In socialist countries, they create registries of people who engage in behaviors they don’t like. For example, in Canada, they create gun registries, and then use those registries to seize firearms. It makes it easier for the government to violate their rights, when they know that they won’t get any resistance, e.g. – if you make you pay into a health care system your whole life, then deny you care later.

First, let’s get the story from Daily Signal on the Biden administration’s plan to track the people who dissent from their decrees:

A tiny administrative agency in the District of Columbia announced a new policy Tuesday that will likely serve as a model for a whole-of-government push to assemble lists of Americans who object on religious grounds to a COVID-19 vaccine.

The Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia—a federal independent entity that assists officers in the District of Columbia courts in formulating release recommendations and providing supervision and services to defendants awaiting trial—announced a new records system that will store the names and “personal religious information” of all employees who make “religious accommodation requests for religious exception from the federally mandated vaccination requirement.”

And later last week, from the Daily Signal:

As it turns out, the little-known Pre-trial Services Agency for the District of Columbia isn’t the only federal agency involved. As we feared, a whole-of-government effort looks to be underway.

A little digging at the Federal Register revealed that there are at least 19 total federal agencies—including five cabinet level agencies—that have created or proposed to create these tracking lists for religious-exemption requests from their employees.

The list includes the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of the Treasury, to name only a few.

What are they going to do with this registry of religious people who dissent from the government’s mandates? Well, one way to see is to poll Democrat voters and see what they want to do with dissenters.

In his Monday show, Steven Crowder mentioned a nationwide poll by Rasmussen Reports, which shows what Democrats think about punishing vaccine-dissenters:

A new Rasmussen survey shows: SOURCE: Rasmussen

• 78% of Dems support a vax mandate.
• 59% of Dems also favor unvaxxed people being confined to their homes at ALL times.
• 45% of Dems favor internment at special facilities for those who refuse the vax.
• In other words, Dems want some version of what already exists in Australia. SOURCE: YouTube
• 48% of Dems favor fining or IMPRISONING people who publicly question vaccine efficacy.
  • Back to Australia for a glimpse of what this looks like. SOURCE: YouTube
  • Or maybe Canada where they have a proclivity for arresting pastors. SOURCE: YouTube
• 29% favor removing custody of children from parents who are unvaxxed.
  • I mean, this could never happen in America right. SOURCE: YouTube

This is the “objective morality” of the secular left. They are no different from the secular left Stalin and the secular left Mao. There is nothing in their worldview to prevent atrocities.

I absolutely recommend watching the full episode of Crowder’s Monday show.

I would imagine that in America, if the government were to seize children from the parents who are on their religious exemption list, they would probably feel good about themselves, too. After all, they’re just taking children away from misogynistic, racist science-deniers, right? Those kids would be much better off in foster care.

We have an election in 2022. Make sure you vote against tyranny, and make sure that you use the time in between to convince your peers to vote against tyranny.

(Note: the photo above is Virginia police arresting the father of the female student who was raped by a boy in a skirt in the public school women’s bathroom)

There was a hostage situation in Texas on the weekend. Everything was resolved favorably (no hostages harmed, suspect neutralized). But what was interesting was the press conference where the FBI explained who the suspect was, and what his motives were. Although they love to label conservative parents as “domestic terrorists”, they weren’t nearly as direct this time.

Here’s the story from Jerusalem Post:

Soon after the FBI freed four hostages held by a gunman for 11 hours at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas, on Saturday, Matthew Desarno, the special agent in charge of the FBI Dallas Field Office, made a truly baffling statement.

“We do believe from our engagement with this subject that he was singularly focused on one issue, and it was not specifically related to the Jewish community. But we are continuing to work to find [the] motive,” he said.

[…][T]he gunman entered Congregation Beth Israel on a Saturday morning, when Shabbat services are held.

FBI can’t figure out the motive.

And what was the objective of this mysterious hostage taker? Was he insurrectionisting for Trump? That’s what CNN will probably say.

But why would the gunman ask for the release of Aafia Siddiqui?

Siddiqui, nicknamed “Lady al-Qaeda,” was born in Pakistan and traveled to the US on a student visa in 1990. She received her PhD in neuroscience from Brandeis University…

[…]Siddiqui was arrested in Afghanistan for her part in plotting al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in the US, UK and Pakistan, shooting at US Army troops as they detained her…

So, just to refresh you, the FBI thinks that parents who disagree with having their daughters raped in a women’s bathroom by a man dressed in a skirt are “domestic terrorists”. But a guy who takes hostages in a synagogue to get an al-Qaeda plotter freed is not. And don’t you dare say that he is a Mus1im, either.

