Translate

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

GOOGLE ATTEMPTS QUIET TAKEOVER OF TRUMP WHITE HOUSE

 https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5683ab9cdd0895374d8b4853-2400/gettyimages-476451960.jpg
GOOGLE ATTEMPTS QUIET TAKEOVER 
OF TRUMP WHITE HOUSE
 WH advisor cautions: “Google head Schmidt, a top Hillary advisor, cozies up to Trump”
BY JEROME CORSI
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
NEW YORK – Eric Schmidt, the founder of the multinational conglomerate Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, is making a run to become a Trump insider, intending hopefully to reverse the political damage done by the strong support he and Google gave to the Obama administration for eight years and to Hillary Clinton in her 2016 presidential campaign.
On Dec. 14, 2016, Schmidt was included in a group of prominent tech industry executives that met with then President-elect Donald Trump in a much-publicized meeting.
Then on Jan. 17, 2017, Politico reported that Schmidt was sited at an unannounced visit to Trump Tower, where he lunched privately with Jared Kushner, Trump’s real estate magnate son-in-law married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka in 2009, who has emerged to be named a Senior Advisor to his father-in-law in the White House.

Schmidt’s charm offensive
Trump’s long-time advisor Roger Stone expressed to INFOWARS.com concerns shared by many close to the Trump administration that Schmidt is angling to create a personal relationship with Trump so as to continue the business advantages Google enjoyed when Barack Obama was president.
“Google’s Eric Schmidt was among Hillary’s biggest donors and closest advisors,” Stone told INFOWARS.com in an exclusive interview. “Schmidt enjoyed a revolving-door relationship with the Obama administration that secured for Google key role in writing regulations to Google’s advantage.”

Stone pointed out that Schmidt “bet on the wrong horse – big time” in supporting Hillary.
“Now, Schmidt is engaged in massive damage control, thinking he charm his way into Trump’s inner circle,” Stone continued.
“The problem is that Schmidt and Google have a history of supporting Democratic candidates and leftist causes,” he stressed. “The American public has no idea how extensively Schmidt has used his influence with Hillary and with Obama to wind Google tentacles into the heart and inner workings of a federal bureaucracy staffed from the top-down by left-leaning Hillary lovers.”
Stone emphasized those in key positions in the Trump administration must be on the alert to a “Google charm offensive” launched by Schmidt to cozy up to Trump in an effort to re-establish with Trump some of the influence Google enjoyed with the Democrats.
Google strategy to worm into Trump
“Google was definitely trying to advance its policy agenda by cozying up to Trump,” Daniel Stevens, the acting executive director of the Washington-based non-profit 501(c)(3) watchdog Campaign for Accountability told Infowars.  “It’s what Google did with Hillary.  As Hillary’s campaign was kicking-off, Google cozied up to the Clinton campaign.  Eric Schmidt sent off emails offering advice to Hillary’s top campaign managers, in an effort to make himself indispensable to the campaign.”

Stevens noted Eric Schmidt even created an under-the-radar startup technology company for Hillary’s Campaign, The Groundwork, headquartered in Brooklyn, N.Y., a few blocks from Hillary’s campaign office.  The Groundwork became a major vendor Hillary’s campaign, implementing a policy designed to emulate Barack Obama’s highly successful micro-targeting of voters in 2012, in a plan to feed this data to activists working in the field through the Obama campaign’s activist arm, Organizing for America.
As noted by Quartz.com in an article published Oct. 9, 2015, Hillary’s decision to hire former Google executive Stephanie Hannon as her 2016 presidential campaign’s chief technology officer, as well as hiring “a host of ex-Googlers” as high-ranking technical staff at the Obama White House evidenced the “shrinking distance between Google and the Democratic Party.”
“It now appears that Schmidt is trying to reach out to the Trump White House in a similar way,” Stevens continued.  “It’s in Google’s interest to cozy up to Trump now that he is president and that is what Schmidt is trying to do.”
That Google has already made inroads into the Trump camp was clear to the Campaign for Accountability in that Joshua Wright, who co-wrote a Google-funded paper while on the faculty of George Mason University and works at Google’s main antitrust law firm, has been advising the Trump transition team on competition issues, while Alex Pollock, of the Google-funded R Street Institute, has also been named to oversee the transition at the FTC.
At the same time, it is not clear the Trump administration fully appreciates the extent to which Eric Schmidt and Google top executives have supported and advanced Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s far-left policy agenda.  Leaked emails released by Wikileaks revealed that John Podesta, Hillary’s 2016 campaign chairman, had warned Neera Tanden, the President of the Center for American Progress, “I hope Hillary truly understands how batshit crazy David Brock is.”
Radical Democratic Party political operative David Brock is the chief architect behind promoting the leftist “Fake News” campaign.  Brock’s advice was key to promoting Google to take steps to prohibit some 340 “fake news” sites in November and December alone from using Google ads for monetization.  Last week Google confirmed that since November, some 550 sites have been reviewed, resulting in permanent bans for nearly 200 and temporary bans for another 140, as reported by Variety on Jan. 25, 2017.
Google refuses to disclose the identity of the websites Google has targeted to block as “fake news.”
Trump supporters should remain legitimately concerned that by buying into Brock’s campaign against “fake news,” the ultimate goal of the far-left is to ban sites like Infowars.com for exposing the far left agenda, wile protecting mainstream media news organizations and websites like CNN, despite proof CNN has reported anti-Trump stories proven to be false or otherwise untruthful.
Trump has repeatedly attacked CNN as “not a legitimate news agency” because of the extent to which CNN has engaged in one-sided, distorted and intentionally misleading anti-trump “fake news” slanted to benefit far-left candidates like Hillary Clinton, while striving to protect the legacy of the Obama administration from criticism.
Google’s revolving door
“When President Obama announced his support last week for a Federal Communications Commission plan to open the market for cable set-top boxes — a big win for consumers, but also for Google— the cable and telecommunications giants who used to have a near-stranglehold on tech policy were furious,” wrote David Dayen in the Intercept on April 22, 2016, evidencing Schmidt’s ability to get Obama administration regulations written to benefit Google.  “AT&T chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi lashed out at what he called White House intervention on behalf of ‘the Google proposal.’”
According to a report published by Campaign for Accountability on April 26, 2016, White House logs show Google had “unrivaled access” to the Obama administration with Google representatives attending 427 meetings in the White House from the time Obama took office, on Jan. 20, 2009, and October 2015 – a meeting every 5.8 days – more than once a week – averaging one meeting every 4.1 working days.

