Design a site like this with
Get started

VIDEO MUST SEE: Mom From Soviet Union Destroys Marxist Critical Race Theory: This “Equity For All” Propaganda “Quickly Ended With Nothing To Eat” – 9 year old calls out School Board – parent absolutely obliterates CRT – Media worried

By Alicia Powe June 19, 2021

A young mother born and raised in the Soviet Union blasted critical race theory during a Bedford Central, New York school board meeting — arguing that it is “actually a tyrannical Soviet ideology” that results in mass starvation and has killed millions of people worldwide.

Under the guise of good intentions, compassion and love for minorities and those discriminated against, the Critical Race Theory and “equity for all” curriculum is marching society towards communism, the mother of three argued in a scathing 3-minute rebuke of the school board on Wednesday.

“The proposed ‘anti-racist program’ is just a prettier name for racial Marxist teaching. You don’t need to sugarcoat it for me. I lived it. Same methods, same vocabulary, same preferential treatment to certain groups,” she lamented. “That’s why equity is packed with good causes like ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion,’ so nobody can challenge it. But, I know.”

When socialists refer to “equity for all” what they actually mean is equal impoverishment for all, the woman explained.

“Ask me how I know? I was born in Soviet Union and my family has seen it all. Suffering first from Nazi and then from tyrannical Soviet ideology. Back there, what started was ‘equity for all,’ quickly ended with nothing to eat for my people. And now my family is here because of it — because ‘equity’ does not work,” she said. “We did not come here for a blanketed synthetic equity. We had enough of that one. We came here for equal opportunity under the law and freedoms in this country. Soviets extinguished all the excellence and opportunity.”

The woman excoriated the board and student committee for their proposal to lower standards for students by assigning less homework and dismantling AP classes in the name of “fairness.”

“Equity” is code for communism and “mindboggling sameness,” she doubled down.

“They told us they were advocates for equity and enemies of privilege, people believed this, and we paid the awful price. This ideology killed millions of people worldwide. And now you’re bringing it here to indoctrinate our own children,” she said. “Equity was just a tool used by communists to make sure everyone was equally poorly educated so people didn’t question authority. While in definition it was about fairness, in reality, it means same outcome – nobody excels, mind-boggling sameness. The key tactic is to remove all the incentives and motivation to succeed for all the students.

“Is this why the Student Committee is proposing less homework and audit of AP classes? Why are you trying to demotivate students and lower the standards instead of directly helping underperforming students? That’s exactly what ‘equity’ means – in reality, making everyone mediocre.”

Switch the school district, but “never switch on the American dream,” she concluded.

“This is not a Bolshevik Central School district in Soviet Union. This is Bedford Central school district in the United States of America. I lived in Siberia. I switched continents because of equity. I can and I will switch the school district if the equity gets pushed,” she proclaimed. “But I will never switch on the American dream and equal opportunity, the only system in the world, that lifts people up, gives second chances to people like me, motivates and brings the best in the people regardless of race and ethnicity. I lived it and you don’t need to tell me what is equity.”

The anti-Western civilization “Critical Race Theory,” a “multicultural” curriculum that alleges white people are oppressors and to blame in perpetuity for racism, sexism, homophobia, environmental destruction, and segregation, has been taught in classrooms for a long time.

But now, as debilitating “woke” political correctness sweeps the nation, teachers are more forthright about what is being taught, rather than subtly indoctrinating the kids with communist propaganda.

A growing number of parents, like the Siberia-born mother in New York, are banding together to finally put stop to it. The woman’s comments came just days after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis successfully lobbied the board to block critical race theory from schools.

North Korean defector Yeonmi Park, who attended Columbia University after she escaped North Korea where she was sold into sex slavery, warned on Monday the communist indoctrination transpiring within the Ivy League university is worse than the anti-American, communist propaganda she heard in North Korea.

