Instead of honoring those who truly made black history into American history, leftist media, corporations, and the left have appropriated this tradition into a vehicle for virtual signaling. //

As a result, we have people complaining on social media that it was racist for a team with a white quarterback to win the Super Bowl against a team with a black quarterback during Black History Month! We are trending toward celebrating victimhood instead of championing survival and perseverance.

Because of this, I aspire to eradicate Black History Month in its current form. I would like to see American history taught so it thoroughly integrates black, white, Asian, Hispanic, women’s, Jewish and everyone’s history together. Like Woodson envisioned, we could still have specific months to highlight specific groups.

By thoroughly and objectively integrating the recognition of black contributions into our society, we will not only be able to say black history is American history, but also make it worth celebrating again.

Of all the tragic facts about the history of slavery, the most astonishing to an American today is that, although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century. People of every race and color were enslaved – and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed.

Everyone hated the idea of being a slave but few had any qualms about enslaving others. Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century – and then it was an issue only in Western civilization. Among those who turned against slavery in the 18th century were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and other American leaders. You could research all of the 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there. But who is singled out for scathing criticism today? American leaders of the 18th century.

Deciding that slavery was wrong was much easier than deciding what to do with millions of people from another continent, of another race, and without any historical preparation for living as free citizens in a society like that of the United States, where they were 20 percent of the population.

It is clear from the private correspondence of Washington, Jefferson, and many others that their moral rejection of slavery was unambiguous, but the practical question of what to do now had them baffled. That would remain so for more than half a century.

In 1862, a ship carrying slaves from Africa to Cuba, in violation of a ban on the international slave trade, was captured on the high seas by the U.S. Navy. The crew were imprisoned and the captain was hanged in the United States – despite the fact that slavery itself was still legal at the time in Africa, Cuba, and in the United States. What does this tell us? That enslaving people was considered an abomination. But what to do with millions of people who were already enslaved was not equally clear.

That question was finally answered by a war in which one life was lost [620,000 Civil War casualties] for every six people freed [3.9 million]. Maybe that was the only answer. But don’t pretend today that it was an easy answer – or that those who grappled with the dilemma in the 18th century were some special villains when most leaders and most people around the world saw nothing wrong with slavery. //

Ronna McDaniel
@GOPChairwoman
We are the Party of Lincoln & the Party of Kay Coles James, Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain, Dr. Ben Carson, Ida B. Wells, Thomas Sowell, & the list goes on.

Black Republican candidates are running all around the country, and I am proud to support them.
"Tell the whole story during Black History Month | Afro" //

She wrote in the linked piece, ” that:

Black History Month is not just about Black Liberal history.

In the effort to force “equality” we instead can end up erasing Black representation altogether.

This is what Carano wrote in a social media post:

Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors… even by children.

“Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”

And to show just how much they don’t “hate” Carano’s political views, the left lobbied Disney to have her fired.

A lot of people don’t know that the brand was based upon the faces and/efforts of real women. Among those women were Nancy Green, Anna Harrington and Lillian Richard. Their family members were concerned that the removal of the picture and changing the name they further erase the real contributions of their family members who helped to make the brand. //

So rather than the silly name that the company picked trying to be woke, how about actually recognizing the real people involved? Maybe actually recognizing them on the bottle and giving the families some residuals from that?

Every life unjustly killed deserves justice. In the cause to make things right, I will not join a movement that has nearly everything wrong. More innocent lives have now been killed (including cops) since these predominantly violent protests began over George Floyd’s horrific death. What about the black lives killed in this nationwide chaos? Do they matter?

“Well, you don’t have to agree with everything. Just pick out the good things in the #BlackLivesMatter movement,” I’m told. Really? Let’s apply that same logic to another example. I’ve been repeatedly approached to partner with New Black Panthers in anti-abortion billboard campaigns. We agree on the violent injustice of abortion, and that’s it. Our worldviews are diametrically opposed. But, but, but they believe unborn lives matter! That doesn’t matter. Their mission is not my mission. I cover all of this in-depth in my new podcast, Life Has Purpose.

