Vengeance is Mine Says the Mob
And how woke, weaponized institutions force your compliance
Tomorrow, April 1, 2023, there is a planned and scheduled “Trans day of vengeance.” The published and spread informational poster also says, “stop trans genocide,” to bring a friend, wear a mask and assemble at the Supreme Court. Wear a mask…do you think that is to stop COVID-19, even though masking has been thoroughly debunked to have ever been beneficial (much less essential), or could it perhaps be something more sinister, like, I dunno, hiding one’s face because of the overt admission that crime will be committed? If stating there is an overt admission that crime will be committed is going too far, and that masking in order to preemptively hide oneself from being identified is going too far, let’s simply look at their aimed goal of “vengeance.”
What is vengeance? The Century Dictionary defines it as:
noun Punishment inflicted in return for an injury or an offense.
noun Harm, mischief, or evil generally: formerly often used as an imprecation, especially in the phrase what a (the) vengeance!
noun Synonyms 1. Retribution, Retaliation, etc. See revenge.
I’ve always thought that words matter and that their meanings matter. Perhaps I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again, no doubt about that. However, based on the word “vengeance” being used on the poster, it seems like a reasonable stance to think that the organizers are at least tacitly calling for, or perhaps expecting, violence or other criminal behavior when they tell attendees to bring a friend and wear masks. Hopefully I am wrong. I mentioned JK Rowling and some of her experiences with the trans community in The Witch Trials of Whistleblowers. She has experienced threats to herself and her family, and has had her address doxxed because of her stance on trans rights vs. women’s rights. Last weekend in New Zealand, women’s rights activist Posie Parker was attacked by the woke mob. Why? Simple, she puts women’s rights ahead of biological male’s rights who claim to be women. That’s a bridge too far for far too many today.
Other trans activists are not shy about their hate for any who don’t bend the knee to their every demand either. Here is an example of one trans person straight up saying Christians should be killed, while posing with an AR-15. The other is an elected representative of California who claims there is a “war on trans people.” The war is on the truth by people like him who say words that have no meaning. “Using restrooms per their gender.” Their gender is male or female. That’s it. Those are the only two. If you are one of them and decide you are the other, you don’t get to encroach on those who actually are that gender.
The poster for tomorrow’s event also claims we need to “stop trans genocide.” OK. Where is genocide being committed and against whom? I think this is another example where the words aren’t the right words. Genocide is, “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” No one is deliberately and systematically destroying trans people, or anyone else. Well, I take that back as on Monday, March 27, 2023, there was a trans person who deliberately and systematically destroyed 6 people at a Christian church and school; which pairs well with the image above that has the #transdayofvengenace and the first line of “Kill christcucks.”
Thankfully, the Nashville Police Department, undoubtedly led by Officer Rex Engelbert during this incident, was able to stop the threat before the shooter (dontnamethem.org) was able to kill more people. If you haven’t seen the video, I think it is worth watching in order to see how police ought to respond in these types of situations. I recently texted some former colleagues, before this incident took place, that I don’t typically like “OIS porn” (officer involved shooting), and I don't. However, sometimes it is absolutely worth watching, maybe even necessary, especially for those in this profession, in order to gain the mental rep on what to do in undoubtedly one of the most intense types of calls for service that an officer can be sent on.
I was not a Navy SEAL Team 6-Delta Force-HRT-Army Ranger. I did spend 14 years between the infantry, including two year long deployments where I earned my Combat Infantryman’s Badge, police department, and FBI where I was on the SWAT team for two years and was also a Defensive Tactics instructor, so I am confident in analyzing this type of incident from a general deadly force and tactical perspective, as well as a legal one in the confines of American policing. That is not the point though, or at least not the point I am making. Are there things that could’ve been done “better?” Sure. There always are. It’s also easy to sit back and pick nits on a video you can watch over and over from relative comfort. Overall, this was a job well done. Better than well, especially by Officer Engelbert.
One of the sponsoring groups for tomorrows “trans day of vengeance” is the Trans Radical Activist Network. At least they recognize that they are radical activists. Their self proclaimed radicalism, which by way of Merriam-Webster’s definition, means “extreme,” reminds me of the FBI’s “Radical Traditional Catholic” document that was touched on briefly near the end of Internal Comms Vol. 2. In that instance, numerous people in the FBI’s Richmond Field Office approved of a document, that was made available to the entire FBI, which relied heavily on dubious, agenda driven sources like the Southern Poverty Law Center in order to specifically and explicitly target First Amendment protected activity. The document aimed at reasons and methods to infiltrate the Catholic Church, specifically, the traditional Latin mass, and for the FBI to start developing an informant base inside the “radical traditional Catholic” community.
No one I know had ever heard that term prior to this document being brought to the public; including Catholics I know. Including Catholics I know in the FBI who happen to attend the traditional Latin service. Imagine the sense of skepticism and division that must be happening with other parishioners around the country who have knowingly engaged with FBI employees who also have attended the Latin mass. How many of them are questioning the true motives of such a power wielding law enforcement agency and the FBI employee who they thought they shared a common bond, and maybe even friendship, with?
