Millennials lose it when the guy who owns their favorite companies fundraises for Trump

While the multiple mass shootings and stabbings in the U.S. in the past few weeks upset many, nothing exercised the minds of wealthy fit liberals as learning that the investor of their favored, elitist, expensive gyms, or as the wealthy fit liberals refer to them, fitness centers, they attend was hosting a fundraiser last night for…President Donald J. Trump (R).  And hosting it, no less, in the exclusive, elitist playground of the East Cost liberal and wealthy: the Hamptons.

Entrust it to Vox, to ponder the dilemma of the oh, so self-labeled hip who exercise at, or work out as they refer their imposed sweat inducing contortions at, Equinox and Soul Cycle, to keep their butts tight and their minds closed.

But it can be particularly surprising to consumers when brands that have cultivated progressive and inclusive images are found to be associated with campaigns or causes that stand for the opposite.

Stephen Ross is a billionaire real estate developer (reported net worth: $7.7 billion) and owner of a private investment firm that has backed many of the latter kind of brands. He’s also hosting a fundraiser for the Trump 2020 campaign at his Hamptons mansion on Friday, August 9, where tickets will range from $100,000 for a lunch and photo opp to $250,000 to attend a roundtable discussion, according to the Washington Post.

Rich people hosting fundraisers for Trump is not itself particularly notable, but the fact that Ross’s firm has financed companies beloved in part for their progressive images has caused many patrons to call for a boycott. Among the brands Ross has invested in are Equinox, which has supported LGBTQ charities in the past; the spinning behemoth SoulCycle; the organic tampon brand Lola; and the budget gym Blink Fitness, as well as food chains like Momofuku and its pastry offshoot Milk Bar, and the fast-casual pizza spot &pizza.

OMG!  What to do?

New York Magazine to the rescue with additional information on those boycott targets for the morally outraged, tight-bodied, and narrow-minded.  And it is extensive.

When the news broke that Stephen Ross, a real-estate executive and venture capitalist, was set to throw an extravagant fundraiser for Donald Trump in the Hamptons on Friday, reverberations of shock and horror were felt in millennial communities far and wide, from Brooklyn to downtown L.A. to Austin and Portland, Oregon.  Why?  Because Ross is the chairman of the Related Companies, a parent company of both Equinox and SoulCycle, where many a young urban professional flocks daily to sweat out their existential dread. …

Unfortunately it gets even worse.  Ross has a hand in so many millennial lifestyle entities that there are probably a few influencers whose entire feeds must be cleansed of products tied to Trump cash.  If you think you’re untouched, don’t be so sure[.] … The giant, tangled rat king of capitalism means that unless you live like my friend John, who still has a flip phone and claims to have never ordered anything online, you’re part of a teeming network of unsavory dealings.

But anyway, here is a list of all the pertinent things Ross partly owns as you decide how much of your life must be canceled[.]

Read the list to learn how those with unfit morals will suffer.  Then, exercising your rights, smile and then go for a nice walk.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.

While the multiple mass shootings and stabbings in the U.S. in the past few weeks upset many, nothing exercised the minds of wealthy fit liberals as learning that the investor of their favored, elitist, expensive gyms, or as the wealthy fit liberals refer to them, fitness centers, they attend was hosting a fundraiser last night for…President Donald J. Trump (R).  And hosting it, no less, in the exclusive, elitist playground of the East Cost liberal and wealthy: the Hamptons.

Entrust it to Vox, to ponder the dilemma of the oh, so self-labeled hip who exercise at, or work out as they refer their imposed sweat inducing contortions at, Equinox and Soul Cycle, to keep their butts tight and their minds closed.

But it can be particularly surprising to consumers when brands that have cultivated progressive and inclusive images are found to be associated with campaigns or causes that stand for the opposite.

Stephen Ross is a billionaire real estate developer (reported net worth: $7.7 billion) and owner of a private investment firm that has backed many of the latter kind of brands. He’s also hosting a fundraiser for the Trump 2020 campaign at his Hamptons mansion on Friday, August 9, where tickets will range from $100,000 for a lunch and photo opp to $250,000 to attend a roundtable discussion, according to the Washington Post.

Rich people hosting fundraisers for Trump is not itself particularly notable, but the fact that Ross’s firm has financed companies beloved in part for their progressive images has caused many patrons to call for a boycott. Among the brands Ross has invested in are Equinox, which has supported LGBTQ charities in the past; the spinning behemoth SoulCycle; the organic tampon brand Lola; and the budget gym Blink Fitness, as well as food chains like Momofuku and its pastry offshoot Milk Bar, and the fast-casual pizza spot &pizza.

OMG!  What to do?

New York Magazine to the rescue with additional information on those boycott targets for the morally outraged, tight-bodied, and narrow-minded.  And it is extensive.

When the news broke that Stephen Ross, a real-estate executive and venture capitalist, was set to throw an extravagant fundraiser for Donald Trump in the Hamptons on Friday, reverberations of shock and horror were felt in millennial communities far and wide, from Brooklyn to downtown L.A. to Austin and Portland, Oregon.  Why?  Because Ross is the chairman of the Related Companies, a parent company of both Equinox and SoulCycle, where many a young urban professional flocks daily to sweat out their existential dread. …

Unfortunately it gets even worse.  Ross has a hand in so many millennial lifestyle entities that there are probably a few influencers whose entire feeds must be cleansed of products tied to Trump cash.  If you think you’re untouched, don’t be so sure[.] … The giant, tangled rat king of capitalism means that unless you live like my friend John, who still has a flip phone and claims to have never ordered anything online, you’re part of a teeming network of unsavory dealings.

But anyway, here is a list of all the pertinent things Ross partly owns as you decide how much of your life must be canceled[.]

Read the list to learn how those with unfit morals will suffer.  Then, exercising your rights, smile and then go for a nice walk.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Where are all the videos of white nationalist violence?

Impeachment over Russian Collusion seems off the table, so the left must come up with a new “crisis” to hector and badger the 60-odd million Americans that voted for Donald Trump.  Enter from stage far left “White Nationalist Violence.”

It’s all the rage.  It’s what the cool kids are talking about.  Amongst all of the hype you would think there are numberless video examples of White Nationalist Violence.

You would be wrong.  There’s a lot of discussion about White Nationalist Violence, but no video examples to be found.

I am certain that Google, now alerted to the problem, will come up with video evidence of White Nationalist Violence, but they really should have been better prepared; the left can’t afford to invent a new talking point lie and not have every leftist outlet ready to support that lie immediately.

As for Antifa violence, Google is all about it for the moment.  Portland West alone provides example after example of masked thugs committing heinous acts of violence upon little old people unable to outrun a pack of harmless leftists with love in their hearts and clubs in their hands.

We’ve been told that High Tech is a fast-moving business; let’s see how quickly Google moves to find all those AWOL videos of White Nationalist Violence and post them as proof of the crisis in America today.

You and I know all of this “Crisis of White Nationalism Violence” effluence boils down to leftist rage at deplorables who refused to vote for the Official Candidate of the FBI.

Democracy dies when buried alive under a suffocating mountain of leftist propaganda.