Yes, #BlackLivesMatter. But Truth matters. As a Christian, the Church should be leading on these issues instead of sheepishly following a deceptive movement hostile to the Gospel.

The original BLM founders, the #BlackLivesMatter Foundation (BLMF), created it to radically shift culture. The far-left Ford Foundation, the world’s largest population control organization, vowed in 2016 to raise $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives (MFBL)—a nationwide coalition of BLM groups (including BLMF). MFBL released a shocking manifesto of policy positions that are deeply political and deeply disturbing.

Drawing mostly from those positions, here are the top 10 reasons why I will never support the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

The premise isn’t true. I hate racism. And I hate when it’s used as a political weapon. According to the FBI’s latest homicide statistics, I’m 11 times more likely to be killed by someone of my own brown complexion than a white person. Also, a comprehensive 2019 study concluded: “White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.” Every loss of life is tragic, but Washington Post’s database on police-involved deaths puts things into further context. In 2020, among those killed were (all males): 2 Native Americans, 9 Asians, 46 Hispanics, 76 blacks, 149 unlabeled individuals and 149 whites (whose deaths don’t get reported by national mainstream media). Only nine black individuals were actually unarmed.

There is no goal of forgiveness or reconciliation. None. It’s never mentioned on their sites. You can’t talk about the sins of the past and expect to move forward if there is no intention of forgiveness. I’m tired of the deeply prejudiced oppressed/oppressor critical race theory paradigm. It’s not Gospel-centered. This should, immediately, be a deal-breaker for Christians. //

They heavily promote homosexuality and transgenderism. //

They completely ignore fatherhood. //

Apparently, not all black lives matter. Pro-abortion BLMF declared: “We deserve and thus we demand reproductive justice [aka abortion] that gives us autonomy over our bodies and our identities while ensuring that our children and families are supported, safe, and able to thrive.” Aborted children don’t thrive.

There is no issue more important to the future and soul of our nation right now than the leftist bigotry threatening the very concept of what it means to be an American. //

On the medical side, Dr. Harald Schmidt, a supposed expert on ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times that essential workers, not the elderly, should be the first to receive COVID-19 vaccines. His reason? “Older populations are whiter,” he told the publication. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

To be clear, the term “level the playing field” here means allowing people to die because of the color of their skin. //

All three of these examples of dangerous racism occurred in one week. One week. All stem from the pernicious concept of critical race theory, a demonstrably racist set of ideas Democrats want to drill into the heads of all-white government employees except, apparently, Joe Biden, who to my knowledge has never undergone this vital training (strange, given that his own Vice President-elect has openly called him a racist).

There is no more important fight for conservatives today than battling the racism of the American left. And as is often the case with effective battle plans this one is quite simple. We must call for people not to be judged or treated differently solely on the basis of the color of their skin. That shouldn’t be a controversial concept, but it is.

Everyone should be able to agree that we don’t need more racism in America. On that basis alone, this proposal should be dead on arrival in Congress.

In embracing the notion of a majority-minority nation, Democrats who advocate identity politics are not placing as good a bet as some of them think. //

the census projections reflect a “one-drop” rule akin to that used in the Jim Crow South. The white category consists only of people who are 100 percent “non-Hispanic white.” If one adopts a more expansive definition of white, the projection of a majority-minority nation disappears. Dowell Myer and Morris Levy, for example, calculate what future American populations would look like if anyone who checks the white box on question 9 is classified as white. With this extremely liberal classification, the nation is three-quarters white in 2060.

On first hearing about the projected nonwhite majority, many people probably form a mental image that looks roughly like this: 4 whites, 2 Hispanics, 2 blacks, 1 Asian, and perhaps one “other.” As the preceding discussion explains, however, the picture is much more complex. The majority of minorities will not consist of people who are 100 percent Latino, 100 percent Asian, 100 percent black, 100 percent Native American, or 100 percent Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (the official census categories). Rather, the majority of minorities will include people of numerous shadings of color. //

Alba reports numerous analyses using census data, birth certificates, and surveys to describe the increasing occurrence of mixed marriages and the children who are products of such interracial and interethnic unions. Mixed marriage rates have steadily increased, and the ongoing census will likely report that nearly one in five new marriages now are mixed. Fully 80 percent of these marriages are between a white American and a minority. About 40 percent of these involve a white and a Hispanic, with Asian-white unions at 15 percent. //

A majority of foreign-born residents are not citizens, a discrepancy likely to grow because the foreign-born population will increase, to about 17 percent in 2050.

