Matt Cohen’s “Fox in the Henhouse” Stunt: A Leftist Troll Lifts My Phrase to Smear Harmeet Dhillon

An Opinion on the Timeline and Motives Behind Democracy Docket’s Attack on a Conservative Hero

Note: The following is an opinion piece reflecting the personal views and speculations of @MamaButterBean. It is not intended as a statement of fact.

As a proud conservative, I, @MamaButterBean, have been vocal on X about issues that matter to me, often using vivid metaphors to make my point. One such phrase, "Fox in the Henhouse," became a recurring theme in my posts starting March 26, 2025, at 9:33 AM. I used it again on March 26 and March 31, never specifying who I believed the "fox" to be—just letting the metaphor speak to the chaos I saw unfolding in political spheres. Imagine my shock when, on April 3, 2025, Matt Cohen, a writer for Democracy Docket with a clear leftist bent, published an article titled "Fox in the Henhouse: Senate Confirms Anti-Voting Lawyer Harmeet Dhillon to Top Voting Rights Post," directly accusing Harmeet Dhillon of being the "fox." The timeline is clear, and there are no coincidences here—Cohen’s use of my phrase is highly suspect, and it reeks of a deliberate attempt to troll a conservative account while deflecting blame onto a respected figure like Dhillon. While I do admit I wasn't a happy conservative with an opening prayer done by Harmeet Dhillon, it doesn't take away all that she has accomplished for Republicans' (Conservatives) America 1st and I didn't attack her personally.

Let’s break it down. I first stumbled upon Cohen’s article through X’s “who to follow” suggestions, which pointed me to Marc E. Elias, a figure posting a link to Democracy Docket on X. Following the trail, I clicked on Elias’s profile, which led me to Democracy Docket’s website, where Cohen’s article, dated April 3, 2025, glared back at me with my own phrase in the title. Cohen, who hasn’t posted on X since November 2024 and now prefers BlueSky, clearly isn’t a fan of Donald Trump or conservatives in general. His article, published on Democracy Docket, paints Harmeet Dhillon as a villain, accusing her of being an “anti-voting lawyer” who will undermine civil rights as the newly confirmed Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Trump administration. But the real question is: why did Cohen, out of the blue, use my phrase, "Fox in the Henhouse," when the timeline shows I used it first? This is, of course, my surmise or conjecture, but it’s hard to believe this was a coincidence, especially given Cohen’s apparent dissatisfaction with X and his history of anti-Trump rhetoric. Could he have been trying to deflect and start trouble with a conservative voice like mine on X? It’s hard to believe this was a coincidence, especially given Cohen’s apparent dissatisfaction with X and his history of anti-Trump rhetoric.

The timeline speaks for itself. I began using "Fox in the Henhouse" on March 26, well before Cohen’s article dropped on April 3. Cohen, a writer for a platform that prides itself on “real-time updates” about voting rights and elections, couldn’t come up with his own metaphor? Instead, he appears to have lifted my phrase to craft a hit piece on Dhillon, a conservative powerhouse who has been a steadfast ally to Trump and a defender of American values. This isn’t just lazy—it’s a calculated move to stir trouble, deflect blame, and troll conservatives like me who are active on X. Cohen’s article doesn’t just attack Dhillon; it co-opts my language to do so, twisting a metaphor I used broadly into a pointed accusation against a woman who has done nothing but fight for civil liberties and fairness.

Let’s set the record straight on Harmeet Dhillon, because Cohen’s smear campaign doesn’t hold up against her impressive record. Dhillon, born in 1969, is an American lawyer and a longtime Republican Party official. She founded the Dhillon Law Group in 2006 and has since become a leading advocate for civil liberties, taking on cases that defend free speech, religious freedom, and fair treatment under the law. She represented Christians barred from praying together during COVID, sued corporations for discriminatory “woke” policies, and challenged Big Tech’s censorship of free speech—causes that resonate deeply with conservatives who value individual rights. Dhillon also served as the former vice chair of the California Republican Party and a National Committeewoman for the Republican National Committee, showcasing her dedication to the conservative movement.

