September 6-9, 2019
Sep 06 09:54 Nadler's nutty impeachment quest Sep 06 14:32 Gun control proposals by gun illiterates is a waste of time Sep 07 07:18 Pete Buttigieg, total lowlife Sep 07 13:06 Keith Ellison, corruption personified Sep 08 01:54 Second Amendment: Dem vs. GOP Sep 08 04:35 The SCTimes' 2A cheap shot Sep 08 23:53 Education vs. Indoctrination Sep 09 07:11 Biden's argument Sep 09 22:56 How important is Line 3 is 2020?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Nadler's nutty impeachment quest
If this article doesn't give you a headache, then you're better than me. Jerry Nadler, one of the biggest phonies ever to wander the halls of congress, is a man on a mission. Nadler thinks that it's the Democrats sole mission to impeach President Trump.
The Democrats' latest
Seriously? That's what he's spending the taxpayers' money on? Perhaps people should chip in and buy Nadler, and the other Democrats' on the House Judiciary Committee, their own copies of the Constitution. They should especially highlight Article II, Section 4, which says "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors . Staying at the President's golf resort doesn't come close to rising to the level of treason, bribery or other high crimes. Then again, Negative Nadler plans on digging into the Stormy Daniels scandal even though Robert Mueller has already looked into it and decided there's nothing there:
[Video no longer available]
Nadler is leading Democrats right off a cliff. Instead of working to fix the crisis at the border or rewriting immigration and asylum laws, Nadler and other Democrats are pretending that they're working on serious impeachment investigation. It's anything except serious.
This is yet another example of Pelosi's Do-Nothing Democrats wasting the taxpayers' money on an unserious investigation. Just so people can see how unserious Democrats are, the definition of treason is "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government." Staying at a friend's hotel just doesn't rise to the level of treason.
That doesn't matter to Nattering Nadler because he knows Donald Trump is evil and it's just a matter of time until President Trump is impeached. What a nincompoop.
Posted Friday, September 6, 2019 10:09 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 06-Sep-19 10:47 AM
When people are consumed with hatred of a person [Trump] or an idea [conservatism or Christianity], they no longer behave with rational thought and purpose.
It is ironic that Democrats accuse Republicans of hatred.
Gun control proposals by gun illiterates is a waste of time
When I heard about Joe Biden talking about "magazines that hold multiple bullets", I immediately recoiled at Mr. Biden's stupidity on the subject of guns. How utterly stupid can Democrats get on this issue?
First, a person that doesn't know that there's a difference between a cartridge and a bullet shouldn't have the right to lecture people about gun safety. A bullet is the projectile put in the neck of a shell casing after the gun powder and the primer. Put all these together and you have the potential for a lethal outcome. A bullet by itself isn't lethal. Period.
Biden isn't the only Democrat that doesn't know the first thing about guns. Others that talk about banning assault weapons also show their ignorance. The term assault weapon is a euphemism used by gun-grabbing Democrats to instill fear into others. It's been said before but I'll repeat it again. An assault weapon is nothing more than a scary-looking semi-automatic rifle. It isn't the least bit more lethal than any other semi-automatic rifle.
Banning assault weapons haven't caused gun deaths to drop. Yes, I've seen the statistics of gun violence dropping during the assault weapons ban. It's meaningless. When the assault weapons ban went into effect, the legislation specified which brands and models of rifles were considered assault weapons. By the time the ban went into effect, gun manufacturers changed the model numbers. The new models weren't part of the ban so they were legal.
The problem with banning assault weapons based on physical characteristics is that it leads to a slippery slope that's unconstitutional. For instance, it's impossible to ban all semi-automatic rifles because, according to the Supreme Court's Heller decision, which I wrote about here , states emphatically:
Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ' in common use at the time ' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.
Here's Biden trying to score political points while he doesn't realize how foolish he sounds:
[Video no longer available]
If we want to reduce gun violence, then it's imperative that only people who know what they're talking about should be allowed to pontificate on the matter. It's time that we only let people who know what they're talking about work on gun control and/or gun rights issues. Those that can only recite the lobbyists' chanting points should be utterly ridiculed.
Posted Friday, September 6, 2019 2:32 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 06-Sep-19 06:41 PM
A bullet can hurt you if someone throws it at you hard enough. :)
I thought the gun grabbing goons didn't want to take our guns, only pass "common sense" gun control legislation. These progressive socialists have completely lost their minds and continue to try and out-crazy each other. I think Bernie took the cake with the call for aborting babies in other countries to solve climate change but that's a topic for another discussion.