The Campaign for Accountability study further established a “revolving door” with Google hiring an Obama administration government official or a Google employee becoming an Obama administration employee. “The dataset highlights the astonishing level of traffic between the two in both directions: 251 people either moved from Google into government or vice-versa, since Obama took office,” the Center for Accountability noted.
“Over the course of just 15 years, Google has grown into arguably the most powerful company on the globe by becoming its biggest data-mining operation,” said Anne Weismann the executive director for the Campaign for Accountability Executive when the report on Google was released last year. “Google knows more about us than we know about ourselves, but we know surprisingly little about Google and how it actually operates.”
“The company’s business practices and political influence, as well as how it uses our private information, are disturbingly opaque.”
Among those benefiting from Google’s “revolving door” relationship with the Obama administration is Megan Smith, the former Google vice president of business development who served as the United States’ Chief Technology Officer in the Obama White House.
Another is Johanna Shelton, Google’s director of public policy and top lobbyist, Johanna Shelton, According to Watchdog.org, Johanna Shelton, visited White House officials 128 times, including 4 times with President Obama himself, between the time Obama took office in 2009 and October 2015, compared to lobbyists for other companies in the telecommunications and cable industry that visited the White House a combined 124 times in the same time span.  The Daily Mail concluded that Shelton visited the Obama White House more than 18 of the top 50 lobbyist spenders combined.
Eric Schmidt’s personal familiarity with Obama stretches back at least to Nov. 14, 2007, when then Sen. Barack Obama, a 2008 presidential hopeful, visited Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California, to meet with Schmidt and take questions from Google employees, as part of the “Candidates at Google” series.

In his 2008 presentation at Google, Obama expressed his support for net neutrality, a Google-sought policy decision that the Federal Communications Commission finalized as “Net Neutrality Regulations” on April 13, 2015.
On June 23, 2011, ConsumerWatchdog.org wrote the White House legal counsel, advising of the group’s concern about the Obama administration’s “inappropriate relationship with Google while the company is under criminal investigating,” insisting that Schmidt as Google’s executive chairman, and Marissa Meyer, a Google vice president had been invited unadvisedly to be guests at a then recent White House state dinner honoring German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
“Allowing such executives to hobnob at a gala White House event inevitably sends a message that the Administration supports them and undercuts the ability of federal investigators to proceed with their case in a fair and unbiased way,” ConsumerWatchdog.org president Jamie Court wrote in the letter.
In an article published June 24, 2011, Politico documented the precise nature of the legal conflicts of interest involved in Schmidt and Meyer attending the White House state dinner.
“Google is reportedly the subject of an antitrust investigation by the FTC, and Justice is reviewing its $400 million purchase of online advertising firm Admeld,” Politico noted.  “In addition, Justice, the FDA and the Rhode Island U.S. attorney are reportedly looking into allegations that Google profited from selling online ads to illegal online pharmacies.”
Politico stressed that despite these on-going investigations, “Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt and Vice President Marissa Mayer were guests at last month’s State Dinner to honor German Chancellor Angela Merkel.”
All investigations ended without Google facing anti-trust charges or criminal prosecutions:
Schmidt’s role as Hillary’s “head outside advisor”
In an email dated April 2, 2014, released by Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman John Podesta wrote Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook about a meeting he had just completed with Google’s Eric Schmidt.
“I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he’s ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn’t pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn’t seem like he wanted to push others out,” Podesta wrote. “Clearly wants to get going. He’s still in DC tomorrow and would like to meet with you if you are in DC in the afternoon. I think it’s worth doing. You around? If you are, and want to meet with him, maybe the four of us can get on the phone in the a.m.”
In another Wikileaks document, an attachment to a memo Mook wrote to Podesta and Clinton aid and legal adviser Cheryl Mills, dated Oct. 26, 2014, Mook detailed the extensive work “Eric Schmidt’s group” was undertaking with the campaign.
As noted by the Daily Caller, the attachment was a memo originally sent to Hillary by Teddy Goff, the former digital director for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign who had transitioned to Hillary’s 2016 campaign, in October 2014, six months before Hillary announced her run to the White House.
In the memo, Goff stressed the importance of Schmidt in constructing the back-end infrastructure of the Clinton campaign website.  She wrote the following:
“We have selected a team of developers, unaffiliated with Eric [Schmidt], to build the front-end of your website — a relatively simple process that does not need to have begun yet. These are former employees of mine in whom I have the highest confidence. They are apprised of what Eric is building but not dependent on it, having identified commercially available products for all mission-critical functions in the event Eric’s group is delayed or otherwise derailed.”
Goff continued, noting she had “instructed Eric’s team” to build the “back-end of the website, the ability to accept donations (along with associated features, most importantly the ability to store credit card information), and the ability to acquire email addresses.”  She noted these were “core functionalities” that had contributed to Obama’s 2012 electoral success.  This appears to be the genesis of the thinking that led Schmidt to create The Groundwork to create Hillary’s 2016 campaign technological infrastructure.
According to leaked documents released by Guccifer 2.0, Eric Schmidt, valued by Forbes as having a net worth of $11.8 billion, has personally donated $118,866.34 to the Clinton Foundation.
There is no doubt that Schmidt used that wealth to bet heavily that Hillary Clinton would be president in 2017.  According to OpenSecrets.org, Alphabet Inc. employees contributed $1.5 million to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, making Google the second largest source of campaign contributions that Clinton received.
The Campaign for Accountability’s “Google Transparency Project” found “at least 57 people were affiliated with both Clinton—in her presidential campaign, in her State Department, at her family foundation—and with Google or related entities. In addition, 10 people who worked under Clinton at the State Department later joined the New America Foundation, a Google-friendly think tank where Google’s Eric Schmidt served as chairman and was one of its top donors.”
The “Google Transparency Project” report made clear Google executives and employees “bet heavily on a Clinton victory, hoping to extend the company’s influence on the Obama White House.”  The report continued to note that Google executives and employees “lost that bet, and are left scrambling to find an entrée into the Trump Administration.”

 

EX-OFFICIAL CALLS ON MEXICO TO UNLEASH DRUG CARTELS TO PUNISH TRUMP

EX-OFFICIAL CALLS ON MEXICO TO UNLEASH DRUG CARTELS TO PUNISH TRUMP 
 Suggests drugs should be allowed to flow into U.S.


 BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Former Secretary of Foreign Affairs Jorge Castañeda has called on Mexico to punish President Trump for his actions on deporting illegal immigrants and building a border wall by allowing criminal cartels to run drugs into the United States.

