Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Maybe Trump voters understand more than his haters realize

original article: Understanding Why Religious Conservatives Would Vote for Trump
February 10, 2020 by Andrew T. Walker

It’s a complicated situation for religious conservatives. But these are complicated times.

In January 2021, someone will take the presidential oath of office, and religious conservatives will undoubtedly play a crucial role in whom it will be. Their influence will be the focus of an untold number of postmortems, of the type they’ve been accustomed to hearing since 2016, when the notorious “81 percent” of evangelicals voted for the unlikeliest of candidates: Donald Trump. There are two competing interpretations of Trump’s enthusiastic support from religious conservatives: that it is a lesser-of-two-evils transaction based on self-interest, or that it shows a voting bloc compromised by every form of democratic vice, whether racism, nativism, or nationalism.

If trends hold, there will be a similar turnout in 2020. Rather than wait for the postmortem, I can tell you what will happen now: Millions of religious conservatives will approach their votes with a political realism that requires balancing undesirable tensions and conflicting realities. They will vote not so much for Donald Trump — with his uncouth speech and incessantly immature tweets — as they will vote against the worldview of the Democratic platform. Those who make this calculation are not sell-outs, nor have they forfeited the credibility of their values carte blanche. For blind allegiance does not explain the voting relationship. That religious conservatives are not progressives does. Between Never Trump and Always Trump is a third category: Reluctant Trump. Voters in this category don’t get the fair hearing they deserve, since they defy the simple binary portrayal of religious conservatives as either offended by Trump or sold out to him.

Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: campaign, christian, conservative, culture, government, opinion, patriotism, philosophy, politics, Republicans, right wing

HS teacher – To be white is to be racist, period

original article: ‘To be white is to be racist, period’: H.S. teacher’s classroom message exposed by angry student
October 19, 2016 by Dave Urbanski

An Oklahoma high school student became disturbed at what she was seeing and hearing during a recent class, so she pulled out her cellphone and started recording.

The teacher of the elective philosophy class at Norman North High School was heard on the recording saying “to be white is to be racist, period.”

Image source: KFOR-TV

“Am I racist?” the teacher was also heard asking the class. “And, I say ‘Yeah.’ I don’t want to be. It’s not like I choose to be racist, but do I do things because of the way I was raised?”

The student who made the recording spoke to KFOR-TV; her face was obscured and her voice was altered to protect her identity. “Half of my family is Hispanic,” she told the station, “so I just felt like, you know, him calling me racist just because I’m white … I mean, where’s your proof in that?”

She added: “I felt like he was encouraging people to kind of pick on people for being white.”

Her cellphone also caught a video being shown to students depicting an actor brushing white-out across countries on a globe and then writing a new name over the white space.

Image source: KFOR-TV

Image source: KFOR-TV

“So he was basically comparing what he’d done to the globe to what we did to America,” the student told KFOR regarding the clip that focused on Native Americans.

“Why is it OK to demonize one race to children that you are supposed to be teaching a curriculum to?” asked the student’s father, whose face also was hidden and voice also was changed.

“You start telling someone something over and over again that’s an opinion, and they start taking it as fact,” the student added to the station. “So I wanted him to apologize and make it obvious and apparent to everyone that was his opinion.”

read full article

bias, corruption, culture, diversity, education, hate speech, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, patriotism, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, racism, racist, relativism, scandal

Filed under: bias, corruption, culture, diversity, education, hate speech, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, patriotism, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, racism, racist, relativism, scandal

Pelosi won’t watch Planned Parenthood videos, but is SURE they’re fake

original article: Pelosi won’t watch Planned Parenthood videos, but is SURE they’re fake
September 27, 2015 by Carmine Sabia

Listening to Nancy Pelosi speak is like watching somebody’s mouth fall down the stairs.

On Sunday, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked the House minority leader if she had watched the undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress that show Planned Parenthood officials engaging in the sale of the body parts of aborted babies.

As usual, nimble Nancy sidestepped the question.