If this proportion does not change markedly, half or more of the foreign-born — the vast majority non-white or Hispanic — will not be eligible to vote in 2050. All in all, at mid-century and beyond, whites are virtually certain to remain the effective electoral majority at the national level.

Throughout his book, Alba shows great sensitivity in the presentation and discussion of the findings. Ethnic activists and some scholars in the academy are heavily invested in the majority-minority narrative and will not welcome the evidence that the narrative is largely an artifact of questionable data classifications.

As economist Thomas Sowell points out, in 1860, just one year before the Civil War began, the South had only one-sixth as many factories as the North. Almost 90% of the country’s skilled, well-paid laborers and professionals were based in the North. Banking, railroads, manufacturing—all were concentrated in the North. The South was an economic backwater.

And the cost of abolishing slavery was enormous—not merely in terms of dollars (Lincoln borrowed billions to pay for it), but also in terms of human life: 360,000 Union soldiers died in order to free 4 million slaves. That works out to about one soldier in blue for every ten slaves freed. It’s hard to look at that butcher’s bill and conclude that the nation turned a profit from slavery.

In Douglass’s abiding vision, America was the proper home for black Americans, their only realistic alternative, and also the locus of their highest ideals. //

Mark Twain copied a friend’s remark into his notebook: “I am not an American; I am the American.” To be the American, the exemplary or representative American, is a claim very few Americans could plausibly make. Twain could. Benjamin Franklin could and did. Abraham Lincoln could but didn’t, although admirers made the claim for him. Surely some number of others could, too. But among all Americans past or present, no one could make such a claim more compellingly than Frederick Douglass.

Like his country, Douglass rose from a low beginning to a great height. Like his country again, he won his freedom in a revolutionary struggle, by his own virtue, and against great odds, and he matured into an exemplar of universal liberty, admired the world over. Also like his country, Douglass the individual was divided by race.

Unlike America, Douglass could hardly think of himself as “conceived in liberty.” But even in this respect — especially in this respect — he represents a larger American promise. The son of a white slaveholder and a black slave, Douglass became, along with Lincoln, post-Founding America’s most important exponent of the natural-rights argument summarized in the Declaration of Independence. Pursuant to the same principles, he became America’s most prominent representative of the aspiration toward racial integration, reconciliation, and uplift.

One must emphasize: he became that. It didn’t come naturally to him. To become the great apostle of those aspirations, Douglass had to overcome a sentiment about and among black Americans that is recurrently present in U.S. history, powerful in his day and again in ours — the feeling or conviction that to be black is to bear an identity antagonistic to American identity. //

Douglass was a strong believer in the power of speech. This was a man who almost literally talked his way from the bottom to near the top of American society. But he didn’t think speech was all-powerful, and he didn’t think that the fostering of a healthy sense of American identity was merely a matter of persuading people, white or black, to believe in American principles.

To cultivate a genuine sense of American identity requires more than agreement with its principles. It requires a sense of belonging and affection. It requires a love of America as one’s own. On this point and others, Douglass was a good American disciple of John Locke.

In Locke’s well-known reasoning, we own our own labor, and we own what we make. This can apply, however, not only to material property but also to political and patriotic affiliation. What Douglass wanted to teach his fellow citizens, his black fellow citizens, in particular, was that we can build America, and in building or rebuilding it, we can make it our own.

We can improve it by our labor, he argued, culturally and morally no less than materially. To do this, we need first to improve ourselves. We need to cultivate what he called the “staying qualities,” fostering a faith in ourselves and our country. This is why hopefulness is a moral imperative, for Douglass, and why a spirit of alienation is so dangerous. //

We live in a time when many Americans have forgotten our principles, or never learned them, or learned to revile them; when many young people, young men especially, grow up in the belief that they have no grounds for hope for their future and no reason to identify with their country; when many of our educational institutions have become purveyors of alienation and disintegration, teaching that America is an evil, hateful society and that speech to the contrary must be vilified and suppressed.