During an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Castañeda suggested that drug cartels could be unleashed on the U.S. as retribution for Trump’s aggressive stance towards Mexico.
“Mexico has a lot of negotiating chips in this matter, Fareed, but it also has measures we could take in other areas,” said Castañeda. “For example, the drugs that come through Mexico from South America, or the drugs that are produced here in Mexico all go to the United States. This is not our problem. We have been cooperating with the United States for many years on these issues because they’ve asked us to and because we have a friendly, trustful relationship. If that relationship disappears, the reasons for cooperation also disappear.”
Castañeda is clearly suggesting that Mexican authorities could take a hands off approach to stopping drug traffickers as part of a revenge attack against Trump.
“The implications are astoundingly clear – Mexico would consider exporting chaos and violence into the United States as a form of payback for immigration restrictions and controls against the instability that the southern border has brought to the country for decades,” comments Mac Slavo.
The irony of course is that any intensification of chaos on the border would only serve to strengthen Trump’s hand when it came to building the wall and deporting illegals.
From 2006-2010 alone, Mexican drug cartels killed around 34,000 people, and that’s just on the Mexican side. Those murders included gruesome ISIS-style beheadings and other grisly executions.

ADF FILES LAWSUIT FOR MICHIGAN STUDENTS JAILED FOR HANDING OUT POCKET CONSTITUTIONS ON CAMPUS

 ADF Files Lawsuit for Michigan Students Jailed for Handing Out Pocket Constitutions on Campus
ADF FILES LAWSUIT FOR MICHIGAN STUDENTS JAILED FOR HANDING OUT POCKET CONSTITUTIONS 
ON CAMPUS
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
“Do you like freedom and liberty?”
Asking this question of some of their fellow students landed three college kids in jail.
Here’s the story.
Back in September, members of the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) were handing out pocket copies of the Constitution to their fellow students at Kellogg Community College (KCC) in Michigan trying to build up the club’s membership.
Later, campus police approached the kids, questioned them about their activities, handcuffed them for “trespassing” and locked them up in the county jail for seven hours!

On January 18, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the three YAL members who were arrested and jailed by the college’s law enforcement.
Here’s ADF’s account of the events that occurred that day and how the kids ended up in jail for passing out copies of the Constitution:
Brandon and his group were outside on a campus walkway talking to passing students and handing out copies of the Constitution when two KCC officials approached them.  First an administrator and then the Manager of Student Life told them that they must have a permit from the Student Life Office in order to be “soliciting.”  The Manager also said that they could not use this walkway for their activities.
The group calmly explained that they had a constitutional right to be there. While the administrator conceded, the Manager of Student Life did not. He even went so far as to say that, by asking questions and handing out Constitutions, they were “obstructing” the education of the students with whom they spoke.
Later, members of KCC campus security, including the police chief, ordered them to stop engaging in “solicitation” or they would be arrested for trespassing. Brandon complied with the order, leaving to wrap up some other items on campus, while the other three members of the group reiterated their right to be there.
That’s when the students were arrested and taken to jail.
Adding insult to ignorance, when asked what harm the three YAL members were causing to their fellow students, a college administrator identified as Drew Hutchinson, explained that students from “rural farm areas … might not feel like they have the choice to ignore the question.”
In other words, according to the administration of Kellogg Community College, people who live on a farm are too backward to realize that when someone asks them a question, they are free to answer the question or ignore it.
Seriously.
Additionally, the YAL members who were arrested report that Hutchinson told them that the question they were asking (“Do you like freedom and liberty?”) was too “provocative.”
Hutchinson also allegedly told them that the rural kids “are growing up on a farm, or they don’t have Wi-Fi, they don’t have internet, you know it’s a very different situation, they were brought up in a very different manner.”
Without Wi-Fi, farm kids are just “brought up” not knowing what to do if someone offers them a pocket Constitution or asks them a question.
Now, in fairness to KCC, the school does have a Solicitation Policy that was in place prior to YAL’s activities.
The Solicitation Policy reads: "Soliciting activities on campus are permitted only when the activities support the mission of Kellogg Community College (KCC) or the mission of a recognized college entity or activity. Non-College organizations may conduct solicitation activities on campus only when lawfully sponsored by a recognized College entity. All organizations desiring to conduct soliciting activities on campus must adhere to College policies and procedures."
The policy then goes on to lay out the process a group must follow before being allowed to distribute literature. The school claims that the three YAL students violated the policy and thus were arrested and jailed.
One of the arrested students recalls the activities of another on-campus group that were not held to strict obedience to the Solicitation Policy. Here’s the story as told by Brandon Withers, one of the jailed YAL members:
Withers says in the lawsuit that he has witnessed other students violating KCC’s free speech and solicitation policies without incident.
He said that a year prior to his encounter, he saw members of an LGBT student organization distributing literature in the Student Center while freely walking around and not confined to sitting quietly at a table. Withers also alleges he has seen students asking for petition signatures around other areas of campus without prior approval to do so.
The ADF sees several violations on the part of KCC of the YAL students’ constitutionally protected civil liberties.
First, they argue that the school’s solicitation policy affords unconstitutionally broad discretion to school administrators, allowing them to approve or reject petitions according to their own whims.
Next, the lawsuit claims: “KCC maintains an unwritten speech zone policy limiting student expression to one location on campus. If students express themselves on campus without a permit or in any other location, KCC deems them to be violating the Code of Conduct for Students, which exposes them to a variety of sanctions, including expulsion."
There is no doubt that that United States has become a land where speech must be approved and when approved must be spoken only in designated zones set aside for that activity.
Moreover, just because you have the “right” to speak, you must make sure that the words you say are not offensive to anyone (even in the slightest degree, the so-called “micro-aggressions”) or you may have such “rights” taken from you and you may be subjected to severe punishment for failing to remain safely and mutely inside your government-approved speech zone.
“All public colleges—which are supposed to be the ‘marketplace of ideas’—have the duty to protect and promote the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech,” declared ADF Legal Counsel Travis Barham.
“Ignoring this duty, KCC arrested these club supporters for exercising this freedom, and, ironically, for handing out copies of the very document—the Constitution—that protects what they were doing,” he added.
There is a specter of suppression of speech that is not completely in concert with the upholding and obeying of the regime. One unable to restrain himself from criticizing the central planners will be summarily subjected to a denial of liberty, regardless of the erstwhile protections offered by some musty old “parchment barrier.”
As so eloquently stated by Ron Paul, “In the empire of lies, truth is treason.”
 