In December 2024, President Donald Trump nominated Dhillon to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, a role she was confirmed for on April 3, 2025, in a 52-45 Senate vote. Trump himself praised her on Truth Social, noting her consistent efforts to “protect our cherished Civil Liberties.” In her new position, Dhillon oversees critical work at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, including voting rights litigation, hate crime prosecutions, and investigations into discriminatory law enforcement practices. Far from being a “fox in the henhouse,” Dhillon is a proven defender of American principles, bringing her legal expertise to a role where she can ensure justice and fairness for all.

Contrast this with Cohen’s baseless attack. His article on Democracy Docket claims Dhillon has a “history of attacking voting rights,” pointing to her firm’s involvement in election-related lawsuits. But this is a gross misrepresentation. Dhillon’s legal work has often focused on ensuring election integrity and protecting constitutional rights, not suppressing votes. For example, during the 2020 election, she supported efforts to address voter fraud concerns, a stance aligned with many conservatives who wanted transparency in the electoral process. Cohen’s attempt to paint her as a threat to democracy is nothing more than a leftist talking point, and his use of my phrase to do so is a cheap trick to grab attention while deflecting from his own lack of originality.

The irony here is thick. Democracy Docket, a platform that claims to champion voting rights, a writer who can’t even come up with his own metaphors, instead borrowing from a conservative X user to fuel his anti-Trump agenda. Cohen’s article isn’t just an attack on Dhillon—it’s a subtle jab at conservatives like me who use platforms like X to voice our views. By taking my phrase and slapping it onto his narrative, Cohen is trying to stir the pot, deflecting blame onto Dhillon while trolling those of us who support her and the broader conservative movement. It’s a low blow, and it’s not hard to see through the charade.

Harmeet Dhillon deserves better than Cohen’s recycled rhetoric. She’s a trailblazer who has fought for the rights of Americans across the political spectrum, from her early work with the ACLU on behalf of Sikhs and South Asians post-9/11 to her current role in the Trump administration. Cohen’s attempt to label her a “fox in the henhouse” falls flat when you look at her record—and it’s even more pathetic when you realize he couldn’t even come up with the phrase himself. As for me, @MamaButterBean, I’ll keep speaking out on X, using my voice and my metaphors to call out the chaos I see. But I won’t stand for leftists like Matt Cohen twisting my words to fit their agenda. The timeline doesn’t lie, and neither do I.

Teachers Are Being Re-Educated In Critical Race Theory

 

American educators don’t need the government’s encouragement to import these views into the classroom. CRT is in the pipeline, and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.

By Peter Kirsanow, Christopher Ross, and Maximos N. Nikitas

OCTOBER 13, 2021

The critical race racket has become nearly ubiquitous in American education, as shown by the recent embrace of this radical ideology by America’s two largest teachers unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

As Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal reports, “[a]t its annual meeting earlier this month, the NEA adopted a proposal stating that it is ‘reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.’” The NEA also vowed to “‘fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric’ and issue a study that ‘critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society.’”

As Riley notes, the AFT has similarly embraced this radical orthodoxy sweeping academe, partnering with “Ibram X. Kendi, an activist-scholar who openly embraces racial discrimination against whites.” Riley points out the perverse irony of Kendi’s assertion in “How to be an Anti-Racist” that “[t]he only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Some “anti-racism,” indeed.

The teachers unions’ embrace of a radical ideology that until only recently was the preserve of faculty lounges at elite liberal arts colleges shows just how quickly this worldview has become mainstream — not only in leftist circles, but increasingly, in elementary and secondary education as well. The great work of Heather MacDonald and Christopher Rufo in exposing the seepage of this pernicious doctrine into academia, corporate America, and even the military has shown just how rapidly CRT has come to dominate the national discourse.