Impeachment over Russian Collusion seems off the table, so the left must come up with a new “crisis” to hector and badger the 60-odd million Americans that voted for Donald Trump.  Enter from stage far left “White Nationalist Violence.”

It’s all the rage.  It’s what the cool kids are talking about.  Amongst all of the hype you would think there are numberless video examples of White Nationalist Violence.

You would be wrong.  There’s a lot of discussion about White Nationalist Violence, but no video examples to be found.

I am certain that Google, now alerted to the problem, will come up with video evidence of White Nationalist Violence, but they really should have been better prepared; the left can’t afford to invent a new talking point lie and not have every leftist outlet ready to support that lie immediately.

As for Antifa violence, Google is all about it for the moment.  Portland West alone provides example after example of masked thugs committing heinous acts of violence upon little old people unable to outrun a pack of harmless leftists with love in their hearts and clubs in their hands.

We’ve been told that High Tech is a fast-moving business; let’s see how quickly Google moves to find all those AWOL videos of White Nationalist Violence and post them as proof of the crisis in America today.

You and I know all of this “Crisis of White Nationalism Violence” effluence boils down to leftist rage at deplorables who refused to vote for the Official Candidate of the FBI.

Democracy dies when buried alive under a suffocating mountain of leftist propaganda.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

The Fallacy of Red Flag Laws

Democrats are using the shootings in El Paso and Dayton to call for more gun control. Regrettably, Republican leaders are joining the call. From President Trump, to U.S. Senate Judiciary Chairman, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Republican leaders are calling for the enactment of so-called “Red Flag” laws. Sadly, our political leaders are quick to give up our constitutional rights just to look like they’re doing something to prevent the next mass shooting. Yet, even with more gun control, the shootings will continue; but our constitutional rights will be gone.

In response to the latest shootings, the president declared, “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. That is why I have called for red flag laws…” Although these laws may be well-intentioned, they’ll be disastrous to our rights, subject to abuse, and ineffective in addressing the real problem.

Nevertheless, State Sen. Tom Killion and State Rep. Todd Stephens, both Republicans, have proposed our own Red Flag law. Through this bill, a law enforcement officer or “family or household member” can petition the court, without your knowledge, claiming you present an extreme risk of harm to yourself or others. The judge will review the petition, again, without your knowledge or involvement, and if he finds that you’re an extreme risk, he’ll issue an Interim Extreme Risk Order compelling you to relinquish your firearms and prohibiting you from possessing same.

(By the way, you can rest uneasy because the definition of “family or household members” includes your ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and your mother-in-law! Any chance this bill, like its sister-law, the Protection From Abuse Act, will be abused in divorce, custody, or property dispute cases?)

Once the order is issued, and still without notice to you, the sheriff will arrive at your door and “request” that you immediately relinquish your firearms. (Actually, the law gives you 24 hours to relinquish, otherwise you’ll be charged with a crime and hauled off to jail). Either way, it’s a recipe for disaster. In Maryland, a man was recently shot and killed by law enforcement officers who attempted to confiscate his firearms via an extreme risk order. Only when the sheriff arrives are you notified of what already happened to you in court. The entire process involved in the Interim Extreme Risk Protection Order violates your right to due process and several other constitutional rights.

You do have a right to a hearing within 10 days. But it’s unlikely the judge will reverse himself and more likely he’ll enter the final order, which can last for up to one year — all the while you’re dispossessed of your firearms and prohibited from exercising your Second Amendment rights. Furthermore, in deciding to enter either order the judge may look back over the past two years and consider nonviolent conduct such as, “abuse of controlled substances or alcohol,” whatever that means, “any criminal conviction that involves controlled substances or alcohol,” which includes DUI and possession of small amount of marijuana, and a “recent acquisition of a firearm.” So even exercising your Second Amendment rights can be used to deny you the same.

In addition to its constitutional infirmities, this Red Flag bill does not do much, if anything, to prevent the next mass shooting. Like all gun control laws, it assumes the gun is the problem instead of the psychotic person ready to pull the trigger. As President Trump correctly stated, “Mental illness and hatred pull the trigger. Not the gun.” A review of the most notorious mass shooters reveals that they all suffered from severe mental disorders; they all should have been institutionalized. Although a Red Flag law may have taken away their guns, it would have left them free to live among us. Is it possible the next mass shooter, even though subject to an extreme risk order, might stumble upon one of the 400 million firearms in circulation in America?

Almost as an afterthought, this Red Flag bill does permit judges to consider using the Mental Health Procedures Act to seek the involuntary commitment of a person deemed to be an extreme risk. But judges, law enforcement, county mental health officers and family and household members already have that power. And patients in mental health facilities do not have access to firearms. Wouldn’t it be safer and more effective to focus law enforcement and judicial resources on removing the next potential mass shooter from our community and placing him in a mental health facility where he’ll receive the treatment he needs, instead of using Red Flag laws filed by ex-wives or ex-girlfriends to disarm those with DUI and drug convictions?

Inpatient mental health treatment for those who present a clear and present danger to themselves and others should be the focus of our efforts. Yet, it seems that those in favor of these Red Flag laws are more concerned about confiscating firearms than preventing the next mass shooting.

Marc A. Scaringi, Esq. Mr. Scaringi is an attorney in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a radio talk show host of “The Marc Scaringi Show” on WHP 580AM and I Heart Radio and a Donald J. Trump endorsed Delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention. Follow Marc on Twitter @MarcScaringi

Democrats are using the shootings in El Paso and Dayton to call for more gun control. Regrettably, Republican leaders are joining the call. From President Trump, to U.S. Senate Judiciary Chairman, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Republican leaders are calling for the enactment of so-called “Red Flag” laws. Sadly, our political leaders are quick to give up our constitutional rights just to look like they’re doing something to prevent the next mass shooting. Yet, even with more gun control, the shootings will continue; but our constitutional rights will be gone.

In response to the latest shootings, the president declared, “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. That is why I have called for red flag laws…” Although these laws may be well-intentioned, they’ll be disastrous to our rights, subject to abuse, and ineffective in addressing the real problem.

Nevertheless, State Sen. Tom Killion and State Rep. Todd Stephens, both Republicans, have proposed our own Red Flag law. Through this bill, a law enforcement officer or “family or household member” can petition the court, without your knowledge, claiming you present an extreme risk of harm to yourself or others. The judge will review the petition, again, without your knowledge or involvement, and if he finds that you’re an extreme risk, he’ll issue an Interim Extreme Risk Order compelling you to relinquish your firearms and prohibiting you from possessing same.

(By the way, you can rest uneasy because the definition of “family or household members” includes your ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and your mother-in-law! Any chance this bill, like its sister-law, the Protection From Abuse Act, will be abused in divorce, custody, or property dispute cases?)

Once the order is issued, and still without notice to you, the sheriff will arrive at your door and “request” that you immediately relinquish your firearms. (Actually, the law gives you 24 hours to relinquish, otherwise you’ll be charged with a crime and hauled off to jail). Either way, it’s a recipe for disaster. In Maryland, a man was recently shot and killed by law enforcement officers who attempted to confiscate his firearms via an extreme risk order. Only when the sheriff arrives are you notified of what already happened to you in court. The entire process involved in the Interim Extreme Risk Protection Order violates your right to due process and several other constitutional rights.