“I don’t stipulate that these videos are real,” she said, in the stilted, lawyer talk commonly used by people named Clinton and other liars. “No I haven’t seen…I’ve seen some news reports of it, but I also know that some of it is not real and you can create any reality that you want.

“I think they [the Center for Medical Progress] should be investigated. As to how they obtained those and doctored those and had them be accepted as something that was an indictment against Planned Parenthood, because that’s not true.”

Tapper did his best to make Pelosi look like a human as he reached for any reason she might be angry at Planned Parenthood officials — even if only for the fact that they allowed themselves to get caught — but Pelosi, appearing well-rehearsed, just handed him more gibberish.

“I think that Planned Parenthood has excellent leadership. Cecile Richards, the president, is a spectacular leader in our country,” she said. “I do think that Planned Parenthood is many people that consist of many state organizations and some of them not as, how shall I say, aware of the assault that was going to be made on them and they spoke in a way that could be misinterpreted.”

Pelosi hasn’t watched the videos, but she’s sure they’re fake, and the party she wants investigated are the people who produced them. The people actually selling the dismembered lungs and hearts of infants destroyed in their mothers’ wombs? They’re the kind of “excellent leadership” America is pining for.

Hey, Nancy,  you have to watch them first to see what’s in them. Sound familiar?

Social media blasted the former House speaker. (see full article)

abortion, bias, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elitism, government, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, patriotism, political correctness, politics, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scandal

Filed under: abortion, bias, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elitism, government, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, patriotism, political correctness, politics, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scandal

Immigrants explain why they love America

original article: US Immigrants From All Over the World Tell Us Exactly Why They’re Proud to Live Here

To celebrate America’s birthday this year, IJReview talked to several immigrants from all over the world, who told us why they love living in the United States.

From Lebanon, to Ethiopia, to Ukraine, these U.S. immigrants explain why they are happy they left the countries where they were born to move here.

I don’t often look at comments on anything online but these, from the original article, are worth a quick read.

Those who come here legally wanting to be to become Americans quite often have a better idea of what America is than recent college grads who are born here.

I work with a doctor that legally immigrated to this country. He is a great man. He was in a refugee camp after he and his family barely got out of afganistan before the Russians came in. he is so interesting to talk to and yes he is a Muslim but he is a Muslim that loves this country. Immigrants that come here, that really want to be here, not the ones that just come for what America can give them but the ones that come because they want to be Americans and make a difference and go through the legal channels because they respect America are really very good for this country, but the ones that have no respect for our laws and steal into our country are NOT good for the United States. I have a friend on facebook, a young man from Africa who has just gotten a teaching degree in special education – he wants to come to America. I would love to help make that happen for him. So many people think I am a bigot or a racist because I am against illegal invaders coming into this country – yes I am but if someone really wants to become an American and come in legally and really be an American I am all for them coming. Just do not break our laws, have respect.

american, conservative, culture, freedom, immigration, patriotism, right wing, tolerance, video

Filed under: american, conservative, culture, freedom, immigration, patriotism, right wing, tolerance, video

Freddie Gray Autopsy Report leaked after being hidden for two months

original article: Freddie Gray Autopsy Report Deals Blow to Murder Charges
June 24, 2015 by Andrew C. McCarthy

Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby has withheld the autopsy report on Freddie Gray from defense counsel and the public for nearly two months. It is the report on which she relied to file murder and other charges against six police officers, even though the investigation into Mr. Gray’s death was not close to being complete.

Now, just two days before Friday’s court deadline for the state to disclose the report to the defense, it has been leaked to the Baltimore Sun.

The Sun’s story makes it easier to understand why Ms. Mosby wanted the autopsy kept under wraps. It raises additional disturbing questions about her case — a case in which she has already had to dismiss false-imprisonment charges, the untenable nature of which I explained when Mosby filed them.

It turns out that Mr. Gray “tested positive for opiates and cannabinoid.” Moreover, he carried on wildly when initially placed in the police van. It had previously been widely reported that he was not belted into his seat, a violation of recently adopted Baltimore police policy that Mosby dubiously makes the plinth of her case. The Sun’s latest dispatch, however, indicates that Gray was making matters difficult for the police: “yelling and banging, ‘causing the van to rock,’ the autopsy noted.”

