Obama More Corrupt Than Watergate: FBI Lovers, Clinton Email Scandal

FBI-lovers-texts-Obama-wanted-info-Clinton-email-probe

Obama Lies and Violates the Constitution

Audio Software Tool

audio-recording-software

Gamification Engagement

does-gamification-improve-engagement

Lord of the Flies, 1963

Subtitled

Hate Trump, Oops, Obama

Speech

REL 212 Iran Anti-Hijab Protests

Iran-anti-hijab-protests-continue-despite-earlier-arrests

FISA Memo

	GMick , The memo's been released...  ...and the shocking information we've learned in the past 24 hours shows the worst treason in living memory – perhaps ever – in the history of our Republic.  We now know with certainty that there's a "state within a state" functioning inside our government with one destructive goal:  to take down the Trump administration.  Disturbing doesn't begin to cover it.  So I hope you'll scroll down to read Daniel Greenfield's FrontPage Magazine article explaining the impact of the Left's efforts to destroy the Trump presidency.  Sincerely,   David Horowitz THE MEMO REVEALS THE COUP AGAINST AMERICA The memo has been released, now it's time to release everything. February 2, 2018 Daniel Greenfield The Democrats and the media spent a week lying to the American people about the "memo."  The memo was full of "classified information" and releasing" it would expose "our spying methods." By "our," they didn't mean American spying methods. They meant Obama's spying methods. A former White House Ethics Lawyer claimed that the Nunes memo would undermine "national security." On MSNBC, Senator Chris Van Hollen threatened that if the memo is released, the FBI and DOJ "will refuse to share information with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees." Senator Cory Booker howled that releasing the memo was "treasonous" and might be "revealing sources and methods" and even "endangering fellow Americans in the intelligence community." The memo isn't treasonous. It reveals a treasonous effort by the Democrats to use our intelligence agencies to rig an election and overturn the will of the voters. The only two "sources" 18 are Christopher Steele, who was funded by the Clinton campaign, and a Yahoo News article, that were used to obtain a FISA warrant against a Trump associate. That Yahoo story came from Michael Isikoff, the reporter who knew about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky but suppressed it. It was based on more leaks from Steele which the FBI and DOJ chose to ignore. Steele's identity was already well known. The only new source revealed is Yahoo News. No vital intelligence sources were compromised at Yahoo News. And no Yahoo News agents were killed. The media spent a week lying to Americans about the dangers of the memo because it didn't want them to find out what was inside. Today, the media and Dems switched from claiming that the memo was full of "classified information" that might get CIA agents killed to insisting that it was a dud and didn't matter. Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive. On Thursday, the narrative was that the memo would devastate our national security and no one should ever be allowed to read it. By Friday, the new narrative was that the memo tells us nothing important and we shouldn't even bother reading it. The lies change, but suppressing the memo remains the goal. Rep. Nadler, infamous for securing pardons for Weather Underground bombers, got caught between narratives when he insisted that the memo was "overhyped," but suggested that it "endangers national security." "I don't think anybody will be terribly shocked by what's in the memo," he told CNN.  And requested an emergency meeting of the House Judiciary Committee – a body he will head if Democrats win the mid-term elections.  Calling emergency meetings is not the response to an "overhyped" and non-shocking memo. There is no legitimately classified information in the Nunes memo. But it does endanger a number of "Americans" in the "intelligence community" who colluded with the Clinton campaign against America.  It endangers former FBI Director Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the current FBI General Counsel Dana Boente who had previously served as the Acting Attorney General. These men and women had allegedly signed FISA applications that were at best misleading and at worst badly tainted. The Clinton campaign had enlisted figures in the FBI and the DOJ to manipulate an election. The coup against America operated as a "state within a state" inside the United States government.  "The political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials," the memo informs us. But they did not reveal on the FISA application that their core evidence came from the Clinton campaign. Sources were certainly being protected. But they were Clinton sources. The memo reveals that without the Steele dossier there would have been no eavesdropping on Carter Page, the Trump associate targeted in this particular case. "Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information." But the FISA application neglected to mention that its primary source had been paid by the Clinton campaign, was unverified and would continue to be unverified. FBI Director Comey testified that he had told President Trump that the dossier was "unverified." Yet the "unverified" piece of opposition research was used as the basis for a FISA application. As Rep. Jim Jordan noted, "FBI takes 'salacious and unverified' dossier to secret court to get secret