The Weekend Dispatch
The Weekend Dispatch
Edition - December 2nd, 2023: The Weaponization of the Federal Government, Santos is Expelled, Trump's Still in Court, and Elon Musk Remains Defiant
Welcome to The Weekend Dispatch.
This Week our Local Coverage was on The Hill in Washington D.C.
We welcome any feedback to make your experience more enjoyable.
Send any feedback to Editor@WCdispatch.com
DISPATCH DIRECTORY
→DISPATCH EXTRAS
POLITICS:
CORRUPTION:
The Censorship Files Continued: Unmasking Government-Driven Speech Suppression
January 6 Investigation: Unearthing the Truth Behind the Capitol Riot
→Jan 6 Exposé Imminent: Ex-Capitol Officer's Bold Move
LAW:
Judicial Obstacles: Trump's Supreme Court Path Thwarted by Appeals Court
Oversight Committee Confronts Jack Smith’s Disregard for the Constitution
OPINION:
POLITICS
D.C. NEWS
The Weaponization Committee Hearing: The Mask Slips, Ms. Troy’s Attitude at the Hearing Reveals the Censorship Reality
WASHINGTON D.C. November 30th, 2023: By Walter E. Curt
The recent Weaponization of the Federal Government committee hearing provided a stark revelation into the attitudes and actions of government officials like Ms. Troy, instrumental in censoring Americans. Ms. Troy’s demeanor and responses during the hearing, particularly in her exchange with Rep. Massie, laid bare the thin-skinned, self-entitled bureaucracy that believes it has the right to decide what Americans can or cannot see.
In the hearing, Rep. Massie highlighted how his official tweet, citing a published Israeli study, was flagged by the Stanford Virality Project. Ms. Troy's response, “Depends whether or not you are trying to spread misinformation... You seem to do that often,” revealed a dismissive and accusatory stance towards factual information. Her justification that the flagging was "for a reason" underscores a worrying trend of censoring even a Congressman's fact-based communications, reflecting a blatant disregard for free speech and open discourse.
This attitude echoes previous reports of government collusion with social media platforms to censor conservative voices, as revealed in a House Judiciary Committee report detailing the DHS and Stanford University's Election Integrity Partnership's actions ahead of the 2020 election. Ms. Troy's admission of participating in interagency meetings and her assertion that content removal was ultimately the social media companies' decision, disregards the evident pressure such government involvement places on these platforms.
Furthermore, Michael Shellenberger's testimony that members of the CTI League, involved in censorship and disinformation programs, were still employed by the US government, adds another layer to this alarming scenario. This intertwining of government officials in activities that directly influence public discourse is a blatant overreach of power.
The reference to the Missouri v. Biden District Court decision, which noted evidence of the White House, the FBI, and CISA engaging with social media companies to conduct censorship, further corroborates the extent of government involvement. As the congresswoman pointed out, their constant involvement essentially amounts to government censorship.
Ms. Troy's attitude and comments at the hearing are a microcosm of a larger issue plaguing our democratic processes. The casualness with which government officials like Ms. Troy discuss censoring information, under the pretext of combating misinformation, highlights a dangerous shift in how governmental power is being used to control public discourse. Her nonchalant justification of these actions, masked as protection against disinformation, should be a wake-up call to Americans about who is pulling the levers of power and deciding what is permissible speech in today's digital public square.
Return To Directory
Oversight Gridlock: FTC's Evasion Exposed in Congressional Hearing
WASHINGTON D.C. November 30th, 2023: By Walter E. Curt
On Thursday, the Subcommittee on Oversight, chaired by Congressman Ben Cline, held a significant hearing to tackle the pervasive issue of non-transparency within the Biden Administration. The focus was on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the State Department, and, notably, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). My presence at this hearing was not by chance but rather a result of an invitation graciously extended to me during a lunch with Congressmen Ben Cline and Bob Good. This unique opportunity afforded me a front-row seat to the proceedings, allowing me to witness firsthand the depths of the administration's stonewalling.