The van made several stops during its 45-minute ride. At the second one, six minutes after the arrest, Gray was reportedly “still yelling and shaking the van.” Police thus removed him and placed him in leg restraints — ankle cuffs, to go along with the handcuffs that had already been applied. Gray was “then slid onto the floor of the van, belly down and head first,” according to the autopsy report, which gingerly adds that he was, at that point, “still verbally and physically active.”

It’s now easier to understand why Mosby wanted the autopsy kept under wraps: It raises additional disturbing questions about her case.

It was after this, the medical examiner concluded, that Gray suffered a severe spinal injury (which led to his death, a week later). At some undetermined point during the van’s journey, he was catapulted by the force of its deceleration and crashed into the interior. The injury is likened to a “shallow-water diving accident.”

Significantly, however, the medical examiner, Carol H. Allan, surmised that Gray probably could not have sustained his severe injuries if he’d remained in the prone position the police had put him in.

The Sun report elaborates:

While it’s possible Gray was hurt while lying on the floor and moving back and forth, Allan determined that his body likely couldn’t have moved in that position with enough force to cause his injuries. Allan surmised that Gray could have gotten to his feet using the bench and opposite wall. With his hands and ankles restrained, and unable to see out of the van and anticipate turns, she said, he was at a high risk for an unsupported fall.

Thus, the most likely scenario is that Gray, under the influence of narcotics and in the course of making his transport difficult for the arresting officers, elected on his own to get to his feet despite the difficulty of doing so. Under circumstances where his arms and legs were restrained, Gray’s decision to change the position the police had put him in rendered him vulnerable to the “high-energy” injury he sustained.

This is not to say the police should not have done a better job of securing Gray. But we are not talking here about whether they violated procedure and prudence. We are talking about whether their conduct warrants prosecution for murder and lesser forms of culpablehomicide.

The driver of the van, Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr., is charged with depraved-heart murder in the second degree. In his case, the question is whether he acted with such wanton indifference to Gray’s life that his conduct should be considered just as blameworthy as if he had fully intended to kill Gray. As one Maryland court has instructed:

This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence. It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence. It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as antisocial and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and harm.

It is blatant overreach, on the facts spelled out in the autopsy report, to describe Goodson’s conduct as the “depraved heart” equivalent of willfully murdering Freddie Gray.

Also suspect are Mosby’s charges of involuntary manslaughter against Goodson and three other cops — Lieutenant Brian W. Rice, Sergeant Alicia D. White, and Officer William F. Porter. Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another by a negligent act, which can include the failure to perform a legal duty.

Obviously, the prosecutor’s claim that Goodson acted negligently contradicts her claim, in the murder charge, that he acted with a degree of depravity functionally equivalent to intentional killing. That aside, Mosby’s manslaughter case hinges on two police omissions: the failures to secure Gray in a seatbelt and to get him sufficiently prompt medical attention.

Gray was arrested at about 8:40 a.m. on April 12, after he’d fled in a high-crime area upon making eye contact with Lieutenant Rice. It was Rice who ordered Goodson to take Gray to the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center. It was also at Rice’s direction that the recalcitrant Gray was placed in leg restraints and belly down during the van’s afore-described second stop, shortly after the arrest. To repeat, the autopsy indicates that Gray would not have sustained his fatal injuries if he had remained as Rice had positioned him; nevertheless, Rice is charged with manslaughter.

Police stopped three additional times to monitor Gray during the van ride. Before considering them, it is worth noting that checking on a prisoner repeatedly and attempting (however insufficiently) to assist him are hardly consistent with Mosby’s suggestion that the cops were flippant about his condition.

The medical examiner believes the severe injury — after Gray stood up on his own — occurred sometime after the second but before the fourth stop. On the third stop, Goodson merely eyeballed the back of the van from the outside, taking no further action. A few minutes later, he made the fourth stop, during which he again checked Gray. This time, he called for assistance.