Comment 2 by Nick at 07-Sep-19 04:21 AM
Gun-controlled Chicago has ZERO gun ranges. The closest one to Chicago is located in a Chicago suburb called Des Plaines. Illinois sucks as a state to live in. I'm moving from there to Oklahoma later this year because I got a job with American Airlines down there.
Pete Buttigieg, total lowlife
Pete Buttigieg said something that's beyond contemptible when he said "there's a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath, and so even that is something that we can interpret differently."
What a pile of BS. If Buttigieg is going to make that statement, I want him to cite which book, which chapter and which verse these verses are found in. Otherwise, I'm not buying it. Frankly, I'm highly skeptical at this point.
I've read through the Bible cover-to-cover multiple times. There's no way I'll accept that as an honest statement. However, I'll accept it as a partisan statement that's meant to attract attention to himself and to attempt to appeal to religious voters. That's been Mayor Pete's schtick throughout this campaign.
Based on his statements in this article, I think it isn't a stretch to think that he's fine with infanticide. For instance, he's quoted as saying "I think, no matter what you think about the kind of cosmic question of how life begins, most Americans can get on board with the idea of, alright, I might draw the line here, you might draw the line there, but the most important thing is the person who should be drawing the line is the woman making the decision."
It's apparent that 'Mayor Pete' isn't a trained theologian. In fact, to a real Christian, it's apparent that he's a crackpot attempting to use religion to gain a partisan advantage. What a sick human being.
For the record, I disagree with people who call themselves pro-choice. I think they're wrong. That being said, I don't get upset about pro-choice people. I simple try to change their thinking.
Pete Buttigieg doesn't fit into that category. Buttigieg is the worst type of charlatan. Not only is he a fraud but he's a fraud for the worst possible motive.
Posted Saturday, September 7, 2019 7:18 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 07-Sep-19 02:53 PM
Hey Pete and the rest of the progressive socialist left. Why doesn't the woman make the choice to not have unprotected sex that could result in a human life? Oh sure it takes 2 too tango but why only one to snuff out the life created. These people are evil.
Keith Ellison, corruption personified
People that thought that Keith Ellison wouldn't drag his corruption into the Minnesota AG's Office should've gotten their heads examined. This article highlights how Keith Ellison hasn't hesitated in hooking up with ultra-rich progressive special interests.
In this instance, Michael Bloomberg has loaned staff to help Keith Ellison push Bloomberg's green agenda. Why wouldn't he? He knows that Ellison will hide Bloomberg's employees, even if that requires subterfuge. First, the article states that "It came to light last year that a handful of rich left-wing donors led by Michael Bloomberg have collaborated with New York University Law School to recruit, place and pay for lawyers in attorney generals' offices around the United States. These lawyers, compensated outside the executive structure of state government, are embedded in state governments to pursue lawsuits that fit Bloomberg's liberal agenda."
From there, the plot thickens:
A group called Energy Policy Advocates requested documents relating to this scheme from the office of Minnesota's Attorney General, Keith Ellison. EPA's requests were made pursuant to Minnesota's broad Government Data Practices Act. The requests were narrowly tailored to ask for documents relating to 1) correspondence between the AG's office and a plaintiffs' law firm, and 2) correspondence between the AG's Office and a specific individual in another state who was recruiting attorneys general to join Bloomberg's scheme. The Minnesota Attorney General replied that there are no such documents, or, if there are, they are privileged and will not be produced.
Here's where things get interesting:
Several news outlets have reported on the lawsuit. The Star Tribune's story is here. The Strib's story, mediocre at best, is most notable because it flushes out Keith Ellison's admission that Minnesota is indeed participating in the Bloomberg scam. Ellison didn't have much choice: there is a Linked In page by a lawyer who wrote:
I am off on a new adventure as a Fellow with the NYU School of Law's State Impact Center. I will be embedded with the Minnesota Attorney General's Office as an Environmental Litigator and Special Assistant Attorney General.
That's certainly evidence. I wonder how Ellison will try weaseling his way out of that.
In some states, privately funded and agenda-driven "special assistant attorneys general" might only be unethical. Here in Minnesota, they are quite clearly illegal under Minn. Stat. Sec. 8.06, which says:
Except as herein stated, no additional counsel shall be employed and the legal business of the state shall be performed exclusively by the attorney general and the attorney general's assistants.