UN BOSS DEMANDS YOUTH IMPOSE UN'S AGENDA 2030 "MASTER PLAN" ON HUMANITY~INDOCTRINATION & CONSCRIPTION TO BE REQUIRED

UN BOSS DEMANDS YOUTH IMPOSE UN'S AGENDA 2030 "MASTER PLAN" ON HUMANITY
BY ALEX NEWMAN
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Echoing the language used by critics of the controversial global scheme, the president of the United Nations General Assembly has started referring to the UN Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals,” or SDGs, as the “master plan for humanity.” Speaking to a UN summit for “youth” this week, top UN leaders all demanded that children worldwide be indoctrinated and conscripted to help impose the UN's extreme vision on humanity. But as awareness of the UN plot grows, criticism is growing in tandem.
The totalitarian global plan, adopted by the governments and dictators of the world over a year ago, has also been referred to by top UN officials as the world's “Declaration of Interdependence,” with the UN being touted as the (un-elected) “Parliament of Humanity.” Dictators and even genocidal mass-murderers around the world continue to express delight about the plot, expecting massive subsidies for their regimes from Western taxpayers under the UN scheme. The mass-murdering Communist Chinese dictatorship even boasted of its “crucial role” in creating Agenda 2030.
If President Donald Trump's early efforts offer any indication of his plans, however, the UN Agenda 2030, far from being a “master plan for humanity,” may already be a failed scheme. And even without Trump, the U.S. Senate has not ratified the proposed global regime, as required by the U.S. Constitution for all treaties. The chances of it being approved by the Senate for the foreseeable future are essentially zero. And without all the wealth from U.S. taxpayers promised to Third World dictators and regimes in exchange for their cooperation with UN Agenda 2030, the rest of the planet is also likely to be spared from the totalitarian vision outlined in the UN document.
The first time UN General Assembly boss Peter Thomson publicly used the phrase “master plan for humanity” in reference to the UN SDGs appears to have been at a November, 2016, briefing for UN member states. “The 2030 Agenda presents the world with what I have termed a ‘master plan for humanity’ to achieve a sustainable way of life on this planet,” he explained, with “sustainable development” serving as code language among establishment globalists, communists, and other tyrants for planetary economic controls, population reduction, global governance, pseudo-environmentalism, wealth redistribution, and technocratic rule.
The UN Agenda 2030 is composed of 17 separate “goals,” along with 169 specific “targets” to be imposed on humanity. Among other schemes, the document demands national and international wealth redistribution, government and UN control of production and consumption, the indoctrination of children to not just believe in the UN's agenda but to actually “promote” it, and much more. Under the guise of solving everything from world poverty to hunger and disease, the controversial UN documents demands massive expansion of national, regional, and international governments' coercive powers. Virtually the entire document violates the limitations on government power established by the U.S. Constitution, making it illegal in America without changing the supreme law of the land.
Essentially, UN officials and the leaders of most of the UN's largely un-free member regimes are plotting to use Agenda 2030 as a blueprint for advancing, among other goals, the globalist establishment's agenda of totalitarian control and centralization of power. Even a brief perusal of the document itself makes that clear. In the same briefing on November 8 of last year, Thompson made that clear as well, although he used less than honest language to describe the effects that implementing the “master plan for humanity” would have.
Speaking to representatives of the world's governments and dictatorships, Thomson said the theme for his mission would be “The Sustainable Development Goals: A Universal Push to Transform our World.” And by “transform our world,” he means exactly what he says, demanding that “all actors — globally, regionally, nationally and at community levels — view our world through the lens of sustainability.” Specifically, he vowed to bring onboard “international financial institutions, multilateral bodies, regulatory authorities, the private sector, philanthropic foundations, civil society, women’s organizations, academia, local authorities and people everywhere.” His team will also “promote the inclusion of the SDGs on the school curricula of every country.” UNESCO is working on that, too.
Thomson, who hails from Fiji, used the same rhetoric this week at a UN forum aimed at bringing youth into the scheme and giving the impression of support for the UN agenda among young people. Touting the importance of the SDGs and the pseudo-treaty on “climate” known as the Paris Agreement, which Trump has vowed to cancel, Thomson said the two UN schemes provide a “universal master plan to place humanity on a  trajectory to a safe, secure and prosperous future for all.” The event was held by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the Office of the Youth Envoy of the Secretary-General, and the UN Inter-agency Network on Youth Development.
“Implemented urgently, effectively and at scale, these agreements will transform our world, to one in which extreme poverty is eliminated and prosperity is increased and shared more equitably,” Thomson claimed, as if tyranny and wealth redistribution resulted in prosperity, adding that “bold ideas” and “urgent collaborative action” would be needed to bring about the future outlined in the UN documents. “It will require fundamental changes in the way we produce goods and consume them if our world is to be sustainable. Youth will have to be at the forefront of this transformation.”
So crucial is co-opting children, Thomson continued, that he has already “written to all Heads of Government urging them to include the SDGs on the education curricula of schools.” That way, young people can learn about their non-existent “rights” and their “responsibilities” under the so-called masterplan. “As those with the greatest stake in our success, I call on all young people to bring your energy, passion, idealism and ideas to the task of transforming our way of life on this Planet to the one set out in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda,” concluded Thomson, whose government is hoping to extort massive amounts of wealth from more liberty-oriented (and therefore prosperous) Western nations under the guise of “sustainability” and “climate change.”   
Far from being original, the rhetoric used by Thomson and other UN bosses at the youth forum was lifted almost word for word from the UN Agenda 2030 itself. “Children and young women and men are critical agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world,” the document claims. In Goal 4, the document demands that “all learners” — that means your children and grandchildren — become so indoctrinated in the UN's extreme ideology of “sustainability” that they will be ready not just to accept the scheme, but to “promote sustainable development” as well. The plan also calls for mandatory indoctrination in “global citizenship,” which the UN's "education" agency recently said "aims to inculcate students with a notion of belonging not just to their own country but to broader trans-national and global entities.”
“By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development,” the global plan for 2030 states. Read that one again, and consider what the UN means when it pushes “sustainable development.” Even “human rights” is misleading, referring to government-defined and easily revocable privileges rather than the God-given rights America's founders viewed as self-evident.
Perhaps hoping nobody would notice, the UN itself has already spilled the beans when it comes to the meaning of education for “sustainable development,” a key tenet of the UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. “Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes,” a UN “toolkit” for global “sustainable” education explains. “In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.” In other words, people with real educations have higher incomes and therefore threaten the whole “sustainability” agenda.
As this magazine has pointed out repeatedly, the SDGs really are a “master plan for humanity,” a phrase this magazine has used on at least a half-dozen occasions. But looking past the slick marketing slogans and self-serving gimmicks of the UN dictators club, its allies, and the mass-murdering tyrants responsible for drafting Agenda 2030, it becomes clear that the master plan involves a surrender of freedom, self-government, prosperity, national sovereignty, traditional values, Western civilization, huge amounts of wealth, the Judeo-Christian worldview, and much more. It is, in essence, a global plan for totalitarian rule — a sort of neo-feudalism run by unelected and unaccountable technocrats who lust for ever more power over their fellow human beings.
The previous UN General Assembly boss, John Ashe, was also a major booster of Agenda 2030. But just after it was adopted, he was arrested by U.S. authorities and charged with corruption and receiving bribes to influence policy from a known Communist Chinese operative masquerading as a billionaire “businessman.” Ashe died under what analysts described as suspicious circumstances before his testimony implicating powerful individuals could be heard in a court of law. Whether other top UN leaders will face justice for their schemes remains to be seen. But what is clear is that, if liberty and self-government are to survive, UN Agenda 2030 must die.
Congress and Trump are in the process of drastically curtailing funding for the UN dictators club and its totalitarian agenda. But rather than playing defense against every new UN scheme that threatens freedom and self-government, the American people should urge their elected representatives to support a full U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. The American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 193), currently sitting in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, would do exactly that, making Agenda 2030 and all the rest of the dictator club's schemes irrelevant. All that is needed now is enough public pressure.