warrant to spy on a fellow American, and FBI doesn't tell the court that the DNC/Clinton campaign paid for that dossier. And they did that FOUR times." "There's been no evidence of a corrupt evidence to obtain warrants against people in the Trump campaign," Rep. Adam Schiff insisted. That's why he tried to block the release of the evidence. The evidence was unverified opposition research. Its source had been paid by the Clinton campaign. Not only had Steele been indirectly working for the Clinton campaign (when he wasn't being paid by the FBI), but he made no secret of his own political agenda to stop Trump. "In September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president," the memo informs us. That's former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr whose wife was being paid by an organization hired by the Clinton campaign to investigate Trump. Ohr then passed along his wife's opposition research to the FBI. The evidence couldn't be any more corrupt than that. Steele was passionate about Trump "not being president." So were his handlers who ignored his leaks to the media until he "was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations-an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI." His previous meetings, including the one that allegedly generated the Yahoo News article, were ignored. Tainted investigations are nothing new. Law enforcement is as fallible as any other profession. But the memo reveals a snapshot of just how many top figures colluded in this corrupted and tainted effort. What drove them to violate professional ethical norms and legal requirements in the FISA applications? Top DOJ and FBI officials shared Steele's "passion," and that of his ultimate employer, Hillary Clinton, to stop Donald Trump at all costs. And they're still trying to use the Mueller investigation to overturn the election results in a government coup that makes Watergate look like a children's tea party, Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is already under investigation. He's suspected of trying to sit on the Wiener emails until the election was over. This alleged failed cover-up triggered the Comey letter which hurt Hillary worse than a timely revelation would have. McCabe's wife had financial links to the Clintons.  Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was an Obama holdover who had foolishly tried to use the DOJ to go to war with President Trump. Both Yates and Dana Boente were Obama and Holder choices. During the groundless prosecution of the former Republican governor of Virginia, Boente had declared, "No one is above the law." We'll see if that's true with everyone who signed the FISA applications. If Boente signed false or misleading FISA applications, he should be removed as FBI General Counsel. The memo is only the first crack in the wall. But it's grounds for an investigation that will expose the abuses that led to eavesdropping on Trump officials. And the motives of those who perpetuated them.  A Washington Post piece suggested that just releasing the memo alone would allow Mueller to charge President Trump with "obstruction of justice." That's how badly they want to get Trump. A clear and simple fact emerges from the memo. Top figures in the DOJ and the FBI, some loyal to Obama and Hillary, abused the FISA process in the hopes of influencing or reversing the results of an election by targeting their political opponents. The tool that they used for the job came from the Clinton campaign. Using America's intelligence services to destroy and defeat a political opponent running for president is the worst possible abuse of power and an unprecedented threat to a democratic system of free open elections.  We have been treated to frequent lectures about the independence of the DOJ and the FBI. But our country isn't based around government institutions that are independent of oversight by elected officials. When unelected officials have more power than elected officials, that's tyranny.  A Justice Department that acts as the Praetorian Guard for a political campaign is committing a coup and engaging in treason. The complex ways that the Steele dossier was laundered from the Clinton campaign to a FISA application is evidence of a conspiracy by both the DOJ and the Clinton campaign.  It's time for us to learn about all the FISA abuses, the list of NSA unmasking requests of Trump officials by Obama officials and the eavesdropping on members of Congress. We deserve to know the truth. The memo has been released. Now it's time to release everything.  DONATE SHARE ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.  READ MORE
The David Horowitz Freedom Center is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 55089 Sherman Oaks, CA 91499 © Copyright 2018, HorowitzFreedomCenter.org

This message was intended for: gmicksmith@gmail.com
You were added to the system March 27, 2014.
For more information click here. Update your preferences
Unsubscribe | Unsubscribe via email

Phone Interviews

1. "Can you tell me exactly what I would be expected to do if I were hired for this position? "

This question helps to make sure you know exactly what you’re going to be doing and what is expected of you.  This is a great way to make sure there are no nasty surprises waiting for you when you start.  Having your job explicitly laid out for you not only allows you to know what you’re signing up to do, but can also help you decide if you are not only willing to do the work…but also able!