It arrived in the form of Officer Porter. Though he is charged with homicide, this marks Porter’s first appearance in the case: He had no involvement in the arrest, and did not participate in the positioning of Gray prior to Gray’s injury.

The prisoner was apparently lying on the floor, complaining about difficulty breathing and moving. He asked for a doctor, but Porter instead helped him up and seated him on the rear compartment’s bench, enabling Goodson to continue the ride. For that decision, Porter is charged with manslaughter — even though Gray was communicative and able to move with assistance; even though Porter may have concluded (perhaps reasonably, even if incorrectly) that it made more sense to have the van take Gray the short remaining distance to Central Booking, where any necessary help would be available, than to wait for a medic.

It was after this stop that a radio call went out for another arrestee to be picked up nearby. The proof of Goodson’s purported depravity includes his decision to respond to that call, because it necessarily delayed by a few minutes the provision of medical attention to Gray.

That brings us to the final stop, where manslaughter defendant White makes her first appearance in the case. In the course of loading the additional prisoner into the van, Sergeant White and other officers noticed Gray slumped against the bench and appearing “lethargic with minimal responses to direct questions.”

White — who, like Goodson, is black — is apparently charged with manslaughter, despite her dearth of participation in the police interaction with Gray, because she allowed the van to continue the short remaining distance to Central Booking, rather than stopping to summon a medic. The Sun’s account does not tell us whether it would have taken less time for a medic to get to the scene than for the van to meet a medic at Central Booking — much less whether the few minutes lost, if any, would have made any difference at that point. That, in any event, is the sum total of Mosby’s allegation that White caused Gray’s death.

Causation is not a small matter. Prosecutors have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a homicide case. If Gray’s own actions, particularly those in contravention of what the police were trying to get him to do, materially contributed to his severe injury or broke any chain of causation attributable to the police conduct, the homicide case collapses.

Put another way, Ms. Mosby’s case appears to be very thin . . . and that’s before experienced defense lawyers have even begun to pick it apart.

abuse, bias, corruption, criminal, culture, ethics, fraud, government, hypocrisy, justice, law, patriotism, political correctness, propaganda, scandal, tragedy, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bias, corruption, criminal, culture, ethics, fraud, government, hypocrisy, justice, law, patriotism, political correctness, propaganda, scandal, tragedy, victimization

The College Board’s Sabotage of American History

Support the separation between school and state

original article: The College Board’s Sabotage of American History
June 3, 2015 by Michelle Malkin

A stellar group of American historians and academics released a milestone open letter yesterday in protest of deleterious changes to the advanced placement U.S. history (APUSH) exam. The signatories are bold intellectual bulwarks against increasing progressive attacks in the classroom on America’s unique ideals and institutions.

Moms and dads in my adopted home state of Colorado have been mocked and demonized for helping to lead the fight against the anti-American changes to APUSH. But if there’s any hope at all in salvaging local control over our kids’ curriculum, it lies in the willingness of a broad coalition of educators and parents to join in the front lines for battles exactly like this one.

As the 55 distinguished members of the National Association of Scholars explained this week, the teaching of American history faces “a grave new risk.” So-called “reforms” by the College Board, which holds a virtual monopoly on A.P. testing across the country, “abandon a rigorous insistence on content” in favor of downplaying “American citizenship and American world leadership in favor of a more global and transnational perspective.”

The top-down APUSH framework eschews vivid, content-rich history lessons on the Constitution for “such abstractions as ‘identity,’ ‘peopling,’ ‘work, exchange and technology,’ and ‘human geography’ while downplaying essential subjects, such as the sources, meaning and development of America’s ideals and political institutions.” The scholars, who hail from institutions ranging from Notre Dame and Stanford to the University of Virginia, Baylor, CUNY, Georgetown and Ohio State, decried the aggressive centralization of power over how teachers will be able to teach the story of America.