The agencies actions, or rather inactions, showcased the contempt that the Biden appointees hold for the Republican majority. Before the hearing even began, I could hear the staffers that had arrived with the agency representatives saying, “I just can’t wait to get this over with.”
Among the instances of opacity, it was the FTC's handling of a subpoena related to its Twitter investigation that stood out as the most egregious example. The agency's response—or lack thereof—to the committee's demands was a clear testament to the administration's systematic approach to dodging oversight. This defiance was not just a matter of bureaucratic delay; it was a deliberate and calculated effort to evade accountability, making a mockery of the transparency that is essential in a democratic government.
The FTC has only produced a single document in response to the subpoena—a document that was already in the public domain. A blatant disregard for the committee's authority and the principles of transparency and accountability. Furthermore, the FTC's admission of having identified custodians of relevant documents, yet deleting emails of former employees, only deepens the suspicion of deliberate evasion.
The stern confrontation between Congressman Cline and the FTC’s Jeanne Bumpus ended with Cline eviscerating the FTC’s lackluster response. He highlighted the sheer absurdity of producing a solitary, already public document, and openly criticized the FTC's conduct as not only unresponsive but also as an affront to the committee and, by extension, the American people. His words resonated throughout the chamber, "You're failing to be responsive. You're stonewalling. Your non-compliance today is quite frankly, insulting to this committee and insulting to the American people who we represent.”
Cline didn't hold back in suggesting potential consequences for the FTC's defiance. He raised the possibility of Congress withholding agency funding, a significant and tangible repercussion for ignoring oversight requests, let alone a direct subpoena. His pointed query, "Do you agree that the FTC's non-compliance with the subpoena should have significant repercussions for the agency?" left no doubt about the seriousness of the situation and the committee's resolve to enforce accountability.
The hearing was a striking example of the ongoing battle between Congress and Biden administration appointees, showcasing the troubling trend of governmental bodies sidestepping oversight and transparency. As the Subcommittee on Oversight continues its work, it is clear that such stonewalling tactics cannot be left unchecked, and that stringent measures must be taken to uphold the integrity of congressional oversight.
-Walter Curt is the Editor-in-Chief at America Mission, and founder of The W.C. Dispatch
Return To Directory
Santos Expulsion: A Troubling Precedent in Congress
Washington D.C. December 1st, 2023: By Walter E. Curt
The U.S. House of Representatives has set a disturbing new precedent by voting 311-114 to expel Rep. George Santos (R-NY) on Friday, marking the first such expulsion since 2002 and breaking with the tradition of requiring a criminal conviction for such an action. Santos, who had not been convicted of a crime but pleaded not guilty, was expelled following a report by the House Ethics Committee that detailed allegations of filing false FEC reports, misusing campaign funds, and breaching ethics laws related to financial disclosures.
Santos, in his defense, argued that expelling a member based on allegations rather than a conviction sets a dangerous precedent that could "haunt" future House members. This move deviates significantly from the case of Rep. Jim Traficant in 2002, who was expelled only after being found guilty in court, with the ethics committee delaying its investigation until the conclusion of his legal proceedings.
In a defiant response to his expulsion, Santos introduced a resolution to expel Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. This was a strategic move to highlight the inconsistency in the House's actions, suggesting that mere allegations were now sufficient grounds for removing members.
The expulsion of Santos without a criminal conviction establishes a new and precarious standard in Congress, allowing for the removal of members based purely on allegations. This decision not only weakens the already slim Republican majority but also opens the door to potential abuses of power and partisan exploitation.
Following his expulsion, Santos embarked on a tirade against other Congress members, accusing some of having committed similar campaign violations. This situation has even drawn criticism from within the Democratic Party. Senator Fetterman notably called out his colleague Bob Mendez, stating that Mendez's ethical violations were far more severe than those attributed to Santos. Fetterman even went as far as to publicly claim that Menendez is more a representative of Egypt than New Jersey.
The expulsion of George Santos, therefore, marks not just a significant moment in congressional history, but also a warning signal of the evolving dynamics of political accountability and the potential for partisan maneuvering in the U.S. legislative system. The decision has sparked a contentious debate on the ethical standards in Congress and the balance between legal conviction and political accountability.