In other words, what Ellison is allegedly doing is illegal in Minnesota. Unfortunately, that isn't surprising. It isn't surprising because Ellison has praised cop-killers like Assata Shakur. He's just a low-life.
Posted Saturday, September 7, 2019 1:06 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Sep-19 11:18 AM
Why not analyze the privilege question? It gets mentioned, but then the bellowing is a claim of "corruption." Really now. Just think how lucky we are. It could have been Doug Wardlow.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Sep-19 07:10 PM
I would've much preferred Wardlow. Wardlow is a Christian, just like I am. He thinks that the OAG should be used for law enforcement, not for harassing President Trump or illegally pursuing Michael Bloomberg's political agenda through the courts.
Frankly, I'd love throwing Bloomberg's agenda into the trash. That's where it belongs. His agenda includes demolishing the Second Amendment. He's pursuing all of the wrong solutions. Guns aren't the problem. People are.
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-Sep-19 12:23 PM
You can dump this comment in moderation, but you only linked to alpha, not strib; the "here" was unlinked. If you'd post that Strib link in a comment it would help.
Comment 3 by eric z at 09-Sep-19 01:31 PM
Hindrocket's alpha item linked to the Strib coverage, and Strib linked to the two statutory sections at issue; i.e., it was informative reporting vs editorial opining. M.S 8.06 by its very terms is limited to when some other branch of government wants AG action on its behalf; and how the state funds of the other agency and the AG are to be managed. It is an intergovernmental billing provision. It has nothing to do with an outside compensated attorney being used for action the AG in his discretion deems necessary or helpful to promoting the public interest. Nowhere is there any hint of Ellison deferring one iota of his discretionary control of his office. THINK. Remember the tobacco litigation, a health provider, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Cerisi firm, and Skip Humphrey got millions into state coffers by hammering the bad guys into a thin layer of slime. And good for them! These frivolous litigants are mere outside agitators. They are wasting state money by Ellison having to address the meritless lawsuit. It will be dismissed, privilege will prevail, and these coal industry clowns will have to pay defense attorneys fees. How it will be.
Second Amendment: Dem vs. GOP
This article highlights the difference between Democrats debating the Second Amendment and the GOP debating it. Rich Lowry highlights Amy Klobuchar's statement that "I look at [gun legislation] and I always say, 'Does this hurt Uncle Dick in his deer stand?'" Lowry then notes " That's not the question, though. The Second Amendment isn't fundamentally about Uncle Dick bagging deer, but about his ability to defend himself and his family."
As a Minnesotan, I've gotten tired of listening to the DFL yapping about being pro-Second Amendment, then backing it up by saying that they've been hunting ducks or deer for decades. My reflexive reaction has consistently been that the Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights to guarantee Uncle Dick the right to hunt deer or ducks.
The text of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The exceptionally clear intent of the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to explicitly give people the right to protect their families and to explicitly tell militias that they had the right to secure our nation from invading nations and to provide for stopping tyrannical rulers.
If you think it's insane to think that stopping tyrannical rulers is the stuff of conspiracy theories, think about this: during the last presidential election, the incumbent administration surveilled the opposition party's nominee. That isn't a theory. That's a finding of fact in multiple congressional reports and the recent IG report.
It isn't a stretch to think that the Deep State wouldn't hesitate in undercutting an administration it didn't like. Further, it isn't a stretch to think that the Deep State would squash people that it thought was a threat to its way of conducting business.
As for the current debate about what to do about curbing gun violence, Sen. John Kennedy, (R-LA), has the right idea :
"Some of my colleagues argue that by further curtailing our Second Amendment rights, they can enhance public safety. Fine, the burden of proof is on them. I'm willing to have that debate, but I want the bacon without the sizzle -- no speculation, no false comfort, no pulling stuff out of your orifices."
This past week, Juan Williams' statement was that the problem in the United States was the availability of guns. If that's true, and I don't think he is, then he's got a major obstacle to pass. It's called the Second Amendment. It's one thing to rewrite a bill. It's quite another to repeal a constitutional amendment and one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights. That requires 290 yes votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and 67 yes votes in the Senate. BTW, that only applies if the language is identical in both bills. If one sentence is different from one bill or the other, then a conference committee is required to eliminate the differences.