One of the organizations that has been advocating Siddiqui’s release in recent weeks is the Council on American-1slamic Relations (CA1R). In November, CA1R’s Texas chapter and MPower Change, a Mus1im activist group, hosted an online event titled “Injustice: Dr. Aafia and the 20-year legacy of America’s wars.”

I thought this was very interesting:

You might recognize that group “CA1R”, because they collaborated with the FBI to ensure proper sensitivity to the peaceful Mus1im community.

Judicial Watch explains:

Judicial Watch exclusively obtained droves of records back in 2013 documenting how, under Mueller’s leadership, the FBI purged all anti-terrorism training material deemed “offensive” to Mus1ims after secret meetings between 1slamic organizations and the FBI chief. Judicial Watch had to sue to get the records and published an in-depth report on the scandal in 2013 and a lengthier, updated follow-up in 2015.

As FBI director, Mueller bent over backwards to please radical 1slamist groups and caved into their demands. The agency eliminated the valuable anti-terrorism training material and curricula after Mueller met with various 1slamist organizations, including those with documented ties too terrorism. Among them were two organizations—1slamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Council on American 1slamic Relations (CA1R)—named by the U.S. government as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case.

So what is the FBI concerned about? Well, we’ve already seen that they are anxious to label concerned, involved parents as “domestic terrorists”. But here’s a former #2 at the FBI to explain their long-term plans:

Have you ever wondered what disgraced former deputy FBI directors do after trying to stage a coup and lying under oath? Apparently, they give talks about “protecting democracy” at top-rated institutions of higher learning. Indeed, this last Thursday the University of Chicago invited former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe to join a panel of partisans to discuss the Jan 6 “insurrection.”

McCabe was fired as the deputy FBI director for leaking sensitive information about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation and then lying about it under oath. He also took part in spying on the Donald Trump campaign through a secret warrant granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.

The dossier he used to obtain the surveillance warrant was funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and, in an ironic twist, was itself the product of Russian disinformation. McCabe and his allies in corporate media justified all sorts of similar illegal and undemocratic tactics to discredit and attempt to unseat President Trump.

Of course, neither the University of Chicago nor McCabe acknowledged the irony in him discussing the integrity of “democracy” in America on Thursday evening. In fact, what McCabe said at the University of Chicago event on Jan. 6, 2022 is even more shocking than his invitation to speak in the first place. Below are four of the most appalling assertions and policy proposals McCabe made at the public event.

Here are the 4 points:

1. Conservatives Are in The Same Category As 1slamic Terrorists
2. Parents at School Board Meetings Pose A ‘Threat To National Security’
3. McCabe Wants More Surveillance of ‘Mainstream’ Conservatives
4. McCabe Believes No One Is Above The Law (Except Himself)

Let’s take a look at #1, because if the FBI were not spying on you, then maybe they could prevent more Pakistan-backed 1slamic terrorist attacks on US soil:

McCabe likened conservatives to members of the 1slamic Caliphate: “I can tell you from my perspective of spending a lot of time focused on the radicalization of international terrorists and 1slamic extremist and extremists of all stripes… is that this group shares many of the same characteristics of those groups that we’ve seen radicalized along entirely different ideological lines,” he said.

McCabe went on to describe the rise of the 1slamic caliphate in Syria and how 1slamic extremists were radicalized across socioeconomic, educational, and racial lines, likening it to the “mass radicalization” of the political right across demographics. That’s right, according to McCabe a grandma who shares a Federalist article on Facebook and your uncle with a “Let’s Go Brandon” coffee mug are in the same category as a jihadist who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub.

We have elections in November. It may be our last chance to vote in competent leaders who focus on actual criminals and terrorists instead of pushing their own secular left dogma on taxpayers. The FBI we have now is not working properly. They don’t deserve salaries, benefits or pensions. They are not protecting the public who are paying their salaries.

What’s the official position of YouTube (owned by Google) on rape? In the Christians apologetics business, we have this argument called “the moral argument”, where we argue for a divine moral lawgiver on the basis of objective moral laws. The example that’s frequently given is “rape”. Christians think that even atheists will think that rape is objectively wrong. But do they?

