Social Items

TPQ
Frankie Quinn with a poem from his expansive body of work. 

Darkness

Darkness She peered through veiled eyes where darkness
 Holds clouded thought in misty confusion
 Will this end before I do? 
♞♜♝
Bring me to the river, drench my face
Open my mouth and pull the words from me
I Can't Fucking Talk
♞♜♝
Scream from belly churning emptiness Why? 
Who is there to carry my understanding? 
Ask Me, Just Ask Me, I will tell you to lift me 
♞♜♝
But drop the pitiful Shit, walk with my blackness
Cap the charge of thundering huffs in empty
 Hollow cave, let me rest in your mind . . . 
♞♜♝
Place me in the water stand on my chest 
Hold me below and watch distorted features 
Pale complexion dissolve.

⏩ Frankie Quinn is a former republican prisoner who is now a community activist. He is the author of Open Gates, a book of poetry.   

Darkness

RTE ★ Written by Vincent Kearney and Conor Macauley. Recommended by Christy Walsh.

A major report dealing with some of the most controversial aspects of the Troubles has found no evidence of collusion on the part of the British state in the 1974 Dublin-Monaghan bombings.

Among the other issues the Kenova Final Report addressed was the role of the British Army's top agent in the IRA.

The report was commissioned by the PSNI in 2016 following a direction of NI's Public Prosecution Service.

The bombings in Dublin and Monaghan on 17 May 1974 claimed the lives of 34 people.

There had long been a suspicion that the UVF, which claimed the attack, would not have had the necessary expertise to carry out such a co-ordinated attack in two places on the same day.

"The review has not identified any evidence or intelligence which would indicate that British Security Forces colluded with the UVF to carry out the attacks in Dublin or Monaghan, nor has any evidence of state collusion been identified," the report says.

It also says it found "no specific intelligence" which, if acted upon, could have prevented the atrocity.

Continue @ RTE.

Report Finds No Evidence Of Collusion In Dublin-Monaghan Bombings

Barry Gilheany ✍ It was the ultimate bitter-sweet moment for the long campaign for the loved ones of the 97 Liverpool supporters unlawfully killed at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final between their team and Nottingham Forest at the Leppings Lane end of the Hillsborough stadium, home of Sheffield Wednesday. 

Last week, Britain’s Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) after a fourteen year investigation into the policing of the Hillsborough disaster found that twelve police officers, most of them senior, would have faced disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct if they were still serving for the catalogue of failings set out in the IOPC’s final report.[1]

Almost in symmetry in terms of time with the experience of the relatives of the Bloody Sunday campaign who had to wait for 38 years between the occurrence of the atrocity in 1972 and the vindication of the total innocence of those 14 murdered by the Parachute Regiment and the publication of the Savile Report in 2010, the IOPC report represents the definitive account of the innocence of the Hillsborough 97 and the malfeasance of the state actors involved; 36 years after the event. In the cases of both campaigns death, infirmity, retirement, and the near impossibility of securing the sufficient evidence for successful prosecution due to the lengthy time lapses has robbed them of their proper days in court. Hence, justice delayed and denied. However, despite the lack of legal restitution for the relatives of both most acts of monstrous and long running injustices; both stand triumphant at the bars of history and morality. Hence the delivery of eternal justice that is referenced in the title of article.

The stories of both campaigns have been well chronicled, but the parallels are well worth recounting. In the immediate aftermath of the traumatic event, the forces of the state try to cover their tracks by the spreading of lies about the victims. In the case of Hillsborough, South Yorkshire police officers in collaboration with a local Tory MP fed the notorious calumnies that Liverpool supporters stole possessions from the dead and in states of inebriation urinated at the scene in support of the false narrative that supporters were drunk, came in large numbers without tickets and had arrived late. Post Bloody Sunday, the British Information Bureau planted stories in the press that four of the dead were in possession of nail bombs and at least one of the deceased belonged to the junior IRA.

Just as the Bloody Sunday relatives had to fight the whitewash of the Widgery Report in April 1972 which found that the actions of the soldiers on that day were justified on the grounds that they were responding to possible threats from armed individuals, so the Hillsborough campaigners had to fight to overcome the first inquest into the loss of life which returned an open verdict which the High Court in 1993 refused the families’ application to quash. The Bloody Sunday relatives did early on have the moral force of the local coroner who at the inquest that the soldiers involved that day “had committed wanton murder.”