2. "Can you walk me through a typical day here at Company X?"

Having the day laid out for you from beginning to end is a smart way to get a quick overview of what is expected of you outside the job description.  I was hired for a job once where all the employees were expected to participate in a group physical activity before starting our day. 

Had I not asked about a typical day I would have been completely unprepared for my first day and unable to participate.  Not a great way to start out a new job!    

— THE REQUIREMENTS —

3. "If I were hired for this position, would I be going through any training prior to actually starting the work?"

This is a great question to ask…especially if you are concerned about your ability to do the job.  With the right training, an employee can quickly be brought up to company speed.  If no training is offered and you’re not sure you know enough to do the job…this would also be a great time to get clarification on that.

4. "How will I be trained?"

Again, you want to make sure you’re going into the job with your eyes wide open.  Training could be as simple as watching a video or reading a brochure or it could be a much more thorough and in-depth process.  The point is, you want to know before you go.

— THE EXPECTATIONS —

5. "What are the performance expectations for this position?  Will that expectation change the longer I am doing the job?"

This is a two part question…but knowledge is power and the more you have, the better off you are!  You want to make sure you and your employer establish early on what they expect from you performance wise and not just for the immediate future.  If this is a job you plan on sticking with for a period of time, make sure early on that you know what they want  you to do and if that will change over time.

6. "Is there an employee performance review process?  How often does that occur and can you walk me through a typical one?"

Again, a two part question but this information is absolutely critical…especially if the results of those reviews impacts your ability to advance either your career or your position within the company.

— THE COMPANY —

7. "Where do you see the company in five years?  10?"

This question is important because not only will it give you a sense of how stable your job might be, but the job you take today should always be in line with your long term career goals.  The last thing you want to do is take a job that won’t benefit you in the long run or help advance you towards the next step on your career path.  Finding out early on where the company is headed in the long term can help you plan your own trajectory.

8. "Can you tell me what the career paths are for this department and what sort of advancements I could work towards?"

This question can give you a solid idea of the mobility within the company.  Again, as we’ve said over and over again, the ultimate goal of any job you take is to help advance you on your career path and the last thing you want to do is take a dead end job with no hope of ever moving forward or growing.

— THE PEOPLE —

9. "Will I be working with a team and if I am, can you tell me a little about each of them?"

This question is a MUST!  The last thing you want to do is get stuck with a bunch of people you can’t stand.  Finding out early on if you’re going to be working with a good team or a horrible team can make your decision process an easy one.

10. "Can you tell me about my direct supervisor?  Is there anything I should know about working with them that will make my integration a smooth process?"

Another two-parter, but again, you’re showing that you’re serious about doing what it takes to not only get the job, but do the job right.  It’s also a great way to get a bit of information about your supervisor.  Like the rest of the people you’re going to work with…if it’s not a good match, then it might not be the job you want to take.

— THE ATMOSPHERE —

11. "Can you tell me what you love the most about working here?"

This is information you need to know!  The last thing you want to do is to work somewhere where you’re miserable and a good way to get a feel for that is to ask the hiring manager what it is that keeps them coming in day after day.

12. "How would you describe the working environment here?  Is work done in a collaborative style or are employees more independent?"

This is a question that is going to not only give you a good heads up on what you are potentially walking into as far as atmosphere goes, but also lets you know what the expectations are for your own performance.  Again, two-parter, but the information you’re going to get in return is pure gold.

— THE WAITING GAME —

13. "What are the next steps in the interview process?"

This is not only a question you can ask to show you’re interested in where the hiring process is going to go next, it’s also a great way for you to get some reassurance.  Nobody likes waiting to hear back from a company and getting nothing…at least this way you’re prepped for how the process will continue and what to expect…and when.