At that point, another daunting task faces the proposed repeal of the Second Amendment. After all that commotion in the U.S. House and Senate, it needs to be ratified by the state legislatures of 38 states. That means both houses of those state legislatures must vote to ratify the repeal of the Second Amendment. If the DFL House votes to ratify the repeal but the Republican Senate votes to stop the repeal, then that state wouldn't ratify the repeal. If 12 other states did the same, the repeal of the Second Amendment fails.
It's worth noting this from Rich Lowry's article:
It is out of this historical soil that we got the Second Amendment. Guns would make it possible for Americans to defend themselves, and to defend their liberties. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist of "the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." This right can be used if necessary, per Hamilton, "against the usurpations of the national rulers."
Here is the video of Sen. Kennedy's interview on the Second Amendment:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Sunday, September 8, 2019 1:54 AM
No comments.
The SCTimes' 2A cheap shot
This SCTimes Our View Editorial is a total cheap shot on their behalf. They start their editorial by saying "If it seems like we just wrote about this a few weeks ago, it's because we did. Following the back-to-back mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, that left more than 30 people dead and dozens more injured at the beginning of August, we (as well as millions of Americans) called upon lawmakers to enact common-sense regulations to help reduce these horrifying events. And as you likely know, nothing was done."
That's bad enough. Still, it's infinitely worse when they said "Then, on Aug. 31, another mass shooting occurred in Odessa and Midland, Texas. Eight people, including the shooter, were killed and 25 people, including three police officers, were injured."
The obvious inference was that Congress had dropped the ball by not coming back early from their annual August recess and immediately passing gun control legislation. I'd love hearing the SCTimes explain what they'd recommend. Here's what they said:
And again, as we said earlier this month, it's time for our elected officials to try some common-sense rules when it comes to guns:
- Require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows.
- Do more to regulate high-capacity weapons, like in-depth background checks, mandatory training and even liability insurance.
- Ramp up resources for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms so that gun sellers are reviewed more often and with more scrutiny.
- Fully fund comprehensive mental health care. More resources for mental health care could help prevent mass shootings.
I'd love hearing the Times explain what they'd do when they ran into things like priorities like preserving doctor-patient confidentiality statutes. Is the Times recommending the erosion of another our rights? Or is it that they just didn't think this through?
This is an unbelievably complicated issue. What's worse is the fact that we're dealing with protecting our civil liberties (the Second Amendment and HIPAA protections) while attempting to protect people from suicidal maniacs. Trying to do that when everything is calm is difficult enough. Doing that while everyone is looking over our politicians' shoulders expecting them to pull a miracle out of their hat at the snap of their fingers. Good luck with that. This video, mostly featuring Sleepy Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, exposes the Democrats:
[Video no longer available]
In the video, Sen. Warren said "Today, if it's an average day in America, 7 children and teenagers will die from gun violence. Won't make headlines, most of them. It'll happen in neighborhoods that won't get covered in the news. It'll fall particularly hard in neighborhoods of color." Later in the video, she chalks this up to corruption. I'd agree with that. The Democrat media isn't interested in highlighting gang violence in Chicago. It happens virtually every weekend. That doesn't get covered. The Democrat MSM won't cover it because it doesn't fit the Democrats' narrative.
It used to be that the TV motto was "If it bleeds, it leads." That's ancient history now. Today's motto is more like 'We don't cover it if it doesn't fit the Democrats' narrative du jour'. It isn't brief or catchy but it's the truth. If a story blows the Democrats' narrative apart, it won't get covered. I didn't mean it might not get covered. I said it won't get covered. But I digress. Back to the Times' Our View Editorial.
It's disgusting that the Times says nothing has gotten done. They know that it's a complex issue. The Times (and the Democrats) know that this is an issue that can't be fixed through demagoguery.
The only thing that demagoguery will do is drive the 2 sides further apart. The Republicans, for the most part, have acted like adults. They've talked about the limitations Congress has thanks to the Second Amendment and the Heller Decision. You can't wish those away. You can't ignore HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) rules out of existence.
What can be done is make sure that shooters don't get ignored like they were at Parkland. That was totally preventable but we don't talk about that because that hurts the Democrats' narrative. Also, the Democrats don't want people to notice that deputies acted like cowards and the sheriff pinned the blame on the NRA instead of on himself and his deputies.