Return To Directory
AMERICAN HEADLINES
GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION
The Censorship Files Continued: Unmasking Government-Driven Speech Suppression
December 1st, 2023: By Walter E. Curt
The recent revelations from a series of leaked emails and whistleblower documents have exposed a disturbing collusion between the Biden administration and major tech platforms like Facebook and Google/YouTube, as well as the actions of the Cyber Threat Intelligence League (CTIL), a so-called "anti-disinformation" group. This coordinated effort to suppress vaccine hesitancy content and other disfavored narratives stands in stark violation of the First Amendment and the fundamental principles of American democracy.
Email communications highlight the Biden administration's direct pressure on Facebook and Google/YouTube to censor content related to vaccine hesitancy during the COVID vaccine rollout. A White House advisor labeled Facebook a "disinformation factory" and criticized it for lagging behind YouTube in removing vaccine hesitant content. The administration went so far as to set specific censorship targets for Facebook to meet, clearly indicating a government-driven agenda to control public discourse on the vaccine.
The emails reveal a White House advisor's complaint about a top-ranked vaccine-critical post on Facebook, noting that YouTube would never allow such content. This aligns with additional evidence from the Twitter Files and Facebook Files, showcasing an ongoing collaboration between the Biden administration and tech giants to muzzle voices and control speech about COVID vaccines.
On another alarming front, whistleblower documents have brought to light the activities of CTIL, an entity born out of a volunteer effort of data scientists and defense/intelligence veterans. Led by former UK defense researcher Sara-Jayne "SJ" Terp and ex-military contractors, CTIL's goal was to promote "cognitive security" to rationalize government censorship. They partnered with entities like DHS and employed aggressive tactics like counter-messaging, creating sock puppets, infiltrating private groups, and pressuring financial services against individuals they aimed to silence.
CTIL's "offensive capabilities" essentially amounted to a military action against U.S. citizens, actively attacking and discrediting targets. This is a direct assault on the constitutional rights of Americans, particularly the First Amendment. The AMITT censorship framework, created by Terp and later adopted by DHS, further underscores the systematic approach to this suppression.
Quotes from Terp and whistleblower Pablo Breuer highlight the insidious nature of these operations. Terp's view of misinformation as "pollution" across the Internet and Breuer's statement on the violation of First Amendment rights if such a narrative were openly sold by the government, encapsulate the underlying issue. The whistleblower's remarks point to a disturbing ethos where legal and constitutional concerns are sidelined in the name of a dubious 'public-private partnership.'
This concerted effort to suppress free speech, disguised as a fight against misinformation, is a betrayal of the values at the heart of American society. The use of government influence to pressure private companies into censoring lawful speech, especially political speech, is a clear overreach of power. These revelations demand urgent scrutiny and action, as they represent not just a breach of trust, but a fundamental threat to the freedoms that define the United States. It is unacceptable and everyone involved should be thrown in prison, period.
Return To Directory
Georgia's 2020 Election Audit: Uncovering the Truth
November 25th, 2023:
In a significant development, a thorough investigation into Georgia's 2020 election audit has revealed substantial inaccuracies, prompting Governor Brian Kemp to schedule a hearing on December 18th. The original revelations, now largely suppressed and even deleted from original publishing sources, have brought to light alarming errors in the vote counting process of Fulton County.
The key findings, initially identified by Georgia citizen Joseph Rossi and subsequently validated by Governor Kemp, point to 36 errors in the audit and recount data, resulting in over 4,000 false absentee votes favoring Biden in Fulton County alone. Rossi's efforts to bring these discrepancies to light were initially disregarded by the Secretary of State's office, leading him to approach the Governor's office directly.
An investigation initiated by the State Elections Board corroborated these findings. The Fulton County attorney admitted the existence of errors that they lacked time to correct. Furthermore, the Secretary of State's office lawyer confirmed that their investigators identified mistakes in Fulton County's audit counting and reporting processes. A consent order from the Attorney General's office concluded that Fulton County had violated an election audit rule by inaccurately entering batch sheet data from the audit.