14. "Is there anything else I can provide you with that would be helpful or questions I can answer?"

This isn’t so much a fact finding question as it is one last opportunity to let the interviewer make sure they’ve covered all their bases.  Brownie points!

Putting It All Together

So there you have it…not only do you now know why you should have good questions to ask during an interview, you also know how to ask them and what to ask them. 

Make sure you take the same amount of time to prep these as you spend on the rest of your interview prep and above all, be yourself, be genuine, be the PERFECT CANDIDATE…

Good luck!

Nail Job Interview Over Phone
Keys
Ace
Tips
Tips to Ace
Mastering
Mistake
Advice
Toughest

Trump Promotes Islam

Trump EEOC Gets Settlement for Muslim Security Guard Discriminated by Co.’s Grooming Policy

JANUARY 31, 2018

Keeping with an Obama practice of pursuing American businesses that won’t accommodate Muslims, the Trump administration sued a security company for refusing to modify its grooming standards. This constituted religious discrimination, according to the government, because the Muslim employee requested the grooming exemption in accordance with his “sincerely held religious beliefs.” In a settlement reached this month between the company and the government, the security guard gets $90,000 in damages and the firm must hire an equal employment monitor and revise its religious accommodation policies.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the bloated federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws, filed the lawsuit in December against Allied Universal in United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Allied is a national company with more than 150,000 employees that protect tens of thousands of clients across the country. The plaintiff, William Webb, was hired as a security guard to work in the San Diego area. After getting hired, he asked for the grooming exemption and the company refused. The EEOC, which filed dozens of similar lawsuits during the Obama administration, alleges in its complaint that Allied’s conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs.

“The EEOC's Complaint alleges that Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Charging Party William Webb ("Webb") based on religion (Islam) in violation of Sections 701 G) and 703(a) Title VII,” according to the lawsuit. “More specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendant failed to provide Webb a religious accommodation and discharged him based on his religion, Islam. The commission also alleges that Defendant discharged Webb in retaliation for having engaged in protected activity in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII.” Besides doling out cash for upholding its longtime grooming policy, Allied must pay for an equal employment monitor—that must be approved by the EEOC—and provide training for all employees, supervisors and managers involved in the religious accommodation process. Among the monitor’s responsibilities is ensuring that the company “maintains and implements nation-wide an anti-discrimination, religious accommodation, and anti-retaliation policy and reporting procedure,” according to the settlement.

In a statement celebrating the victory, an EEOC attorney commends Allied for taking remedies to ensure future religious discrimination will not occur. The agency lawyer also gives notice to other companies that the EEOC will go after them if they don’t follow Allied’s lead in addressing religious accommodation issues. The press release also reminds that “eliminating discriminatory policies affecting vulnerable workers who may be unaware of their rights” is a priority of a national Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) launched in 2012 under the Obama administration. Another SEP focus is to help “immigrant, migrant and other vulnerable workers” and crack down on pay disparities that persist based on race and ethnicity. SEP was recently renewed by the Trump EEOC until 2021.

Under Obama the agency took a special interest in protecting followers of Islam by going after American businesses that refused to change longtime policies for Muslim workers. The EEOC sued a clothing retailer with a policy against head covers of any kind for religious discrimination because it would not allow a female employee at one of its stores to wear a head scarf as required by her religion. An Obama-appointed federal judge in northern California handed the administration a victory, ruling that the Muslim woman’s civil rights were violated. The EEOC also helped two Muslim truck drivers get a hefty cash settlement after being fired for refusing to transport alcohol because it violated their religious beliefs. The judge in that case, an Obama appointee in Illinois, ruled in favor of the Muslims and the Peoria-based trucking company had to pay $240,000 in punitive damages. This month’s settlement in the lawsuit against the security company indicates the Trump administration will not put an end to the deranged Obama policies.

Tariq Ramadan Rape

Rape

Free Market Capitalism and Economic Growth

Larry P. Arnn joins Hugh Hewitt to talk about President Trump’s recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. They discuss the success of free-market capitalism and the burden of bureaucratic regulation.