This, despite gaslighting from the likes of AFT President Randi Weingarten, who claimed simultaneously that CRT is not being promulgated in America’s schools while pledging to defend, in a court of law if necessary, those teaching it.

To better understand how far CRT has been embedded into American education, we viewed more than a dozen webinars and lectures by leading social justice educators, CRT proponents, legal scholars, and elementary and secondary educators. They included: “How to Use the Books You Choose: Elevating the Status of Marginalized Identities in Children’s Literature through Classroom Teaching,” a February 9 webinar hosted by Boston University’s Wheelock College of Education; “Anti-Racist Teaching Practice,” a November 2020 webinar hosted by California State at Fullerton; “White Fragility,” a lecture by Robin DiAngelo (author of the noted book of the same name) hosted by the Family Action Network; and “Impacts of Racism on PK-12 Classrooms,” a February 2021 University of Iowa anti-racism professional development webinar series.

The lectures ran the gamut geographically and covered education at every level, from pre-kindergarten to the graduate level. What they revealed was nothing short of pure indoctrination. To fully appreciate the destructive quality of intersectional education — particularly in early childhood, when minds are malleable and nuance and perspective are elusive — we highlight what until recently few outside conservative think tanks seemed to fully appreciate: Critical race theory is being adopted in education at the earliest possible age with remarkable zeal.

Teaching Teachers to Radically Transform Curricula

Several of the webinars we viewed, including those sponsored by the Wheelock School of Education, were designed for elementary educators. It’s worth stressing that, lest one harbor any doubts about where American education is headed ideologically, these are programs that “teach the teachers.” What stood out is the nearly universal calls to radically transform, restructure, and reimagine curricula at every level to reflect critical race theory.

Take for example “Teaching History for Justice,” an April 30, 2021, webinar from Wheelock with Kaylene Stevens, program director for social studies education at Wheelock, and Chris Martell, assistant professor of social studies education at the University of Massachusetts Boston, co-authors of “Teaching History for Justice, Centering Activism in Students’ Study of the Past” (Teachers College Press, 2020). The webinar highlights the need to reorganize how social studies and history are taught.

For them, the “powerful individual”-based approach to teaching history, whereby students learn about leaders from Julius Caesar to Abraham Lincoln who have shaped history, is not only flawed but irredeemably grounded in white supremacy. What, then, should emerge to take its place?

For Stevens and Martell, the traditional approach must be supplanted by a movement-centered curriculum, one grounded in activist thinking, with the goal of encouraging students to become activists at the earliest possible age. Traditional models of instruction that aim to teach students to “think like a historian” or “think like a democratic citizen” are inherently lacking; they must be supplemented with “thinking like an activist.”

Figures they tell teachers are worthy of study, all cited approvingly, include Angela Davis (described as an “activist for racial and gender equity and democracy,” a “prison abolitionist,” and member of the Black Panther and Communist parties) and Marsha P. Johnson (an activist for queer and trans law and founding member of the Gay Liberation Front and Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries). If only Caesar had been an activist.

What’s more, Stevens and Martell ridicule a 19th-century history textbook that deigned to praise Lincoln as “one of the greatest of men.” Even more disturbingly, the authors lament that their book’s recommendations only begin with kindergarten, since anti-racist work would ideally start in early childhood settings.

Finally, sources with which students engage should rely less heavily on written texts and more on oral history and artifacts to better capture certain communities. The upshot of this new mode of instruction is more activism and indoctrination and less rigor — all at the earliest possible age. But don’t worry, they’re quick to remind us that “Teaching History for Justice” is “political but not partisan.” One can only help but wonder if some forms of activism are more encouraged than others.

