Leftist indoctrination and censorship than years long anti-trust lawsuits. Those lawsuits can begin and continue, but effective change and control over Leftist attempts to silence opposition will not have to wait on the results of antitrust litigation.

Getting a new conservative voice on the SCOTUS will be another big step in this direction.

The stakes in this election could not be more clear.

Excerpts from Widburg's article:

CRT’s modern eugenics, which started in academia, is aimed squarely at whites. Its grotesque, anti-American theory has flowed like sewage out of academia into government and the corporate world.

Last week, though, Trump put a stop to it in government agencies. And yesterday, he expanded that prohibition to the military, government contractors, and organizations receiving government grants (which hits academia squarely in the pocketbook):

 Donald J. Trump


A few weeks ago, I BANNED efforts to indoctrinate government employees with divisive and harmful sex and race-based ideologies. Today, I've expanded that ban to people and companies that do business...

...with our Country, the United States Military, Government Contractors, and Grantees. Americans should be taught to take PRIDE in our Great Country, and if you don’t, there’s nothing in it for you!

5:53 PM · Sep 22, 2020

ADDENDUM: Note that this move turns the tables. The burden for enforcement will be on the heads of organizations--corporate, educational, contracting. They will have to answer for the loss of government funding to shareholders and boards, so the burden for self policing will be at the top. Highly effective.


  1. Way to go Donald. Fundamentally un-transform the USA.

  2. Great move, buuuut... there needs to be enforcement mechanisms to have a real effect. Certainly the Administration can cut off funding and fire federal employees who refuse the new directive, but as we've seen so many times, the federal bureaucracy is gigantic and overwhelmingly hostile to Trump's policies so it is herculean task to actually see this implemented. One idea is to use an executive order to give any person a direct cause of action if they see this CRT bile being taught--- a sort of super whistleblower provision.

    1. I think the enforcement mechanisms are already in place. Any employee or student can complain to the feds--esp local USA--and the federal government will come down on the org like a ton of bricks. Lots of money at stake.

  3. Expect a stay from some judge from Hawaii in 3... 2... 1...

    1. Which is why we should've seen this order 3 years ago (unless the legal ground has somehow changed).
      Had that happened, we'd have gone thru the (extra-)judicial process by now, and we'd thus already have rather less of a PC atmosphere.

    2. Maybe doable now because RBG?


  4. "Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️
    Replying to @realchrisrufo
    Finally, the executive order has a strong enforcement component: all federal diversity programs must be approved directly by OMB and OPM, and agencies are directed to initiate adverse action proceedings against managers who continue to hold CRT trainings."

    "Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️
    Replying to @realchrisrufo
    The executive order also opens the legal floodgates: the President instructs the Attorney General to assess whether critical race theory trainings create a "hostile work environment" and constitute a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act."

    From Twitter.

    Something that is often overlooked when addressing/considering Gramsci's Long March: When you lay pipe to pump bilge water up hill into the halls of power someone else can use those same conduits to flush the system with fresh water. The Republican Party has for too long focused on the lust of the national Chamber of Commerce for lower corporate taxes and cheaper labor and NeoCon nation building, to the exclusion of virtually all else, while wringing their hands and bemoaning their impotence on the cultural front. One almost gets the impression that they were never really for Americans after all.

    This is why I voted Trump the first time. Only an outsider would think, much less act, outside the self-limiting CoC/NeoCon box. A blindfolded, over-the-shoulder, shot in the dark turned out to be far closer to the mark than the careful aim of the establishment's best "experts".

    1. Excellently put:

      "Something that is often overlooked when addressing/considering Gramsci's Long March: When you lay pipe to pump bilge water up hill into the halls of power someone else can use those same conduits to flush the system with fresh water."

      That's what I meant about "turning the tables." The same enforcement procedures are now going to be turned on Progs.

  5. Trump needed to take on the culture war a bit more than he had, and he now has with this EO. I predict this will solidify the white working class vote that was slipping--just a bit--here in the Midwest. So much of Trump's vote in 2016 was out of frustration of majority white working class stiffs who were sick of being blamed for everything that was wrong with America. Michael Moore will recognize this move and its impact. He will likely be the only prominent lefty who will, but he'll still characterize Trump's move as racist. But that's exactly how Trump wants left to react.

    1. You're right. Trump won in 2016 with the big help of many people who rarely if ever voted before. Trump understands that and understands why they came out. His campaign machine has been working to register more of those people for 4 years, and its bearing fruit. Progs have basically maxed out registration long ago. The non-voters are overwhelmingly part of the Trump constituency.