So in that instance, the FBI explicitly targeted a First Amendment protected religious community as “radicals,” where in the instance of tomorrow’s event, the self identified “radicals” are being protected and permitted to hold their proclaimed vengeful event. Got it. That checks out for a government who has stated, and holds that LGBTQ+ rights are a core part of their agenda. As one of the first things he did after being inaugurated, boasts his handlers, President Biden signed this Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation. On March 21, 2023, the administration explicitly stated that LGBTQ+ rights are also “a core part of our foreign policy.”
“Oh, of course it is. I mean, and -- and President Biden has been nothing but consistent about his belief -- foundational belief in human rights. And LGBTQ+ rights are human rights.
And we -- again, back to the earlier question -- are never going shy away or be bashful about speaking up for those rights and for -- for individuals to live as they deem fit, as they want to live. And that's something that's a core part of our foreign policy, and it will remain so.” -John Kirby, National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications
So what, you might be wondering, this is the current regime, they can implement whatever policies they want in accordance with their stated, wild and/or broken campaign promises. Okay, fine. Let’s assume that premise is true for the sake of the argument. What about when those policies and stated “core” parts of their agenda conflict with current law, case law and/or other established Constitutional rights? Or even when they are used as a pretext to further purge the government of those deemed to be political dissidents for not accepting the regime’s worldview? By taking a closer look at the previously mentioned executive order (EO), in combination with how the government has tried to implement such polices, as well as what is done to those who don’t comply, perhaps a clearer understanding can be gained.
Near the end of Section 2, the enforcement section, of the EO it says that the head of each federal agency shall develop a plan to carry out the regime’s worldview as identified in subsections (b) and (c) of the same section, and shall do so within 100 days.
“(d) Within 100 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall develop, in consultation with the Attorney General, as appropriate, a plan to carry out actions that the agency has identified pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) of this section, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.”
Subsection (b) says that each agency head must consider what, if anything, needs to be changed in their agency to “fully implement statutes that prohibit sex discrimination and the policy set forth in section 1.” Subsection (c) says the agency head must “also consider whether there are additional actions that the agency should take” to make sure the agency is “fully implementing” the EO. Where section (b) and (d) reference doing so in accordance “with applicable law,” subsection (c) does not make that overt reference.
“(b) The head of each agency shall, as soon as practicable and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), consider whether to revise, suspend, or rescind such agency actions, or promulgate new agency actions, as necessary to fully implement statutes that prohibit sex discrimination and the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.
“(c) The head of each agency shall, as soon as practicable, also consider whether there are additional actions that the agency should take to ensure that it is fully implementing the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. If an agency takes an action described in this subsection or subsection (b) of this section, it shall seek to ensure that it is accounting for, and taking appropriate steps to combat, overlapping forms of discrimination, such as discrimination on the basis of race or disability.”
Clear as mud? Essentially this EO is stating what already exists; equal protection under the law. It says as much in the first paragraph of section 1: “All persons should receive equal treatment under the law.” All Americans already have that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments. What this EO tacitly does in Orwellian fashion is cancel out the allegedly equal rights of anyone who disagrees with the regime. “Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love. Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.”
What this is saying is that the only people who shouldn’t live in fear are those who identify with the LGBTQ+ agenda. Who is being denied access to the restroom, locker room or school sports? Is anyone other than biological males who claim to be female? So they should be able to live “without fear” no matter who they are, but if you live in fear, or are even upset, because they are in female locker rooms, sexually assaulting females in female bathrooms, dominating female sports, or winning "Miss" beauty pageants even, you are disrespecting them and not showing them dignity; and so is anyone else who holds such views.
Although they are not laws, the government asserts that EO’s “have the force and effect of law.” Therefore, through the powers vested in the administrative state, the Executive Branch has declared by “force and effect of law” that it is illegal to criticize, dissent, or otherwise not comply with the regime’s worldview on this topic.
In 2021, the FBI instituted mandatory training regarding the regime’s LGBTQ+ agenda, which seems like it was instituted at least in part because of the aforementioned EO dictating that agencies implement such “additional actions.” In the FBI there are mandatory virtual trainings throughout the year. I would bet that the vast majority of FBI employees agree that there are too many which do more to inhibit real work than to help it. I don’t recall ever seeing this specific training, probably because it was quietly removed before my supervisor began reminding the squad I was on that we had to do it. One of the metrics a Special Agent in Charge of an FBI Division gets rated on (in order to obtain a monetary bonus each year) is the studious completion by all employees in said division of these mandatory trainings.