At such a time, as we search for models of understanding and inspiration, it is a vital imperative for us to recover the moral and political vision of Douglass. In the long history of African-American political thought, there is no more forceful proponent of the cause of integration, and there is no more insightful analyst of the varieties and dangers of national and racial disintegration.

“No people can prosper,” Douglass reiterated late in life, “unless they have a home, or the hope of a home” — and “to have a home,” one “must have a country.” America, in Douglass’s abiding vision, was black Americans’s proper home, their only realistic alternative, and the locus of their highest ideals.

By its white and black citizens together, America must be cherished and perfected as a genuine home for all, not merely by the accident and force of necessity but as an object of rational and sentimental identification. For Douglass as for Lincoln, their common country was, through it all, the last best hope of earth.

Notice the common denominator in all those tweets? The assumption by these people is that only persons of color are doing the looting and rioting during the “protests.”

The other assumption is that black, Hispanic, and Asian people have not been victims of violent looting and rioting themselves.

As we’ve seen from the anarchistic riots that have happened in Democrat-run cities like Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, and others for the last several months, that is most definitely not the case. Black, Hispanic, and Asian-owned businesses have been targeted by “peaceful protesters” of all colors. Black law enforcement officers have specifically been singled out by violent Antifa-BLM rioters, and unfortunately in some instances, some of those officers have either suffered serious injuries or have died while serving in their communities to protect the very people who turn around and “thank” them for their service by injuring or murdering them in cold blood.

So no, there is no nefarious “racist” motivation for DeSantis to try and strengthen laws that will allow innocent law-abiding citizens to better protect themselves, their families, homes, and livelihoods if under dangerous threat from rioters hellbent on whipping up purge-like protest mobs.

With critical race theory seeping its way into government agencies and all levels of society, the state of the nation could turn dire if it isn't stopped.

Surveying the urban war zones, property destruction, and the shuttered businesses across so many American cities, many wonder, “Just how did we get here, and will we ever regain normalcy?” Those two questions loom over the November election, but what’s really at stake is a choice between civilization and chaos.

Most people don’t realize there is a pernicious ideology behind the Black Lives Matter movement and the Democrat leadership that empowers it, and it’s called critical race theory. Most importantly, this theory is an integral part of Democrats’ strategy to establish a “new normalcy” in every institution, from public schools to all government agencies.
On the eve of Labor Day weekend, following the reporting of Christopher Rufo on Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that critical race theory had infiltrated many of the agencies of the Federal bureaucracy, President Trump issued a directive that all federal agencies cancel training programs based in the theory. On Thursday, Trump announced a 1776 Commission to directly respond to CRT with accurate historical education.

Unbeknownst to most, critical race theory education and training programs were being promoted throughout various federal government agencies through the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, which came into existence from President Obama’s 2011 Executive Order 13583. His stated purpose was to “Establish a Coordinated Government Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce.” He amped that up in his last six months in office, perhaps to institutionalize his legacy.

In July 2016, Obama rolled out the “Inclusive Diversity Strategic Plan,” calling on federal agencies to “fully utilize policies, programs, and systems that support inclusive diversity through increasingly focused, innovative, and accelerated communication and learning strategies.”

To make sense of all this, it’s important to recognize that diversity and inclusion were already well established in the federal government long before Obama’s 2011 executive order. At that time, the percentage of blacks and minorities in the federal workforce was about 18 percent and 34 percent respectively, a disproportionately larger representation than in either the civilian population or the private-sector workforce.

By the end of the Obama administration, the percentage of minority representation in the federal government was even higher. Thus the 2016 initiative was probably less about expanding “diversity” and “inclusion” than it was about indoctrination — the “focused, innovative, and accelerated communication and learning strategies” for government personnel — which is where “critical race theory” comes in.

Actor, Rapper, and Activist Ice Cube (O’Shea Jackson, Sr.) took to Twitter on Wednesday with a video post titled, “Don’t Kill the Messenger #CWBA #ContractWithBlackAmerica”

I am inundated with angry messages from conservatives telling me they are “colorblind” and that it’s wrong for me to suggest race matters at all.