European Women Fight Back Against Islamists

Obama's FBI Spied on Opposing Party's Candidate

Corrupt Obama

Intelligence Exercise

Intelligence

Christians Persecuted for Their Faith

Persecution

Islamist Auto Attack in Philadelphia

/police-phllly-terror-not

philadelphia-islamic-terror

Cupcake Harvard

Cupcake

Tariq Ramadan Rape

France:-Leading-Islamic-scholar-in-custody-amid-rape-claims

For Profit More Selective Than Harvard

Exclusive

The News is Fake

The News is Fake

top-german-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia

Bach's Children

Toccata and Fugue in D Minor ( Rock Version ) - Tom Bergner

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X1djEjSeCEg

Emerson, Lake & Palmer-Toccata (California Jam 1974, remastered by RudenkoArt)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X1djEjSeCEg

Nationalizing 5G

trump-team-debates-nationalizing-5g-network

Part Muslim Duterte 42 Virgins

42 virgins

Boomerang Employees

/linkedin-vp-explains-why-boomerang-employees-are-becoming-the-new-normal-2016-10

John Fogarty on Fortunate Son

Explanation

Trump “S” Word Bad; Hillary “B” Word Good: For Those Keeping Score At Home

clinton-thanks-activist-bitches-in-bizarre-video

HUM 112 REL 212 1979 Islamic Revolution Iran Protest 2018 & Hijabs

01/sick-hijab-sharia-law-sharia-police

President, Netanyahu at Davos

01/trump-netanyahu-davos

Obama Ordered Spying on Candidate Trump

proof-british-intelligence-spied-on-donald-trump-at-the-direct-request-of-president-barack-obama-and-a-later-renewed-request-by-susan-rice

Rod’s Podcast USciences eLearning

-usciences-elearning-30

FBI Mueller Cover Up of Florida Saudis on 9/11

/fbi-director-mueller-helped-cover-florida-9-11-probe-court-documents-say

Viking Myths

Vikings

Lunch Interviews

food-for-thought-on-lunch-interviews

Instructional Design

Module References & Attributions

• Boeijen, A. van, Daalhuizen, J., Zijlstra, J., Schoor, R. van der, & Technische Universiteit Delft (Eds.). (2013). Delft design guide: design methods (Links to an external site.). Amsterdam: BIS.
• Creative Commons. (n.d.). Creative Commons Licenses (Links to an external site.).
• Creative Commons. (n.d.). Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) (Links to an external site.).
• Designers for Learning. (n.d.). Designers for Learning Home Page (Links to an external site.).
• Digital Promise. (n.d.). America’s Adult Basic Skills Gap (Links to an external site.).
• Huebler, F., & Lu, W. (2013). Adult and Youth Literacy: National, regional and global trends, 1985-2015 (Links to an external site.). UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Montreal, Quebec. 132.
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). State Education Reforms (SER); Table 5.1. Compulsory school attendance laws, minimum and maximum age limits for required free education, by state: 2015 (Links to an external site.). U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences.
• Pimentel, S. (2013). College and Career Readiness Standards for Adult Education (Links to an external site.). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Washington, D.C140
• OECD (2013), Time for the U.S. to Reskill?: What the Survey of Adult Skills Says, OECD Skills Studies (Links to an external site.), OECD Publishing, Paris.
• OER Commons. (n.d.). Open Author (Links to an external site.).
• OpenWA. (2014). My OER experience by Jennifer Jennings, Everett Community College (Links to an external site.). [Video]
• UNESCO. (2013). Global Report on Adult Learning and Education (p. 163) (Links to an external site.). UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.
• United Nations General Assembly. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Links to an external site.).
• Compulsory education (Links to an external site.). (2016, February 15). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
• U.S. Census Bureau, D. I. S. (n.d.). Educational Attainment in the United States: 2013 - Detailed Tables (Links to an external site.).
• U.S. Department of Education (2015), Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998: Annual Report to Congress, Program Year 2011–12 (Links to an external site.), Washington, D.C.
• World Education. (2014, March). Adult Education Facts (Links to an external site.).