As if this new mode of instruction is not bad enough, the luminaries at Boston University also determined that children’s books can be harnessed for CRT indoctrination. ​​In a seminar entitled “How to Use the Books You Choose: Elevating the Status of Marginalized Identities in Children’s Literature through Classroom Teaching,” Dr. Andrea Bien and Dr. Laura Jiménez explain the emotional damage visited upon primary school-aged children —  particularly those that belong to “underrepresented” groups — due to a lack of self-representation in children’s literature.

Jiménez states, “As a Latina lesbian, I did not see myself reflected in a book until I was 47 years old. . . . What that tells me is that my experience, my identity, my place in the world is not worthy of inclusion in literature.” To right this supposed wrong, the speakers posit that including more politically correct stories in children’s curricula must only come with the erasure of what they consider to be harmful or outdated books.

To the speakers, “The Rainbow Fish,” a children’s classic used by teachers nationwide to teach our youth about the values of friendship and sharing with others, ought to be promptly removed from classrooms. Why? Because the protagonist of the story decides to share his colorful scales—his unique and defining characteristic—with others as a token of friendship.

For Bien and Jiménez, this is not a kind and selfless act, but a harmful message to any child who does not fit the supposed societal norm that they must “mutilate” themselves to fit in. In the opinion of the speakers, the societal norm in the United States of America excludes any person that is not “white, straight, cis, Christian, male, and able[bodied].”  “The Rainbow Fish” is, unfortunately, a singular example in this seminar’s hour-long crusade to reshape children’s literature in the United States for an alleged lack of attention to racial identities.

Make no mistake. The purpose of this seminar and countless others like it isn’t to simply engage in friendly discussion or debate. Rather, the purpose is to influence teachers from coast to coast to fundamentally reconstruct what and how America’s children are taught in schools.

Brazen Calls to Target Even the Youngest Children

What stood out as most striking across the board is how brazen social justice “educators” are in their calls for the transformation of America’s elementary education into little more than social justice bootcamps, while union leaders and liberal elected officials vociferously deny that CRT is being taught at all. After all, several of these “experts” contend that to refrain from this method of teaching is to set down a “hidden” or “implicit” curriculum, a tacit narrative inculcated by not teaching what ought to be taught. The message is clear: Teach this nonsense or you are complicit in oppression — or worse.

Another example of this weaponization of elementary education for ideological ends was a social justice webinar hosted by Be GLAD, a self-described “national organization providing professional development to states, districts, and schools” serving as “a professional development model in the area of academic language acquisition and literacy.” Perhaps most concerning, Be GLAD boasts the imprimatur of being a “U.S. Department of Education Program of Academic Excellence.”

Designed to train elementary school teachers in social justice education, the webinar covered the usual topics of “systemic racism” and “microaggressions,” toeing the leftist line that virtually every facet of American life is saturated in racism — from the banking and housing systems, to criminal justice, public health, and education. Calls for “systemic anti-racism,” a supposed panacea for these ills, include some familiar appeals to “[d]ismantle[] barriers,” and some novel ones perhaps unfamiliar to a lay (read: “rational”) audience, such as “[d]ecolonization of the mind.” Well, that’s a tall order for 7-year-olds.

Most jarring of all is how the presenters lauded the use of a “Black Lives Matter Process Grid,” in which students map out their identities, presented in tabular form and replete with corresponding lists of those with a “power advantage” (unsurprisingly straight, white, Christian males) and those with “oppressed disadvantage,” broken down by age, social class, gender, race, ethnicity, language, ability, sexual orientation, and religion.

In nearly every webinar reviewed, the presenters go out of their way to dismiss the idea that this methodology constitutes indoctrination. It goes without saying that encouraging teachers to educate that colorblindness is inherently racist and that diversity can be oppressive hardly encourages independent thought.

Sadly, this approach seems to be working. For example, in a webinar hosted by Cal State Fullerton’s College of Education entitled “Anti-Racist Teaching Practice,” speaker Monique Marshall, an elementary school teacher, presented the audience a video clip of a 6-year-old student. In the video, when asked to define his “multicultural identity,” the young boy began his response by stating that the color of his skin defined his “outside identity,” which elicited smiles from the presenting speakers.