This is not a bug. It’s a feature, as I’ve been reporting for years on Fed Ed matters. These so-called APUSH reforms by the College Board, after all, are part and parcel of a radical upheaval in testing, textbooks and educational technology. It is no coincidence that the College Board’s president, David Coleman, supervised the Beltway operation that drafted, disseminated and profits from the federal Common Core standards racket.

The social justice warriors of government education have long sought, as the NAS signatories correctly diagnosed it, “to de-center American history and subordinate it to a global and heavily social-scientific perspective.” Their mission is not to impart knowledge, but to instigate racial, social and class divisions.

Their mission is not to assimilate new generations of students into the American way of life, but to turn them against capitalism, individualism and American exceptionalism in favor of left-wing activism and poisonous identity politics.

The late far-left historian Howard Zinn has indoctrinated generations of teachers and students who see education as a militant political “counterforce” (an echo of fellow radical academic, domestic terrorist and Hugo Chavez-admirer Bill Ayers’ proclamation of education as the “motor-force of revolution.”) Teachers aim to “empower” student collectivism by emphasizing “the role of working people, women, people of color and organized social movements.” School officials are not facilitators of intellectual inquiry, but leaders of “social struggle.”

The APUSH critics make clear in their protest letter that they champion a “warts and all” pedagogical approach to their U.S. history lessons. But they point out that “elections, wars, diplomacy, inventions, discoveries — all these formerly central subjects tend to dissolve into the vagaries of identity-group conflict” as a result of the APUSH overhaul.

“Gone is the idea that history should provide a fund of compelling stories about exemplary people and events,” the scholars point out. “No longer will students hear about America as a dynamic and exemplary nation, flawed in many respects, but whose citizens have striven through the years toward the more perfect realization of its professed ideals.”

This is precisely why I dedicated the past two years to writing my latest book, “Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs.” When it comes to understanding the foundations of our free-market economy, the Founding Fathers’ embrace of private profit as a public good, and the boundless entrepreneurial success stories of individual American achievement, our children’s diet is woefully unbalanced.

Reclaiming our kids’ minds begins long before students reach the A.P. U.S. history classroom. Restoration begins at home.

For those who thought public education was about education, think again.

Kim Radersma, a former high-school English teacher, hosted a session titled “Stories from the front lines of education: Confessions of a white, high school English teacher.” She said that teaching is a purely political act and that neutral people should “get the f— out of education.”

Support the separation between school and state

bias, culture, education, elitism, extremism, fraud, government, history, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, patriotism, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, public policy, reform, relativism

Filed under: bias, culture, education, elitism, extremism, fraud, government, history, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, patriotism, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, public policy, reform, relativism

Is electability really a myth?

Steve Deace has some very good points to make about The Electability Myth. He asks some sensible questions such as what is electability, and who gets to decide what this is?

It’s true that no matter how good a candidate’s philosophies or plans are, if that person doesn’t win an election they don’t get to do any of the good we’d like them to. However, there is very good reason to wonder whether the GOP understands what electability is or is even interested in understanding it. The GOP establishment has their own way of doing things, which hasn’t worked out so well. For example, the 2014 mid term elections handed the GOP a landslide victory, as far as mid term elections go. And they’ve virtually thrown it away. This doesn’t build my confidence in the current crop of leaders.

We should be aware of the difference between propaganda and reality here. We are told political candidates need to have political experience or leadership experience to be qualified for the office of President of the United States. The current occupant didn’t have much of either and he got elected. And a case can easily be made that Obama was elected mainly because of his race, not because of any real qualifications.

But let’s look at what these qualifications really are, shall we? I’m not talking about the qualification of experience or scholarly credentials. I’m not talking about the art of compromise or reaching out to the other side of the isle. Let’s talk about the real business of politics: peddling influence and spending other people’s money. That’s the basic activity of politics, isn’t it? And to cover up the business of political shenanigans a political hopeful needs to be able to tell people what they want to hear in a way that they won’t ask too many questions (or if they do, they don’t mind being lied to). This ability to lie well covers more than the work of politics it also serves well in running for office in the first place.