You do have a right to a hearing within 10 days. But it’s unlikely the judge will reverse himself and more likely he’ll enter the final order, which can last for up to one year — all the while you’re dispossessed of your firearms and prohibited from exercising your Second Amendment rights. Furthermore, in deciding to enter either order the judge may look back over the past two years and consider nonviolent conduct such as, “abuse of controlled substances or alcohol,” whatever that means, “any criminal conviction that involves controlled substances or alcohol,” which includes DUI and possession of small amount of marijuana, and a “recent acquisition of a firearm.” So even exercising your Second Amendment rights can be used to deny you the same.

In addition to its constitutional infirmities, this Red Flag bill does not do much, if anything, to prevent the next mass shooting. Like all gun control laws, it assumes the gun is the problem instead of the psychotic person ready to pull the trigger. As President Trump correctly stated, “Mental illness and hatred pull the trigger. Not the gun.” A review of the most notorious mass shooters reveals that they all suffered from severe mental disorders; they all should have been institutionalized. Although a Red Flag law may have taken away their guns, it would have left them free to live among us. Is it possible the next mass shooter, even though subject to an extreme risk order, might stumble upon one of the 400 million firearms in circulation in America?

Almost as an afterthought, this Red Flag bill does permit judges to consider using the Mental Health Procedures Act to seek the involuntary commitment of a person deemed to be an extreme risk. But judges, law enforcement, county mental health officers and family and household members already have that power. And patients in mental health facilities do not have access to firearms. Wouldn’t it be safer and more effective to focus law enforcement and judicial resources on removing the next potential mass shooter from our community and placing him in a mental health facility where he’ll receive the treatment he needs, instead of using Red Flag laws filed by ex-wives or ex-girlfriends to disarm those with DUI and drug convictions?

Inpatient mental health treatment for those who present a clear and present danger to themselves and others should be the focus of our efforts. Yet, it seems that those in favor of these Red Flag laws are more concerned about confiscating firearms than preventing the next mass shooting.

Marc A. Scaringi, Esq. Mr. Scaringi is an attorney in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a radio talk show host of “The Marc Scaringi Show” on WHP 580AM and I Heart Radio and a Donald J. Trump endorsed Delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention. Follow Marc on Twitter @MarcScaringi

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Education Failing Young Americans…Yet Again

It is a dismal picture.  In his 1993 book Inside American Education: The Decline, the Deception, the Dogmas, Thomas Sowell lamented that “when nearly one-third of American 17-year-olds do not know that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, when nearly half do not know who Josef Stalin was, and when about 30 percent could not locate Britain on a map of Europe, then it is clear that American educational deficiencies extend far beyond mathematics.”  Yet a quarter of a century later, the 17-year-olds in my classrooms do not even know what the Emancipation Proclamation is, let alone who authored it! 

In 1998, Heather Mac Donald noted that report cards and objective tests were traded in for “overheated rhetoric about fighting institutional racism and [the redistribution of] power.”

In his 2010 book Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality, Theodore Dalrymple aimed his pen at Great Britain, where “educational theory, subsequently provided with a patina of science by committed researchers, is full of absurdities that would be delightfully laughable had they not been taken seriously and used as the basis of educational policy to impoverish millions of lives.”

Despising routine and rote … [the] educational theorists came up with the idea that children would learn to read better if they discovered how to do so for themselves.  This is only slightly more sensible than sitting a child under an apple in the hope that it will arrive at the theory of gravity.

Thus, “romantic educational theory” is deliberately used to dummy down students, make school unbearable, and prepare these students to become useful idiots of a leftist society.  This was also documented by Dan Gagliasso in 2012.

Stumbling over words and not deciphering their meaning results in muddied comprehension.  Dalrymple writes that when asked to “put into their own words what the passage meant that they [the students] had just stumbled through,” their response was “I don’t know; I was only reading it.”  As Robert Weissberg documents, “upping the number of diplomas [does not] equate to imparting measurable knowledge” when “lax standards” exist. 

The educational establishment banished cursive penmanship from schools.  That cursive writing helps improve neural connections, increases writing speed, and improves fine motor skills and eye-hand coordination is casually dismissed with the retort that no one will be writing anymore; they are all using computers.  Thus, American students cannot even read U.S. fundamental documents or, for that matter, their grandparents’ letters.

In another collection of potent essays titled Black Rednecks and White Liberals (2005), Thomas Sowell has a chapter titled “Black Education.”  It is a scathing indictment of the oft-used liberal response that economically disadvantaged minority students simply cannot succeed academically.  Sowell debunks this and describes how the Dunbar High School in Washington, D.C. consistently had results that equaled or exceeded national norms on standardized tests from the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s even though most of the students came from parents who were laborers, messengers, and janitors. 

Sowell asks, “[H]ow did an 85-year history of dramatic success abruptly turn into … failure, virtually overnight, by the politics of education?”

Government insistence on school desegregation brought in “inadequately educated, inadequately motivated, and disruptive students,” and a school once thought of as a jewel “became just another failing ghetto school.”  Thus, 85 years of high achievement at Dunbar High School “vanished  into thin air.”  Racial integration was the “battle cry” — results be damned.  Busing students to schools far from home for the sake of racial balance has had “no more empirical evidence to support it, unless endlessly repeating the word ‘diversity’ … is considered to be evidence.  How is it, for example, that a racially homogeneous nation like Japan could have its students better educated that those in the U.S.?”  In fact, “the diversity bureaucracy has finally swallowed an entire college,” as explained in 2018 by Heather Mac Donald.

Throwing more money into school districts has not changed the abysmal educational results, either.  In his July 2019 article, Max Eden discussed a study from Johns Hopkins University “describing the conditions of public schools in Providence, R.I.  The report contained a laundry list of problems …  that plague America’s public schools, such as the inability to fire bad teachers and discipline unruly students, and the need for massive reams of bureaucratic paperwork to get anything done at all.  Here’s what wasn‘t a problem: lack of funding.  Providence spends $17,192 per pupil every year.”  In fact, “America spends more on education than any other major developed nation.”

Concerning Baltimore schools, in 2017, Armstrong Williams explained that “[i]ndividuals and firms that service the Baltimore school system are making off with literally billions of taxpayer dollars with nothing to show for it[.]  But in the tortured logic of Baltimore’s political bureaucracy, failure is incentivized.  It is at best a massive fraud committed against students who are cheated out of a future, and taxpayers whose hard-earned money is being wasted.”  According to Williams, much of the spending “goes toward the salaries and benefits of far greater numbers of bureaucrats than a school system of that size actually requires.”  Political patronage rules the day.

In 2008, an Atlantic magazine article titled “In the Basement of the Ivory Tower” by  Professor X, an adjunct instructor, bemoaned the fact that nine out of the 15 students she teaches in a course fail.  Part of the reason is that “[m]any jobs that never before required college now call for at least some post-secondary course work.  Yet far too many are unfit for college; they lack the most basic skills and have no sense of the volume of work required; in some cases [they] are barely literate.”  In fact, “they are not ready for high school, some of them, much less for college.”  Charles Murray documented this in 2007 when he stated that “half of all children are below average in intelligence, and teachers can do only so much for them.”