Related articles:  
UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism
U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence
Former UN General Assembly Boss Arrested for Corruption
UN Goals for Humanity Target Children as “Agents of Change”
UN Demands More Globalist Propaganda in School Textbooks
Next on Trump's List: Rein in the UN Dictators Club
UN Adopts “Education” Plan to Indoctrinate Children in Globalism
Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN Introduced in New Congress
United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.
The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked
Beijing Boasts of Its "Crucial Role" in UN Plan for Humanity
China, G77 Tyrants, and UN Boss Demand “New World Order”

TEACHER FORCED OUT FOR USING CONFEDERATE FLAG IN CIVIL WAR HISTORY LESSON~DEEMED A "SYMBOL OF HATE" BY SCHOOL DISTRICT

 

TEACHER FORCED OUT FOR USING CONFEDERATE FLAG IN CIVIL WAR HISTORY LESSON
BY STEVE BYAS
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
“He’s personally my favorite teacher in the whole school,” Ana Kneisely told CBS Sacramento, in reference to a middle school American History teacher, Woody Hart, in Rancho Cordova, California, who was forced to retire by the Board of Education.
Hart, a 70-year-old teacher at Suttle Middle School of the Folsom Cordova United School District, was ousted after using a Confederate battle flag, along with a period United States flag, as part of a lesson on the U.S. Civil War. The school’s superintendent, Deborah Bettencourt, released a statement late last week that the board of education had “accepted this Sutter Middle School teacher’s retirement ... and he will not be returning to school this year.”
In an interview with the local CBS affiliate, KCRA, Ana Kneisely, one of Hart’s students, explained what had happened. “We just came in and we saw the Union Flag on one side of the room and the Confederate Flag on the other side of the room.”
Apparently, this was typical of the way Hart taught. “I actually very much appreciated the way he taught history,” Kneisely said. “I felt that we were getting more involved than what our other classes did.”

For example, Hart used the two flags of the opposing sides in the Civil War to create interest. The two hanging flags were part of Hart’s lesson, as students were members of one of the two armies.
Kneisely added that she did not understand why Hart’s display of the flag of one of the two sides involved in the war was controversial, considering that the flags, including the Confederate flag, are also used in the textbook for the same purpose.
Back in November, a black family filed a complaint against Hart for his remarks, in which he explained the unfair way blacks were treated during segregation. Hart told his students that, at one time, some Southerners responded to calls for “black equality” with disdain, saying terrible things such as, “We treat all black people equally. We hang them all.”
The Sacramento chapter of a group calling itself Showing Up for Racial Justice also weighed in, demanding a public apology from Hart.
Apparently, Hart was only relating historical incidents in which people went to the South during those days to promote better treatment and equal rights for blacks, only to be told that they do treat blacks equally — they hang them if they are in-state African-Americans, and they hang them if they are visiting African-Americans. Hart was simply telling the students how terribly blacks were far-too-often treated during that time.
And, with the Confederate battle flag, Hart was teaching his class accurate history as to the use of the flag — in battles during the Civil War.
But the school district argued that it did not really matter how the flag was used during the Civil War; it should not be seen by students today. “We recognize that regardless of context, to many of our students, families, and staff, the Confederate flag is a racist symbol of hate. Although this matter is under investigation, it is important to reiterate: Any employee who is found to engage in behavior that creates an unsafe environment for students will face full consequences, including the possibility of initiating termination proceedings.”
Bettencourt, the superintendent, said that the district’s action did not mean that they were attempting to “limit the free speech of our teachers.” Then, in an Orwellian addition, she stated that she expects “teachers and staff will do this work using culturally appropriate strategies.”
The district statement added, “It is our schools’ responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for all children.”
It is not clear how the display of a flag, which was actually used in many battles during the American Civil War, creates an unsafe learning environment for children. And, exactly what is meant by “culturally appropriate strategies?”
The obvious meaning is that certain events and symbols in history are to be censored — or as George Orwell described it in his classic dystopian novel 1984, some things should be disposed of in the “memory hole.”
Among those things that should be relegated to the “memory hole,” and not even shown to students (because it apparently would make them “unsafe”), is a Confederate battle flag. Since the murders inside a church in South Carolina, in which the killer posted photographs of himself on Facebook along with the flag, there has been an intense offensive against any public display of the historical flag.
Critics contend that the flag is nothing but a racist symbol in a war allegedly fought over slavery, and in more recent times, as a symbol used by racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. But champions of the flag have countered that the flag is simply a symbol of Southern culture, and that slavery was not the issue over which the Civil War was fought.
Sometimes called the “Southern Cross,” the flag was a variation of the flag of Scotland. It was actually a Christian symbol, a St. Andrew’s cross, with white stars added to a red field. An extremely large number of southerners were descended from Scottish and Scots-Irish families, and the flag represented the warrior culture of Americans of that ethnic strain. It was never the official flag of the Confederate States of America (CSA), but rather a flag to be used on the battlefield. It was made famous by the Army of Northern Virginia, under the command of General Robert E. Lee.
The original national flag of the CSA was dubbed the “Stars and Bars,” and was used until 1863. At the Battle of First Manassas, or Bull Run, this flag caused confusion, because with the smoke and dust of battle, the two opposing armies often confused each other's flag.
Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard, who was in command of Confederate forces at Manassas, the first great battle of the war, suggested adopting a different flag, to be used in battle, to avoid such confusion. While this was eventually done, the Confederate Congress never formally adopted it for use, but used other flags for the Confederate government.
But it was used — that is a historical fact. But some historical facts, apparently, should be erased from the history books and history classrooms of this country — at least according to this school district in California.
The action by this school district raises the question of whether we are to censor history and eliminate certain events and symbols from our collective memory. True historians convey history as it was — the good, the bad, and the ugly — because to do otherwise is simply telling a lie. The very reason we study history is to learn lessons from the collective memory of the human race, both the living and the dead. If certain things are to be excluded from that collective memory, we have crippled ourselves from using the study of history in its proper way.
Unfortunately, such censorship of historical facts is not unique to this one school district in California (although one suspects that in that state, it is probably more common than in most others). Today, it is the Confederate battle flag which is to be blotted out from the historical record, because its detractors argue it has been used by racists such as the KKK. Actually, if one examines photographs of Klan rallies, more United States flags are used than Confederate battle flags.
And what are we to do with the Klan practice of burning a cross on someone’s lawn? Should the Christian cross be consigned to oblivion, as well? One suspects there are many who would like to do so, using whatever excuse that they can.
While I teach history at a Christian liberal arts college (Randall University in Moore, Oklahoma, run by the Free Will Baptist denomination), I began my career many years ago in a small, rural school district in Oklahoma. The principal sat in on my World History class one day when I was covering the Medieval Church. (The church was a powerful and important institution in the Europe of the Middle Ages, and the textbook devoted a whole chapter to it).
Later, he cautioned me to “be careful.” He suggested it might be better to not mention the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, as that might offend someone. At first I laughed, thinking he was joking. But he was not. He was concerned that teaching what the Church taught and did in the Middle Ages might even constitute government establishment of religion.
It was a comment so odd that I was unsure what to say, but it would be comparable to teaching the American Revolution without mentioning George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, or teaching about Richard Nixon without mentioning the Watergate Scandal.
Can one imagine teaching about Adolf Hitler, and not mentioning the Holocaust?
Or, perhaps it would be like teaching a group of middle school students about the battles of the Civil War, and refusing to use a photograph of a Civil War battle because it happened to include a soldier holding a Confederate battle flag. Horrors!
After all, they might feel unsafe.