So is this really the kind of person we want as president? Someone who knows how to lie, peddle influence, and has an affinity for spending other people’s money really is the ideal politician. I don’t know about you, but that’s not the kind of person I want to vote for. I’m not impressed with a sophisticated speaker whose efforts have been invested mainly in public speaking, as opposed to actually understanding how the world works. That’s Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, etc. That’s not my ideal leader.

I want a leader who understands how systems work, how funding for those systems works, how the act of helping others needs to be handled carefully, and how liberty is essential for any of this to survive. My litmus test automatically rules out anyone in the Democrat party and most Republican candidates or potential candidates. But does my litmus test leave any winning candidates, candidates with electability?

Of course! Let me remind you of one episode in the 2012 election season: the first presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Do you recall what happened? Romney destroyed Obama in that first debate. What did Democrats do in response? Did they give up on Obama? Did they pack everything up and go home? NO! They got better coaching for the next debate. Don’t kid yourself into thinking the brains of the candidates had anything to do with this. It was all about preparation, which is done with many political coaches. Obama did much better in the second debate with Romney simply because he had better coaching than he had for the first debate. That is what electability comes down to – preparation.

Now, if my ideal candidate has good political coaching for the 2016 political season (not the kind where he has to tie one arm behind his back and pretend to be something he’s not – that’s the kind of coaching the 2008 and 2012 GOP candidates had and it didn’t work) what are the possibilities? This person must hold individual liberty as a prime imperative. This person must understand that government does not know what is best and is not better qualified than you to make decisions for your own life. This candidate must be a person of honor and integrity. And yes, this person must be intelligent as well, in addition to compassionate, and he (or she) must understand the issues.

Am I asking too much? Does such a person exist? As a matter of fact he does. The political establishment (both Democrat and Republican) don’t want this person to be the Republican nominee in 2016. But my ideal candidate is not merely adequate this time around, he is the face of conservatism itself. He is a man of integrity, compassion, intellect, one who has faith in the American people rather than its government, and one of his greatest qualifications is that he is NOT a political professional.

So who is this ideal candidate? Find out here in Dear GOP, I’m not sure you actually want to win in 2016.

campaign, culture, elections, government, ideology, patriotism, politics, president

Filed under: campaign, culture, elections, government, ideology, patriotism, politics, president

Common Core: where critical thinking doesn’t mean thinking for yourself

Those who suspect modern education and many attempts to reform it are really a play ground for progressive social engineers may find further confirmation of their concerns at Enochs High School in Modesto, California.

In its story Historic breakup: Declaration of Independence lesson gets a Common Core twist by Nan Austin we find a US history lesson which begins with an approach anyone would find promising.

Three social studies teachers worked together on the lesson, delivered in U.S. history classes schoolwide. The lesson started with background information but not through a lecture, reading the chapter aloud or doing the unit quiz.

Clicking through a series of slides, teacher Janeen Zambo strode around the class asking students to figure out why something happened, what might happen next, and where they could get the information for their homework.

A slide of the engraving called “ The Bloody Massacre” by Paul Revere, showing a row of soldiers shooting into an unarmed Boston crowd, served as a starting point. As kids pointed out differences between the two groups, Zambo brought in the tensions of that time and how activists of the day rallied colonists.

Unfortunately this lesson may not be intended to help students think for themselves, which is what “critical thinking” should mean. In many other cases of progressive thought critical thinking actually means criticizing Western civilization, or more particularly criticizing the American experiment and its ideal of liberty. Given the many instances of an overtly progressive bias found in Common Core, this example of a Common Core American history lesson may be of concern as well.

Notice the next phrases of the story:

“People were throwing snowballs with rocks in them,” she said. “Less than a dozen people were killed, but what did they call this?”

Activists’ accounts of what they named the Boston Massacre angered colonists, Zambo said. “Can rumor become ‘common knowledge,’ even if it’s not true?” she asked the class, popping in a vocabulary term from the homework.

“If you read it on the Internet, it must be true,” she added with a note of sarcasm. “Good – you laughed. That gives me hope,” she continued with a grin.