This is a lie that the Right has bought into and continues to push to this day. I believe it is based on Dr. Martin Luther King’s now famous (and inspiring) “I Have a Dream” speech, in which he expressed hope that one day all men would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. A worthy idea, indeed, and one worth pursuing.

However, it is important to note that MLK did not suggest that color/race was irrelevant. He simply said it should not be the basis on which we judge each other. There is no Black person in America, past or present, who doesn’t have to think about race every single day in one way or another. It is the silly man or woman who tries to pretend race doesn’t matter. It most certainly does…and that’s okay.

To loop back around to my previous point, perspective is everything. The Black experience in America is largely shaped by our color, our past and the realities of racial tension and injustice in this country as we’ve grown, improved and continue to better ourselves as a nation. For better or for worse, Black people speak the language of race. We must. Our entire American experience has centered around race. It is wholly unreasonable to ask us to pretend such a thing doesn’t exist. Again…that’s okay. //

As a conservative Black woman my point of view is defined by many things, including my race. When a story about a kidnapped child comes across the wire, my perspective as a mother will shape that story a little differently for me than if I weren’t a mother, or if I were a man. My perspective on said story is informed by things like where I live, where I came from, what my family’s experiences with that particular crime may or may not have been. If I write about that story, everything about my own experience will help shape the tone and angle of my piece. My perspective as a 46-year-old woman is vastly different than it was as a 26-year old woman.

Why is race the only thing I’m not allowed to draw on for some perspective? Ben Shapiro (to use a popular example) and I share a lot of political views as fellow conservatives. However, we have experienced race and race issues very differently in our lives. Does that invalidate our discussions on the issue? Absolutely not. It simply means that I have a perspective as a Black woman that he doesn’t, and vice versa. We should not run from these differences. They are to be embraced.

Perspective matters. Race matters. It should matter. Even as a Christian who’s heart is aimed toward an eternal perfection one day, I do not believe that race, heritage or tradition will simply disappear in heaven. What will disappear is the sin attached to our tribal instincts. What will be elevated is the glory, the beauty, the richness in diversity. We will not see “past” race, but we will see the purpose of our differences fulfilled. //

Yes, my fellow conservatives…race matters. It does not matter more than anything, but it does matter. Don’t be scared of that. We have logic, reason and information on our side. When we add a healthy sense of curiosity about things and perspectives we don’t yet know or understand, we could possibly begin to see that desperately needed shift in American popular culture that we’ve all been hoping for.

At Saturday’s Temple game, the team was not on the field for the playing of the national anthem (the rest of the Brigade was in the stands). When they did come out afterward, the team knelt before an American flag before getting ready for the kickoff. It might be standard operating practice for footballers at civilian schools to execute the “Kaepernick Kneel” while dissing the flag as the virtue-signaling price of entry into the NFL these days, but the Navy football team, all of whom are ostensibly in training to serve their country as naval officers? In my opinion, that’s a REAL “honor violation” that should result in separation. And it turns out that the team hasn’t been on the field for the national anthem for any of the prior three games, either.

Attacking the Trump administration for what she called a “pattern” of racist behavior, California Democrat Harris said, “[Trump], on the issue of Charlottesville, where people were peacefully protesting the need for racial justice where a young woman was killed, and on the other side, there were neo-Nazis carrying tiki torches, shouting racial epithets, antisemitic slurs. And Donald Trump, when asked about it, said there were fine people on both sides.” //

“You know, I think this is one of the things that makes people dislike the media so much in this country,” Pence replied. “That you selectively edit, just like Sen. Harris did, comments that President Trump and I and others on our side of the aisle make. Sen. Harris conveniently omitted after the president made comments about people on either side of the debate over monuments, he condemned the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists, and has done so repeatedly.” //

“You had some very bad people in that group,” Trump said of the violent Antifa thugs, white nationalists, and neo-Nazis. “But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. … You had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”

Trump was clear, but it didn’t matter. The media spliced part of his quote to paint him as a racist and then blared it all over the headlines, saying Trump called white supremacists “very fine people.”