There are steps that will make us safer. Unfortunately, Democrats have insisted that they don't work or they don't like guns in schools.
Posted Sunday, September 8, 2019 4:35 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 08-Sep-19 07:51 AM
None of the "common sense" gun control laws the gun grabbing goons want to pass would have stopped any of the shootings. Evil people are going to do evil things and they will find a way to kill. Just look at the knife attacks in gun free countries.
Comment 2 by eric z at 08-Sep-19 11:13 AM
It is not complicated. Recognize the NRA as a Russian front, contest those funding it, and then see what happens.
As to Chicago homicides, where is it covered, objectively and not via some right wing counter-hysteria.
Motorcycle accidents and domestic violence likely take a far higher toll in lives than mass shootings, but that has been going on for some time. Less emotive a story.
Also, people carrying handguns around town seems to pose a greater threat than has materialized in terms of gun fights in streets, road rage or otherwise.
Last -- The 1% screwing the 99% is a more worthwhile story and policy question, but MSM cares little to rock its own boat. Look at who owns MSM, it is the 1%. Pelosi would much prefer to talk of gun violence than the dominance of both houses of Congress by millionaires, herself as one.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Sep-19 07:23 PM
What a pile of crap, Eric. I expect more from you than DFL bilge like that. The NRA is filled with Constitution-loving patriots who simply want to protect the rights that the Bible gave us. Like Ted Cruz said, throughout the Bible, people are given the right to protect their families & the right to act in self-defense. Further, the UN charter states that we have the right of self-defense.
As for Chicago's violence, the MSM rarely covers those stories. I've heard stories where local newscasters & reporters say it just isn't news because it's that common. What a sick thing.
Law-abiding people carrying handguns around town aren't the problem. It's people with evil intent. What's interesting is the proven fact that no NRA member has committed an act of violence with a handgun.
Finally, the 1% isn't screwing "the 99%" over any more than I'm the person pulling the strings in DC. Get that stupidity out of your head. I don't care if other people make more money than me. I'm not the jealous type. Further, starting with the Clintons but also with the Obamas & now with Elizabeth Warren, big business associates itself far more often with Democrats than with Republicans.
Education vs. Indoctrination
Editor's note: This is part of LFR's special focusing on the difference between education and indoctrination. Without further adieu, here's Ramblin' Rose's first in the series:
Schools' Imprint on Society
By Ramblin' Rose
Under the guise of "education," students are facing "indoctrination." What is the difference? Education opens the mind to ideas and knowledge of the world and encourages learners to evaluate the information and form their own opinions based upon facts and logic. Indoctrination discourages thought, and through repeated exposure to someone else's view, learners are guided to accept another's belief as truth without even thinking.
Before we consider current trends in the field of education, let's take a look at history. (Yes, leftists are attempting to rewrite history to fit their own agendas: why is that possible? In a bit: )
Homeschooling is not a new concept. The first colonists in this nation taught their own children at home. In the 17th century before the American Revolution as the communities grew larger, the Puritans established schools to teach the essential basic academic skills and to reinforce their core moral values. Almost always, the textbook was the Bible.
After becoming a free and independent country, Thomas Jefferson was a strong advocate for public education because he believed that "no other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness." To him, it was the means to guarantee that the individual would understand duties and rights in the new nation. He also feared that without education for all, the result would be to "leave the people in ignorance." He even suggested that the system be funded with tax dollars.
While Jefferson held that resources would come from the taxpayers, the supervision of each school would be directed by the parents. That is still the belief of many citizens, but unfortunately not the reality. Our continued freedom depends upon quality education of the "next generation."
The title of the "father of public education" in our country, sadly, goes to Horace Mann, who established the first state board of education in Massachusetts and advanced a school system based on the Prussian school system of the early 19th century. Instead of a curriculum based upon Biblical teachings and the moral standards of God's Word, educational reform moved to obey the dictates of the state, mandatory attendance, taxpayer funding, and a state curriculum taught by teachers who had training from the state and certification from the state. Mann convinced the Massachusetts legislature in 1852 to adopt this model that became the archetype for public schools across the land.
That might be the point at which education moved to indoctrination for many learners. The government, not parents , directed the curriculum , and the curriculum became the program for the teachers to "follow" in classroom instruction. While some have tried to teach facts and solid information from history and research, others have used the classroom as the platform from which to advance a political agenda that they embrace.
