Florida has introduced a new bill to combat the woke culture of teaching “critical race theory” or CRT. The bill aims to avoid making people “discomfort” when being taught CRT by banning it from public schools and private businesses.
On January 18, it passed the state Senate Committee on Education with six ‘yeas’ and three ‘nays.’ It now moves to debate among state senators. The bill states individuals shouldn’t be made to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color sex, or national origin.”
Additionally, the bill states educators and businesses cannot teach that “one race, religion, ethnicity, or sex is inherently superior to another race, religion, ethnicity or sex; an individual, by virtue, the individual’s race, religion, ethnicity, or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive whether consciously or unconsciously.”
In June of 2021, Florida’s state Board of education banned CRT from public school classrooms for the purpose of guarding children against lessons that could “distort historical events.” Governor Ron DeSantis supported the measure in front of state senators in Wildwood, Florida in December of 2021, saying:
“Nobody wants this crap, OK? This is an elite-driven phenomenon being driven by bureaucratic elites, elites in universities and elites in corporate America and they’re trying to shove it down the throats of the American people. You’re not doing that in the state of Florida.”
Naturally in politics, there are plenty of those who are against the idea. “Students deserve the best education we can provide, and that means giving them a true picture of their world and our shared history as Americans. Hiding facts doesn’t change them” said Florida Education Association (FEA) President Andrew Spar in a statement to ABC News. “Give kids the whole truth and equip them to make up their own minds and think for themselves.”
BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling
Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.
The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.
Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.
Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.
In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.
Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.
Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.
Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.
The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.
Trump vows to appeal the decision.
- Analysis: the 7.2 million illegals Biden has let enter the U.S. is larger than the population of 36 states
- Report finds Hamas ‘systematically and intentionally’ committed sexual crimes and ‘sadistic practices’
- Report: Hezbollah tunnels ‘more advanced’ than Hamas, extend into Israel and possibly Syria
Israel7 days ago
Iran-backed Houthis recruiting ‘thousands’ of children after Oct 7 massacre
Immigration6 days ago
Feds bust ‘sophisticated’ trucking operation smuggling drugs in fire extinguishers after two year operation
China7 days ago
Border Patrol Council President concerned over ‘influx’ of military-aged Chinese men crossing the southern border
Immigration3 days ago
FBI warns Venezuelan, other foreign gangs ‘exploiting migratory surge’ at U.S. border