An Atlanta Journal-Constitution review conservatively estimated these errors amounted to around 3,000 excess absentee votes for Biden. This revelation is part of a broader context of concerns about the accuracy and legitimacy of Georgia's certified 2020 results. Two separate issues compound these concerns: firstly, the identification of 148,000 ballots in Fulton County during a 2020 recount, suspected to be fraudulently created by a machine, and secondly, a complaint from July 2022 alleging that 17,852 votes counted in Fulton County lack corresponding ballot images. This latter issue is currently under investigation and has been categorized by the State Election Board as having "violations found."
The upcoming hearing, spearheaded by Governor Kemp, is set to delve deeper into these allegations of widespread inaccuracies and potential fraud in Georgia's 2020 election audit. This inquiry stands not only as a pursuit of electoral integrity but also as a crucial step in restoring public trust in the democratic process. As the investigation unfolds, it has the potential to reshape the narrative around the 2020 election and highlight the vital importance of transparency and accuracy in the electoral system.
Return To Directory
January 6 Investigation: Unearthing the Truth Behind the Capitol Riot
December 1st, 2023: By Walter E. Curt
The ongoing investigation into the January 6 Capitol riot is taking a dramatic turn, with Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) announcing plans to subpoena members of the January 6 House Select Committee. This move comes as investigators sift through “millions of pages” of documents and raw data from the initial probe, aiming to uncover the complete truth behind the events of that day. Rep. Loudermilk's determination to bring in any necessary witnesses underscores a commitment to transparency and accountability.
Central to this renewed investigation is Rep. Clay Higgins' assertion that over 200 FBI agents and informants were embedded among the protesters on January 6. Higgins suggests these agents played a role in instigating suggestions of violence and occupying the Capitol. This claim, if substantiated, raises serious questions about the nature and origins of the riot. Higgins further notes that communications within the protest groups often reveal that messages about potential violence frequently originated from individuals later identified as FBI informants.
Adding to the complexity, authorities like the Capitol Police Chief and the DC Mayor reportedly ignored multiple warnings about the potential for violence on January 6. This oversight, coupled with the refusal to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops as requested by then-President Trump, points to significant lapses in security and judgment.
Contradicting the narrative that the riot was a centrally coordinated plot to overturn the election results, FBI sources have indicated the absence of such a scheme. Higgins contends that if Trump had intended to overturn the election results, he would have pursued ongoing legal challenges instead of disrupting the electoral college certification process.
The crux of Higgins' argument is that the January 6 riot was not an organic event but rather a manufactured scenario orchestrated by federal agents. This allegation, if proven, would not only redefine the understanding of the Capitol riot but also indicate a grave misuse of federal power. The implication that these actions were intended to frame former President Trump and influence the 2024 election adds a further layer of controversy and potential malfeasance.
As the investigation progresses, the focus on the January 6 Committee's involvement and their handling of evidence, especially the suppression of tapes that might exonerate many prosecuted Americans, is critical. The possibility that the committee propagated a false narrative about the events of January 6 calls for a thorough examination. If these allegations are validated, it could necessitate significant consequences, including the removal and prosecution of individuals in positions of power who misled the public. This investigation stands not just as a pursuit of facts about a single event, but as a crucial endeavor to uphold the integrity of American’s right to political protest.
Return To Directory
→Jan 6 Exposé Imminent: Ex-Capitol Officer's Bold Move: Former US Capitol Police Lieutenant Tarik K. Johnson is set to release crucial information about the January 6 setup and cover-up, having confirmed no legal barriers with his lawyer. He urges patience as he navigates technical challenges to upload significant audio and document evidence by next week. With safeguards in place, including Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch and @TPC4USA as backup custodians, Johnson vows to reveal the truth, driven not by profit but a commitment to those impacted by January 6 and national unity.