In the 1960's God was driven from the classroom; many parents, as flower children themselves, sought to "feel good" and abandoned their moral compass; welfare benefits became more abundant and easily accessible for more citizens (and even non-citizens). Mothers could abort babies; fathers abandoned families and their responsibilities. Everything was "free."
The children suffered - - neglect, abuse, abandonment. Naturally, the school became the "family figure" for many. Parents became passive and relinquished "education" to others. Some parents viewed the schools and teachers as the "experts" to be followed and not challenged; others were relieved that they were not responsible for "those bothersome kids" any longer.
One of the more recent bandwagons was the program known as Common Core that was developed without input from classroom teachers. With Common Core (CC), students do not learn to think because an acquired skill outweighs the content knowledge, the process counts more than the product, and relative standards carry more value than absolute ones. Some celebrated it as the salvation from the incessant testing of No Child Left Behind. Many teachers cheered because the textbooks came complete with the transcript of the lesson plan for each day of the year - no one could violate and deviate the lesson or the schedule.
Some claim that CC was defeated with the passage of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December, 2015.
No, it was just transferred to the states, where the governors assigned it to the commissioner/director of education in each state. It is alive and well in the schools. So is testing - multiple times per year in all grade levels. What is tested? Dogma: students must respond to fit the curriculum that has been set by politicians and not parents.
While many contend that the new curriculum teaches students how to learn and rewards the process, the reality is that countless learners are completely frustrated; there is no right answer. They are unable to evaluate their progress; their parents don't know the material and can't help. The learners give up in frustration. They become willing sponges for whatever the teachers say. They have not learned metacognition - they have learned submission.
Auguste Meyrat, an English teacher in the Dallas area and contributor to The Federalist, summarized the impact of CC on modern society in an essay published in October last year:
"In such a system, thinking is only the articulation of opinion; it has no bearing on truth. This means that people don't really need to think critically and understand why they believe what they do. They just need to have the right viewpoint and force others to conform like they've been forced to conform. They engage in arguments where the loudest voice wins because no one's points are better than another. They pressure instead of persuade."
Some parents have sought an alternative for their children with charter schools, private schools, open-enrollment options, and homeschooling. Yes, that is an avenue, but there is a potentially large boulder in the road for higher education. The authors and proponents of CC are also the authors and evaluators on the college entrance exams where regurgitation of dogma earns points (without attention to argumentation, clarity of expression, spelling or grammar). So what do the parents tell their young people who want to attend institutions beyond high school: "Do your best, stay true to your values and fail" or "Lie so that you may go to college"?
Auguste Meyrat continues, writing:
"This, in turn, leads to tribalism - groups of people united in feeling and opinion, but not in reason and truth. The lack of thought makes all these groups vulnerable to mass media and prevents any organized resistance to an encroaching state or lawless ideologue in power. Indoctrination is complete when perception (i.e., whatever is on the screen, whatever an "expert" says, whatever is popular) really does become reality for most people because they're too stupid or apathetic to respond rationally.'
Tribalism? Yes, think Antifa, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and any other number of movements advocated by the media and acted out by young people. Yet this month, students are being encouraged to leave classes in droves to "save the planet" because apparently adults have not embraced the rhetoric from the environmentalists as readily as the sponges in the classrooms around the globe.
That does reflect the news media and the topics addressed via social media, digital media and print media. All coverage pits one group against another, one belief against another. There is no discussion, no exchange of ideas logically debated. Rather, one group is right and their ideas MUST be embraced. Others are all labeled in derogatory terms for whatever ideas they have and values they hold.
In science, it was a "new ice age," "global warming," "climate change," "green new deal" and any other terms that seek to alter life and living out of fear. The NOAA has not documented any evidence of warming since 2005, but that is not the indoctrination being promoted by the radicals. Of course, there is still Darwinian ideas taught as truth. Creationists are driven from education if they do not espouse evolution or the big bang theory.
In literature, it means removing the classics for any number of reasons and the substitution of popular media selected by the 'progressives.' Often reading and analysis is sacrificed to the viewing of a film or a video clip.
In reading, it means inviting drag queens (performers from adult clubs) to read to children during library time. In an elementary class in Virginia, kindergarteners learn about transgender rights as the teacher reads them a book.
In biology, it means that anyone of any age may select his/her/its own identity. It is a mandatory program in Oak Park, California. Even after the Trump administration reversed the Obama-era of open bathrooms and locker rooms, schools enforce the "open door" policy.