Over the subsequent decades, investigative journalism and powerful documentary dramas steadily uncovered the truth that the bereaved had always known and exposed it to the wider public. The drama doc made by acclaimed author and film maker Jimmy McGovern established that some of the deceased were actually alive after the coroner’s 3.15 time of death pronouncement. Changes in political environments along with the patient but exhausting efforts of the campaigners led to the Savile Inquiry being set up former PM Tony Blair shortly after his election and to the setting up of the Hillsborough Independent Inquiry on the instigation of then Labour Minister and current Greater Manchester Mayor' Andy Burnham' with the words “Justice for the 96” ringing in his ears after addressing a 20th anniversary commemoration at Anfield in April 2009.

The IOPC listed six gross misconduct allegations against the late Peter Wright, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire at the time of the disaster, for seeking to minimise the force’s responsibility onto the victims, who were Liverpool football club supporters. The report chronicles how no disciplinary proceedings came to be taken against any of the officers on duty that day, including the match commander, David Duckenfield, for the notorious lie that he spun as the disaster developed; informing football authorities that Liverpool supporters had forced upon an exit gate[2] when in fact it was his decision to open an entry gate to already overcrowded Leppings Lane that directly contributed to the fatal crushing.

The South Yorkshire police told the then Police Complaints Authority (PCA) that the force “did not feel disciplinary action was appropriate'' in respect of any of the complaints. The PCA mostly accepted that but recommended that disciplinary proceedings be commenced against Duckenfield and the deputy match commander, Supt Bernard Murray, for neglect of duty, But the IPOC report records starkly: “South Yorkshire police did not so.” Duckenfield then took early retirement on medical grounds. The PCA decided that it would be “unjust and inappropriate” to pursue the charge against Murray, a course of action that meant no officer ever faced disciplinary proceedings.[3]

Two senior West Midlands investigating officers, assistant chief constable Mervyn Jones and DCS Michael Foster, were named for gross misconduct cases, for allegations that they had “failed to investigate South Yorkshire police effectively'' and had been “biased against supporters in favour of South Yorkshire police”; this was in relation to the aggressive questioning of traumatised teenagers in order to determine the incidence of drunkenness amongst supporters although survivors have been exasperated against the limitations of these parts of the IOPC findings.[4]

To return to the timeline of the Hillsborough saga outlined earlier, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the role of the Hillsborough Independent Panel in breaking the judicial and investigative logjam. The Panel was a group of agreed experts appointed by the government, after the initiative of the afore mentioned then Labour minister Andy Burnham and his ministerial colleague Maria Eagle, who called for all documents relating to the disaster to be disclosed. The panel’s report in September 2012, principally researched and written by Prof Phil Scratton – surely one of the great truthtellers of our time – ignited the case for justice, documented forensically the depth of Wright’s efforts to palm responsibility onto the Liverpool supporters and brought to light medical evidence that contradicted the findings of the 1991 inquest. [5]

Within three months the High Court had quashed the 1991 findings and, in the wake of the HIP report Prime Minister David Cameron was on the floor of the House of Commons apologising on behalf of the nation to the bereaved of Hillsborough just as two years earlier he had issued an apology to the bereaved of Bloody Sunday in the wake of the publication of the Savile Report which had totally exonerated the victims of that day’s massacre of any culpability and opened up the possibility of criminal charges against the soldiers and officers-in-command of the First Parachute Regiment who so dishonoured their reputation that day.

But the wheels of justice trundled oh so slowly and steadily. After the longest jury case in history, the second inquest held in Warrington supported by the IOPC’s far reaching investigation Operation Resolve and held in Warrington between 2014 and 2016, the jury on 26 April 2016 returned their verdict that the 97 were unlawfully killed due to gross negligence by David Duckenfield. The jury further determined that no behaviour of Liverpool supporters contributed to the disaster.[6]

So total vindication of the case that the Hillsborough Families had pursued for the best part of three decades. But would they get their day in the criminal courts? Who would stand in the dock to account for what can best be described as corporate manslaughter by South Yorkshire Police at Hillsborough on 15th April 1989? Sadly not. The IOPC has concluded its 14-year investigation, with the 12 men named for gross misconduct case, a total of 110 complaints upheld or cases to answer against former police officers – none of which will ever be heard.