Bruce Deitrick Price has written that “the first thing you notice is that educational officials relentlessly and openly undermine academics.  No direct instruction.  No memorization of facts.  No systematic mastery of any subject.  No concern for grammar, spelling, etc.”  In 2014, Robert Pondiscio asserted that “reading comprehension … is not a skill that is taught but a condition that is created by exposing children to the broadest possible knowledge of the world outside their personal experience.”  But most of what used to pass for core knowledge has been abandoned.  In 2013, Barry Rubin highlighted what is now being taught in fifth grade.  It is alarming.

In the last 30 years, there has been a surfeit of the “latest” educational pedagogy.  Still popular is “whole language,” which results in only fractured language and abysmal reading abilities. There is the flip classroom, where homework is to be accomplished in class and the daily lesson is to be studied by the student at home.  Similar is the inverted classroom, because it is claimed “that the traditional lecture format is incompatible with some learning styles.”  Thus, “to help ensure student preparation for class, students [are] expected to complete worksheets that [are] periodically but randomly collected and graded.”  Of course, this becomes problematic when the students haven’t done the reading altogether, as documented in David Gooblar’s article of 2014.

Then there is peer review, which asks students to evaluate other student writing.  But as one of my more astute students asked, how can a poor writer evaluate a good writer, and to what benefit?  And what of the fact that remedial courses are now de rigueur in institutions of higher learning, documented as far back as October 1977 by Art Buchwald?

In 2010, John Lemuel described how illegal alien students now feature prominently in many colleges.  Taxpayer money shores up the massive bureaucracy involved as schools knowingly break immigration law.

A computer cannot compensate for a teacher properly schooled in his discipline, who uses textbooks that are not politically skewed; avoids identity politics; and understands that students need to be trained, not coddled.  Yet most of the material that passes for “texts” comprises merely articles from left-wing outlets.  There is no actual debate on a topic; the point of view is pre-determined.

The humanities have been thoroughly contaminated, and even the field of mathematics has been infected as the social justice Left now maintains that “when paired with issues of fairness, mathematics becomes a social justice tool that empower students to mathematically recognize and address oppression they see in their own world.”  In their world, “math education is biased in favor of a Western (read: white) narrative,” and, this is an anathema to the Left.

What, then, does make a difference?  Sowell cites examples of schools whose principals deal with students from broken homes and are on welfare.  Yet inside these schools “they [speak] in grammatical English, in complete sentences, and to the point.”  They are expected to adhere to vigorous thinking and precise language skills.  If they misbehave, there are penalties and shaming.  At Marva Collins Preparatory School in Chicago, for example, there is a “no-nonsense, back-to-basics curriculum” centered on phonics and memorization. Higher-level reasoning and literary analysis combined with weekly tests result in student success.

So how many more articles and books will be written before a sea change is made to stop the dummying down of education in this country? 

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

It is a dismal picture.  In his 1993 book Inside American Education: The Decline, the Deception, the Dogmas, Thomas Sowell lamented that “when nearly one-third of American 17-year-olds do not know that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, when nearly half do not know who Josef Stalin was, and when about 30 percent could not locate Britain on a map of Europe, then it is clear that American educational deficiencies extend far beyond mathematics.”  Yet a quarter of a century later, the 17-year-olds in my classrooms do not even know what the Emancipation Proclamation is, let alone who authored it! 

In 1998, Heather Mac Donald noted that report cards and objective tests were traded in for “overheated rhetoric about fighting institutional racism and [the redistribution of] power.”

In his 2010 book Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality, Theodore Dalrymple aimed his pen at Great Britain, where “educational theory, subsequently provided with a patina of science by committed researchers, is full of absurdities that would be delightfully laughable had they not been taken seriously and used as the basis of educational policy to impoverish millions of lives.”

Despising routine and rote … [the] educational theorists came up with the idea that children would learn to read better if they discovered how to do so for themselves.  This is only slightly more sensible than sitting a child under an apple in the hope that it will arrive at the theory of gravity.

Thus, “romantic educational theory” is deliberately used to dummy down students, make school unbearable, and prepare these students to become useful idiots of a leftist society.  This was also documented by Dan Gagliasso in 2012.

Stumbling over words and not deciphering their meaning results in muddied comprehension.  Dalrymple writes that when asked to “put into their own words what the passage meant that they [the students] had just stumbled through,” their response was “I don’t know; I was only reading it.”  As Robert Weissberg documents, “upping the number of diplomas [does not] equate to imparting measurable knowledge” when “lax standards” exist. 

The educational establishment banished cursive penmanship from schools.  That cursive writing helps improve neural connections, increases writing speed, and improves fine motor skills and eye-hand coordination is casually dismissed with the retort that no one will be writing anymore; they are all using computers.  Thus, American students cannot even read U.S. fundamental documents or, for that matter, their grandparents’ letters.

In another collection of potent essays titled Black Rednecks and White Liberals (2005), Thomas Sowell has a chapter titled “Black Education.”  It is a scathing indictment of the oft-used liberal response that economically disadvantaged minority students simply cannot succeed academically.  Sowell debunks this and describes how the Dunbar High School in Washington, D.C. consistently had results that equaled or exceeded national norms on standardized tests from the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s even though most of the students came from parents who were laborers, messengers, and janitors. 

Sowell asks, “[H]ow did an 85-year history of dramatic success abruptly turn into … failure, virtually overnight, by the politics of education?”

Government insistence on school desegregation brought in “inadequately educated, inadequately motivated, and disruptive students,” and a school once thought of as a jewel “became just another failing ghetto school.”  Thus, 85 years of high achievement at Dunbar High School “vanished  into thin air.”  Racial integration was the “battle cry” — results be damned.  Busing students to schools far from home for the sake of racial balance has had “no more empirical evidence to support it, unless endlessly repeating the word ‘diversity’ … is considered to be evidence.  How is it, for example, that a racially homogeneous nation like Japan could have its students better educated that those in the U.S.?”  In fact, “the diversity bureaucracy has finally swallowed an entire college,” as explained in 2018 by Heather Mac Donald.

Throwing more money into school districts has not changed the abysmal educational results, either.  In his July 2019 article, Max Eden discussed a study from Johns Hopkins University “describing the conditions of public schools in Providence, R.I.  The report contained a laundry list of problems …  that plague America’s public schools, such as the inability to fire bad teachers and discipline unruly students, and the need for massive reams of bureaucratic paperwork to get anything done at all.  Here’s what wasn‘t a problem: lack of funding.  Providence spends $17,192 per pupil every year.”  In fact, “America spends more on education than any other major developed nation.”

Concerning Baltimore schools, in 2017, Armstrong Williams explained that “[i]ndividuals and firms that service the Baltimore school system are making off with literally billions of taxpayer dollars with nothing to show for it[.]  But in the tortured logic of Baltimore’s political bureaucracy, failure is incentivized.  It is at best a massive fraud committed against students who are cheated out of a future, and taxpayers whose hard-earned money is being wasted.”  According to Williams, much of the spending “goes toward the salaries and benefits of far greater numbers of bureaucrats than a school system of that size actually requires.”  Political patronage rules the day.