YouTube (owned by Google) is well known for censoring speech that is critical of the Democrat party. Recently, a news story came out about a public school in Loudon county, Virginia where a female student was raped by a biological male in a skirt. After Steven Crowder reported on the story, Youtube / Google suspended him for 7 days.

Steven Crowder’s web site reproduced the e-mail from Youtube / Google.

It says (in part):

On September 30, Mr. Crowder uploaded another video… [that] contains a segment that targets the transgender community in an offensive manner, for example, by indicating that trans people pose a rape threat to women. Consistent with the recklessness provisions of its hate speech policy, YouTube has removed this video from the service and assessed a strike against the Steven Crowder channel. Per YouTube’s strikes policy, this results in a one-week upload freeze for the channel. Further violation of YouTube’s hate speech policy will result in additional penalties.

They didn’t want Crowder reporting on a rape committed by a boy in a skirt in a girl’s bathroom. Why would they not want people to know about that?

Let’s look at the facts of the case, as reported by Daily Wire.

On June 22, Scott Smith was arrested at a Loudoun County, Virginia school board meeting, a meeting that was ultimately deemed an “unlawful assembly” after many attendees vocally opposed a policy on transgender students.

What people did not know is that, weeks prior, on May 28, Smith says, a boy, allegedly wearing a skirt, entered a girls’ bathroom at nearby Stone Bridge High School, where he sexually assaulted Smith’s ninth-grade daughter.

Juvenile records are sealed, but Scott’s attorney, Elizabeth Lancaster told The Daily Wire that a boy was charged with two counts of forcible sodomy, one count of anal sodomy, and one count of forcible fellatio, related to an incident that day at that school.

As a result of the viral video showing his arrest, Smith became the poster child for what the National School Boards Association has since suggested could be a form of “domestic terrorism”: a white blue-collar male who showed up to harangue obscure public servants on his local school board.

[…]Minutes before Smith’s arrest at the school board meeting, the Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) superintendent lectured the public that concerns about the transgender policy were misplaced because the school system had no record of any assault occurring in any school bathroom.

[…]At 4:48 pm on the day of the incident, the principal sent out an email to the community that claimed nothing jeopardizing student safety had occurred, painting Smith as the villain, and offering counseling services for witnesses of Smith’s blowup…

[…]Smith was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Why did Youtube / Google not want Crowder telling people this story? Is it because they think that little girls are appropriate victims for boys dressed in skirts who go into women’s bathrooms? I would guess that there are a lot of people who work in Big Tech who do want biological men to be able to go into women’s bathrooms. And showers, too. They want naked biological men as close as possible to naked biological women. And the younger the girls, the better.

People who defend the rape of children and the arrest of the fathers of those children are immoral. I understand that the story makes teachers, teacher unions, school boards, etc. look bad. And I understand that the story makes Democrat politicians look bad. But no one should use suspensions to suppress the truth about what really happened.

My advice to people in Big Tech would be to be careful about letting devotion to the Democrat political party affect your products and services. But in addition to that, don’t let it affect your morality. It can be very tempting to use your products and services to bring about the election results that you want. And people who lack God as a ground for morality will not have much resistance to that desire. But if there is one thing that people should agree on, it’s that raping children is wrong. It’s also wrong to censor people who try to tell the truth about rape victims.

I think what this story shows is the importance of hiring people who have a rational basis for morality. If you hire a whole bunch of sexually immoral people whose atheistic worldviews don’t rationally ground objective morality, then you will get immoral behavior. The mantra of the secular left (“don’t judge”) doesn’t protect little girls from being raped.

By the way, I watched the Steven Crowder show about his suspension. He mentioned a lot of interesting news stories that Youtube / Google probably wouldn’t like. Stories about rapes of women in women’s bathrooms committed by biological men.

Here’s one:

• Transgender activist charged with raping 4-year-old on video (sentenced to 30 years in prison)

Crowder says the LGBT activist spent months advocating for allowing biological men in women’s bathrooms. Isn’t that Google / Youtube’s position as well? What would they say to the rape victim? They’d probably say “Too bad”.

Here are a couple others:

• Transgender woman (biological man) commits sex attacks against women in women’s prison
• Man who claimed to be transgender assaults multiple women in women’s shelter

Crowder talked about a whole bunch of stories like this.

Were these rapes morally wrong? I think so, but I’m really not sure what Google / YouTube would say. And I do think they would censor any reporting of the rapes as “hate speech”.