Post-Savile criminal investigations did result in the arraignment of Soldier F (identified in the tribunal proceedings as the killer of five of the Bloody Sunday dead) for the murders of two and the wounding of five civilians fifty year after the events but his trial collapsed in October 2025 due to the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence against him; this despite the scathing condemnation of the trial judge of the defendant’s conduct on that day. But the figure who should have stood in any dock was Colonel Derek Wilord, commander of the First Parachute Regiment that day and who, the Savile Inquiry found, had expressly disobeyed orders from superior officers not to enter the Bogside thereby setting in train the events of that terrible and most consequential day.

Yes, in the words of Steve Kelly, whose brother Mike, 38, died at Hillsborough:

No one should be beaten by the passage of time. We should have truth, justice, and accountability, at least within a person’s lifetime.[7]

Stripping of any honours bestowed on any of the guilty men identified by the IOPC and/or pensions would appear to be the only available tools of justice however remote the prospects of such outcomes.

The legacy of the Hillsborough families fight for truth and accountability is the Hillsborough Law introduced by the Labour government in September which establishes a duty of candour for police and public officials. The years and decades have passed by with no reckoning for those in state and corporate authority responsible for the egregious injustices uncovered in the Post Office Horizon IT and Infected Blood scandals to name just two of the British state’s guilty secrets. Is it too much to expect public accountability and a moment of reckoning for the malfeasances being uncovered by the Grenfell Tower Fire Inquiry? But the true victor of the Hillsborough and the Bloody Sunday campaigns is the truth itself.

References

[1] David Conn & Raphael Boyd ‘A bitter injustice: no officers will face discipline over Hillsborough. The Guardian. 3 December 2025 p.1

[2] Ibid, p.9

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid, p.1

⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter.

Justice Delayed And Denied But Delivered Eternally For The 97 🪶 The Closure Of The Final Chapter Of Hillsborough

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Eight Hundred And Twelve

 

A Morning Thought @ 2993

People And Nature ☭ The Second Western Military District court in Moscow last week sentenced Yulia Lemeshchenko to 19 years’ imprisonment for high treason, sabotage, and preparing and training for an act of terrorism.


Yulia, 42, is a Russian citizen, born in Staryi Oskol, in Belgorod region. She lived in Voronezh in southern Russia, until 2014. Then she moved to Kharkiv, Ukraine, with her son and her husband, who had found work there. Later on the couple separated.

Yulia Lemeshchenko. Photo from the Memorial web site

Yulia took up powerlifting and in 2021 was named Ukrainian women’s champion.

In 2024 Yulia did military training in Kyiv – firearms, explosives and flying drones – and returned to Russia, via a third country. She sabotaged power transmission infrastructure near St Petersburg, and in Voronezh conducted surveillance on Aleksei Lobodoi, an air force commander responsible for bombing Kharkiv.

Yulia was arrested in January this year. She did not deny the facts outlined in the prosecution case, but told the court that “from a moral standpoint” she considered herself not guilty. This is a translation of her final statement to the court, published by Mediazona.

☀☀☀☀☀

As you see, I don’t have any sheets of paper and I haven’t especially prepared, but I think I will improvise. I will now probably say a few things that were already said during this hearing, but let this be a sort of summing-up, in a monologue.

So I already spoke here about the fact that, in any war, two sides clash, and each side insists that it is right and that its cause is just. I took one of these sides. I am not a citizen of the country for which I decided to fight, but, all the same, for me, Ukraine is home. I love that country. And I love Kharkiv, with all my heart.

There is a district in Kharkiv called Severnaya Saltovka. About 500,000 people lived there. Half a million. A few people I knew lived there. My hairdresser lived there. After the Russian shelling and bombing, not a single house in that district was left undamaged. Not a single one. And I am not just talking about a few broken windows. I am talking about whole blocks of flats in ruins.

Right next to the block where I lived, there were explosions. In my block, on the ground floor, my neighbour Anya lived with her four-year-old son Nikita. A shell exploded right under their window. Their apartment was completely destroyed. What has happened to Anya and her son I don’t know. I don’t know whether they are still alive.