In 2008, an Atlantic magazine article titled “In the Basement of the Ivory Tower” by  Professor X, an adjunct instructor, bemoaned the fact that nine out of the 15 students she teaches in a course fail.  Part of the reason is that “[m]any jobs that never before required college now call for at least some post-secondary course work.  Yet far too many are unfit for college; they lack the most basic skills and have no sense of the volume of work required; in some cases [they] are barely literate.”  In fact, “they are not ready for high school, some of them, much less for college.”  Charles Murray documented this in 2007 when he stated that “half of all children are below average in intelligence, and teachers can do only so much for them.”

Bruce Deitrick Price has written that “the first thing you notice is that educational officials relentlessly and openly undermine academics.  No direct instruction.  No memorization of facts.  No systematic mastery of any subject.  No concern for grammar, spelling, etc.”  In 2014, Robert Pondiscio asserted that “reading comprehension … is not a skill that is taught but a condition that is created by exposing children to the broadest possible knowledge of the world outside their personal experience.”  But most of what used to pass for core knowledge has been abandoned.  In 2013, Barry Rubin highlighted what is now being taught in fifth grade.  It is alarming.

In the last 30 years, there has been a surfeit of the “latest” educational pedagogy.  Still popular is “whole language,” which results in only fractured language and abysmal reading abilities. There is the flip classroom, where homework is to be accomplished in class and the daily lesson is to be studied by the student at home.  Similar is the inverted classroom, because it is claimed “that the traditional lecture format is incompatible with some learning styles.”  Thus, “to help ensure student preparation for class, students [are] expected to complete worksheets that [are] periodically but randomly collected and graded.”  Of course, this becomes problematic when the students haven’t done the reading altogether, as documented in David Gooblar’s article of 2014.

Then there is peer review, which asks students to evaluate other student writing.  But as one of my more astute students asked, how can a poor writer evaluate a good writer, and to what benefit?  And what of the fact that remedial courses are now de rigueur in institutions of higher learning, documented as far back as October 1977 by Art Buchwald?

In 2010, John Lemuel described how illegal alien students now feature prominently in many colleges.  Taxpayer money shores up the massive bureaucracy involved as schools knowingly break immigration law.

A computer cannot compensate for a teacher properly schooled in his discipline, who uses textbooks that are not politically skewed; avoids identity politics; and understands that students need to be trained, not coddled.  Yet most of the material that passes for “texts” comprises merely articles from left-wing outlets.  There is no actual debate on a topic; the point of view is pre-determined.

The humanities have been thoroughly contaminated, and even the field of mathematics has been infected as the social justice Left now maintains that “when paired with issues of fairness, mathematics becomes a social justice tool that empower students to mathematically recognize and address oppression they see in their own world.”  In their world, “math education is biased in favor of a Western (read: white) narrative,” and, this is an anathema to the Left.

What, then, does make a difference?  Sowell cites examples of schools whose principals deal with students from broken homes and are on welfare.  Yet inside these schools “they [speak] in grammatical English, in complete sentences, and to the point.”  They are expected to adhere to vigorous thinking and precise language skills.  If they misbehave, there are penalties and shaming.  At Marva Collins Preparatory School in Chicago, for example, there is a “no-nonsense, back-to-basics curriculum” centered on phonics and memorization. Higher-level reasoning and literary analysis combined with weekly tests result in student success.

So how many more articles and books will be written before a sea change is made to stop the dummying down of education in this country? 

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Red Flags and White Supremacists

For the past two years, the left’s ‘go to’ words were “Russia,” “Mueller,” and “collusion.” Mueller’s investigation and report were a big swing and a miss and not surprisingly these words have quickly been erased from the vocabularies of cable news anchors and their panels.

On a dime, coincident with a handful of mass shootings, the left’s new favorite words are “racist” and “white supremacist.” Since the three recent shooters were white, it can only mean they were all MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporters, NRA members, and of course, white supremacists.

Never mind that their actual political proclivities are left or far left of center, based on their manifestos or social media postings. In the eyes of CNN and MSNBC, they are racist Trump supporters just on the basis of their skin color. Think about that. The media and entire Democratic Party are judging an entire group of people on the basis of skin color. Isn’t that the definition of racist?

As the Russian collusion story is in the rear-view mirror for Democrats and the media, it is dead ahead for AG William Barr, U.S. Attorneys John Durham and John Huber, and DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, as the layers of the onion are being peeled back to reveal the seditious origins of the entire hoax. Which is why the media pivoted deftly to a totally new narrative of “white nationalism.”

With the backdrop of the shootings, gun control has predictably reappeared as a Democrat and media talking point. Aside from the usual cries to ban “assault weapons,” whatever those actually are, there are calls for expanded background checks. Never mind that the vast majority of these shooters obtain their firearms legally, passing a background check.

Then there are the “red flag laws,” which is the left’s new approach to confiscating guns. These laws are unconstitutional three ways to Sunday, violating three of the rights within the Bill of Rights. These laws usurp the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Sixth Amendment’s right of the accused to a speedy and public trial.

My home state of Colorado passed such a law this past April, one of the consequences of voters giving Democrats control of the executive and legislative branches of a state. Other states have similar laws and there is now a push for a national red flag law. If President Trump is smart, he will see the color red before signing such a law, if it ever even makes it to his desk, as signing such a law may be a large red stop sign in his quest for a second term as president.

Colorado’s law for example works as follows.

Allows family, household members or law enforcement to petition a court to have guns seized or surrendered based on a showing that someone poses a danger under the “preponderance of the evidence,” a civil standard which means that the defendant is more likely than not to be a threat.

In other words, there is just over a 50/50 chance of accuracy, noting that someone’s guns could be seized even without a mental health professional making a determination of any kind.

A subsequent court hearing could extend a gun seizure up to 364 days, and gun owners can only retain their guns if they meet a burden of demonstrating by “clear and convincing evidence” — a much higher standard — that they are not in fact a threat. Gun owners are “guilty until proven innocent” under this framework.

Evidence could be the word of a disgruntled ex-spouse, neighbor, coworker, or anyone else with a grudge against a legal and law-abiding gun owner. Those with an axe to grind will replace mental health professionals in assessing the accused’s state of mind and potential threat.

In a state like Colorado, having had its share of mass shootings, red flag decisions will likely err on the side of caution, rather than evidence, needing little more than one person’s convincing diatribe to pass the “preponderance of evidence” threshold.

Once guns are seized, the bar is raised significantly to reverse the decision. The Mueller standard of justice now applies, as in “guilty until proven innocent.” The accused must now exonerate themselves, or prove their innocence, before having their guns returned. Good luck with that.

What does this have to do with white supremacy? This past week, Trump supporters are now all “white nationalist” racists. Or as one University of California professor claimed, “white nationalist terror supporters.” The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies hate groups including white nationalist, male supremacy, Christian identity, and anti-immigrant.

How long will it take before states, or the federal government, if a red flag law becomes nationalized, to view any and all Trump supporters as “posing a danger” based on their skin color, gender, religion, and opposition to open borders?