Steve Byas is an instructor of history and government at Randall University, in Moore, Oklahoma. His book History’s Greatest Libels is a challenge to some of the misrepresentations of history concerning such individuals as Christopher Colombus, Marie Antoinette, and Joseph McCarthy.
 

TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE PLACED UNDER STATE PROTECTION AFTER RECEIVING DEATH THREATS OVER PRO LIFE BILL

 
TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE PLACED UNDER STATE PROTECTION AFTER RECEIVING DEATH THREATS 
OVER PRO LIFE BILL 
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas lawmaker has been placed under state protection after receiving death threats over his recently-introduced bill to protect the lives of unborn children.
The Texas Department of Public Safety is providing security assistance to Rep. Tony Tinderholt, R-Arlington, who has reportedly received multiple death threats, as well as his wife.
His political consultant, Luke Macias, told the Dallas News that the Arlington Police Department and the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office has been involved due to the number of threats and an investigation is underway.
“All involved have done an incredible job protecting his family during this stressful time,” Macias said.

He advised that Tinderholt’s “wife in particular” had been threatened.
Tinderholt’s chief of staff, Micah Cavanaugh, confirmed the situation.
“Representative Tinderholt and his family have received multiple death threats leading to his family being placed under DPS protection on multiple occasions,” he told the Texas Tribune. “Specifics to the threats cannot be discussed due to an ongoing investigation, and we do not intend to speak on behalf of law enforcement.”

The threats surround Tinderholdt’s submission of H.B. 948 earlier this month, also known as the Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act. As previously reported, the bill declares that unborn children are entitled to human rights from the moment of conception, and removes current exemptions under state criminal homicide law relating to abortion.
“A living human child, from the moment of fertilization upon the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum is entitled to the same rights, powers, and privileges as are secured or granted by the laws of this state to any other human child,” it reads in part.
Abortions committed in cases when the mother’s life is at risk would not be prosecuted as murder.
“When you read and see how abortions are performed, and how they end the life of an innocent child, it amazes me that we allow that,” Tinderholdt told the Star-Telegram. “When we look back over history and we see … the cultures that took the lives of children, people are appalled by that. People are going to do that with America, too, and look back one day and say they can’t believe we allowed this.”
He said that the bill is in response to language in the Texas Republican Party platform, which was passed in May, calling for the complete abolition of abortion in the state.
“We call upon the Texas legislature to enact legislation stopping the murder of unborn children; and to ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to life,” the platform text reads.
Macais says that while Tinderholt and his wife, who identify as Roman Catholic, have received death threats over the matter, there has also been positive feedback from those supportive of defending life.
“Local law enforcement have been very protective of him and his family,” he stated. “The truth is that he has received a tremendous amount of feedback—both positive and negative—on the subject of his legislation.”
 

BOY SCOUTS WILL ALLOW TRANSGENDERS

 

Boy Scouts, Reversing Century-Old Stance, 

Will Allow Transgender Boys

BY 


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Reversing its stance of more than a century, the Boy Scouts of America said on Monday that the group would begin accepting members based on the gender listed on their application, paving the way for transgender boys to join the organization.
“For more than 100 years, the Boy Scouts of America, along with schools, youth sports and other youth organizations, have ultimately deferred to the information on an individual’s birth certificate to determine eligibility for our single-gender programs,” the group said in a statement on its website. “However, that approach is no longer sufficient as communities and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently, and these laws vary widely from state to state.”
The announcement, reported on Monday night by The Associated Press, reverses a policy that drew controversy late last year when a transgender boy in New Jersey was kicked out of the organization about a month after joining.
“After weeks of significant conversations at all levels of our organization, we realized that referring to birth certificates as the reference point is no longer sufficient,” Michael Surbaugh, the Scouts’ chief executive, said in a recorded statement on Monday.
The announcement came amid a national debate over transgender rights, with cities and states across the nation struggling with whether and how to regulate gender identity in the workplace, in restrooms and at schools.
In recent years, the Boy Scouts of America has expanded rights for gay people. In 2013, the group ended its ban on openly gay youths participating in its activities. Two years later, the organization ended its ban on openly gay adult leaders.
Advocates for gay and transgender people who had pushed for changes in Boy Scouts’ policy praised Monday’s announcement.
“From our perspective, they clearly did the right thing,” said Zach Wahls, who co-founded Scouts for Equality, a nonprofit group that advocates for stronger protections in the organization for gays and transgender people. “My team and I knew that they were considering a policy change, but we are both heartened and surprised by how quickly they moved to change the situation.”