Friends of mine have died in this war, one relative – my second cousin – and colleagues of mine. War is monstrous. I could not stand aside. When war comes, people who are affected can either try somehow to fight, or they can flee. People flee – I don’t know – maybe because they are cowardly or weak. I don’t consider myself to be a cowardly or weak person. So I decided to fight back – to fight against Russian military aggression.

It is possible that, by saying these things, I am getting myself still deeper into trouble. But my honour, and my conscience, are important to me. I did what I believed to be necessary. I did what I could. To regret, to repent – who knows, maybe I will do that on my deathbed. But for now, what will be, will be. I have nothing further to say.

☀☀☀☀☀

When the court hearing began, Mediazona reported that the judge, Vadim Krasnov, read out evidence that Yulia gave after being arrested in January. After the all-out Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Yulia at first moved to Germany. In 2023 she returned to Ukraine and made contact with the “Free Russia” legion, but did not join.

In 2024, when she did her military training, the instructors – who did not answer questions about which part of the armed forces they served in – said that, by way of payment for her work, she could receive Ukrainian citizenship.

The judge asked if she had done so, to which she replied, with a smile, “not yet”.

During the hearing, judge Krasnov asked Yulia why she had chosen such a radical method of struggle, rather than, for example, providing medical help to the wounded.

“I can only answer that question with another, rhetorical question”, she replied. “Why did Russia decide to use violent methods to destroy Ukrainian cities? A war had started. Do you understand?”

The judge responded that, by 2022, the war had already been underway for eight years. Yes, but it had become frozen, Lemeshchenko said. After the invasion, she wanted to help Ukraine however she could, and was invited to become a saboteur.

“How far were you prepared to go?” asked the judge. “I did not want to do anything that would take human lives”, Lemeshchenko replied. “They accepted that point. On that we had an agreement.”

The judge said that the sabotage Lemeshchenko carried out near St Petersburg left hospitals without electric light. She replied that the aim had been to paralyse a drone factory, that she was sincerely sorry if anyone in Petersburg had suffered. And that she and her son had many times sat in their apartment, without light, when Kharkiv was being bombed.

Lemeshchenko also told the court that, during interrogation, agents of the federal security service (FSB) had threatened to murder her, and pushed her head against a wall. She had tried to tell them the truth. She said that she did not retract her evidence – and nor would she complain about her treatment, as she did not believe that those responsible would be punished.

🔴 Here is Yulia’s statement in court, recorded with English interpretation. Yulia is recognised as a political prisoner by Memorial, and her case was reported by the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

🔴 The last word in court by Anton Khozhaev, a trainee officer accused of desertion to the Ukrainian side, and more on Russian anti-war protesters

🔴 Voices Against Putin’s War, just published by Resistance Books, includes 12 statements by anti-war protesters and associated material. The livestream of a launch event is here. 27 November 2025.

☭ People & Nature is now on mastodon, as well as twitter, whatsapp and telegram. Please follow! Or email peoplenature@protonmail.com, and we’ll add you to our circulation list (2-4 messages per month)

‘I Decided To Fight Back 🪶 Ukraine Is My Home ’ 🪶 Yulia Lemeshchenko’s Final Word In Court

UK Human Rights Blog ★Written by Rosalind English. Recommended by Christy Walsh.

The Department of Education for Northern Ireland (in the matter of an application by JR87 and another for judicial review (Appellant) [2025] UKSC 40

This interesting decision shows the intersection between the right to education and the right to freedom of religion under the ECHR. These are fast evolving rights, particularly Article 9, whose “freedom” stipulation is becoming more important than the “religion” right. Article 9 is more and more often taken to cover the right not to cleave to any religion at all.

In this case the arguments were focussed on the right to education under Article 2 Protocol 1 of the Convention, taken together with Article 9. The main issue before the Supreme Court can be briefly stated. Did religious education and collective worship provided in a school in Northern Ireland breach the rights of a child, and the child’s parents, under Article 2 of the First Protocol (“A2P1”) to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) read with Article 9 ECHR?

What is particularly interesting and unusual about this judgment is that it emerges from Northern Ireland with its own history of sectarianism and religious division.

Continue @ UKHRB.

Faith, Freedom, and Fairness 🪶 Supreme Court Rules Christian-Only Religious Education In Northern Ireland Schools Unlawful

Dr John Coulter ✍ It may still be a few days until the Stormont Christmas recess as well as the traditional school holidays, but there’s no doubt all the political parties have been in election mode since the start of the academic year in September.