Insidious CRT training has not just become mandatory training in public schools. It has managed to sneak its way into the U.S. federal government, military, and corporate training programs.

Hundreds of military whistleblowers say they are being forced to receive “anti-American indoctrination” training, including critical race theory. Last month, a U.S. Space Force commanding officer was removed from his post after publishing a book that warned of the spread of Marxism and critical race theory in the military

MUST WATCH: 9-Year-Old Minnesota Girl Obliterates School Board Over BLM Posters

By Cassandra Fairbanks June 19, 2021

A 9-year-old elementary student absolutely obliterated her local school board over Black Lives Matter posters that were placed around her campus.

In Lakeville, Minnesota there has been a heated debate about Black Lives Matter posters in the schools for months.

The board initially ruled that BLM posters were political and said that they must be removed after students and parents complained. However, the board ended up not complying with their own determination and placed two posters up in Lakeview Elementary School as part of an “Inclusive Poster Series.”

“The poster series includes two that say ‘Black lives matter,’ which the district has said stands for the social justice movement, but those in opposition say it reflects the views of the Black Lives Matter Global Network, which they said stands for political positions. Opponents maintain any poster with that name on it should be banned by policy,” the local news reported.

The BLM posters with a black background and white block lettering were banned in September 2020, but the school board simply created new ones with different colors. None of the other posters mention any race or political group.

During a school board meeting on June 8, a student at the school went off on the members for their dishonest actions.

“The other day I was walking down the hallway at Lakeview Elementary School to give a teacher a retiring gift. I looked up on to the wall and saw a BLM poster and an Amanda Gorman poster. In case you don’t know who that chick is, she’s some girl who did a poem for Biden’s so-called inauguration. I was so mad,” the child began. “I was told two weeks ago at this very meeting spot, no politics in school. I believed what you said at this meeting, so at lunch I went up to the principal to tell him about the BLM poster and that I wanted it down.”

The fiery little girl went on to say that the principal told her they would not be coming down and that the school board are the ones who made them.

“I was stunned. When I was here two weeks ago, you told us to report any BLM in our schools. Apparently, you know they’re in our schools because you made the signs.”

The brave little girl went on to demand that she doesn’t see people’s skin colors and has friends of all shades, before blasting the heck out of the board once again.

“You have lied to me and I am very disappointed in all of you,” she said. “You can’t even follow your own rules. If you’re going to do that, why do we follow any rules we deem unfit or ridiculous? I’m not following your mask rule anymore then.”

She concluded, “get the posters out of our schools. Courage is contagious, so be courageous.”

Superintendent Michael Baumann said in a statement about the poster Series that they are there “to affirm our unwavering commitment to and in support of our Black students and staff, this series includes two Black lives matter posters. While the district has not changed its position that the Black Lives Matter Global Network is a political organization, we recognize there is a non-political social justice movement represented by the statement ‘Black lives matter.’ Lakeville Area Schools-branded Black lives matter posters are permissible under Policy 535; we ask staff who want to put up Black lives matter posters in their classroom or work space to use those from this poster series.”

Watch this parent absolutely obliterate Critical Race Theory at an Illinois school board meeting

“How do I have two medical degrees if I’m sitting here oppressed?”

Media Very Concerned American Parents Do Not Want Children Indoctrinated

June 20, 2021 | Sundance

This soundbite below from Meet The Press is reflective of the perspective of U.S. media toward the growing push-back from parents surrounding Critical Race Theory in schools.

The media are concerned, very concerned, that parents are starting to wake up. If this awakening continues, this could present a problem:


In Pivotal Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Barrier to Protecting First Amendment

Sarah Parshall Perry @SarahPPerry / March 09, 2021

Supreme Court Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski

Sarah Parshall Perry is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

A near-unanimous Supreme Court decided Monday that two Christian students have the right to sue the Georgia college that violated their free speech rights in the past.