LAW
Judicial Obstacles: Trump's Supreme Court Path Thwarted by Appeals Court
December 1st, 2023: By Walter E. Curt
In Friday’s ruling, the appeals court has once again set up a procedural labyrinth, effectively stalling President Trump's progress towards the Supreme Court. This decision, remanding the question of presidential immunity back to the district court, exemplifies a strategic delay, compelling Trump to undergo a prolonged legal journey through various judicial tiers. It's a tactical maneuver designed to keep him entangled in lower courts, thereby preventing a direct appeal to the Supreme Court where past rulings might favor him.
The court’s decision, while affirming the denial of immunity at this stage, explicitly acknowledges the need to assume the plaintiffs' allegations as factual for the current proceedings. However, it also highlights that President Trump has not yet had the opportunity to counter these allegations with his facts, a crucial aspect of a fair judicial process. The ruling underlines that in the subsequent phases at the district court, Trump must be given the chance to demonstrate that his actions, as cited in the complaints, were executed in his official capacity as President, rather than in his unofficial capacity as a presidential candidate.
The court delineates a clear path for Trump: at the "appropriate time," he is entitled to file for "summary judgment on his claim of official-act immunity." This implies that while discovery related to immunity might be necessary, Trump should first be allowed to resolve his immunity claim before diving into the merits of the case. This offers him the opportunity, upon remand, to argue that his actions leading up to and on January 6 were undertaken as part of his presidential duties.
The essence of the court's decision is that President Trump will eventually have the chance in the district court to argue and present evidence supporting his stance that he acted within his official capacity, thereby laying claim to absolute immunity. However, this process relegates him to a prolonged judicial marathon, bouncing between court levels, which could be perceived as a deliberate attempt to prevent his case from reaching the Supreme Court swiftly.
This situation is contrasted sharply with the precedent set in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which underscores the President's absolute immunity for acts within the "outer perimeter" of official duties. The ruling in Nixon v. Fitzgerald clearly states that the constitutional remedy for misconduct by the Chief Executive is impeachment, not legal prosecution. Given that President Trump was not impeached, this precedent supports his claim to immunity, yet the appeals court's decision effectively sidesteps this by remanding the case to the district court.
The pattern emerging from these proceedings points to a judicial strategy aimed at delaying Trump's access to the Supreme Court, a tactic that some might argue is designed to avoid confronting the implications of previous high court rulings that could potentially vindicate him. This approach not only questions the fairness of the legal process but also highlights the intricacies and potential biases within the American judicial system.
Return To Directory
Oversight Committee Confronts Jack Smith’s Disregard for the Constitution
December 1st, 2023: By Walter E. Curt
The House Oversight Committee's recent letter to Special Counsel Jack Smith marks yet another chapter in a series of contentious legal maneuvers to prosecute former President Donald Trump. Smith’s approach has been a constant attempt to undermine the constitutional rights of the former president, and continually shown blatant disregard for nearly all legal precedents.
Now, the Oversight Committee has raised significant concerns about Smith's use of a general conspiracy statute to allege a conspiracy to defraud the United States. This tactic mirrors the Supreme Court's history of overturning criminal convictions against public officials based on such broad prosecutorial theories. The committee's letter points out that previous attempts to prosecute under similar theories have been deemed by the Supreme Court to exceed the reach of the statutes they were based on, particularly concerning overly expansive definitions of “official acts.”
In seeking clarity, the committee has outlined specific requests from Smith. These include all documents and communications related to his authority to empanel grand juries in the District Courts for the District of Columbia and Southern District of Florida, and his authority to offer immunity under 18 U.S. Code § 6002. Moreover, the committee is inquiring about any oversight by the Department of Justice, especially concerning communications between Smith's office and the Department regarding the decision to indict President Trump.
Given the December 15th deadline set by GOP lawmakers for Smith to turn over all requested documents, this request is more than a routine inquiry; it's a direct challenge to the legal foundations of Smith's case against Trump. This development not only continues the narrative of Smith's questionable legal tactics but also amplifies concerns about potential overreach and the politicization of high-profile political prosecutions. The committee's action highlights the importance of adhering to constitutional norms and judicial precedents in the pursuit of justice, especially in cases involving significant political figures.