Put bluntly, although it is around 18 months until the next Assembly showdown in May 2027, it is clear from any of the local weekly newspapers in Northern Ireland as well as social media, that the starting gun for that election has already been fired.

Within the pro-Union community, all eyes will be fixed on the DUP to see if it can hold its position as the lead Unionist party, or will 2027 become the DUP’s 2003 - the year the Ulster Unionists lost their position as top dog in Unionism to the DUP.

The UUP’s disastrous showing in 2003’s Assembly poll was followed up two years later with another drubbing in the Westminster elections, firmly cementing the DUP’s pole position in Unionism and paving the way for the following year’s St Andrews Agreement and the return of a DUP/Sinn Fein-led power-sharing Executive at Stormont in 2007.

The 2007 era under Rev Ian Paisley as First Minister with Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness as deputy First Minister - known as the Chuckle Brothers - is widely viewed as one of the most stable periods of devolution in the history of the current Assembly since it was first elected in 1998.

In 2027, the DUP will be fighting on two fronts - preventing progressive pro-Union voters going back to the Ulster Unionists, whilst at the same time, stopping more hardline pro-Union voters defecting to the TUV.

The UUP will have its own challenges, namely persuading moderate pro-Union voters who defected to Alliance to return to the UUP fold.

In this battle for votes, all pro-Union parties will have two major lobbies to canvas. Firstly, there is the seemingly large numbers of ‘stay at home’ voters who have lost faith in the ballot box.

Gone are the days when Unionist elected representatives could boast of 30,000-vote majorities. How many Assembly seats have been lost by the pro-Union community because of a lack of voter turnout and bitter rivalry between the parties resulting in pro-Union voters not transferring to other pro-Union parties?

Gone, too, for the DUP are the slogans of the Paisleyite era, such as the 1985 local government poll when the battle cry was ‘Smash Sinn Fein’ with Rev Ian Paisley pictured brandishing a sledgehammer.

The problem for the DUP is ironically the long-term fallout from that St Andrews Agreement of almost two decades ago. Part of the deal was to change how the First and deputy First Ministers were selected.

Prior to 2006, the posts were decided by the largest designations - Unionism, nationalism, or Other. From the 1998 Assembly, these positions were held by David Trimble of the UUP and the SDLP’s Seamus Mallon.

However, under St Andrews, the DUP got this selection process changed to the largest party rather than designation. Perhaps the DUP - then the largest party in the Assembly in 2006 - assumed it would always remain the top dog at Stormont.

But the numbers game is no longer adding up for the DUP and St Andrews, whilst it hugely benefitted the DUP in 2006, is now a political millstone around the party’s neck as Sinn Fein is now the largest party in the Stormont Chamber and holds the post of First Minister.

So for Unionism to once again hold the First Minister’s position in 2027, two elements would have to come into play. Firstly, there would have to be massive tactical voting for the DUP within the pro-Union community, especially from the UUP and TUV, both of which are nudging up gradually in the opinion polls.

Secondly, under reform of the Assembly, the St Andrews rule would have to be scrapped and a return to the 1998 largest designation era. The worst case scenario for the pro-Union community is that the Unionist vote becomes so evenly split between DUP, TUV, UUP and Independent Unionists that Lagan Valley Syndrome becomes the order of the day.

In the last Westminster General Election, the traditionally safe Unionist seat of Lagan Valley fell to Alliance because of a three-way split in the pro-Union vote.

The DUP also faces a problem of political direction with rumours abounding of ideological splits within the party, with some wanting a more moderate approach, while others want a traditional fundamentalist old-style Paisleyite approach.

The elephant in the room for the DUP continues to be the TUV. Whilst the latter has only one MLA, the TUV has been steadily increasing in opinion polls and if it can present itself as much more transfer friendly, could easily tally its Assembly members to double figures.

Ironically, the same dilemma faces the UUP. Does it continue along the existing ultra moderate Nesbitt route of being a liberal Unionist party capable of attracting pro-Union voters back from Alliance, or does it adopt a more Right-wing approach capable of attracting transfers from the DUP.