I suspect that of the 62 million Trump voters in 2016, significantly more were gun owners than the similar number of Hillary Clinton voters. What better way to disarm the population than to go after those who own guns, in this case, Trump supporters?

Would a red flag law be applied to dangerous leftist groups such as Antifa? Not likely as these laws are being enforced by liberal Democrats. If you think I’m exaggerating the leftist sentiment toward Trump voters, “Death camps for Trump supporters” fliers turned up at various locations on Long Island this week.

Not only Trump supporters, but also those who don’t buy into the man-made global warming hoax. Bill Nye, the bow tie guy, “is open to criminal charges and jail time for climate change dissenters.” Is it a stretch for some bureaucratic panel to determine that someone not buying into the climate change movement “poses a threat” and shouldn’t be allowed to possess a firearm?

Is the “white supremacy” talk just a way for flailing Democrat presidential candidates to attempt to gain some traction in their campaigns? Or is this “white nationalist” rhetoric a way to paint Trump supporters with a broad brush as a means of confiscatory gun control?

Red flag laws will have the effect of disarming those best able to stop a shooter. But that’s not the real goal of these laws. Instead it’s a new approach to thwarting the Second Amendment. President Trump is hopefully thinking long and hard about signing on to such measures, as this has the potential to be his “read my lips, no new taxes” moment.

 

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Denver-based physician, freelance writer, and occasional radio talk show host whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, Twitter, and QuodVerum.

For the past two years, the left’s ‘go to’ words were “Russia,” “Mueller,” and “collusion.” Mueller’s investigation and report were a big swing and a miss and not surprisingly these words have quickly been erased from the vocabularies of cable news anchors and their panels.

On a dime, coincident with a handful of mass shootings, the left’s new favorite words are “racist” and “white supremacist.” Since the three recent shooters were white, it can only mean they were all MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporters, NRA members, and of course, white supremacists.

Never mind that their actual political proclivities are left or far left of center, based on their manifestos or social media postings. In the eyes of CNN and MSNBC, they are racist Trump supporters just on the basis of their skin color. Think about that. The media and entire Democratic Party are judging an entire group of people on the basis of skin color. Isn’t that the definition of racist?

As the Russian collusion story is in the rear-view mirror for Democrats and the media, it is dead ahead for AG William Barr, U.S. Attorneys John Durham and John Huber, and DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, as the layers of the onion are being peeled back to reveal the seditious origins of the entire hoax. Which is why the media pivoted deftly to a totally new narrative of “white nationalism.”

With the backdrop of the shootings, gun control has predictably reappeared as a Democrat and media talking point. Aside from the usual cries to ban “assault weapons,” whatever those actually are, there are calls for expanded background checks. Never mind that the vast majority of these shooters obtain their firearms legally, passing a background check.

Then there are the “red flag laws,” which is the left’s new approach to confiscating guns. These laws are unconstitutional three ways to Sunday, violating three of the rights within the Bill of Rights. These laws usurp the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Sixth Amendment’s right of the accused to a speedy and public trial.

My home state of Colorado passed such a law this past April, one of the consequences of voters giving Democrats control of the executive and legislative branches of a state. Other states have similar laws and there is now a push for a national red flag law. If President Trump is smart, he will see the color red before signing such a law, if it ever even makes it to his desk, as signing such a law may be a large red stop sign in his quest for a second term as president.

Colorado’s law for example works as follows.

Allows family, household members or law enforcement to petition a court to have guns seized or surrendered based on a showing that someone poses a danger under the “preponderance of the evidence,” a civil standard which means that the defendant is more likely than not to be a threat.

In other words, there is just over a 50/50 chance of accuracy, noting that someone’s guns could be seized even without a mental health professional making a determination of any kind.

A subsequent court hearing could extend a gun seizure up to 364 days, and gun owners can only retain their guns if they meet a burden of demonstrating by “clear and convincing evidence” — a much higher standard — that they are not in fact a threat. Gun owners are “guilty until proven innocent” under this framework.

Evidence could be the word of a disgruntled ex-spouse, neighbor, coworker, or anyone else with a grudge against a legal and law-abiding gun owner. Those with an axe to grind will replace mental health professionals in assessing the accused’s state of mind and potential threat.

In a state like Colorado, having had its share of mass shootings, red flag decisions will likely err on the side of caution, rather than evidence, needing little more than one person’s convincing diatribe to pass the “preponderance of evidence” threshold.

Once guns are seized, the bar is raised significantly to reverse the decision. The Mueller standard of justice now applies, as in “guilty until proven innocent.” The accused must now exonerate themselves, or prove their innocence, before having their guns returned. Good luck with that.

What does this have to do with white supremacy? This past week, Trump supporters are now all “white nationalist” racists. Or as one University of California professor claimed, “white nationalist terror supporters.” The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies hate groups including white nationalist, male supremacy, Christian identity, and anti-immigrant.

How long will it take before states, or the federal government, if a red flag law becomes nationalized, to view any and all Trump supporters as “posing a danger” based on their skin color, gender, religion, and opposition to open borders?

I suspect that of the 62 million Trump voters in 2016, significantly more were gun owners than the similar number of Hillary Clinton voters. What better way to disarm the population than to go after those who own guns, in this case, Trump supporters?

Would a red flag law be applied to dangerous leftist groups such as Antifa? Not likely as these laws are being enforced by liberal Democrats. If you think I’m exaggerating the leftist sentiment toward Trump voters, “Death camps for Trump supporters” fliers turned up at various locations on Long Island this week.

Not only Trump supporters, but also those who don’t buy into the man-made global warming hoax. Bill Nye, the bow tie guy, “is open to criminal charges and jail time for climate change dissenters.” Is it a stretch for some bureaucratic panel to determine that someone not buying into the climate change movement “poses a threat” and shouldn’t be allowed to possess a firearm?

Is the “white supremacy” talk just a way for flailing Democrat presidential candidates to attempt to gain some traction in their campaigns? Or is this “white nationalist” rhetoric a way to paint Trump supporters with a broad brush as a means of confiscatory gun control?

Red flag laws will have the effect of disarming those best able to stop a shooter. But that’s not the real goal of these laws. Instead it’s a new approach to thwarting the Second Amendment. President Trump is hopefully thinking long and hard about signing on to such measures, as this has the potential to be his “read my lips, no new taxes” moment.

 

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Denver-based physician, freelance writer, and occasional radio talk show host whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, Twitter, and QuodVerum.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Identity Politics Violence is Tearing America Apart

Identity Politics Violence is Tearing America ApartThree years ago, a bloody summer of black nationalist violence claimed the lives of eight police officers with the massacre of five police officers by Micah X. Johnson in Dallas and the murder of three police officers in Baton Rogue by Gavin Long.

Johnson had declared his support for the Black Lives Matter racial nationalist group and told police that he wanted to kill white people, and especially white police officers.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/

The Fluorine Conundrum

The Fluorine ConundrumThe element fluorine (with the chemical notation ‚“F”) is in the crosshairs of many do-gooders these days. That isn’t new but appears to have recently gained momentum. For example, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), has recently called for a scientific meeting on the ‚“Environmental Risk Assessment of PFAS,” to take place at Durham, NC, on Aug. 12-15, 2019.