The lesson, as we are told, is delivered showing the English side and the Colonist side. That may very well be the case. This story in the Modesto Bee is not an in depth look at the lesson, and there are no links provided in the article to the curriculum’s prescription for this lesson. It could be that both sides of the issue are thoroughly examined in the classroom. But that’s not the impression given here in Austin’s story.

What we do see in this story are the seeds of doubt planted into the minds of students from the beginning (in the video we see the text of the Declaration of Independence is handed out to the students at the end of class, with obvious intent that students read it so as to be prepared to discuss the document later). The Declaration is presented as the “greatest break up letter in history” which is a clever and innovative approach, clearly designed to and succeeds in stoking curiosity for the students. But, as the quoted text above shows, even before the Declaration itself is drafted, historical events leading up to it (such as the Boston Massacre) are presented with an overtly pro-English/anti-colonist bent.

Comments like “less than a dozen people were killed, but what did they (the ‘activist’ colonists) call it”, and “can rumor become ‘common knowledge’ even if it’s not true?” are clearly the pro-English view of the situation. These comments are obviously intended to sow doubt about the colonists’ view of their people being lined up and shot by English soldiers. If these comments were balanced with others showing the colonists’ view of these events I would feel much better about the situation entirely. That’s not shown in this short news story but given the current track record of Common Core I’m not confident balance or true “critical thinking” is the goal here.

Other comments from Austin’s story may raise an eyebrow as well.

The class will study the document in-depth this week, but with targeted questions rather than lectures.

Asking targeted questions of high school students rather than spoon feeding them answers is a fine approach, one we all would surely support. But if the targeted questions are designed only to raise doubts about the American experiment and about the intentions of America’s founders (as there is good reason to suspect) then it should be no surprise to find parents and others objecting to lessons such as this one.

Critical theory typically directs criticism toward the American experiment, and seldom toward the many horrible human rights abuses committed by non-Western societies. This is often the type of “critical thinking” foisted upon students in institutions of higher learning and in high schools. This is not the sort of thinking that results in independent thought. Is this the kind of “critical thinking” being taught to Enochs High School students? If you have more information on this class or Common Core history lessons in general please share here.

american, bias, constitution, culture, documents, education, history, ideology, indoctrination, innovation, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, news media, pandering, patriotism, philosophy, propaganda, reform, relativism, video

Filed under: american, bias, constitution, culture, documents, education, history, ideology, indoctrination, innovation, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, news media, pandering, patriotism, philosophy, propaganda, reform, relativism, video

The few deserving of honor

For a time it was common sense that without a military no nation will remain a nation for long. In the case of Switzerland an astoundingly effective natural barrier protects them from any invading force. That is the only reason Switzerland has been able to maintain a neutral status in so many conflicts. Most other countries in the world don’t have that protection from violent threats. So they have to create it by forming a military.

Then there was a time, in the not so distant past, when the military was considered the problem, not a solution to the problem. There is no perfect solution to the problem as long as people are involved. That’s life. Instead of acknowledging people are flawed and that these flaws are why a military is necessary in the first place, it was instead assumed that the military’s very existence was the only cause of its necessity. Without a military there would no longer be a need for the military, because no one would see us as a threat. The notion of “the only thing to fear is fear itself” lead this changed philosophy, and spear headed not just anti-war protests but anti-military sentiment. This supposedly enlightended view would not allow for such a thing as a justified war. Lies and misrepresentations would now guide public narrative about war.

Some of this anti-military sentiment lingers today. In the Abu Graib scandal of the Bush years there were stories condemning not only the actions of a few punks in the military, but it seemed as if the entire military should be held accountable for the abuse of prisoners. At the same time there was a strong resistance to allowing the actions of many, many suicide bombers to be treated as representing the entire Muslim race. There was and still is plenty of open mindedness and tolerance for Islamic militants, not so much for America’s own armed services.