This training, reportedly received enough negative comments and reviews from enough of those who took it that the FBI removed it. The most egregious part of this training is the “compelled speech” aspect of it. Take just the one slide shown above. “When the person tells you their new name/pronoun, use it and insist others do the same.” The government cannot command you to use someone else’s preferred name/pronoun, nor can they command you to insist that others do. MTSU’s Free Speech Center explains that “the compelled speech doctrine sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expression. Thus, the First Amendment not only limits the government from punishing a person for his speech, it also prevents the government from punishing a person for refusing to articulate, advocate, or adhere to the government’s approved messages.”
Furthermore, someone else’s First Amendment right to claim to be a gender they are not and to claim some other pronoun, does not trump another person’s First Amendment right to not use that other person’s preference. There is a ton of case law behind this doctrine and the MTSU link above is a strong starting point. A recent Supreme Court decision regarding the compelled speech doctrine in NIFLA v. Becerra (2018) held that the government cannot force you to share a message you don’t agree with and that the First Amendment protects every American speaking on a public issue from being forced to promote any idea, whether offensive, patriotic, controversial, or even truthful.1
But, what the government can do, at least in the FBI’s case, is suspend your security clearance for not adhering to its prescribed messaging. I know of three FBI employees, two who have had their security clearances revoked, and one who is currently under investigation where the FBI has labeled them as transphobe, homophobe, misogynistic, sexist, racist, or some combination of those. One of them was even asked what their religion was and told their beliefs were “hate speech.” That sounds like an opinion coming from an FBI agent investigating this person who doesn’t have any clue what they are doing; or they do have a clue and are doing it anyways.
The agent claiming this employee’s beliefs are “hate speech” is that agent’s opinion. That agent can have their opinion, but to interject their personal opinion into an administrative investigation, or any type of investigation for that matter, is another example of how the agency has become weaponized against dissenters of the regime. It also sounds like that agent needs to have some reeducation on the compelled speech doctrine as discussed above, as well as the categories of speech under the First Amendment.
The FBI has found a loophole, however, for removing those who are non-compliant. In the FBI, you have to have an active security clearance to enter FBI workspace. No clearance, no work. The FBI has been suspending clearances as a clear weaponization technique, for at least the last year that I am aware of. Perhaps it has been going on even longer. All the FBI has to do is claim that an employee poses some conjured up “national security” threat, and poof, clearance suspended.
Now, the weaponized FBI is revoking clearances and using the regime’s “core” LGBTQ+ ideology to do it. In one case I'm familiar with, the FBI claimed that an employee was a danger to the “safety” of the LGBTQIA+ community based off of social media posts that are First Amendment protected activity. In this instance, the FBI used a wide range of social media posts as justification to revoke the employee’s clearance; after the employee was suspended for refusing to take what they believed to be an unconstitutional mandated COVID-19 injection.
I know of two employees who recently came up on having their clearances suspended for a year. I am now over 180 days, and I know of others as well who are similarly situated in time. In another effort to terminate dissent, the FBI recently combined it’s annual virtual training for insider threats and whistleblowing too; at least a tacit, if not overt, admission that the regime views the two categories as one in the same.
Disgraced former FBI agent and adulterer Peter Strzok even recognized the security clearance issue as “an executive right DOJ argues is nonjusticiable.” Although Strzok, like so many of his ilk, continues to have Trump Derangement Syndrome and claims Trump purged government employees while he was president. If that is the case, why are the vast majority of those currently being purged, at least from the FBI, whistleblowers who dissented from the current regime? The Biden administration was quickly able to get the right people in place or reinstated so they could then weaponize against the other side? Sounds more like a Tom Clancy novel. I’m not saying Trump didn’t weaponize the clearance issue in this way, but based on my experiences and the experiences of those I know, this isn’t the case. I’m sure Strzok would say the same thing…even though the FBI dismissed him stating, his “repeated selfishness has called into question the credibility of the entire FBI.”
What the FBI has realized though, is exactly what Strzok has said. The DOJ, and therefore the FBI, has an executive right that essentially makes them immune from any court. This all spawned out of a wretched Supreme Court ruling in 1988 called Navy v. Egan. I think I've gone over enough law related stuff in this post, so if you’re still reading, I’ll spare you. Mostly. Egan essentially transformed into the case law Executive Branch agencies, like the FBI, rely on to suspend an employee’s security clearance, but also to avoid any type of meaningful judicial review.
From 1988 and continuing now in 2023, Egan has mutated to a point where courts give absolute deference on matters of “national security” to the Executive Branch. Therefore, all an agency like the FBI has to do is claim, even if it is a thin claim, that an employee is somehow a threat to “national security” and the agency can rid themselves of that employee. For how long? Who knows. The agency has all the time, money and lawyers they could ever ask for, at your expense too. The employees are not similarly situated in that regard.
Regardless of what the government holds as a core part of their policy, when it comes to First Amendment protections for you, they can’t force you to comply or adhere to it. Furthermore, when the government forsakes what is right and true, we cannot abide that. We must not.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!” -Isaiah 5:20-21
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme-courts-nifla-decision-our-government-cant-force-you-to-share-a-message-you-dont-agree-with