The EPA’s current PFAS Research list (as of July 2019) comprises 165 of such chemicals. Of course, that’s only a small fraction of natural and synthetic organic chemicals, i.e. substances that contain carbon-to-fluorine bonds. My own list, based on TerraToxTM databases covers more than 8,000 of such compounds.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/

Greenie doomsayers have been wrong every time. Now they should get even more power?

Every day, the public is fed propaganda from people pretending to be journalists who claim that Trump is governing with fear.

For the last several decades it is actually the fake journalists, in collusion with other Democrats, who have tried to scare the heck out of children and the rest of us to sell to us the idea that we are destroying the earth and that the public has to relinquish their freedom to greedy and powerful bureaucrats and politicians to save the planet. 

This week, a report is out from the United Nations that we are at risk of starvation if we don’t switch from meat to vegetables and we only have a short time to address the problem. The media and other Democrats repeat this garbage with no questions asked. 

World food security increasingly at risk due to ‘unprecedented’ climate change impact, new UN report warns

Speaking at the launch of a Special Report on Climate Change and Land by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, experts highlighted how the rise in global temperatures, linked to increasing pressures on fertile soil, risked jeopardizing food security for the planet.

I would think a number of curious journalists who are supposedly fact checkers would start to question why so many previous predictions of doom and gloom have been 100% wrong.

Thirty years ago, the UN attempted to scare everyone by saying there was only ten years left to fix the problem. The media and other Democrats just repeated the garbage with no questions asked.  

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

In 1970, on the first Earth Day a significant percentage of the population was going to starve soon because we were in an ice age. The warnings were spectacularly wrong. Of course, the New York Times and others just repeated the dire predictions with no questions asked.

In 1970, the world population was around 3.7 billion and today it is more than double at 7.5 billion and we have an obesity problem in much of the world, not starvation. I would think that all these people who predict this crap would understand that CO2 makes plants thrive, not die. Her’es how bad it’s been:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue ofMademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

Now something most pretend-journalists will attempt to hide from the public is that the mass shooters, from Christ Church, to El Paso, to Dayton and more, have all believed that humans and corporations are destroying the earth and that there are too many people. That’s the greenie line. But they think the truth needs to be hidden from the public because it just doesn’t fit the Democrat-UN agenda. Power for Democrats and UN officials matters much more than the truth.

Fears of climate change, immigration, and overpopulation are driving this new wave of violence. Here is something else that will be hidden from the public because it doesn’t fit the agenda. Heat waves are no more common than they have been in the past and that high temperatures in a majority of states occurred in the 1930’s, over eighty years ago, not currently.

Throwing cold water on extreme heat hype

They were wrong then, they are wrong now. The public should be told the truth by the press before handing over power to UN bureaucrats and allowing the Democrats to destroy the economy and our way of life with their radical, extremist policies.

When will the media do their job working for the American people instead of doing everything they can to elect Democrats no matter what manure they have pollute the public with?

Every day, the public is fed propaganda from people pretending to be journalists who claim that Trump is governing with fear.

For the last several decades it is actually the fake journalists, in collusion with other Democrats, who have tried to scare the heck out of children and the rest of us to sell to us the idea that we are destroying the earth and that the public has to relinquish their freedom to greedy and powerful bureaucrats and politicians to save the planet. 

This week, a report is out from the United Nations that we are at risk of starvation if we don’t switch from meat to vegetables and we only have a short time to address the problem. The media and other Democrats repeat this garbage with no questions asked. 

World food security increasingly at risk due to ‘unprecedented’ climate change impact, new UN report warns

Speaking at the launch of a Special Report on Climate Change and Land by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, experts highlighted how the rise in global temperatures, linked to increasing pressures on fertile soil, risked jeopardizing food security for the planet.

I would think a number of curious journalists who are supposedly fact checkers would start to question why so many previous predictions of doom and gloom have been 100% wrong.

Thirty years ago, the UN attempted to scare everyone by saying there was only ten years left to fix the problem. The media and other Democrats just repeated the garbage with no questions asked.  

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

In 1970, on the first Earth Day a significant percentage of the population was going to starve soon because we were in an ice age. The warnings were spectacularly wrong. Of course, the New York Times and others just repeated the dire predictions with no questions asked.

In 1970, the world population was around 3.7 billion and today it is more than double at 7.5 billion and we have an obesity problem in much of the world, not starvation. I would think that all these people who predict this crap would understand that CO2 makes plants thrive, not die. Her’es how bad it’s been:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue ofMademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

Now something most pretend-journalists will attempt to hide from the public is that the mass shooters, from Christ Church, to El Paso, to Dayton and more, have all believed that humans and corporations are destroying the earth and that there are too many people. That’s the greenie line. But they think the truth needs to be hidden from the public because it just doesn’t fit the Democrat-UN agenda. Power for Democrats and UN officials matters much more than the truth.

Fears of climate change, immigration, and overpopulation are driving this new wave of violence. Here is something else that will be hidden from the public because it doesn’t fit the agenda. Heat waves are no more common than they have been in the past and that high temperatures in a majority of states occurred in the 1930’s, over eighty years ago, not currently.

Throwing cold water on extreme heat hype

They were wrong then, they are wrong now. The public should be told the truth by the press before handing over power to UN bureaucrats and allowing the Democrats to destroy the economy and our way of life with their radical, extremist policies.

When will the media do their job working for the American people instead of doing everything they can to elect Democrats no matter what manure they have pollute the public with?

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Bozell & Graham Column: Uncorking Hate for Pink and Blue Parties

The “gender reveal” has become a growing phenomenon in the world of social media. When expectant parents discover the gender of their unborn baby, they make a big announcement revealing the baby’s sex, with cakes and balloons and even pyrotechnics. It’s a celebration of life, a desire to share the joyous news of the little boy or girl. Ah, but there’s the rub. A boy or a girl. In today’s perverted culture this is wrong… very wrong.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Press has a lot to answer for for its treacly, heartstring-tugging portrayal of an illegal — who just mowed down a father of five

In the latest instance of an illegal immigrant walking around with impunity and escalating his crime spree, we have this outrageous story from the Daily Caller:

An illegal immigrant who received positive press coverage during his fight against deportation earlier this year struck and killed a father of five in Colorado on Aug. 2 while driving without a license.

According to press reports, Miguel Ramirez Valiente was charged with careless driving with a revoked license after he over-corrected his truck while driving on a state highway near Colorado Springs, hitting Sean Buchanan.

Buchanan was riding a motorcycle when he was hit by Ramirez Valiente, who came to the U.S. from El Salvador 14 years ago.

Ramirez Valiente has several prior charges on his arrest record.

According to a CBS affiliate in Denver, the man had previously been in the news, sympathetically portayed by church activists as a model illegal, deserving of no deportation. The only injustice, in fact, was that he was being ordered shipped home. He got his sanctuary, and the media bought and broadcast the whole thing lock stock and barrel.