In religion, it means that each may choose their own deity. There is no morality: free love, abortion (even after birth), legalization of any and all drugs, legalized suicide and assisted-suicide - even for youth, as noted in the Netherlands. How many students, besides those in Virginia and Tennessee, have been forced to bow, pray and write a conversion prayer to Allah?
In sex education, it means the implementation of a K-12 curriculum recommended by Planned Parenthood. In Minnesota, it was passed by the liberal majority in the House and stopped in the Senate but it is promised to be addressed again next session. Parents have described the program as "pornographic" and certainly not appropriate for the ages or the topics. Additionally, four states (California, New Jersey, and Colorado, and Illinois) require the inclusion of LGBT(Q) history. I propose that those courses start with their history dating from Sodom and Gomorrah (circa 2070 B.C.)
In economics, it means students do not understand why the United States, Great Britain, Germany and Japan are wealthy and stable because they embraced capitalism and constitutional governments while Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela, Central America, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia suffer under socialism and communism.
In history, it means that not only Hitler was a monster but also Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Che Guevara and the Castros killed millions of their own citizens in the name of communism. In CC, the new textbooks indicate that the Pilgrims came to America with families to kill the Indians and to teach their children how to do it. In CC, one paragraph explains the atrocities of World War II - the bombing of Japan by the USA.
In politics, it means sanctuary cities, counties, states, churches. Illegals "deserve" rights that are designated for citizens according to our laws and the Constitution. How many teachers cried in their classes when Trump won? Were there any consequences when teachers have promoted violence, even death to our President?
In school discipline, it means the implementation of "restorative justice," as embraced by local school districts and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
There are certainly other fields that I have not mentioned: but this indicates how indoctrination and socialist/atheist agendas have established a giant hold (strangle hold) on education.
Parents must become aware of what their children are facing/learning in school, support good teachers and challenge those indoctrinate and abandon core values of this nation. Parents must become active learners with their children. Parents must challenge politicians who do not embrace the Constitution and/or who refuse to honor their own Oath of Office.
Meyrat seems more optimistic than I. I hope that he is right:
" At some point, indoctrination will always collapse on itself and leave mediocrity in it[s] wake. Teaching, by contrast, is what will sustain our culture and bring out its virtues. It fosters the presence of active thought -- not uniform thought -- and it is what will ultimately mend and civilize our sorely divided country. " [emphasis added]
Posted Sunday, September 8, 2019 11:53 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Sep-19 04:25 PM
Common approach to http://edlibertywatch.org/our-mission/
Of course with Betsy DeVos, . . .
Biden's argument
This weekend's campaigning in New Hampshire must've caused Vice President Biden's cheese to slide further off his cracker . I say this because he said that "President Trump is becoming 'more erratic' in dealing with 'an economy that's teetering on a recession.'"
Actually, Vice President Biden either doesn't know what he's talking about or he's pretending that the vast majority of Wall Street economists think that we're at least a year away from a recession. That includes Jerome Powell's prediction :
"We are not forecasting or expecting a recession," said Powell during a discussion with Chairman of the Swiss National Bank, Thomas Jordan, in Zurich. Instead, he said the outlook of the US economy continues to be a "favorable one," which he attributed to the Fed's decision earlier this year to cut rates for the first time in a decade. "We're going to continue to act as appropriate to sustain this expansion," Powell said.
If we judge whether Vice President Biden is an expert on the economy based on the Obama administration's economic performance, he'd be in trouble compared with President Trump. Further, Biden is having difficulties with his truth-telling abilities :
Joe Biden is looking voters in the eye and promising to "end fossil fuel." The former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate made the comment Friday after a New Hampshire environmental activist challenged him for accepting donations from the co-founder of liquified natural gas firm. Biden denied the donor's association to the fossil fuel industry before calling the young woman "kiddo" and taking her hand. He said, "I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We're going to end fossil fuel."
The activist, 24-year-old Rebecca Beaulieu, later said she appreciated that Biden took her question seriously, but that he was not satisfied with Biden's plan to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050.