Last year, in response to parent complaints, the Boy Scouts of America removed an 8-year-old transgender boy from the Secaucus, N.J., Cub Scout pack he had joined just about a month earlier, according to The Record, a newspaper in northern New Jersey.
“It made me mad,” Joe Maldonado, the boy, told the newspaper. “I had a sad face, but I wasn’t crying. I’m way more angry than sad. My identity is a boy. If I was them, I would let every person in the world go in. It’s right to do.”
Joe’s case may have been the first in which a transgender boy was ejected from the program, Mr. Wahls, a former Eagle Scout, said.

When Mr. Wahls helped found Scouts for Equality in 2012, the Boy Scouts of America did not yet allow gay scouts or leaders, and “there was zero conversation about transgender issues.”
While he was encouraged by what appeared to be the group’s quick decision on accepting transgender scouts, Scouts for Equality plans to push for a more formal policy, Mr. Wahls said.
“We want to make sure that they work with experts who have experience with transgender youth and youth programs,” he said.
The Boy Scouts of America claim nearly 2.3 million members between the ages of 7 and 21, and the group counts many notable figures among its alumni and volunteers.
One of them, Rex W. Tillerson, President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, was involved in getting the organization to accept gay scouts and leaders. He was the national president of the Boy Scouts of America from 2010 to 2011 and served on its executive board in 2013 when it voted to lift the ban on gay scouts.
That decision came after years of reluctance from the organization and a wrenching internal debate that involved threats from some conservative parents and volunteers that they would quit. When the ban on gay leaders was reversed in 2015, the Mormon Church, the largest sponsor of scouting units, briefly threatened to leave the group as well.
______________________________________________________
 Boy Scouts’ Moral Collapse: 
Will Allow “Trans” Girls in Ranks
BY SELWYN DUKE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
It’s the Boy Scouts — or something like that, anyway.
There was a time when the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) spent money fighting a lawsuit brought by a girl who wanted to be a “boy” scout. The organization won that battle. Now it has lost its mind, deciding to let a girl join its ranks simply because she claims to be a boy.
The BSA will now judge applicants based on their “gender identity” and not, as had been the policy, based on the sex indicated on their birth certificate. Because birth certificates are, as Barack Obama proved, so yesterday.
As CNN reported, the birth-certificate “‘approach is no longer sufficient as communities and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently, and these laws vary widely from state to state,’ BSA spokeswoman Effie Delimarkos said in a statement Monday.”
The Girl Scouts had already capitulated some years ago, allowing a boy masquerading as a girl to join their organization.

CNN further explains that the BSA’s collapse “comes a few months after an 8-year-old Cub Scout in New Jersey accused the organization of expelling him for being transgender. The Boy Scouts did not specifically cite the New Jersey case in its statement. But Chief Scout Executive Michael Surbaugh acknowledged the group recently had been ‘challenged by a very complex topic ... the issue of gender identity.’"
This brings to mind the apocryphal saying, “Moral issues are always terribly complex for someone without principles.” Of course, the psychology causing an individual to believe he’s a member of the opposite sex, a different species (“species dysphoria”), or Napoleon may be complex. The psychology causing CNN to, as is de rigueur among mainstream media now, refer to children such as the expelled N.J. Cub Scout as “him” may also be complex. But the simple fact of the matter is that the child is a girl. There’s nothing complex about that.
Meanwhile, girls who actually claim they’re girls again want to be Boy Scouts. One of them, 15-year-old Sydney Ireland, posted a petition at Change.org stating, in part, “I cannot change my gender to fit the Boy Scouts’ standards.” No? I guess poor Sydney didn’t get the memo.
I don’t know if such rejection of the Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS — “transgender”) agenda qualifies Ireland as a hater; she’s right in a way, however, since by “gender” she means “sex.” As former “transsexual” Alan Finch said in 2004, “You fundamentally can't change sex.... Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.”
Note that while most people identify the word “gender” with “sex,” psychologists define it as a person’s “perception” of what he is and say that this can be different from his “sex,” which is a biological classification.
And what do people perceive? The list of “genders” grows like the national debt, with the literally scores of them including designations such as Agender, Bigender, Cis, Gender Fluid, Genderqueer, Pangender, and Neutrois.
Maybe this is why it sounds so “complex” to Chief Scout Executive Michael Surbaugh, but let’s cut through the noise. The thesis behind the MUSS (“transgender”) agenda states that, put simply, a person could be a woman trapped in a man’s body, or vice versa.
The idea is that at issue is not a psychological problem, but a biological one. But is there any proof of this? As I wrote last year:
What physiological markers will the physician look for to verify that I truly am, legitimately, “transgender,” suffering with a supposed brain/body incongruence? Don’t feel bad not knowing.
There isn’t a so-called expert alive who could answer the question.
There is no brain scan for gender dysphoria. There is no genetic test. There is no hormonal test. There are no physiological markers of any kind. Yet on the basis of “strong and persistent feelings of cross-gender identification” — and on that basis alone — psychiatrists can and do refer patients for the mutilation known as “gender-reassignment surgery” (GRS). And on that basis alone, doctors may recommend that a young child be allowed to live as a member of the opposite sex. It’s no different from telling a cardiologist you feel certain you have heart disease and, without performing tests to confirm the diagnosis, his saying, “Oh, have the feelings been strong, persistent and extant for longer than six months? Okay, well, then I’ll cut open your chest and do a bypass.”
But it’s a brave new world, where identity is reality. Thus, why draw lines based on biology at all? Why can’t a man such as 54-year-old “Stefonknee” Wolscht, who claims to be a six-year-old girl (video below), join the Girl Scouts? Inclusiveness, right?