    2. Many were none voters precisely because they didn't see any real difference between Democrats and Bill Kristol's Republicans. Kristol has since proven that as fact rather than just perception.

    3. "His campaign machine has been working to register more of those people...."
      Anyone care to lay odds, on how many of the nat'l pollsters consider these new voters as LVs?

  6. "They will have to answer for the loss of government funding to shareholders and boards, so the burden for self policing will be at the top"

    Over and over, Trump seems to be the only one who recognizes that hitting them in the pocketbook has the biggest results.


  7. Great. Now what about this?

  8. Speaking of morals, I am struggling with the beatification of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Saw this article. More my speed re her “legacy” and being a nice “fun” person:

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is in the Dock Today

    1. I read the article by Chris Scalia. I was stunned that he was willing to reveal to the world the shallowness of his father, Nino.

      From a 2009 NRO article, about an Ginsburg interview in which she frankly espoused the eugenicist justification for abortion:

      Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a Question of Eugenics

      Does Ginsburg see eugenic culling as a compelling state interest?

      By Jonah Goldberg

      Here’s what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine: “Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided,” Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

      The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from Bazelon or any further coverage from the New York Times — or any other major news outlet — was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion. Ginsburg was surprised when the Supreme Court in 1980 barred taxpayer support for abortions for poor women. After all, if poverty partly described the population you had “too many of,” you would want to subsidize it in order to expedite the reduction of unwanted populations.

      BLM, anyone?

    2. Mark, if you are referring to Chris Scalia’s article at Fox, I couldn’t agree more. Just too cutesy, palsy-walsy… I suppose that some people could put their morals aside and be good friends with anyone. I couldn’t pull it off. A fantastically wealthy friend of mine from junior high school days, a major figure in Los Angeles philanthropical circles, once remarked that she was urging one of her daughters to abort her fifth pregnancy as “she has enough children”. I couldn’t stand to be around her from that time on… But I still get her very produced Christmas cards, featuring photos of her with her large family of children and grandchildren. I see a huge disconnect in there.

    3. That's exactly what I had in mind.

    4. "The banality of evil."

      Can't remember who said it.

    5. “The banality of evil.” A quick lookup found that it is attributed to Hannah Arendt regarding Adolf Eichmann.

    6. Yeah, Arendt made a strong case.

  9. I am no fan of Kevin Williamson, but he really hits the mark in his piece on RBG:

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg Didn’t Understand Her Job

    1. @Bebe

      I couldn't agree more -- with both your assertions.


      If memory serves I once posted here a lengthy recollection of my introduction to judicial legislating at Columbia Law School in the 1970s. My recollection is that the playbook was championed by Herbert Wechsler, a constitutional law scholar later lionized by the New York Times as a 'Legal Giant' at the time of his death.

      Wechsler's classroom advice to young law students? Go for it! You are 'smarter', he said, than legislators or voters. The law is clay for you to shape!

      It seems it was that simple. It didn't require any legal genius or brilliant discovery of hidden penumbras. Just keep arguing for 'justice' and 'equality' and you will eventually win.

      Ginsburg often referred to Wechsler as one of her mentors.

      But, if truth be told, even Wechsler saw limits to legislating from the bench. For example, he wondered whether the Supreme Court’s holding in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional “really turned upon the facts”. Instead, he conceded that “it must have rested on the view that racial segregation is, in principle, a denial of equality.”

      From a judicial point of view, Wechsler's fear was that Brown’s outcome sprang from a consideration of 'moral principles' rather than canons of legal reasoning. In his view judicial probity meant refusing to allow politics to drive legal decision-making, fearing that the Court risked losing its institutional legitimacy if it addressed contentious political issues directly.

      Ginsburg was less concerned, perhaps, about the formal niceties of judicial probity than Wechsler. She would later describe Brown as one of the Court’s “ultimate triumphs.”

      Over the years since Brown Ginsburg and the other liberal members of the Court increasingly found constitutional 'rights' where none were written...leading us to where we are today.

    2. According to another Constitutional scholar, Professor B.H. Obama (University of Chicago), the courts did not take enough positive action, "...did not go far enough," I think was his phrase.

      What a nightmare - Associate Justice Obama.

      Essentially the same poison that infected journalism schools. The highest duty is to "make a difference".

  10. I expected more push back from the critical race theory supporters...

    Especially after this second E.O. That includes the Military, Government Contractors, and Grantees.

    My thought Trump wanted the pushback and this was a giant troll.

    Perhaps the media and allies can only one focus at a time. Ginsburg’s replacement is it currently, with occasional BLM stuff.