Thanks, Vice President Biden. You've just admitted that the Obama administration (that you were part of) really tried killing the coal industry and the hundreds of thousands of jobs the fossil fuel industry supports. In fact, during last week's climate change townhall, each of the Democrat presidential candidates said that they'd destroy the fossil fuel industry and the US economy along with it. So much for these Democrats' judgment. Frankly, they're idiots for saying that. That essentially puts Michigan in the Trump column, with Ohio (which isn't a purple state anymore) and Pennsylvania another possibility. These answers at the CNN climate change townhall don't help assure people that he's up to the job of leader of the free world:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Monday, September 9, 2019 7:13 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Sep-19 07:42 AM
And we STILL have not managed to fight the simple-minded and FALSE premise that fossil fuels have something to do with global temperatures. They do not, can not, and will not have any significant effect whatsoever. The models prove it, the data proves it, the simple math proves it, and a 5th-grader can prove it experimentally.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 09-Sep-19 05:39 PM
I honestly don't think any of the progressive socialist candidates has any idea what they are saying, they just repeat what their handlers are telling them to say ala Occasional Cortex.
How important is Line 3 is 2020?
This article asks an important question for the Democrat presidential nominee and the DFL Senator. It's an article about the Line 3 Pipeline project.
It starts by saying "MINNEAPOLIS -- A divisive fight over the future of a crude-oil pipeline across Minnesota is pinning presidential candidates between environmentalists and trade unions in a 2020 battleground state, testing their campaign promises to ease away from fossil fuels." Then it states something controversial, saying "Progressive candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have condemned a Canadian company's plan to replace its old and deteriorating Line 3 pipeline, which carries Canadian crude across the forests and wetlands of northern Minnesota and into northern Wisconsin. They've sided with environmental and tribal groups that have been trying to stop the project for years, arguing that the oil should stay in the ground. Other candidates, including home-state Sen. Amy Klobuchar and front-runner Joe Biden, have remained largely silent, mindful that such projects are viewed as job creators for some of the working-class voters they may need to win the state next year."
I must take issue with this statement:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar and front-runner Joe Biden, have remained largely silent, mindful that such projects are viewed as job creators for some of the working-class voters they may need to win the state next year.
Oh really, Joe? Then what did you mean at this campaign event?
[Video no longer available]
Ending fossil fuels necessarily requires being opposed to the Line 3 Pipeline project because the Line 3 Pipeline project carries fossil fuels. Democrats don't want to admit that because Democrats want to appease both construction workers and environmental activists simultaneously. That's impossible because those organizations fit together like oil and water. (Pardon the metaphor but I couldn't resist.)
I'd also reject the notion that Sen. Klobuchar has stayed neutral, as this suggests:
Klobuchar has also avoided taking a position. She has said she wants to ensure a thorough environmental and scientific review to determine if the Line 3 project should move forward. Minnesota regulators signed off on the main environmental review last year, although an appeals court has ordered additional study on the potential impacts to the Lake Superior watershed. But she recently returned $5,600 in donations from an Enbridge project manager after a liberal watchdog group, the Public Accountability Initiative, revealed them.
Sen. Klobuchar knows that that's BS. The Line 3 has already gone through the entire permitting process, including getting the approval from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The only step left is for the lawsuits to get settled. Enbridge played by the rules laid out by the legislature and signed by the governor.
Jason Lewis put things beautifully when he announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate:
When Republican Jason Lewis launched his U.S. Senate campaign at the Minnesota State Fair, the former congressman said he would focus on greater Minnesota -- the mostly rural part outside the Minneapolis-St. Paul area -- to make up for Democratic strength in the cities. He highlighted the 8th Congressional District, which covers northeastern Minnesota and has swung from blue to red. Lewis said Trump's campaign is "dead serious about Minnesota," and that he expects it to follow the same strategy.
"Greater Minnesota is turning red, deep red. I don't know how a Democrat's going to win the 8th District promising to give pink slips to every trade union member on the Iron Range, promising to stop Enbridge, to stop copper mining, to stop logging, to stop people from having jobs on the Iron Range," Lewis said.
The DFL is almost ceding rural Minnesota legislative districts while becoming more and more metrocentric. If the DFL continues siding with environmental activists and against the construction unions, they won't win many elections in rural Minnesota. The truth is that the DFL isn't interested in farmers or laborers, aka the F-L in DFL.
If President Trump highlights the differences between the DFL's broken promises to farmers and laborers vs. President Trump's promises made and promises kept on the issue of slapping tariffs on China to prevent steel dumping, he'll make Minnesota competitive again.
Posted Monday, September 9, 2019 10:56 PM
No comments.