Really, the BSA should just get ahead of the curve and rename itself the Gender Fluid Scouts. After all, the notion of a “boy” is so passé. Why bother following the spirit of the age when you can lead it? Aren’t the scouts about leadership?
The BSA development is instructive. First, it illustrates how political revolutions (which Donald Trump may be ushering in) can do little to restore the culture, whose moral decay continues apace.
Second, a beneficiary of the BSA’s collapse may be Trail Life USA, an alternative, Christian scouting group launched three years ago after the BSA decided to admit openly homosexual boys. This is, of course, the market at work, but it also underlines how fractured our civilization has become.
There was no need for such alternatives many decades ago because, by and large, people’s sense of virtue was explicitly the same. Today, however, with our emotion-guided decision-making causing millions of people to march to the beat of a million different drummers, there’s less and less we can unite around.
As for the BSA, along with its name, maybe its oath needs some tweaking as well. Scouts could be told that you should keep yourself “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight — or whatever works for you.”
______________________________________________________

 Boy Scouts’ Rulings Put Boys at Risk (and “Letter to the Molester” and “What Being Molested Cost Me”) 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

LTRP Note: For 15 years, Lighthouse Trails has had the motto “Bringing light to areas of darkness.” One of those areas (which we call our Sensitive Issues) is bringing to light the reality of child sexual abuse. We believe that the sexual molestation of children is part of what we call “the Death Religion,” which includes evolution, pornography, abortion, homosexuality, mysticism, pedophilia, and antisemitism. All of these lead to one place – death, and the author of death is our adversary, Satan. We have published three books thus far on this topic: The Color of Pain (by Gregory Reid), Laughter Calls Me (by Catherine Brown), and Seducers Among Our Children (by Sergeant Patrick Crough) and carry a number of other resources like these.
Over the past couple years, the Boy Scouts of America have passed resolutions allowing practicing homosexuals (and now transgenders) to actively lead and/or participate in the clubs. What the organization has done is put countless young boys in harm’s way. We believe it is just a matter of time before our society says it is not a crime to engage in sexual activity with a child. With every world empire in history that came to that resolution, it was the last resolution they ever made. After that, their empire ended.
The following two excerpts by Greg Reid from his book The Color of Pain illustrates what happens to a young boy when he is molested. Greg writes from personal experience. While some may find it difficult to read such an account, it is wrong to bury our heads in the sand and pretend this is not really happening to boys and girls across this nation. And the Boy Scouts have now made it possible for that epidemic to grow bigger than ever.
As Patrick Crough says in his book, adults are supposed to be the shepherd’s of children. We have a responsibility to watch over and protect them.
“Letter to the Molester”
By Greg Reid
bigstockphoto.com
To Whoever You Are:
Your name doesn’t matter, for to me, you were just a stranger in a Volkswagen who gave me a ride. And to you, I was just a number, a cute fourteen-year-old anonymous kid, one of God knows how many.
I think about it a lot. Even though you weren’t the first to molest me, you probably did more damage than most. At fourteen, I was just beginning to explore my sexuality, and I was vulnerable. All my sexual antennas were active, but then you knew that, didn’t you? That’s why you picked kids like me. We were easy prey; we were little enough to feel scared and overpowered by you, old enough to sexually respond to what you did.
I hated you, and I have forgiven you. Because to not forgive you meant I always lived for you, thought about you, lived in the darkness of what you did and longed for vengeance. Five years after you raped me, I saw you while I was driving, and pressed the accelerator to the floor to kill you. You were still driving the same Volkswagen. Only God’s grace pulled back my foot and let you live. And then I knew that you bound me still. And so I forgave not because it was rational but because it was killing me, not because you deserve it but because I needed to let it go. Forgive means “give forth” and so I gave back the chains you put me in. I don’t hate you anymore. I feel nothing at all, but sadness, for what you took from me—that I can never reclaim my adolescence.
I do pray for you for repentance, if possible. And if not, for imprisonment, not to punish you (for you must loath your every breath) but to stop you. Because if you raped me, I wasn’t the first, and certainly not the last.
I pray for all the kids you raped like me. You cannot know what you took, what you destroyed. The walking wounded see your face, feel your evil touch, and blame themselves.
I wish I could tell them it wasn’t them. You knew exactly how it’s done. They were powerless, and paralyzed, and afraid.
They probably still are.
“What Being Molested Cost Me”
By Greg Reid
The cost to a kid who gets molested is higher than most people know. It’s too easy to minimize the damage by saying, “It’s just one of those things,” or “Get over it.” Sexual violation is a violent thing even when it’s not violent.
It takes so much inside. After many years, I’ve taken notice of the losses (much of which has been healed and restored), and I want to tell you about it so you’ll know.
It cost me my childhood. Repeated molestation blocked my memories, and what I did remember was covered with a haze of physical illness, stalking fear, repeat nightmares, and deep loneliness.
It cost me my ability to trust. I resented authority and feared adults so much I wouldn’t go anyplace like a public rest room or swimming pool locker room because I’d get sick from the fear of what might happen.
It cost me my ability to be spontaneous. I kept such rigid control over my emotions, my body and my mind, that I couldn’t laugh, I couldn’t play, and being around kids who could made me feel sullen, angry, depressed, alone, left out.
It cost me my sanity. Shortly after the initial abuses, I was in a complete emotional dead zone; and one night, as I sat alone in a chair, my mind filled with filth and blasphemy, and tears streamed down my face, because I loved God and I couldn’t stop this mental rape, and I just snapped after several days of this, and I started cursing, and smoking, and drinking, and I told God to give up on me because I was evil.
I was eleven.
It cost me my education potential. I was a brilliant child. Being molested cost me my ability to think without confusion, trance outs, and frustration. I couldn’t concentrate. I could have been a straight A Valedictorian. Instead, by the time I finished High School, I was taking four basic classes and barely passed.
It cost me my identity. Being molested created such sexual and emotional confusion that I was an old man before I was fifteen and still a boy at thirty. I felt numb and removed, like I was not there, just a piece of property for others to use and discard.
It cost me my adolescence. Being molested made me afraid of adults, men, women, crowds, public places, challenges, fights and almost everything else including being scared to death I was gay and scared of all my emotions including anger and joy. I couldn’t date, I didn’t go to the prom, and alcohol was my only “friend.” Being a kid is screwed up and scary enough, but I carried enough guilt and fear to take down ten normal adults.
It cost me time. Being molested started me running, and I ran and kept going until I crashed in my late twenties, and then it cost me time in recovering, facing hard truth, and healing.
It cost me family. Being molested crippled my heart enough to destroy any potential marriage or children.
God has restored most of what was taken, and more. But you need to know being molested is not a “get over it” thing. It’s an evil robber whose damage goes deep and keeps taking until we can face it and start to heal.