Image credit: YouTube screen shot

Look at that modern-church podium. Look at those head-tilting concerned clerics. Look at the pompous and pecksniffian piety, all parties around the man convinced they were protecting a saint against the horror of horrors of him having to live in his homeland of El Salvador, based on what they claimed was a flimsy and capricious enforcement effort from a minor and inconsequential crime. Here’s what Daily Caller reported was the true story:

CNN did not cite Ramirez Valiente’s rap sheet when the network published a sympathetic profile of him in January, after he took refuge in a Colorado Springs church to avoid deportation.

Ramirez Valiente said during a press conference at the church that he came to the U.S. 14 years ago from El Salvador, where he says he fled gang violence.

He first came on the radar of U.S. immigration authorities in 2011, following a traffic stop. He claimed in the press conference that he had been fighting his immigration case for eight years, and that he had never missed an immigration hearing.

Oh such a model illegal who, after all that, deserves to stay, well ahead of other legal immigrants waiting in line. The Daily Caller points out that behind that phony “narrative” CNN was concealing a full blown crime spree. The illegal was the good guy, and anyone trying to throw him out for his crimes was a bad guy.

Now a father of five is dead and what we see now is that both the press and the church activists were running a dirty protection racket for criminals. The illegal should have been thrown out years ago. The defenders of this illegal now have blood on their hands.

The Daily Mail tried to put out a counter-narrative that the man killed was some kind of Darwin award case, based on his belief that illegals should be permitted to stay here, too. All they proved, actually was that the father of five was a kind man and tthe Daily Mail is just a tad obnoxious. Its narrative shows the extent to which press coverage about illegals has been unnaturally in the tree of open-borders activists. Illegals, no matter how many crimes they have committed, are always portrayed in the press as the good guys and their crimes are either concealed or minimized (often as some little speeding traffic stop) when in reality, there are often a string of crimes involved. It takes a lot to get someone deported, yet when it happens, law enforcement is always portrayed as evil and the illegal is the protagonist. 

Fact is, we have seen this idealization of illegals almost constantly in the press, maybe most famously in the story of the caravaner, Lady Frijoles, Mirian Zelaya, who was defended in the press as a put-upon migrant for calling Mexican tortillas and beans donated by volunteers food fit for pigs. That enabled Zelaya to get let in to this country ahead of the other waiting migrants, after which she then got busted pretty quickly for assaulting someone in Dallas.

It highlights the mass media distortions about illegal immigrants, who like any people who leave their homes are often misfits and within that category, frequently criminals. The crime stats show that our prisons are full of illegals well out of proportion to their numbers and that one crime from an illegal often leads to another. Cross the border illegally and the next stop is stealing someone’s Social Security number. Next up, marriage fraud. Or crimes of disorder, fueled by impunity as judges throw out cases to prevent deportation. For some, the pattern extends to complete lawlessness and as in this case, heads up to murder.

The press has a lot to answer for this. Kudos to the CBS affiliate for exposing this revolting treacle about this illegal. CNN and all of the mass media who refuse to do their job and report objectively need to be held up to public scorn for it. They aren’t on the people’s side, they are nothing shills for illegals and the criminal cartels who profit from them. 

In the latest instance of an illegal immigrant walking around with impunity and escalating his crime spree, we have this outrageous story from the Daily Caller:

An illegal immigrant who received positive press coverage during his fight against deportation earlier this year struck and killed a father of five in Colorado on Aug. 2 while driving without a license.

According to press reports, Miguel Ramirez Valiente was charged with careless driving with a revoked license after he over-corrected his truck while driving on a state highway near Colorado Springs, hitting Sean Buchanan.

Buchanan was riding a motorcycle when he was hit by Ramirez Valiente, who came to the U.S. from El Salvador 14 years ago.

Ramirez Valiente has several prior charges on his arrest record.

According to a CBS affiliate in Denver, the man had previously been in the news, sympathetically portayed by church activists as a model illegal, deserving of no deportation. The only injustice, in fact, was that he was being ordered shipped home. He got his sanctuary, and the media bought and broadcast the whole thing lock stock and barrel.

Image credit: YouTube screen shot

Look at that modern-church podium. Look at those head-tilting concerned clerics. Look at the pompous and pecksniffian piety, all parties around the man convinced they were protecting a saint against the horror of horrors of him having to live in his homeland of El Salvador, based on what they claimed was a flimsy and capricious enforcement effort from a minor and inconsequential crime. Here’s what Daily Caller reported was the true story:

CNN did not cite Ramirez Valiente’s rap sheet when the network published a sympathetic profile of him in January, after he took refuge in a Colorado Springs church to avoid deportation.

Ramirez Valiente said during a press conference at the church that he came to the U.S. 14 years ago from El Salvador, where he says he fled gang violence.

He first came on the radar of U.S. immigration authorities in 2011, following a traffic stop. He claimed in the press conference that he had been fighting his immigration case for eight years, and that he had never missed an immigration hearing.

Oh such a model illegal who, after all that, deserves to stay, well ahead of other legal immigrants waiting in line. The Daily Caller points out that behind that phony “narrative” CNN was concealing a full blown crime spree. The illegal was the good guy, and anyone trying to throw him out for his crimes was a bad guy.

Now a father of five is dead and what we see now is that both the press and the church activists were running a dirty protection racket for criminals. The illegal should have been thrown out years ago. The defenders of this illegal now have blood on their hands.

The Daily Mail tried to put out a counter-narrative that the man killed was some kind of Darwin award case, based on his belief that illegals should be permitted to stay here, too. All they proved, actually was that the father of five was a kind man and tthe Daily Mail is just a tad obnoxious. Its narrative shows the extent to which press coverage about illegals has been unnaturally in the tree of open-borders activists. Illegals, no matter how many crimes they have committed, are always portrayed in the press as the good guys and their crimes are either concealed or minimized (often as some little speeding traffic stop) when in reality, there are often a string of crimes involved. It takes a lot to get someone deported, yet when it happens, law enforcement is always portrayed as evil and the illegal is the protagonist. 

Fact is, we have seen this idealization of illegals almost constantly in the press, maybe most famously in the story of the caravaner, Lady Frijoles, Mirian Zelaya, who was defended in the press as a put-upon migrant for calling Mexican tortillas and beans donated by volunteers food fit for pigs. That enabled Zelaya to get let in to this country ahead of the other waiting migrants, after which she then got busted pretty quickly for assaulting someone in Dallas.

It highlights the mass media distortions about illegal immigrants, who like any people who leave their homes are often misfits and within that category, frequently criminals. The crime stats show that our prisons are full of illegals well out of proportion to their numbers and that one crime from an illegal often leads to another. Cross the border illegally and the next stop is stealing someone’s Social Security number. Next up, marriage fraud. Or crimes of disorder, fueled by impunity as judges throw out cases to prevent deportation. For some, the pattern extends to complete lawlessness and as in this case, heads up to murder.

The press has a lot to answer for this. Kudos to the CBS affiliate for exposing this revolting treacle about this illegal. CNN and all of the mass media who refuse to do their job and report objectively need to be held up to public scorn for it. They aren’t on the people’s side, they are nothing shills for illegals and the criminal cartels who profit from them. 

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/