Supplementary Resources

• The General Educational Development (GED) exam website
• The HiSET exam website
• The Test Assessing Secondary Completion (TASC) exam website 

Leftist Professor Fights Left

'DEPLORABLE' PROFESSOR FIGHTS BACK AGAINST CAMPUS TOTALITARIANS
An interview with the "Anti-PC NYU Prof." 

January 22, 2018 
Mark Tapson 

"In the fall of 2016," New York University professor Michael Rectenwald recently Click told The Daily Caller, "I was noting an increase of this social justice ideology on campuses, and it started to really alarm me. I saw it coming home to roost here at NYU, with the creation of the bias reporting hotline, and with the cancellation of the Milo Yiannopoulos talk because someone might walk past it and hear something which might 'trigger' them."  

Rectenwald, himself a leftist, created an initially anonymous Twitter account, @antipcnyuprof, to speak out against that ideology and the "absolutely anti-education and anti-intellectual" classroom indoctrination he was witnessing, as well as the collectivist surveillance state that the campus was becoming, as students were urged to report each other for the sin of committing microaggressions. 

In October of that year, he outed himself as the man behind the controversial Twitter account, and "all hell broke loose." He swiftly found himself the target of shunning and harassment from his colleagues and the NYU administration. In true Cultural Revolution fashion, several colleagues in his department in the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group published an open letter declaring him guilty of incorrect thinking. "The thing that is interesting here is that they were saying that because I don't think like them, I am sick and mentally ill," Rectenwald said to the Daily Caller.  

Instead of kowtowing to the campus totalitarians, Rectenwald declared himself done with the Left in a February 2017 tweet ("The Left has utterly and completely lost its way and I no longer want anything to do with it.") and has gone on to become an even more fervent defender of free speech and academic freedom. He has appeared often in conservative media to discuss those issues and the harassment he has received from the Left. 

A commentary on last night's viral Twitter attack on me. Goodbye to the Left, goodbye. pic.twitter.com/OgpdRA9EAU

— Michael Rectenwald (@antipcnyuprof) February 22, 2017

Recently Rectenwald even filed a lawsuit against NYU and four of his colleagues for defamation. He consented to answering some questions for FrontPage Mag about his conflict with the NYU ideologues.  

Mark Tapson: A year ago on Twitter you wrote, "Goodbye to the Left, goodbye." Can you describe your intellectual journey from "left-liberal activist" to outspoken "deplorable" and what drove that seemingly sudden transition? 

Michael Rectenwald: In hindsight, I think that the transition was less sudden than it might have appeared. I had gone from a left-liberal activist to a left communist before I became "deplorable." I narrate the history of the transition in my book, discussed below. But I'll tell something of the transition here.  

My public criticisms of "social justice" ideology and politically correct authoritarianism resonated with large swaths of the political right. I gained a sizeable new audience and support network — through Twitter, Facebook and via hundreds of supportive emails. I also drew backing from "cultural libertarians," as Paul Joseph Watson dubbed this newly-emergent "counterculture." It should come as no surprise that many Trumpists backed me, especially given Trump's regular (although non-specific) criticisms of political correctness.  

Criticism of political correctness was supposed to be the exclusive province of the rightwing. For most observers, it was almost inconceivable that an anti-P.C. critic could come from another political quarter. Unsurprisingly, then, the majority of people who discovered my case, including some reporters, simply assumed that I was a conservative. As one Twitter troll put it: "You're anti-P.C.? You must be a rightwing nut-job." But as I explained in numerous interviews and essays, I was not a Trump supporter; I was never a right-winger, or an alt-right-winger; I was never a conservative of any variety. I wasn't even a classical John Stuart Mill liberal.  

In fact, for several years, I had identified as a left or libertarian communist. My politics were to the left (and considerably critical of the authoritarianism) of Bolshevism! I published essays in socialist journals on several topics, including a Marxist critique of postmodern theory, analyses of identity politics and intersectionality theory (here and here), analyses of political economy (here and here), and an examination of the prospects for socialism in the context of transhumanism. I became a respected Marxist thinker and essayist. I had flirted with a Trotskyist sect, and later became affiliated with a loosely organized left or libertarian communist group.  

