1/ 🚨BREAKING: Lawsuit filed today against educational agencies, teachers, principal, & CEO responsible for hosting workshops requiring children to make public professions about their racial, sexual, gender & religious identities, some of which were singled out for interrogation.
2/ Educators directed the plaintiff "to reveal his identities in a controlled, yet non-private setting, to scrutiny and official labeling," and are "coercing him to accept and affirm politicized and discriminatory principles and statements that he cannot in conscience affirm."
3/ The educators "repeatedly threatened William Clark with material harm including a failing grade and non-graduation if he failed to comply with their requirements."
4/ Plaintiffs claim that the educators' "coercive and intrusive behavior compelled William Clark’s protected speech and invaded his privacy, violating his constitutional rights under the First Amendment and his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment."
5/ The new curriculum, based on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality, was done stealthily: "The generic name and syllabi provided to parents remained the same," and "parents were not made aware of the ideological turn in the curriculum."
6/ The new educational sessions were not "descriptive or informational" but were "normative and prescriptive."
"Parents...were not aware of the turn towards coercive, ideological indoctrination until they began seeing the detrimental effects it worked up in their children."
7/ "The teacher’s material stated who qualified as oppressors, and who in virtue of their gender and race harbored 'inherent belief in the inferiority' of others," which "assigned moral attributes to pupils based on their race, gender, sexual orientation and religion."
8/ Plaintiff "was obliged to profess himself complicit in 'internalized privilege [which] includes acceptance of a belief in the inherent inferiority of the [corresponding] oppressed group' [and] supporting 'the inherent superiority or normalcy of one’s own privileged group.'"
9/ The education agency "Democracy Prep" encouraged radical activism against existing school policies.
10/ The plaintiff, student William Clark, has suffered "severe mental and emotional stress" resulting from the hostile environment and is "living in fear" of retaliation.
This proved justified, as he has now been suspended and accused of being a racist.
11/ COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
12/ COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S CONSTITUTION
13/ COUNT III: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH & FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Due Process: Invasion of Privacy & Equal Protection)
14/ COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST & FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Substantive Due Process: Establishment Clause, Family Integrity &
Retaliation)
15/ COUNT V: Title VI Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (Intentional and Retaliatory Discrimination on The Basis Of Color, Race and Religion against Authority, DPAC, DPPS and Defendants in their individual capacity)
16/ COUNT VI: (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.)
17/ COUNT VII: (Breach of Contract)
Parents were essentially fooled into approving of the new curriculum because the ideological alterations were not made apparent. The same old syllabi were used, so parents were "caught off guard."
18/ To my knowledge this is the first lawsuit of its kind. Keep a close eye on this one, as it could set a precedent and cause a lot of dominoes to start falling.
19/ What follows is a selection of class materials that the children were exposed to and expected to believe without question.
🚨BREAKING: China Is Using TikTok to Wage a Trade War Against the United States
New data shared with me from @ncri_io reveals that TikTok is using their algorithm and state-backed influencers to evade U.S. tariffs via propaganda, triangle shipping, and fraud. 🧵
The viral push began in earnest on April 10—a week after the U.S. announced its new tariffs—when TikTok saw a huge spike in #sourcing content. Other platforms like Instagram didn’t exhibit a similar jump, showing that TikTok was the main driver of the campaign.
Just a few days later, China’s Ministry of Commerce launched its “Shopping in China” campaign. It encouraged global shoppers to buy replica and counterfeit products (often passed off as the real thing) directly from Chinese sellers, while also promoting Chinese culture.
🚨BREAKING: A new report from @ncri_io uncovers a MASSIVE surge in foreign funding to universities under Biden, and a potential pipeline of foreign cash and public funds directly promoting radicalization and terrorism on U.S. campuses. 🧵
President Donald Trump has launched an aggressive campaign against the nation’s top universities, accusing them of failing to uphold civil rights, protect women’s sports, defend free speech, and prevent the spread of antisemitism.
Now, with the NCRI report's new findings, Trump’s fight has entered a critical new phase: a confrontation over universities’ opaque financial ties that may be compromising their ideological independence and enabling radical, anti-American movements.
🚨As the U.S. enters an era of legal warfare over pediatric “gender-affirming” care, it’s time to shift the terms of debate from outcomes to the foundational premises of the practice.
No amount of reported benefit can salvage a practice rooted in pseudoscience. 🧵
I have served as an expert witness for several court cases on gender-affirming care. These courtroom debates fixate almost entirely on whether the treatments show evidence of benefit.
This is a mistake.
The UK's Cass Review exposed the “remarkably weak” evidence supporting pediatric sex-trait modification.
But while exposing this evidentiary void is welcome, focusing solely on outcomes cedes too much ground to proponents by implying outcomes alone can legitimize the practice.
Last week, the American Psychological Association released a statement about Trump's EO on the biology of sex.
In a section titled "What the Science Says," the APA makes several embarrassingly false statements due to their blind commitment to sex pseudoscience.
THREAD 🧵
STATEMENT 1: "Sex is a biological characteristic determined by chromosome and reproductive anatomy."
This statement is reflective of profound ignorance regarding the distinction between how sex is developmentally DETERMINED and how it's DEFINED.
It's true that in humans sex is "determined by chromosomes," but that just means genes on certain chromosomes guide embryos down developmental pathways that will result in either a male or female. So, on its face, this statement seems all right.
But the fact that they included "reproductive anatomy" in how sex is determined reveals their muddled thinking. The development of certain reproductive anatomy that has the function to produce either sperm or ova is how sex is DEFINED, not how it's DETERMINED.
STATEMENT 2: "The assertion that only two sexes exist is not scientifically accurate."
Because sex is universally defined in terms of the type of gamete an individual has the biological function to produce, and there are only two types of gamete (sperm and ova), there are and can only be two sexes.
For there to be more than 2 sexes would require a distinct third gamete that a person can have the biological function to produce.
🚨NEW: Proponents of "gender-affirming care" assert that "trans" people have an opposite-sex brain, a belief shaped by a pervasive pseudoscientific narrative flooding culture, courts, and clinics.
Here, @NeuroSGS, @buttonslives, and I address this fatally flawed "research." 🧵
The “brain sex” myth isn’t just an academic debate, it’s a diagnosis from doctors pushing people toward medical transition.
Take Yarden Silveira. The belief that he had a “female brain” caused him to pursue transition, and complications likely caused him to take his own life.
Civil rights lawyers, activists, and researchers pursue this “brain sex” angle to ground “gender identity” in biology. This is a legal play, because U.S. law protects “innate” characteristics, giving this claim serious weight.
So I usually just quote the most ideological and insane sections of the woke papers I share here, but the abstract of this new paper is so unhinged that I'll let it speak for itself in full.