Return To Directory
OPINION
Elon Musk's Stand: A Lesson in American Resilience
December 1st, 2023: Commentary by, Walter E. Curt
In a recent New York Times interview, Elon Musk, a foreign born American citizen, showcased an attitude that seems to have become rare among American business leaders. Despite the risk of a crippling advertiser boycott threatening Twitter, his stance was unyielding: “If somebody's gonna try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Go. Fuck. Yourself.” This bold declaration isn't just about the survival of a company; it's a reflection of a principle that once defined the American spirit — an unapologetic commitment to standing one's ground, regardless of the consequences.
Elon's position, suggesting that Twitter might fail due to boycotts, and declaring, "that will be what bankrupted the company and that's what everybody on earth will know," is not just a business strategy. It's a challenge to the status quo, a defiance against those attempting to control speech and impose their will. In an era where corporate America often bends to external pressures, Musk's stance is a stark reminder of the "you don’t tell me what to do" attitude that once epitomized the American ethos.
This situation raises a crucial question: Why has it taken a foreign entrepreneur to embody what used to be a distinctly American trait? Musk's success isn’t a fluke; it's rooted in a principled approach that many American businessmen seem to have forsaken. The ethos of doing what one believes is right, irrespective of naysayers, has been the driving force behind America's journey to becoming a global powerhouse. Yet, now, when faced with governmental attempts at censorship and corporate coercion, there's a noticeable silence from many American business leaders.
Elon Musk’s unyielding stance against censorship and control is not just commendable; it's necessary. It’s a call to action for American businessmen to rediscover their backbone, to stand up for principles, and to resist the urge to capitulate to those who seek to control what Americans can or cannot say. It's time to reject the intimidation tactics of big companies and governments alike. If American resilience and the spirit of unwavering determination are to be preserved, it will take more than just one man, even if he is the richest in the world, to stand against the tide.
In essence, Musk's defiance is more than a business decision; it's a cultural statement. It's a reminder of what made America great: the courage to stand on principle, to fight for what's right, and to say, in no uncertain terms, to those who threaten our freedoms, "Go fuck yourself." American business leaders must take a page from Musk’s playbook. The future of American resilience, the spirit of freedom, and the very essence of what it means to be an American entrepreneur depend on it.
Return To Directory
U.S. Style Health Care Reform That Will Work
December 1st, 2023: Commentary by, Chris Filby.
The U.S. health care system cannot function without insurance companies. No country in the industrialized world has to manage as many delivery points as the number of participation or eligible citizens, consumes as many prescription medications, or occupies as many hospital beds as we do here in the U.S. and maintain our level of quality.
There is no possible way for any one entity to maintain control over that much money. No reasonable person can believe it could. We rob Peter to pay Paul every day to absorb the cost of those who cannot pay and pass them on to those who can. Universal health care is virtually present as we speak.
Serious reform is needed. Medicaid has been operation on a nonexistent trust fund for decades. Medicaid is busting the budget of nearly every state. That system is woefully needing reform and repair. Until this is fixed, no reform of the private sector will have any significant impact on savings.
Physicians must be allowed to practice without fear ruthless trial attorneys seeking jury awards that drive malpractice insurance so high that a visit to their office is not affordable for anyone. Some are forced to not practice at all. The same is true for hospitals and clinics. Tort reform has to happen now.
The use of a standardized formula for prescription drugs is vital to reducing costs in the area. This will allow hospitals, pharmacies, nursing homes and other institutions to buy both name-brand and generic drugs on nationwide contracts for distribution in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Small businesses must be allowed to form associations so that they have the same purchasing power as large corporations. Association insurance purchasing has to become a reality in order for premiums to come down to reasonable rates, and for more people to be insured.
COBRA must be expanded so that no employee is without insurance, regardless of the amount of time he or she is without a job. The insurance from the previous job follows them until they find a new job. Once new insurance is in place the COBRA ends. This solves the portability issue without having people maintain ownership of policies or forcing people to buy policies. The shortage of primary care physicians and registered nurses has to be addressed. A program deferring all or a part of their educational expenses for service in community hospitals and clinics is one approach to that end.