It wasn't only strangers who mistook me for rightwing or conservative. So too did many who knew better. An anti-Trump mania and reactionary fervor now gripped liberals and leftists of nearly all stripes. Previously unaffiliated and warring left and liberal factions consolidated and circled the wagons. Anyone who failed to signal complete fidelity to "the resistance" risked being savaged.  

After my appearance on Fox Business News, such rabid ideologues ambushed me. The social-justice-sympathetic members of the left communist group to which I belonged denounced me in a series of group emails. Several members conducted a preposterous cyber show-trial, bringing charges against me and calling for votes on a number of alleged transgressions. From what I could tell, my worst offences included appearing on Fox News, sounding remotely like a member of an opposing political tribe, receiving positive coverage in right-leaning media, and criticizing leftist milieus just as Trump became President.  

I denied that these self-appointed judges held any moral authority over me and declared their arbitrations null and void. Meanwhile, the elders of the group (one a supposed friend of mine) had remained silent, allowing the abuse to go on unabated for a day. When the elders finally chimed in, they called for my official expulsion. I told them not to bother as I wanted nothing further to do with them; I quit. In their collectivist zeal, they later stripped my name from three essays that I'd written for publication on their website, and assigned their authorship to someone else entirely. Upon discovering this fraudulence, I publicly berated them for plagiarism. A prominent member of the American Association of University Professors noticed my complaint and investigated the alleged breach of intellectual integrity. Verifying my authorship of the essays, he condemned the group's actions in a popular blog. Only then did the benevolent dictators return my name to the essays' mastheads.  

Friends and acquaintances from other communities also turned on me with a vengeance, joining in the groupthink repudiation. After my appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News, the Twitter attack was so fierce, vitriolic, and sustained that my associate Lori Price and I spent a whole night blocking and muting tweeters.  

But the worst banishment came from the NYU Liberal Studies community — to which I had contributed a great deal, and of which I had striven for years to be a well-regarded member. Soon after the open letter appeared, I recognized a virtual universal shunning by my faculty colleagues. One after another, colleagues unfriended and blocked me on Facebook. The few that didn't simply avoided me entirely, until I saved them the trouble and unfriended them. Most stinging were the betrayals of those who once relied on my generosity, some whose careers I had supported and considerably advanced.  

Despite the harsh treatment doled out to me by the social justice left and the warm reception I received from the right, I did not become a right-winger, or a conservative. But after the social-justice-infiltrated left showed me its gnarly fangs and drove me out, I could no longer identify as a leftist.  

MT:  As a staunch First Amendment defender, do you think it is possible to reverse the culture of politically correct totalitarianism that seems to be dominating academia today, and how can we do that? 

MR: It is possible but reversing a forty-year trend that has finally resulted in what we have today — the complete takeover of academic pedagogy, philosophy, and policy by "social justice" ideology — will take a long, sustained effort, and the support of elements of the culture outside of academe, including media pundits, writers, independent scholars, public intellectuals, and a growing body of disaffected and vocal academic apostates and other renegades willing to take risks — as Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, and others, including myself, have done. The way will be treacherous because the "social justice" left controls academic departments and administrations almost entirely, and everyone else within academia has been cowed into submission for fear of being "called out" as well. We are dealing with a Maoist-like Red Guard as we undergo a soft cultural revolution of our own. David Horowitz has been right all this time about the communists lurking in academia. Their impact has now been manifested through the "social justice" movement.  

I put "social justice" in scare quotes because this term is a misnomer if there ever was one. Although the movement trades on a euphemistic name and the good will that movements that have gone by the same name have earned, including the Civil Rights movement, contemporary "social justice" has nothing to do with justice and is anything but benevolent. It is a movement based on postmodernist theoretical notions and as I have pointed out (here and here), the postmodern adoption of Stalinist and Maoist disciplinary mechanisms, such as "autocritique" and "struggle sessions." It is totalitarian through and through. We must learn from and employ the tactics that served to defeat totalitarian leftism in the past.  