Today we see the pendulum swinging back toward honoring those who serve, and rightly so. Today we will more often see people expressing thanks to our troops for their service, and rightly so. There are a lot of things military personnel have to deal with and do that an increasing entitlement-minded civilian population couldn’t handle even if our lives depended on it. There may be some punks who allow this to go to their head but the vast majority of those I know who serve are honorable and humble people. They don’t have a chip in their shoulder and they don’t think of themselves and superior. It’s easy to accuse our troops of thinking like that when they have accomplished so much, because their job required this of them, and we civilians so often give up so easily at so little difficulty. Some feel it easier to question the intentions of our veterans rather than our own. In my experience, those who are more likely to feel they are better than others are not the military or veterans, but their critics. Let’s face it, taking a test is not on par with having people shoot at you.

No one is suggesting our military or the troops or veterans are perfect. And that’s where we meet some of that lingering hatred for the military. Patriotism itself is sometimes equated with Nationalism or some other nefarious motive. To say “thanks for your service” is sometimes equated with putting troops on a pedestal or suggesting America’s armed service members are infallible. I humbly submit to you we should be willing to afford at the very least the same benefit of the doubt to our troops and veterans as we are supposed to afford to terrorists, I mean Islamic militants, I mean freedom fighters, or what ever we’re calling them now. There are a few other things in American life that are treated as infallible and sacrosanct which are likewise undeserving of such reverence. In a culture pushing self esteem above accomplishment and promoting an entitlement mentality it’s also easy to put ourselves on a pedestal.

Ultimately, everything we do and build will die. No system of government, no idea, no structure or anything humanity has built will least for ever. Nothing we do or build is worthy of being put on a pedestal (not the military, not Obamacare, not President Obama himself) but we should also give credit where credit is due. That includes avoiding giving credit and blame where they are undue. It’s all too common today to see our troops treated as villains and suicide bombers as victims.

But honoring our troops requires more than just words. In an article written by an Iraq war veteran he mentions some organizations designed to help our veterans reintegrate themselves back into civilian life. This is a good mission which deserves your support. Please visit one or more of the following organizations:

This Mission Continues
Team Rubicon
Pat Tillman Foundation

While we are flawed and finite creatures there are some who do quite a lot, given human limitations. Better yet, these people accomplish such things in the service of us all, putting themselves in harms way, to help keep us safe here at home so we can work and study and play and keep ourselves entertained. It’s true that our military and veterans are flawed people, as are cops, fire fighters, etc., (as are you and I), but what they do and have done in service to the rest of us deserves recognition and appreciation. That’s due credit, at the very least.

culture, freedom, military, patriotism, troops

Filed under: culture, freedom, military, patriotism, troops

Racism, anti-Americanism and idiocy at the OneNation rally

15 Photos From the #OneNation Rally You’ll Never See In Legacy Media
OCTOBER 02, 2010 by Doug Ross

We are supposed to believe the Tea Party is a bunch of racist, intolerant un-American idiots, and the leftists are supposed to be the opposite. It turns out the dominant narrative is backwards. But don’t bother looking for the truth on the matter in the main stream news media.

ABC Sanitizes Left Wing Rally, Excludes Communist and Socialist Signs
October 4, 2010 by Scott Whitlock

Good Morning America on Sunday recapped the liberal One Nation rally held on the nation’s capital, Saturday, but skipped any mention of the socialist and Communist themed signs seen during the march.

These are some of the signs that were featured during reporter Tahman Bradley’s segment: “”Peace, justice, equality, hope, change,” “Fair trade, not free trade,” “Educate every child,” “Full and fair employment” and “Silence GOP lies.” However, signs with the Communist Party USA logo, posters reading “Capitalism is failing, socialism is the alternative” and “Build a socialist alternative” were not.

Democrats, american, anti-war, bias, bigotry, communism, culture, diversity, ideology, left wing, liberalism, marxism, news media, patriotism, philosophy, political correctness, propaganda, protests, relativism, socialism

Filed under: american, anti-war, bias, bigotry, communism, culture, Democrats, diversity, ideology, left wing, liberalism, marxism, news media, patriotism, philosophy, political correctness, propaganda, protests, relativism, socialism




February 2020
« Jan