A serious commitment should be required for a program of this kind, something in the area of 10 years of service would be appropriate. They would be allowed to opt out of their commitment by repaying the Treasury the balance of their debt on a prorated basis.
A commitment to community health care and wellness centers can unburden hospitals with insignificant non-emergency cases. Lower-cost community health care and wellness centers run by doctors and nurses in the program outlined above can extend primary care in both urban and rural area so that private practices are not overrun with a ghat of new patients.
These centers should be well-equipped and focus not only on treatment but on community health education. They should work with local health departments as part of our homeland security efforts and be a focal point for outbreaks of viruses and other diseases.
These reforms will make our health care system work. These reforms will give our country the opportunity to remain the best hope for the world where medical science and delivery of health care is concerned. Our citizens deserve no less, and they are willing to pay for a system that works.
They are not willing to be taxed to death for another bureaucracy that will inevitably fail as all have before.
-Chris Filby is a businessman, political commentator, and a Key Officer at America Mission
Return To Directory
The Growing Threat of Trans Terrorism and Leftist Indoctrination
December 2nd, 2023: Commentary by, Mike Melo
How the woke mind virus infected several generations of Americans and radicalized some to violence.
Across the nation, radical leftist terrorism has become a disturbing growing trend. Despicable evil acts are routinely downplayed by the corporate press and treated as isolated incidents, rather than an obvious pattern. In just the past year, we’ve seen at least three terrorists radicalized by the woke cult.
Audrey Hale, the Tenessee trans shooter, murdered six people, including three children at the Covenant School, a private Christian school in Nashville. Three pages from Hale’s journal were leaked to conservative commentator Steven Crowder, despite efforts to suppress its release for seven months. A mix of class-based and racial hatred was woven into the deranged lunatic’s writings, as Hale chastised her victims for their private school educations and “white privilege.”
Jason Lee Willie, a trans activist, was arrested for threatening to copy Audrey Hale’s massacre. Willie mocked the Republican Party and threatened to sexually assault Christian girls in bathrooms. The sick twisted maniac terrorized Christians wearing crosses by threatening to inject them with HIV-infected needles as well.
Connor Sturgeon, the Louisville bank shooter, was killed in a police shootout after murdering his coworkers. LMPD’s homicide report included portions of Sturgeon’s manifesto, shedding light on his motivations. Sturgeon ranted about “upper class white people” and excused his monstrous actions as a desperate attempt to “tell my story” and advance a progressive policy platform agenda.
Each of the aforementioned terrorists’ writings demonstrated views in line with woke leftist dogma. They included an open hostility towards wealthy white Christians, the most prominent opposition to the radical left, and thus, the woke cult’s main targets.
Wokeness, or cultural Marxism, is a sickening stew cooked up by leftist academics who seek a long march through our institutions. Their ultimate goal? To transform America’s institutions with pro-leftist propaganda whilst masquerading “social justice” as activism. This ideological subversion infects and radicalizes American minds over time. Multiple generations have been subjected to this ideological poisoning, and social media amplified its spread drastically.
The results have been disastrous, to say the least. There has been explosive growth in Woke Inc., an entire industry dedicated to promoting and perpetuating the progressive grift. Mobs of manipulatable masses are now ripe for exploitation by authoritarian movements hiding behind the banner of protecting so-called marginalized groups.
Radical progressive politics is a movement drunk on political power. Routinely dismissing their own radicals, domestic terrorism, and the left’s praxis as individual events unworthy of deeper consideration. Worse yet, they actively excuse threats and violence as the desperate voices of the unheard. So long as this communist identity is allowed to persist in the West, America’s political polarization will deteriorate into full-blown Balkanization and sectarian violence. The buck stops with us.
-Mike Melo is an independent journalist, and America Mission Contributor
Return To Directory
Thank You for Your Support
Dear Readers,
We want to extend our heartfelt thanks for your continued support of The W.C. Dispatch. Your readership is what allows us to keep delivering comprehensive coverage of the news cycle, with the in-depth analysis you've come to expect.
Thank you for being a part of our community. Together, we are making sense of the world around us.
Best regards, The W.C. Dispatch Team
 | A guest post by
|