Just as many pro-Union voters opted for Alliance as a protest against the Unionist parties, especially over Brexit, could disillusioned DUP voters opt for the UUP which could see Ulster Unionism back into double figures in terms of MLAs.

Put bluntly, there will have to be some form of Unionist co-operation if the pro-Union parties want to see more folk, especially from the loyalist communities, re-engage with the ballot box on polling day.

Likewise, the recent Supreme Court ruling on religious education in schools has acted as a massive mobilisation boost for the Christian church lobby in Northern Ireland, spanning the religious divide. But who will the church vote drift too?

Could we see evangelicals and fundamentalists save the DUP electorally in the same way that the fundamentalist Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, founded by Paisley senior in 1951, was once the cornerstone of the DUP. Or could that church vote abandon the DUP in flocks and plump for the TUV.

Whilst there has been much debate within the pro-Union community about the need to focus on middle of the road voters, if the current opinion polls become election results in 2027, has the Alliance bubble finally burst?

Just as the Liberal Democrats have found to their cost at Westminster when they have climbed into bed politically with either of the supposed Big Two in the House of Commons, could Alliance come to deeply regret the day it has sided with the SDLP and Sinn Fein in voting strategies.
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
John is a Director for Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. 

Could The DUP Be Facing Its 2003 in 2027?

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Eight Hundred And Eleven

 

A Morning Thought @ 2992

Labour Heartlands ☭ Written by Paul Knaggs. Recommended by Gearoid O’Loingsigh.

 -December 7, 2025

Socialism or Ultra-Liberalism? The Left’s Defining Choice

The entire trans debate is coming to a head, and the left is fracturing along predictable lines. The Girl Guides have reversed their 2017 policy and banned males who identify as women from their ranks. The Women’s Institute, which has welcomed women since the 1970s, has followed suit. Meanwhile, Your Party, the newly formed outfit claiming to be a socialist alternative, has overwhelmingly voted to enshrine “trans liberation” in its founding documents. These demands, backed enthusiastically by Zarah Sultana, come from the Trans Liberation Group, an extremist faction that wants to defy the Supreme Court, unwind women’s rights, and rewrite the Equality Act itself.

Here is what you are left with: socialism or ultra-liberalism. You cannot have both.

Let us be clear about what the Supreme Court actually ruled. In April 2025, the UK’s highest court delivered a unanimous judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers. It confirmed what most people already knew: that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. A woman is an adult human female. A man is an adult human male. A Gender Recognition Certificate does not change this legal reality.

Trans Liberation Or Socialism 🪶 You Can’t Have Both

Friendly Atheist ★ She turned in a Bible sermon instead of an essay and failed. Now conservatives say she’s the victim.

Samantha Fulnecky, a conservative student at the University of Oklahoma, insists that she’s a victim of religious discrimination after receiving a failing grade on a homework assignment for which she didn’t produce anything of value but referenced the Bible a whole bunch of times.

And now the educator on the other end of this false claim has been placed on administrative leave.

The assignment was for a psychology course and required students to read and respond to a decade-old article on “Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health.” The paper in question basically showed that students who are gender typical tend to be perceived as more popular, and that boys who are gender atypical suffer worse mental health outcomes.

Students were asked to respond to that paper in a essay. They could talk about whether the issue was worth studying, how they connected (or didn’t!) to the research, how the study related to other areas of interest, alternative interpretations of what the researchers found, etc.

Continue @ Friendly Atheist.

Christian Idiot

Right Wing Watch 👀 Written by Kyle Mantyla.


During his Monday night livestream, Trump-loving Christian nationalist pseudo-historian Rick Green announced his intention to get Operation Wetback, a military-style deportation campaign carried out by the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s, taught positively in Texas schools.

During the stream, Green voiced his support for Trump's vow to "permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries" and "remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country." Green pointed to Eisenhower's deportation campaign as evidence that it can be done.

"I think that it will be incredibly popular for President Trump to do what he said he was going to do," Green said. "They're going to start deporting people, even the ones that came here legally."

"I don't care if you came here legally," Green continued.

If we decide you're not good for America, absolutely the American government has the right to end our stay and deport you. And that's what needs to happen with any group that is not good for America, that does not line up with American values. And yes, I'm referring to a lot of the Muslim community . . .

Working To Ensure 'Operation Wetback' Is Taught In Texas Schools

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)