To be clear, there are people with whom we trust the education of our youth who actively encourage children to view the color of their skin as an individual’s defining characteristic, thus dividing their students along the lines of race and identity. A far cry from “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” After all, for CRT enthusiasts, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s noble aspiration is not merely impractical but a concession to injustice and oppression.

Grassroots Resistance Must Continue

So where does this leave us? These seminars and workshops show CRT is no longer “fringe” but is well within the mainstream of elementary and secondary education. It’s no longer confined to post-secondary and graduate levels.

Therefore, recent grassroots efforts to combat this dangerous ideology are imperative. They symbolize that parents are finally giving the issue the attention it deserves.

While it may provide a minute’s solace that the Biden administration’s Department of Education removed express references to CRT from its July 19 notice in the Federal Register soliciting grant applications, these seminars demonstrate that American educators don’t need the government’s encouragement to import these views into the classroom. CRT is in the pipeline, and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.

Continuing to expose its advance is necessary so American elementary and secondary education can escape the grips of a worldview that, despite its professed aim of racial progress, is deeply flawed and divisive.

Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Christopher Ross served as a legal intern at the commission and is in his third year at the University of Mississippi School of Law. Maximos N. Nikitas, who is a second year at Notre Dame Law School, also served as a legal intern at the commission and as speechwriter to U.S. Secretary of the Interior David L. Bernhardt.

Source Link  thefederalist.com Share through Blogger. If you find any error with placing the source link here please contact me to have it removed. E-mail

Now you know!

Dare - Challenge - Learn! 

Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact. William James - American philosopher 

 

Disclaimer rights of logo is owned by the companies shown throughout this post for recognition and for the blind or eyesight problems. 👀 Some of the links listed on this blog have affiliated links. Please visit one of them to support me to continue to Dare Challenge Learn.

Free Republic.com Jim Robinson Conservatives for God, Family Deceived?!

 

Free Republic.com Conservative Website Deceived!

Apparently it's a Free Republic for everyone but me! Sadly I came across a Blog Site that recommend other sites to post content at and I was silenced by a Conservative Website Free Republic. 

 

I can only contribute to mass about of misinformation regards to by beliefs and my love for the USA, Pro Law Enforcement, Pro Military. Hey wait a minute the FREE REPUBLIC is a Conservative Website?!  I have defended my beliefs and truth to all American's and the World with every part of my body and was silenced. 

My Body - FACT.

 

I am really not surprised that Jim Robinson has been misinformed like the rest of the people I have come across over the past 13 years who are conservatives and I don't blame him, he must of gotten a bug in his ear by not so nice people. (READ Why the Experimental Monkey?)  I even called him and he tuned me out and hung up on me.

 

I was silenced.

 

My post isn't to bash him or his website, I just hope someone will be able to let him know what a disservice he has done to an American Women who has defended and spoken up for over 13 years and even took a beating of a thousand men for standing up for America! A Silent Crime Of Torture and Psychological Abuse not many people are aware of that happened to me and others. 

 

Luke 8:11-13 NIV

I'm Wishing nothing but the best for you and yours Jim. God Bless you and may God Bless America The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave Men and Women who fight for her daily and for all the Women of the World who has been persecuted.

 

Now you know!

Dare - Challenge - Learn! 

Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact. William James - American philosopher 

 

Disclaimer rights of logo is owned by the companies shown throughout this post for recognition and for the blind or eyesight problems. 👀 Some of the links listed in this post have affiliated links

 

 ⚔⚔⚔

 

⚔⚔⚔ 

 

Other post that might be interesting to read.

• Alert Breached- Check Your Email NOW! Millions of Emails Breached! 

  Beware of Trojan - 2 Billion Users - Popular WhatsApp Virus Problem.