MT: Apart from personal vindication, of course, is there some larger objective you are hoping to accomplish through this defamation lawsuit against NYU? 

MR: I want to make clear that social justice activists cannot get away with replacing the First Amendment with their own speech codes. They are not the official arbiters of acceptable speech, despite their self-arrogation as such.  

The First Amendment does not protect all speech. It does not, for example, protect speech that leads to illegal activity and/or imminent violence. It does not protect defamation, slander, or libel. The First Amendment does not protect speakers from liability for the foreseeable consequences of their speech.  

The "social justice" leftists are now claiming that I am a hypocrite because I am suing over insults, and that I am seeking a safe space of my own. But they apparently do not understand the difference between an incidental differing of opinion, an insult, and the real damages of defamation. I never claimed to be a free speech absolutist. And my own exercise of free speech and so-called academic freedom amounted to criticism of the "social justice" ideology and the mechanisms prevalent in academia and beyond. I never once mentioned any individuals by name. I never once engaged in ad hominem argumentation.  

My attackers, however, showed no such restraint. In fact, they maliciously and mendaciously attacked me using official university email list servs, with the explicit aim of damaging my professional reputation and destroying my career.  

Meanwhile, irony, contradiction, and hypocrisy are all on their side. Based on the postmodern theoretical notion of "social and linguistic constructivism," the "social justice" left deems language use a material act. Thus, they excuse shutting down speech they disapprove of, "by any means necessary." Yet "social justice" leftists actually have no problem with truly damaging language use — as long as it's being undertaken by them, that is. While Antifa, the "social justice" extracurricular infantry, burns down campuses to prevent the airing of "dangerous" speech, the "social justice" leftists seek safe spaces — not as protection from the violence of their compeers, but from the so-called "discursive violence" of non-PC-left speakers. Yet "social justice" ideologues undertake the most virulent forms of libel and defamation when dealing with speakers who express views at variance with their own.  

Ironically, precisely while calling me a "racist," "sexist," "bully," and "Satan," I was bullied, abused and pelted with racist, sexist and other remarks that denigrated me on the basis of my race and sex or gender. The irony, double standard and hypocrisy are astounding. If the reverse had been the case, all hell would have broken loose. The defendants apparently thought that individual rights are not real and that because I am of a certain category they could make such statements with impunity. But the law doesn't agree. 

So, while this suit is not merely symbolic — I have actually suffered from defamation, from malicious and mendacious speech intended to destroy me professionally and otherwise — it is also meant as a symbolic case in point, as an example to demonstrate the intent and scope of the First Amendment, which differs markedly from "social justice" speech rules. The main "social justice" speech rule is this: "social justice" leftists can say (and do) whatever they want to say (and do). And they can shut down whatever they don't want said (or done) — "by any means possible." The only problem is that they are legally wrong.  

MT: You have a new book in the works about the postmodern roots of social justice ideology. Can you tell us a little about that and when we can expect it? 

MR: The book is a memoir whose central argument is that the contemporary "social justice" creed and movement is the child of postmodern theory, while also incorporating some of the methods of Stalinism and Maoism. Just as postmodern theory lay dying in the academy, it gave birth to a child: "social justice" ideology.  

I demonstrate the genealogy of "social justice" by recalling and retracing my own graduate education in Critical Theory (The Frankfurt School) and postmodern theory (deconstruction, poststructuralism, Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, third-wave feminist theory, Science Studies, gender and transgender theory, and so on). The book explains just how social justice derives from postmodern theoretical notions and how and why these notions are not only philosophically wrong but also extremely pernicious. I recall my own indoctrination into these schools of thought, as well my emergence from them. The book is 95% complete, so hopefully it will appear in matter of a few months. The tentative (and hopefully final) title is Springtime for Snowflakes: 'Social Justice' and Its Postmodern Parent. (I am currently on the market for a new publisher.)  

MT:  With a title like Springtime for Snowflakes, it's bound to be a great read. Thanks, Professor Rectenwald, and congratulations on your escape from the dark side into the light!