The current idea floating around the social justice circles is that the concept of racism isn’t as simple as a person acting in a prejudicial manner toward another simply becuse of the color of his or skin.

According to the SJWs who adhere to critical race theory, what we call racism is now racial prejudice plus power. In other words, the race that holds all the power in a specified system is racist when it practices prejudice toward another race within the system that does not hold power. The flipside is that if a race that isn’t considered the dominating power practices racial prejudice toward the controlling power, it can’t be considered “racism.”

Bottom line, only white people can be guilty of racism. If you’re black, you can be openly racist toward white people all day and you wouldn’t be considered a racist for doing so.

If it sounds like a stupid concept, it’s because it is.

Critical race theory is the idea that there are irreconsilable differences between races due to inequalities that exist in our society. Unsurprisingly, there’s only one way to fix it, and you can probably guess what that is.

The idea of critical race theory is just a branch of critical theory, and recently National Review authors Lindsey Burke and Mike Gonzolez wrote about its origins:

Simply put, Critical Theory amounts to an unremitting attack on all of America’s norms and traditions. The goal is to replace them with a “counter-narrative” that will introduce a more leftist model of governing. Critical Theory is the main philosophical school in the identity politics of today.

The concept goes back to 1937, when the second director of Germany’s Frankfurt School, Max Horkheimer, published the school’s manifesto, “Traditional and Critical Theory.” This group of Marxist academics had started out in Frankfurt, but by 1937, they were safely ensconced at Columbia University, having fled the Third Reich.

Traditional theory, Horkheimer claimed, fetishized knowledge and objectivity. Critical theory, its opposite, held that there were no universal truths and man could not be objective. Instead of truths, there were competing narratives, and it was the job of the Left to impose its own. This relativism in itself was nothing less than an assault on Western civilization.

We see this dynamic in its starkest form in the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which attempts to replace 1776 and the “All Men Are Created Equal” ethos of America with 1619, the year slaves were first brought to what is today the United States. It puts slavery, not the ideal of equality, at the center of our nation’s storyline. //

All critical theory roads lead to Marxist systems, including critical race theory. No matter what the problem is, the answer is Marxism. //

For this election, critical theory, specifically critical race theory, has taken center stage. We’re told that America has a supremely racist past and that all its accomplishments only happened because of the blood, sweat, and tears of slaves brought from Africa.

It’s undeniable that slavery was a part of American history and had some effect on its progression, but to say that it’s the crux of its success is patently absurd. We may as well say that America’s part in beating back the Nazi threat or going to the moon was all thanks to slavery.

Men fought and died to end slavery, and fought the left again in order to give the black population in American equal rights. America worked from day one to make sure slavery would one day meet its end and that all men would be treated equally as America’s founding ideal entailed. //

The unbelievable story that is America is a story of a nation whose contributions to the world far outweigh its sins, but the Marxists who wish to bring the successful system that America bases itself on crashing to the ground so they can implement a more socialistic or communistic one would have you believe that America is nothing but its sins.

The “Cancel Culture” is not only destroying America’s cultural history and institutions; it is destroying the lives of people, too. The Marxist Black Lives Matter seeks to demolish 250 years of American exceptionalism by exploiting white guilt for the sins of their fathers and pressing for destructive institutional changes throughout America. Their demand “defund the police” is but one example of their insane sloganeering. They are also hard at work institutionalizing the implementation of Marxist “critical race theory” training in all federal agencies, including the US military.

Of particular personal interest to me has been learning about and exposing efforts at the US Naval Academy to implement “critical race theory” precepts throughout the Brigade of Midshipmen, as I previously detailed in this article by quoting directly from an internal email to staff sent by the USNA superintendent himself, VADM Sean Buck, USN, just days after the Office of Manpower and Budgeting signed out a memorandum directing all federal agencies to end critical race theory training.

As despicable as that email was, I was unprepared to learn that the wrath of the USNA cancel culture – which includes USNA leadership – has targeted a first-class midshipman (a senior, for you civilians) for termination for making comments from his Twitter account that were alleged to be racist,