The impact of the ruling is far greater than what at first sounds like a run-of-the-mill decision on a procedural issue that might prompt non-lawyers to take a nap.

The case is a significant win for the First Amendment and protection of religious speech on the campus of a public college. It portends more thoughtful administration of speech policies on campuses.

And the near unanimity of opinion by nine Supreme Court justices with vastly different ideological bents also may bode well for the high court’s future interpretations of the importance of constitutional rights.

The case, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, involves two former students of Georgia Gwinnett College who, while enrolled there, sought to exercise their religious liberty and publicly share their faith with other students by handing out religious literature on campus.

However, college officials decided to enforce a policy that barred students from speaking to fellow students about their Christian religious beliefs in a public square. Later, officials barred the students’ speech in a campus “free speech zone” even after the students had applied for and received the appropriate permit as requested by the school.  

An analysis of the case reveals how hostile Georgia Gwinnett College was to religious speech.

After other students complained about Chike Uzuegbunam’s sharing of his faith in the school’s “free speech zone,” campus police told Uzuegbunam that his speech violated campus policy because it “disturb(ed) the peace and/or comfort” of others.  

Uzuegbunam and the other student filed lawsuits seeking injunctive relief and nominal damages. After the college eventually abandoned its speech policy, the school moved to dismiss the suits as moot. 

But the students pressed forward, arguing that their claims were not moot because they sought to remedy a violation of their First Amendment rights through a request for nominal damages.

In a short opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by seven other justices, the Supreme Court ruled that a request for nominal damages satisfies Article 3’s “redressability element” necessary for standing before the court when a plaintiff’s claim is based on a past violation of a legal right.

The court specified that even a claim for small or largely symbolic damages—here, for the violation of a constitutional right—is enough for a plaintiff to sue, assuming all other elements of standing are met.

In agreeing with the former students, the court looked to forms of relief generally awarded in common law to determine whether nominal damages can redress a past injury.

Significantly, the court acknowledged that the rule allowing nominal damages for a violation of a legal right is “decisively settled” and was established specifically to prevent favoring “economic rights over important, but not easily quantifiable, nonpecuniary rights.”

During oral arguments in January, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked the attorney for the Justice Department whether the case would have much broader implications than protecting free speech.

Specifically, Barrett asked whether the outcome of a dispute over New York City gun laws, a case that the court dismissed as moot after the city had changed its policy, would have been different if the challengers had added a claim for nominal damages for the violation of their constitutional rights.

The Justice Department attorney answered that the outcome indeed would have been different.   

Chief Justice John Roberts was the lone dissenting vote, writing that the majority risked a “radical extension of judicial power.”

Roberts’ decision was unusual, not only because it was his first solo dissent since joining the court in 2005, but because of his strong language in rebuking the majority.

Roberts stressed that because the disputed speech restrictions no longer exist at Georgia Gwinnett College, and because the students had not asked for “actual damages” (monetary relief), the case no longer was a live controversy and therefore moot.

The chief justice suggested that the majority’s ruling risked forcing federal courts to “give advisory opinions whenever a plaintiff tacks on a request for a dollar.”

But Thomas countered that if the high court would recognize a dollar in economic injury for wasted bus fare in traveling to the free speech zone, it must certainly recognize a dollar for a completed violation of a constitutional right.

Holding that every violation of a right imports damage, Thomas wrote that nominal damages are sufficient to redress an injury even if that injury—like the violation of First Amendment rights—cannot be reduced to or quantified in simple economic terms.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a reminder that censorship has consequences and that redressing the harm from violating constitutional rights, though sometimes hard to quantify, is just as important as redressing the harm from violations of economic rights.

A college’s preemptive silencing of a student’s speech—even if it later changes that policy to pump the brakes on litigation—may not be enough to keep the matter out of court.

School administrators hopefully will think twice before promulgating and implementing campus speech codes and other policies that can adversely affect their students’ constitutional rights.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. 

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today !


%d bloggers like this: