Tag Archives: Educational Ignorance

Bill O’Reilly Lays an Egg- The Strategic Blunder Conservative’s Commonly Make

Part I

Why is the Left in a violent-mob frenzy to rewrite American history transforming its heroes, traditions, and founding principles into villains and ideas to be reviled? Why would conservatives pursue the strategy of conceding an adversary’s lie as the starting point to win a broader argument? They do this all the time. Radio conservatives from Sean Hannity to Chris Stigall,1 sling around the term “McCarthyism” attempting to pin this practice on Democrats. The problem is, McCarthyism isn’t “McCarthyism”. Like using “racist” to silence opposition, the Left invented it to dissuade anyone from looking into what they were up to in the 1930’s and 40’s. I did for my Master’s thesis and I know what they’re hiding. Conservatives who use this term are accomplices of the Left in doing a Jimmy Hoffa on the greatest spy and treason scandal in America’s history. In an attempt to paint modern Democrats as racists, Mark Levin and Chris Plante relish in pointing out Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy were Democrats. Their hands are on the same shovel liberals use to bury reasons, beyond slavery, why the South seceded; state’s rights, federalism, and government in unconstitutional service to northern business interests. One researching this history might discover the U.S. government functions so far outside the law, the Constitution is dead. Statists in both parties can’t allow this to happen. On Monday 11 September 2023, Mark Levin declared 9/11 was one of the worst attacks on America second only, not to Pearl Habor but the Confederacy’s “attack”.2 Utter rubbish. The lot of them are doing the Left’s dirty work.

The Left’s historical revisionism is motivated by a desire to destroy the principles upon which America was founded. Why do conservatives aid and abet them? Perhaps they concede small skirmishes waiting to fight the large battles. If they fought the small skirmishes, there might be no large battles. The following is an example of this blunder.

In his book Killing England, political commentator and pop-history co-author Bill O’Reilly besmirches two heroes of the American Revolution. The first in vicarious service to the Homosexual movement. O’Reilly determines as true, the slander Baron von Steuben, a Prussian military officer credited with whipping the Continental Army into shape, was homosexual. The second supports the Left’s war to destroy America. He reprises the long-debunked smear Thomas Jefferson sired six children by house slave, Sally Hemings, writing she “will share master Jefferson’s bed as his lover”.3

And what is O’Reilly’s proof? The “consensus” of modern historians. Historians that are overwhelmingly liberal. Consensus is not scholarship. It is opinion based on a vote. Truth cannot be determined by a majority vote. It can only be determined by hard evidence, solid irrefutable facts, and serious scholarship. O’Reilly insists he is correct about von Steuben and Jefferson. Why? He claims to be an historian. Is this true?

O’Reilly graduated college with an undergraduate degree in history as did I. He taught history for two years in a Catholic high school. I taught history for over two decades in a public high school. That makes us historians, right? Not so fast. O’Reilly holds a Masters’ degree in Broadcast Journalism and Public Administration, mine is actually in history. They are not interchangeable. Basing truth in consensus was the first red flag. Claiming expertise in a professional discipline in which he is untrained is number two. The third is the indefensible absence of end/footnotes, a tactic used by Communist history writer, Howard Zinn.

O’Reilly is not an historian. Instead, he churns out derivative digests synthesizing previously published works of real historians. His book offers nothing new, original, or novel. Why are they popular? Written at the high school level, they appeal to those possessing a shallow knowledge of history. Such readers are ill-equipped to evaluate the historicity of his books. What of O’Reilly’s historical knowledge? It might be prodigious but memorizing a medical library does not make one a doctor.

Every discipline, from astronomy, engineering, geometry, martial arts, medicine, music, to crime lab forensics follow standardized rules, methodologies, protocols, and practices. Individuals are not pronounced black belts, biologists, lawyers, nurses, and so forth until an accredited governing body trained in their discipline, determines they satisfy all requirements. It is no different in the field of history.

Historians do more than take classes. They must be trained and this is done in graduate school. When I started, the director showed me two filing cabinet drawers. The top one was packed full with folders of those accepted into the program. The bottom drawer contained one lonely folder, those few who survived to the end. After years of foundational courses, history students move to methodology classes. They are essential to becoming a trained historian. Students learn how to find and use primary sources, how to sift secondary ones for validity, and how to separate necessary from unnecessary information to support their work. They will write many sourced research papers. At the end of course work, they face the graduate exam. In my case, three professors submitted four essay questions. It took me six hours to answer them. But this is just the beginning. Next is the thesis, the part of the program that kills off so many applicants.

To be declared an historian, the candidate must write and defend a thesis before experts in their field. It is an original work and must either 1) Present a new interpretation of an historical event based on new evidence heretofore not seen, or 2) present an entirely new and possibly novel reinterpretation of an historical event challenging existing ones. O’Reilly has done none of the above. He has not written or defended a thesis in history, an absolute requirement for one to claim the status of historian.

A thesis requires students be detectives, anthropologists, archeologists, sociologists, and forensic scientists. Like crime scene and automobile collision investigators, they collect as much physical evidence as possible, establish chronologies, interview witnesses, and consider prior writing on the subject. This will take one to two years or more. They analyze and draw conclusions, then organize it into a coherent integrated explanation. It must address contrary interpretations and opinions explaining why the student’s is the superior one. O’Reilly ignored information contrary to his consensus conclusion, red flag number four. Writing the thesis will take another year… as long as one can live on little sleep. Thesis advisers will demand students rewrite major portions, scrap the whole affair and start over from scratch, rewrite major portions of the rewrite, scrap them, start over again, and so on. Finally, when their adviser concludes the student has produced a proper thesis, the real fun begins. The student must defend his or her work before a panel of professors all authorities in the thesis’ subject matter. They will attack it from every angle and try to tear it down forcing candidates to demonstrate they know their subject. It is no fun. As a policeman, I faced aggressive and hostile attorneys on the stand trying to pick apart my testimony. The thesis defense is worse. This is why those who survive to the end, bristle when people like O’Reilly claim to be historians. He is a journalist, not an historian. It explains why he botched stories of two men so badly.

Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin von Steuben was born into a military family following his father’s footsteps into the Prussian Army rising to the rank of captain. A local prince in Baden inducted him into the Order of Fidelity conferring upon him the title of baron. Steuben became part of the royal court. Soon thereafter, an anonymous enemy circulated rumors Steuben sodomized young men, a charge he denied. Unfounded or not, a rumor of such dreadful nature was enough to cause expulsion from the court and military. His accuser was never known, no victims identified, and no evidence surfaced that Steuben was homosexual. Nevertheless, liberal historians conclude he was guilty. Steuben relocated to France hoping to repair his military career. It was there he met Benjamin Franklin on a mission to obtain financial aid for America’s war with Britain. Franklin recommended Steuben to the Continental Army. He sailed to North America and joined General George Washington at Valley Forge and was instrumental in fashioning his army into an effective fighting force.4

Historian and Steuben expert John McCauley Palmer writes accusations von Steuben was homosexual were most likely driven by personal jealousies and religious hatred. He was a Protestant in the Catholic royal court of Hohenzollern-Hechingen Prince Josef Wilhelm. After conducting an investigation, Wilhelm concluded the charges were baseless. The unknown enemy continued circulating rumors forcing Steuben to leave the royal court.5

Professor of history Michael Lynch notes the LGBT movement is attempting to rewrite history falsely claiming Founding Fathers welcomed open homosexuals because of their contributions to the founding. Their websites trumpet Steuben was homosexual.6 They feverishly scour historical records looking for tell-tale signs only they can see, important personages were homosexuals. The dead cannot defend their reputations from such horrid smears. They denounce defenders of the accused as “homophobes” trying to destroy anyone standing on Biblical truth with respect to homosexuality.

The liberal History Channel claims Steuben was homosexual. Fancy that, a homosexual serving on the staff of an army for which the Continental Congress drafted rules governing the conduct of soldiers forbidding homosexuals to serve. Moreover, General Washington court martialed Lieutenant Enslin for attempting to sodomize enlisted man John Monhort. Enslin was found guilty of violating Article 5, Section 18, of the Articles of War. Washington ordered Enslin drummed from the Army “with infamy”. He considered sodomy abhorrent and detestable.7 Yet the History Channel would have us believe he had no problem with this Prussian chap who desired to bugger young soldiers in his tent. Laws against sodomy were extant throughout pre and postwar America. Notions the Army would countenance let alone welcome homosexuals is preposterous.

Does O’Reilly address exculpatory evidence with respect to Steuben? No. Palmer’s book was written in 1937, are there newer books with new evidence? Newer books yes, new evidence, no. How can O’Reilly ignore the homosexual movement’s frenzy to claim everyone from the apostle Paul, George Patton, to Bugs Bunny were homosexuals? They are desperate to find masculine homosexual heroes to counter their image as effeminate males with an affinity for buttless chaps and marching divest of clothing in depraved parades. Next, O’Reilly resuscitates one of the most reprehensible libels ever promoted serving in the process as a handmaiden to Left. He writes the Jefferson Foundation proved through DNA Thomas Jefferson fathered six children by his slave mistress Sally Hemings.8 His proof? Its that consensus thing, again. What about the DNA test? Jefferson hasn’t been around to provide a sample for quite some time but I’ll address that soon.

Dumas Mallone’s six-volume biography is perhaps the most thorough published on Jefferson. He writes this lie, about Jefferson “emanated from a single poisoned spring”, James Thomson Callander whom the president “unwisely befriended”.9 Callander was a Scottish pamphleteer who wrote tracks attacking the Crown and Parliament and was indicted for sedition. He fled to North America picking up where he left off writing pamphlets attacking the Federalist Party and the Adam’s administration. Jefferson considered him useful to the Republican Party, strong opponents of the Federalists. In economic straits, Callander appealed to Jefferson. He provided him irregular monetary gifts including funds to write a book on American history. Callander authored an unsigned document exposing Alexander Hamilton’s affair with the wife of James Reynolds who used it to blackmail Hamilton.10

In giving Callander monetary gifts, Jefferson unwittingly left himself vulnerable to blackmail as well. Callander’s pamphlets attacking Adams on behalf of Republicans led to his arrest for sedition. He was fined $200 dollars and sent to prison. Jefferson promised to pay the fine but didn’t follow through for which Callander never forgave him. He was able to raise the funds, pay the fine, and was released from prison. James Monroe later pardoned Callander and the court remitted the fine.11 He then asked for a meeting with President Jefferson in Washington, D.C. He met with the president’s representative demanding appointment as Postmaster for Richmond, Virginia. He threatened to blackmail Jefferson by making public damaging letters and documents. He did not receive the appointment.12 In March 1801, Callander began attacking Jefferson in Federalist controlled newspapers. He revealed Jefferson paid him to attack Adams. This was “fully exploited by Federalist Papers including the best of them, Hamilton’s organ, the New York Evening Post”. At the end of 1802, Callander published his sensational claim Jefferson sired five children by black slave, Sally Hemings. He had never been to Monticello nor spoken with anyone who lived there including Sally Hemings.13 He claimed ambassador Jefferson took Hemings, as his concubine, along with his two cherished daughters to France. He described Hemings’ alleged children by Jefferson as very black when, in fact, Hemings was light complected to the point, children sired by Jefferson might have passed for white. Callander invented children that did not exist.14

So-called Federalists were anything but. They were Nationalists advocating consolidating all and unlimited power into a strong national government, rendering states merely its appendages. Republicans supported a federal government of limited powers and preservation of state’s reserved rights. The Constitution accomplished the latter but faux-Federalists worked to transform a federal into a national system necessitating Jefferson’s destruction. Callander’s calumny proved most useful in that endeavor.15

Then and now, there is no evidence or corroboration for Callander’s claim. It would have been “virtually unthinkable” for a “man of Jefferson’s moral standards and habitual conduct”. He was “fastidious” and devoted to his “dead wife’s memory and to the happiness of his daughters and grandchildren” which “bordered on the excessive”. None visiting or living at Monticello at that time noticed an affair. As was customary then, Jefferson did not comment on the accusations. He believed his moral life and standards spoke for themselves.16

Jefferson’s contemporaries and subsequent historians rejected Callander’s story. It lay dormant until 1974 when Fawn A. Brodie published a book using Freudian psychoanalysis to insist it was true. Barbara Riboud picked up the theme writing a novel depicting Jefferson having the affair. Suppressed memory hypnosis and a fictional novel were not enough to wave CBS off. Instead, the liberal network, practicing fake history, turned the books into a television miniseries. After historians “denounced the project as a preposterous lie”, CBS canceled it.17 “In 1998, retired pathologists Dr. Eugene Foster performed a DNA test on the Y chromosomes” of Sally Hemings’ male descendants. It revealed Tom, “Hemings first born son” who Callander claimed was Jefferson’s, “was not related to any Jefferson male”. However, Easton, Hemings last child, was descended from a male Jefferson but there was no way to say Thomas was the father. Why? Twenty-five Jefferson males lived in Virginia at the time, eight at or near Monticello. Moreover, Easton was born five years after Callander published his story when Jefferson was president. If Jefferson denied Tom was his son, why would he father Easton five years later when having a slave concubine would destroy him?18

Liberal newspapers rushed Foster’s work to press falsely claiming it proved the story about Jefferson and Hemings was true. I was a teacher at the time when a liberal biology instructor burst into the copy room gleefully and mockingly announcing the story about Jefferson had been proven by DNA. I had read the rebuttal debunking this claim and began to explain it. He said because I was not a biology teacher, I didn’t know what I was talking about. I placed a copy of the rebuttal in his mailbox. There was no apology.

DNA tests revealed all but one Jefferson male had a 15% chance of fathering Easton. It dropped to 4% for Thomas meaning the chances he was not Easton’s father is 96%. No letters, diaries, documents, or records among the large Jefferson and Hemings families mention an affair. Evidence points to Thomas’ brother Randolph. Easton was born in 1808 when Thomas was 64 and serving his second term as president. Randolph was 52 and his five sons ranged from ages 17 to 24. A

11 The Chris Stigall Show, KCMO 710AM Radio, 8 September, 2023.

22 The Mark Levin Show, KCMO 710Am Radio 11 September, 2023.

33 Bill O’Reilly, Killing England (New York, N.Y., Henry Holt and Company, 2017). 187, 188, 198.

44 Erick Trickey, “The Prussian Nobleman Who Helped Save the American Revolution”, April 26 2017, Smithsonian, at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/baron-von-steuben-19096L30481

55 John McCauley Palmer, General Von Steuben (New Haven Connecticut, Yale University Press, 1937), 94.

66 Michael Lynch, “Our Gaydar Seems Broken”, Past In the Present at https://pastinthepresent.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/our-gaydar-seems-to-be-broken/

77 General Orders 14 March 1778, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/washington/03-14-02–138.

88 O’Reilly, 198.

99 Dumas Mallone, Jefferson the President: First Term 1801-1805 (Boston, Massachusetts, Little Brown and Company, 1970), 206-207.

1010 Dumas Mallone, Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty (Boston, Massachusetts, Little, Brown, and Company, 1962), 326-327, 331, 332.

1111 Mallone, Jefferson the President, 207-208.

1212 IBID. 207-208, 210.

1313 IBID. 211, 212.

1414 IBID. 212-213.

1515 IBID. 218.

1616 IBID. 214.

1717 Ann Coulter, “Was Thomas Jefferson on the Duke Lacrosse Team”? July 9, 2019, updated August 12 2020, The Marshall News Messenger, Friday May 5, 2023 at https://marshallnewsmessenger.com/opinion/columns/ann-coulter-was-thomas-jefferson-on-the-duke-lacrosse-team/article-20eed382-a-05a-11c9-bcb0-436538f71

1818 IBID.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Canceled-Tales From Behind the Blackboard Curtain

For this narrative, I employ initials rather than names. Not to protect anyone’s identity, nor to provide legal cover from which to besmirch someone’s character. Rather, to utter some names would be akin to reading from an “honor” role of malefactors who should be condemned, not celebrated.

Injuries sustained in the line of duty ended my law enforcement career in 1989. The following year I moved from California’s radical Leftwing Bay area to attend college in the Midwest. Possessing a degree in history, I added one in education. A local school district hired me in 1993 to teach 9th grade American history. Over the next 23 years, I taught American History, Advanced Studies, Comparative Government, U.S. Government (my forte), Modern Global Issues, and World History. In a conservative city now, I walked into my first social studies department meeting believing I was safe from the censure and sanction (denial of promotion and assignments) I endured at the hands of virulent liberals running my former police department. To my surprise, the department brimmed with teachers ranging from liberal to Marxist. They began the meeting trashing out BW, a retiring geography teacher, not present, for being in the NRA. They eviscerated conservatives and former president Reagan with harsh criticism and mocked students whose dads were pastors. They were never shy, dilatory, nor quiet about ensuring everyone heard their opinions. Nor were they tolerant of dissenting views. Having paid a heavy price for being a conservative in California, I kept my mouth shut. Following this eye-opening meeting, I visited BW revealing what had transpired. He said they were all very liberal and cautioned me to watch my back. Silence, then, never expressing my views, would be my protective shield. So I thought.

April 1996, near the end of my third year, department colleague BB, slipped in my room after school shutting the door behind him. He bore a warning. BB said I was “under suspicion” by the social studies department for being a conservative. How could that be? I never spoke at meetings or shared my views with anyone on any subject. He explained being a former policeman was a red flag, but that was not what raised the most alarm. Department mockery and ridicule of conservatives at meetings was relentless. They noticed I never laughed or joined in. My silence was de facto proof of guilt. I scoffed at such nonsense. BB was not laughing. He delivered a prophetic warning. If it turned out I was a conservative, they would never accept me, I would never fit in, and I would have a tough career as a teacher. He could not have been more right. What transpired between 1993 and this tale would fill a book. Maybe two.

Fast forward to the beginning of the 2013 school year. Two juniors, PJ and JS asked me to sponsor their after school club. I was supervising after school detentions so declined. In the spring of 2014, having done my detention duty, four days a week, and some Saturdays, since 1997, I decided it was time to give it up. PJ and JS again pressed me to be a sponsor. I asked what the club was and they said The Sons of Liberty, a college Libertarian organization they wanted to bring to the high school level. I pointed out I was a conservative, not a Libertarian, they knew this, and me as a sponsor would probably not be a good fit. PJ and JS insisted this was not a problem. They only needed a faculty member present in order to meet after school. My role would be nil. Against my better judgment, I agreed. Summer break began and I forgot all about it.

During the first week of school, September 2014, assistant principal and activities director CH summoned me to his office. He was responsible for approving and managing extra-curricular activities and clubs. He asked me about the Sons of Liberty. I explained, I never heard of them. I did a Google search and learned they were a college Libertarian club. That was the extent of my knowledge. I only agreed to be the adult in the room, not take an active role in their activities. CH had reservations about approving the group. He said high school clubs should reflect the general student population, not left or right politically. Down the middle. His comment was odd considering the school sponsored a Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered Student Alliance, as well as a Gender Equity Club. Boys with girlfriends in the latter group told me it was an “angry feminist sounding board”. They were hardly moderate or down the middle. I said nothing in defense of the Libertarian Club. Considering what I had been through the past several years, I was disinclined to stick my neck out for anyone.

Beginning in 2010, a cabal of liberal female mostly social studies teachers, began a campaign to get me fired. RI, with whom I began my career, had ascended to become chair of the social studies department for three high and three junior high schools. She aided and abetted the cabal to an unknown degree. An English teacher, SA, and the Librarian JC, joined them in 2015. I called these six blondes the “Turnip Witches”. Most of them had been with the district less than ten years. They began their campaign by spying on me. They listened outside my door (students caught them) and later hid in an attached storage room listening to me (I caught them). They rifled through copy requests I turned into the copy clerk (she told me) and went through handouts in my room (I caught them). They squeezed students for information about what I said in class (kids told me). Turnip Witches then circulated lies about me among staff. Next, on a routine basis, they took their noxious file of lies and half-truths on me complaining to JF, the principal. Each time, in response, he summoned me to his office chastising and lecturing me for my alleged conservative bias. My side? He did not want to hear it. His motto was “perception is reality”. It did not matter if I was conservative and or biased. The fact teachers accused me of these crimes meant this was their perception therefore, it was true. He made up his mind before I crossed the threshold of his office.

He again summoned me at the start of the 2010 semester claiming more “alleged” complaints. He said I had a “reputation for being a conservative”, and this was a “problem” that had “persisted for years”. My being a conservative was the topic of discussion among faculty and it was causing a great deal of controversy, agitation, and concern among them. JF talked as if being a conservative was a crime. He added a parade of teachers were coming to him and they as well as parents were complaining I pushed conservative views in class. They wanted to know why he had not disciplined or fired me. I asked JF which parents were making complaints. He would not tell me. I asked who the teachers were. He said, with a sneer, he would never tell me. He added in mocking tones I would truly be surprised if I knew who some of them were. JF told complaining teachers for him to take action against me they had to make their allegations and names public. They refused. Who were the teachers stabbing me in the back? How could I now trust anyone I worked with from that moment forward? As with previous “anonymous” complaints, JF required me to turn in copies of all handouts, assignments, homework, quizzes, and tests, so he could scour them for bias. I was appalled. Parents of conservative and or Christian students had complained to me about liberal teachers pushing their bias in class. I not only documented this with names, dates, and places, I obtained handouts used by these teachers demonstrating their liberal bias. Why was he not summoning and investigating them? I protested this constituted a double standard amounting to persecution. He should investigate the liberal teachers for bias. He insisted I was the only one about whom he received parent and teacher complaints. Based on my experiences, I suspected “parents” was more likely singular not plural. Without exposing names, I revealed parents complained to me about specific social studies teachers. As coincidence would have it, I later learned these liberal teachers were the very same ones complaining about me. What was JF’s response to my request? He became angry and dismissed me. As I got up to leave, he said, “This is not over. We’re not through yet”.

I was a member of the State Teachers Association, not the NEA. Each time I went to my representative, CB over what the principal was doing to me, he said there was no need for concern. It would all “blow over”. He did nothing and he was wrong.

The State had recently instituted standardized End Of Course exams (EOC’s), for certain courses. American history was one. This was the first year we were to administer the test. We discovered several questions applied to an eighth grade junior high unit, “Opening of the West”. There was a problem. Eighth grade teachers never made it to that unit. Now 9th grade American history teachers had to add this unit to a curriculum they already struggled to finish each year. All because 8th grade teachers failed to do their job. No one gave a hoot about 9th grade American history until EOC’s. I emailed Department Chair, RI asking her how we were to teach a course for which we had no curriculum and only a few days to prepare to boot. RI forwarded my email to DB, leader of the Turnip Witches, and they sent it to the principal.

On August 20, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., JF entered my room and shut the door behind him. He was furious. He told me to have a seat. He sat at the table next to my desk. He handed me an email and demanded to know if I had sent it. Why did he ask? My name was on it. He had cut the header off to hide who forwarded it to him. He said the “parties” who sent it to him were very angry, and then he launched into a violent tirade against me. He accused me of going behind his back. He yelled in my face, “I am sick and tired of you! I have put up with your behavior for ten years. You have tried to undermine balanced assessment! You have not embraced this initiative!” And I mean yelled. As JF’s voice rose, he slammed his open hand on the table repeatedly. “It’s over! We’re through! I’m finished with you!” He yelled in my face.

Was I scared? Yes. I was in the back of a room locked in with a boss who appeared out of control. He was full of rage, his voice yelling, and his eyes furious. He was between the door and me. I felt as if JF would strike me at any moment with no witnesses either. “I was a social studies teacher for years! And I was a darned good one too” JF screamed in my face slamming his hand down on my desk accentuating each word his face red with rage. Where did that come from? There was no antecedent or context for what he was screaming at me. I had not known him when he was a teacher and hence never commented on his teaching. “You don’t support or embrace balanced assessment!” (State tests) he repeated, still yelling. This was the first year we were to give the EOC. How could he claim I did not support what we had never done?

“Of course I embrace it. What are you basing this accusation on”, I asked. I was upset at his ambush and the false accusations he was hurling at me. They were a lie. JF became even angrier. He threw his head back and yelled “No! That is not how I interpret your email!” I explained my concerns about teaching the 8th grade unit, but he did not believe me. Again, pounding his hand down on my desk accusing me of attempting to sabotage his efforts to prepare kids for the exam. Why would I do that? JF had been clear. If kids did poorly on the test, he was blaming the teacher. If I were trying to stab him in the back, why would I do so by sending emails to supervisors not exactly part of my fan club? I asked him this. He repeated, he had had the same trouble with me for ten years and accused me of not supporting the history curriculum and attacked me for teaching in a biased manner. JF yelled he was sick of talking to me about this and of hearing from parents and teachers who complained about me. From that moment forward, I was to submit to him copies of every assignment, homework, test, quiz, and so forth I used in my classes. He would examine each including test questions, for conservative bias. Then he leaned toward me with this strange weird smile on his face but his eyes were all rage.

“You’re very bright”, he said sarcastically, “so let me make it clear so you understand. Any more problems, emails, whatever, and I am writing you up. Do you understand?” His voice had become low and gravelly. “You are a divisive element in the social studies department. It is because of your behavior”, he added. “No one in the department likes you. No one in the department accepts you as a member of the department, and that is why they don’t treat you like a member.” A cabal of liberal teachers was out to get me, unknown collaborators were out to get me, and the principal was as well. Coming to work became unpleasant. It was only the beginning. The Turnip Witches never dismounted their brooms.

“Hostile work environment” is a legal term. For me, it became reality. Word I was what others called the principal’s new “whipping boy” leaked out. No doubt, assisted by the Turnip Witches, Queens of backstabbing. I became a pariah in short order. Math teacher JR taught two doors down from me and we were on friendly terms. I often stood with him in the hallway, supervising students during passing periods. When he saw the principal or an assistant principal approaching, JR said he must shove me against the wall in order to promote his career. Work “friends” asked me not to send emails to them any longer. They did not want a trail, paper or electronic, between them and me. JD my new supervisor was down in the JV building. I emailed him from time to time with work related questions. Instead of replying by email, he walked all the way up the hill to my building and classroom to answer in person. He was not shy in telling me he too wanted no link or record of communicating with me. The district held in-service meetings at various locations including on campus and Central Office. Work “friends” joked they could not sit with me any longer because I was “toxic, radioactive” and “career suicide”. JD coined the term “Career Suicide Gang” and anointed me its undisputed leader. They made these comments and insults in the presence of the principal and assistant principals who did nothing. It got worse. I was still on the history exam writing team. At in-services, the other members refused to sit at the same table as me. This included three of the Turnip Witches. It was so bad the principal was compelled to make them sit with me. This they did, huddled tightly together, as if I was a monster, at the far end of the long rectangular table. Several teachers commented on how bad this looked. Kids learn at an early age unspoken social cues with respect to who is in and who is an untouchable. It carries over into adulthood.

Faculty meetings met in a large lecture hall. The rows of seats were arranged in two sections, one on the left, and one on the right separated by an aisle down the middle. Each row had 12 chairs. I sat in the section on the right, toward the middle of the room, in the last seat on the right. I had the entire row to myself. Was this coincidence or intentional? I decided to conduct an experiment to answer this question. From 2012, until my final day in May 2016, I arrived early to each meeting before anyone else. As teachers filed in, looking for seats, especially those habitually late, they would look at me, the eleven empty seats to my left, back at me, and then walk away. Some chose to stand along walls rather than sit in the same row as me. I knew almost none of them. Was it a good experiment? Consider this, the principal held faculty meetings every month on Wednesdays. Teachers refused to sit in the same row as me for over three and a half years. There were two exceptions. One time Math teacher DF came in late. The meeting was packed. He sat in my row but at the last seat on the left as far from me as possible. He did not even glance at me. DF and I had lived in the same neighborhood, gone to the same church, and I had taken him to work when his car was in the shop. Yet, DF’s neck was like cement, unable to turn. I decided to tweak my experiment. Instead of sitting in the last seat on the right, I moved three seats to me left. Now even late arriving DF would not sit in my row. A separation of eight seats was not enough. KD was an English teacher who had taken a job with another district. For her last meeting she sat next to me. KD said she knew exactly what I was doing with my little experiment. She said the way teachers treated me was a disgrace and the principal was evil and vindictive.

I endured this humiliating shunning every month in addition at in-service training. From faculty meetings to supervising after school pep-rallies in the gym, it was the same story. Teachers moved away from and or would not come near me. I was always sitting or standing completely alone. Did students notice this? Yes they did.

Later that semester, November 2012, JF wrote me up placing me on step one of a three-step termination process. My crime? I used too many free market sources in my history class (not true), and was not “collegial”. JF assigned me to the American history unit test writing team. He tasked us with writing exams teachers would use in common. At the meeting, I pointed out to second year teacher and team leader, AB, The Progressives Unit, included questions on Upton Sinclair’s book, The Jungle. They were problematic. Although fiction, schools teach it as fact. Proposed unit test questions reinforced that notion. Sinclair had been a radical socialist and historians had demonstrated his novel was mostly fiction. I consulted with a professor at a former University who agreed. AB asked me to share my concerns. As the meeting was breaking up, I demurred. She asked me to email them to her, which I did. My very liberal then supervisor, her friend DB, leader of the Turnip Witches, instrumental in my being demoted, twice, and active in trying to get me fired, told AB to forward my email to the principal. This she did.

JF came by my room, unannounced, after school, locked and shut the door, and sat down by my desk. Furious, he said my email to AB was “passive-aggressive”, I was sending “divisive behind the scenes communications”, was using biased sources, the fact that I told students The Jungle was essentially, a hoax, raised concerns I was not teaching the curriculum, kids needed to learn about socialism, and I was trying to undercut AB as team leader. None of this was true. Her sister taught in the district where I lived and my kids attended school. At back to school night, I told AB’s sister she was doing a great job. JF did not believe me. He said he was finished with me and left. He came by just before the Thanksgiving Break, to say he did not want to ruin my break by leaving me hanging. When we came back, he was writing me up.

For attempting to undercut AB, team leader, and using too many free market sources, JF wrote me up placing me on permanent probation. I was to turn in to him, again, copies of every handout and assignment I used in class. None of what he said was correct or factual. He was acting on behalf of the Cabal who were among his favorite teachers. In addition, for 2014, he was moving me from the Varsity down to the JV building on the first floor where the bulk of social studies teachers taught, including the Turnip Witches. Worse, I would be co-teaching one section of World History with DM, a special education teacher, liberal, and friend of the principal who hand picked him to supervise his department. Sitting in CH’s office, with all this running through my mind, I hoped he would not approve the new club. I was between three and four years of retiring and looking forward to a quiet uneventful finish. To my surprise, he approved the club. He gave me no guidance, let alone training on how to manage an extra-curricular activity, which I had never done.

Beginning October 2014, the Club met in my classroom after school on Wednesdays. I had met PJ and JS, now seniors, but did not know the other kids. Membership seemed fluid from week to week. Their format was a debate. Someone made a proposition and then members debated it. Topics included drug legalization, war in Afghanistan and Iraq, free speech and censorship, U.S. support for Israel, Gay rights, and so forth. Students described themselves as anarchists, Libertarian, socialists, anti-capitalists, Anarcho-Capitalists, many labels with which I was unfamiliar. I stayed out of debates and never offered my opinion. Debates were spirited but I did not hear comments anyone would consider inappropriate.

In late April 2015, PJ invited me to join an “Austrian Economics” free market forum on Face Book. Having never been on any form of social media, I was unfamiliar with FB. In addition, I was “technologically challenged” and had to call a family member who walked me through setting up a FB page. I connected with a family member and friends from college, about four in all. I joined the Austrian forum. People from around the world were members and it was a public group.

I posted nothing on this forum. Instead, I made comments on two items posted by PJ and JS. One was a You Tube video by economist Thomas Sowell who is black suggesting fatherless homes played a role in the recent Baltimore riots. I had lived and gone to school in Baltimore’s inner city and gave Sowell’s video a “like”. Another was a You Tube video on Alabama’s Supreme Court ruling against same-sex marriage. PJ and JS took issue with the Court’s ruling from a Libertarian perspective. I pointed out that same-sex marriage was a prelude to the radical homosexual lobby’s next step, adoption rights. I added sarcastically, “I guess I’m a failure as a Libertarian”. A Forum member who went by the handle, “Ignacio”, and was unknown to me, posted comments critical of the Pope. This drew angry anti-Christian responses from other members. When comments devolved into name-calling, I bowed out from the forum never to return.

On Monday May 4 2015, I arrived at school and logged onto the laptop to check email. It contained a warning from one of the seniors to stay off FB. He said the principal was calling kids, one by one, to his office, and conducting an investigation of the Club. It was a “witch hunt”, and they were after me. After me! I was stunned. This could not be true. What had I done?

On Tuesday May 5 2015, PJ came by my room. He said assistant principal JA was now calling in kids and questioning them about an incident occurring between Club members. My name came up during the interrogations. These kids had used school IPADS in the library and became embroiled in an angry debate (I had to ask what an IPAD was). They failed to log off, the librarian saw what they had written, and she ran to the principal with it. Oh brother. I knew JC, the librarian. She had been a new social studies teacher in 1998. The department assigned me to be her mentor. She used the room during my plan period. JC was a liberal, saw the framed picture of President Reagan on my desk, and a book critical of FDR and the New Deal. She never spoke to me and refused my help. Instead, she hung out with the department liberals. Students revealed that these teachers mocked me in front of their students. Later, JC transferred to a sister high school and became a librarian. In 2014, she transferred back to my high school.

I asked PJ what was on the IPADS that led to an investigation and caused such an uproar. How did my name come up? He said JS had become involved in a heated debate with several freshmen club members. It devolved into nasty name-calling and anti-Jewish slurs. He had no idea why my name was part of the investigation as I was not involved.

On Thursday May 7 2015, the principal came by my room after school unannounced. When he was out to get a teacher, he called them to his office to discuss an issue and then ambushed them with a different one in order to keep them off guard. His other tactic was to come by a teacher’s room unannounced and ambush them there, shutting and locking the door to keep out witnesses.

His demeanor was angry and curt. He interrogated me from a list written in his spidery style. He showed me a portion of a FB post he had cut and pasted. According to the principal, JS wrote he was picking something up for me at a store in town. I was flabbergasted. I had no idea what JS was talking about. I had no clue where the principal was going with his interrogation. He refused to allow me to see the text preceding JS’s statement. I learned later, the text referred to JS stopping by a doughnut store on the way to the Club meeting in my room. Period. The principal knew this when he interrogated me. Why did he pretend it said JS was picking something up “for” me when JS clearly did not write that? Why did the principal deceive me? Why did he lie?

Next, the principal asked if I ran the Cub meetings. I said no, PJ and JS ran the meetings. He asked if anyone had made “extremist” statements during meetings. I was typically on my laptop, in the back of the room, and not listening to what members said. I was unaware of anyone making “extremist” comments. JF did not define “extremist”. It was clear he did not believe me. He kept returning to and grilling me about my role in the club and extremist comments. I did not know where he was going with this line of questioning or why he focused on me. I had nothing to do with whatever they were investigating. He showed me a list including anti-Jewish slurs and suggested either I had something to do with, or supported them. This was rubbish. I had done scholarly research for Herbert Romerstein, a Jewish professor who made me an honorary member of his Synagogue in Clinton, Maryland, and I am a member of a Jewish organization. He refused to tell me what was going on but, instead, treated me like a criminal and then angrily left the room. Later that same day, PJ came by. He said a second assistant principal, KT, (there were four) was now calling kids to her office to be interrogated for a third time. She asked them, who ran the meetings, did I run them, did I contribute to their discussions, and what was my exact role. Had the principal not already grilled me about this? Why a third round of interrogations with yet another assistant principal? Why were they focusing on me?

Later that day, JS came by during my plan period. He was very upset. He revealed he had been in the nasty debate with Club members on the IPADS. Three freshmen had gone to the principal claiming JS was gathering guns and bombs to blow up the school. I was shocked. This was the first time I had heard specifics about the incident other than the name-calling. I told JS if there was any truth to these allegations, he would not graduate in two weeks, the district would expel and refer him to the police. This was a very serious matter. Rather than discuss this with me, he and his family needed to consult with an attorney immediately. I told him how angry I was because I was not involved and yet, the focus was on me. JS agreed I had nothing to do with it. He assured me the accusations against him were false. I told him it would still be wise to consult an attorney.

On Friday May 8 2015, with about 12 minutes remaining in hour seven, the final period, the principal entered my room followed by JG, a history teacher. He told me JG was taking my class and to “come with me”. The kids all stared in stunned silence. I followed the principal from the room. He walked me out of the JV building up the hill to the Varsity building, said hello to a few students, but would not talk to me. I was totally in the dark. I followed him into his office complex. I saw JM, assistant superintendent, sitting at a round table covered with papers. Now I was scared. What was going on? He told me to sit down at the table. The principal joined us. JF said that while investigating a situation involving several students in the libertarian club, my name came up leading to an investigation of me. He accused me of being on Face Book 37 hours over the past month, during contract time, using district property, the laptop, making inappropriate comments, and contact with students on Face Book.

JM listed district policies, and their code numbers, I had violated. The best I could hope for was them to write up and move me from step one to step three of the termination process. At worst, he would recommend the Board of Education terminate my employment adding, “You will have to be squeaky clean to even have a chance of holding onto your job”. My chest began to tighten. I felt as if I could not breathe. I have a phobic fear of heights and felt as if someone had shoved me out of an airplane.

JF claimed to be my biggest defender but no more. He repeated his “perception is reality” axiom. JF did not say who or from what he defended me. He showed me a tech-prepared spreadsheet indicating I had been on FB during contract time. I explained, yes, but this was not instead of teaching. It was late April and kids were taking exams and or I was showing a video after exams. That is when I logged on to FB. I did not log off during the day but left the page open. Did this make it appear I was still on FB when I was not? He “accused” me of being a Libertarian. He showed me pages with blacked out (redacted) sections and asked if I had made the comments in response to Thomas Sowell and the Alabama Supreme Court case. I replied yes. He said Sowell’s comments were racist and JM agreed. Had either of these upper middle class lily-white men lived in Baltimore or Philadelphia’s inner city as I had? Did they know who Thomas Sowell was? Racist? I was born with a natural tan, a step below Caucasian compared to them, and father of a mixed race family. Racist?

The principal demanded I confess to being a Libertarian. I refused because that was a lie. He claimed to have documents somewhere to prove I was. He jumped up from the table and ran across the room to his desk. He scrolled frantically through the computer file he kept me. It was robust. He kept muttering, “It is in here somewhere, I know it is. I read it”. Finally, JM suggested he return to the table and look later. Frustrated, JF returned but did not give up. “This is it, this one”, he said triumphantly waving a piece of paper he picked up from the table. It was my comment about the Alabama Supreme Court case. JF said I admitted to being a Libertarian. Was this man dense? I explained my statement, “I guess I have failed as a Libertarian” was rhetorical sarcasm. He could ask the two seniors. He would not let go of this accusation.

Next JF and JM said my comments about homosexuals and adoption were inappropriate and unacceptable. I explained they represented my Biblical convictions. Brushing aside my religious faith, they ruled my views inappropriate and they forbade teachers from sharing inappropriate views with students. JF returned to the You Tube video/interview with Thomas Sowell. He insisted that Sowell’s assertion fatherless homes has anything to do with inner city violence is racist. He asked if I was the one who posted the video and link. No, I was new to FB and had no idea how to post videos and links. Which was true. I did not actually watch the video. “Then why did you give it a like”, JF asked, suggesting I was lying. I told him I was familiar with Sowell, his articles, books, and views. I read the title of the video, had lived in Baltimore’s inner city, and understood what Sowell meant. JF and JM laughed at me in mocking tones. They did not believe me. “Why would you like what you did not watch” JM asked, condescension in his voice. Had I not just explained this? I added I had no time to watch every video. The “like” was a courtesy to those who posted it. This was also true. They did not believe me and suggested I posted the video. I repeated again, I lacked the technological skills to do that which was true. The principal threw his head back mocking me with derisive laughter. He accused me of pretending to be naïve and backward with respect to technology. He called me liar.

JF tossed some papers in front of me. It was a copy from a FB page. At the top right corner was a red ball with a number inside it. It was FB’s notification one had a private message. The principal insisted, because I had clicked on it, this proved I was a liar and knew my way around technology. Was he more technologically backward than I was? Above the red ball were the words “private message”. I pointed this out. The number inside what looked like a billiard ball suggested the number of messages. One did not need to be technologically adept to figure out what it meant, I pointed out. JF continued accusing me of lying about my level of “expertise”. It was obvious to me; at that point, this really was a witch-hunt. When people search for witches, they find them. I explained PJ asked me to join the free market forum, I had never been on FB, and had to ask someone how to set up the page. Again, they laughed at me. JF asked who Ignacio was. I said I had no idea. People on forums typically use a “handle” rather than real names. He said Ignacio was a student at the school. I had no way of knowing this. JF and JM said while downloading FB pages during the investigation, the pages began disappearing. JF accused me of wiping them clean. He claimed my time on FB at school was not with family and friends but, instead, secret communications with students that I was now trying to conceal. What! This was insane! This man was utterly unhinged creating a bizarre conspiracy from whole cloth. I insisted there was no truth in this. If they could read my posts, they could see with whom I communicated, all four of them. JF and JM laughed again calling me a liar and accused me of erasing my pages so no one could see with whom I had communicated.

JM told me I needed to come clean. Wiping my FB page to hide anything was an offense for which he would fire me. I was shocked. I had done nothing of the sort. He repeated the accusation several times. He said either I wiped my pages clean or I had given my password to a student and directed him to do it for me. I could not believe my ears. This was preposterous. They continued to hammer me with accusations. I continued to tell them I had done nothing of the sort. Now the principal accused me of leading a cover up. JM again insisted the time had come for me to stop lying, come clean, and tell the truth. It was an ugly scene. Suddenly, the principal saw a name at the bottom of the half-redacted page. It was not mine. He said, maybe it was not my page after all. It was not mine. Whomever it belonged to had done the erasing, not me. I did not know how to erase posts. Yet, JF and JM sat their attacking, mocking, calling me a liar, and demanding I confess to something I had not done. They accused me of leading a nefarious conspiracy. There was no truth to any of this whatsoever.

JF continued trying to prove I was an “extremist” who made “extremist” comments to the club. He asked if I remembered when he came by my room asking if anyone ever made extremist comments and I had said no. Yes I did. Aha! My answer proved I was a liar. I told him he was wrong. I never heard a kid make an inappropriate comment. Not a kid, you, he said. He considered my FB forum comment about the radical homosexual lobby extremist. Because I denied saying what he considered extremist, this proved I was a liar. I had never heard such demented demented illogic in my life. What gave him the right to decide which views were extremist? What gave him the right to declare the Word of G-d extremist and deny to people, their devoutly held religious beliefs? His illogical assertion made it clear he was bent on my destruction, not the truth. Channeling his inner Thomas Newton, the principal could not let go of his witch-hunt. He then said I violated district policy by engaging in private communications with students not accessible to parents.

JF’s argument was thus; I was on a FB Forum to which students belonged. Unless a parent logged on and joined the forum, they might not see what I said to a student even though the forum was public. Wait a minute, I thought. Did the school allow football, basketball, cheerleading, and soccer coaches, and club sponsors to communicate with students during the day? They did this during contract hours and many used their cell phones. Parents could not see these messages. This double standard drove home the fact they were out to destroy me. They had decided I was guilty beforehand and now were holding the trial. They had their witch.

JF and JM continued to insist I was using FB to engage in secret communications with students and I used FB to hide this fact. This was not remotely true and I said so. JF said I had a “bad image” and “reputation” among teachers for being an “extremist” adding “Perception is reality”. I wanted to point out this “reputation” was among Leftist social studies teachers who were, after all, trying to get me fired. For Pete’s sake, they called conservatives “Nazis” all the time. They had called me a Nazi. As far as these teachers were concerned, anyone who was not a liberal was a fascist extremist. Seeing how unhinged the principal was, I held my peace. He brought up that JS had come my room during my plan period. He insisted we met secretly conspiring on how to run this cover up. He accused me of having a much “closer relationship” with JS “than meets the eye”. Total fantasy. I could not understand why the assistant superintendent did not see the principal was insane, intervene, and end this ugly and degrading meeting. JF accused me of conspiring with JS to wipe my FB page clean to hide my involvement in his political movement and my extremist statements. Had we not already covered this? This was a monstrous lie and I denied it all. He could employ his techies to see who had posted and erased what. It was not me. JF was relentless. He continued to insist I was lying.

JF jumped up from the table a second time and raced over to his computer. He said he had written me up for stuff like this before. He was making no sense. I have copies of the write-up. I wrote about it at the beginning of this narrative. Does what I wrote bear any resemblance to the present accusations? JF told JM I was a member of the Tea Party because I had a “Don’t Tread On Me” flag hanging in my room. That was back in 2012 when he wrote me up the first time. He ordered me to take it down and I did. I was never a member of a Tea Party, instead, the flag was part of a Revolutionary War collection I hung in my room including the Betsy Ross flag. I first put them up in 1999. The Tea Party was born in 2009, after Barack Obama’s election. My flag was up a decade before there ever was a Tea Party. I had told JF this in 2012 and he knew it.

JF then asked if I had passed out papers or handouts at Club meetings. When I said no, he called me a liar. He said the You Tubes I showed during club meetings were extremist so I was lying. I never passed out papers or showed You Tubes. PJ and JS did that. Go ask them. I was in the back of the room and did not participate in meetings. Show me the papers. Show me the handouts. Show me the videos. Go ask those who were there. JF and JM laughed at me again and called me a liar.

JM said they were seizing my laptop. Now was the time to save myself and come clean. Now was the time to tell the truth before it was too late. If they found any form of communication with students on my laptop, or inappropriate content, he would recommend the school board fire me. Now was the time to confess. I told him I had nothing to confess. He would find no communications with any student. He warned me again, if he found anything inappropriate, he would fire me. I asked him to define inappropriate because I had a few cartoons on the laptop mocking school life. Instead of defining inappropriate, he insisted again, it was time to come clean. I repeated there was nothing to come clean about. He said, even if that was true, they were moving me from step one to step three on the termination process. Step four, was termination.

It was now 3:30 p.m. JF walked me back to my room in silence. Everyone was gone as the school day ended at 2:30 p.m. He asked me where the Bible was and began searching for it. It was a science room I had been in only that year. I had two file cabinets and nothing more. Because he was moving me to the bottom floor next year, my third room in three years, I had packed everything up for the move. I only needed a box. Student handouts remained in the file cabinets and the custodians would move them. He demanded I tell him where the Bible was. I could not have it in the classroom, as it would suggest I was teaching from a Christian perspective. I did not answer. He did not find it. He then saw the book, Nullification, by Thomas Woods on my desk. He almost lost it. He picked it up and told me never to bring it back onto school property again. Snatching up my laptop, JF said, “If you can’t serve these kids, if you can’t push them to set the bar higher, you should leave now and never come back”. I have no idea what he meant. He added he would be going over every handout I used in class looking for conservative bias. I pointed to the two cabinets. “I teach World History and Modern Global Issues. Social Studies Department teachers created every handout I use for each course. “Take whatever you want”, I said. He ignored me and swept out of the room leaving me there, on a Friday, in the face of the most bizarre and preposterous accusations I had ever heard, and termination hanging over my head.

Before school, on Monday 11 May 2015, I went to my State Teacher representative and told NS, what had happened. He handed me a business card for the Association lawyer and said to call them. Nothing more. I called several times but no one answered. I stood in a parking lot, my chest tight as if squeezed by a giant snake, dripping sweat, and struggling to breathe. Several students asked if I was okay. I was not. I did not know it at the time, but my doctor later confirmed, I had a heart attack.

On Tuesday May 12 2015, the principal came by my room before class with the lap- top and a yellow legal pad. Unannounced as usual. He found some cartoons he considered objectionable. One depicted a Border Patrol drug dog next to stacks of cocaine and heroin. The caption read, “After searching two school lockers, the drug dog was exhausted”. The other depicted a firing squad. The caption said the school was adding a new punishment to detentions. I never transmitted them to anyone. No one had seen them. Humor is how I deal with stress. He insisted a parent might get his or her hands on my laptop and password, and see them. If he believed all that fantasy conspiracy rubbish, this would seem plausible to him. Right. I had written several articles on the Constitution and a government of limited powers based on original sources. He found them problematic. I had written a letter to a friend about bias against conservative teachers. He wanted to dispute the chronology in my letter. He handed me the laptop, said he would summon me for the write-up, and left. He never mentioned inappropriate communications with students because there was none. He never mentioned erased pages because I had nothing to do with that either. Nor did he apologize for these false accusations.

By the end of the day, rumors flew throughout the school I was being fired. A liberal teacher, TB, stopped by my room after school. Several newer female teachers had come to him and said they heard I was “dangerous”. They were scared. They heard I was gathering guns and bombs to shoot other teachers and blow the school up. Others heard I was going to crash through the building’s front glass doors, in my car on the last day of school, and mow kids and them down. They were asking him and other teachers if it was true and should they be scared. Another colleague said some teachers had a name for me. They called me “Scary” something or another.

Later that day the principal called me to his office. The assistant superintendent was there. They wrote me up. They said my like of Thomas Sowell’s comment about fatherless boys was racist. JS had interviewed me for his final senior project in English. The topic was being a conservative teacher. I noted there were challenges ranging from lack of acceptance to shunning. His teacher, SA, one of the Turnip Witches, ran with the video to the principal. JF wrote me up for talking to students about colleagues. Wait a second, I never mentioned anyone by name, yet liberal teachers trashed me out to their students…by name. They did not care. Because I told JS the principal was moving me to another room the following year, JF wrote me up for revealing “confidential information”. He wrote me up for being on FB during contract time and violating school policy with respect to FB communications with students to which parents were not privy. He wrote me for conducting research that did not pertain to the courses I taught. This was utter hypocrisy. Contract time? Coaches assigned students busy work so they could watch videos of upcoming opponents, draw up plays, and flesh out rosters for their next games. I witnessed this. He wrote me up for not supporting the curriculum. He gave no examples. Not only did I use the same handouts as other teachers for each course, I used their handouts, not mine! Then it got worse.

Principals evaluate teachers every five years. He was placing me on permanent daily evaluation. Because I was now on step three of a three-step termination process, one mistake, one slip-up, and he would fire me. He was placing me on permanent probation. One mistake and he would fire me. I was tempted to point out I was already on permanent probation from the first time he wrote me up three years prior. Double secret probation? I would have to submit to him every lesson, article, homework, quiz, and so forth so he could search each for Libertarian bias. He reiterated, I was under close daily scrutiny. One mistake, he was firing me. He still believed I was hiding something about my “relationship” with JS and “our” political activism. He believed we had engaged in some sort of cover up. Utter nonsense. I had no relationship with any student ever. He believed I was part of an extremist organization, underground, and possibly white supremacist. There was not an iota of truth to this. People born with a natural tan do not make good white supremacists.

I saw the handwriting writ large on the wall. I asked the assistant superintendent, if I retired right then, would I be eligible to receive my retirement bonus. Because the cut off for retirements was February, he had to check to see if it was possible. We all signed copies of my write up and I went back to class. An hour later, I received an email from the assistant superintendent saying the superintendent was unwilling to take my request to the Board of Education. However, JF would be willing to accept my letter of intent to retire. Hint. My doctor said I was unlikely to survive the next year. I submitted my letter to JF stating I would retire at the end of the 2015/2016 school year. He and the vicious despicable Turnip Witches were ecstatic. I could almost hear the Champagne corks popping. I could almost hear the rasp of their claws and them cackling.

On Monday, May 26 2015, at school, I found a spent shell casing in an empty desk drawer. A .32 caliber casing. I had already packed up and cleaned out my room. Who put the shell casing in my desk? I showed it to the NEA representative across the hall. He said not to sweat it. I showed it to a work “friend”. He said someone was setting me up. He too heard the rumors I was gathering guns and bombs to get revenge.

The student named Ignacio came by my room apologizing for what happened to me. He was an exchange student from South America. With his blonde hair and blue eyes, I would never have guessed. He did not understand why the principal fired me considering I had nothing to do with their fight on the IPADS. Nothing at all. He said I never passed out papers or participated in their meetings. I was in shock over how fast and vicious the witch-hunt had unfolded. I felt as if I had walked into a booby trap infested ambush. The principal came by on the last day of school. He claimed he had not been out to get me and would not “bust my chops” my final year. He could afford to be magnanimous. He got what he wanted. Me gone. He had used similar methods to force a math teacher, librarian, and Spanish teacher, with whom I was acquainted, into retirement. He had this down to a science. I was truly stunned that a man so devoid of character, honesty, and a conscience was a high school principal. I never did find out who erased the FB pages. As I stood in my room on the last day of school in May 2015, I wondered if the Turnip Witches would leave me be my final year.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Yelling ‘Liberal’ In A Crowded Fire

Yitzhak Goldstein, Professor Errant

Ouch!

To be a conservative in a high school socialIST studies department is to experience what a whitetail deer does on opening day. Hunted on all sides. Only, the season never ends and there is no bag-limit. I often thought about forming an organization for conservative history teachers. We could meet together in a telephone booth. Alas, I never found a booth or another such teacher for that matter. Once viperous colleagues, dexterous with cutlery, got me “canceled”, this need seemed moot. Maybe. Still, Americans need to realize, the dearth of conservative teachers means only one side takes the field.

U.S. Government and Constitution was my forte. I was in my 17th year when, on Wednesday 27 January 2010, the principal summoned me to his office. “Close the door” he said, a bad sign. Like an attorney, he scribbled notes on a yellow legal pad during interrogations. Looking up, an angry scowl on his face, he said, “You have a reputation for being a conservative, a problem that has persisted for years. It is the number one topic among staff. They complain to me about what you teach and your bias”. A parent said her special education son never did well with conservative teachers and wanted him transferred from my government class.1 Stunned, I asked when conservativism became a crime. If simply being a conservative was controversial, it demonstrated who was really biased. He was not amused. His eyes went from blue to purple meaning he was furious. “No, you’re the problem” he yelled at me. “You’re the only one I receive complaints about for bias”!

I explained government courses by nature are political. Controversial issues are bound to arise. Because I was the only Constitutional Originalist among the four teaching it, naturally I stood out. Second, I was not the only one receiving parent complaints (if his claim was even true. He was famous for telling teachers unnamed parents complained about them). Each semester parents confided in me objections to the liberal and anti-Christian bias of their kid’s teachers. I witnessed this including those trashing students out behind their backs because their dad was a pastor. I asked these parents to speak up but they declined. Each worried the district would label them “troublemakers”. Worse, they feared liberal teachers would retaliate against their kids. I told the principal I spoke with another teacher who shared my experiences not revealing it was Tim Latham, fired by the Lawrence, Kansas school district for being a conservative (it made national news).2 In addition, liberal colleagues mocked me by name (students told me) in front of their classes. They spread gossip and false stories about me. Nor did I mention the secret journal in which I recorded names, places, and dates of liberal bias and persecution. The principal laughed in my face saying none of what I said was true. I was a liar. I was the problem and cause of controversy in the school. I protested this was not true but he insisted I was making up everything I said. He even claimed there was no liberal bias among colleagues. I was the only one using the classroom to push my views. He could not have been more wrong.3

Because he judged me guilty (of doing what my accusers actually did), from that day forward, I was to turn in weekly lesson plans along with copies of every article, handout, homework assignment, quiz, and test I used so he could scour them for bias. I noted, absent the same requirement for liberal teachers, this amounted to a double standard. He said they did not use biased materials in their classes. “The one’s teaching out of Time, Newsweek, and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth certainly are”, I replied. I added basing his requirement purely on my being a conservative constituted a degree of harassment and even persecution. He was about blow his stack. He claimed many (I believe the term was “parade”) of teachers had come to him wanting to know why he had not disciplined or fired me yet. I demanded to know the names of my accusers. His response was sardonic laughter. He refused to divulge their names adding, with a mocking sneer, “You’d really be surprised if you knew who some of them were”. I insisted it was unfair to demand I answer accusations of anonymous people. He said in a slow drawn out sentence, “You will never know who they are”. Because these teachers did not want their names public, he could not institute formal proceedings however, he was commencing an investigation of me for bias. Dismissed. As I reached the door, he said, “This is not over. We’re not through yet”.4

Somehow, word got out I was on the hot seat. Colleagues called me “toxic” and “radioactive”. They refused to sit near me at faculty meetings, (where I had all 11 seats in the row to myself) in-service training, department meetings, and school sponsored lunches and dinners…for the next six years. Teachers were required to stand in hallways during passing periods monitoring student behavior. When the principal and assistant principals walked by, colleagues said it would be a good career move to be seen slamming me into a wall or knocking me down steps. Word of my troubles “spread” to students. Several revealed they had been involved in debates with liberal teachers over the Constitution. When asked the source of their information, they said I was. Oh brother.

In April my liberal socialIST studies department supervisor revealed I was no longer teaching U.S. Government or Advanced Studies American History. I was demoted. I asked why. She repeated the same pabulum; unnamed parents and colleagues complained about my conservative bias. She refused to share what the principal told her. Even though I was the only history teacher in three high and three junior high schools with a Masters’ degree and published thesis in history, they demoted me to the least desirable courses. A week later, a guidance counselor and an art teacher told me they heard rumors I was being fired. Diabetic, stress played havoc with my blood glucose and heart. My students also said they heard the principal was firing me. The stress was almost unbearable. A custodian I knew warned that history teachers in the other building were “flaming liberals” and hated me. He became involved in a political debate with them, mentioned Rush Limbaugh, and they were furious. My supervisor warned they were “evaluating” him. The principal transferred him to another building. Later that day, a socialIST studies colleague said he too heard the principal was firing me. His students knew this as well. By Friday, I was having chest pains and difficulty breathing. A student walking into my class and said, “Mr. G, what are you doing here? I heard you were dead” I laughed my head off.

Aware for years Lefty colleagues were spying on and trying to cancel me, my self-defense strategy was to use primary source materials, e.g. the Declaration and Federalist Papers in government classes. I was golden, untouchable. I was wrong. Teaching the Constitution from the perspective of those who wrote and ratified it constituted unacceptable bias and got me booted. Worse, I had developed the nefarious practice of examining self-validating political clichés to test their validity. This sparked interested discussion among students. Chief among them was, because one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater First Amendment rights are not absolute. Therefore, it is up to those in power to determine the “limits” to what people may say, write, and publish. If government may “limit” one right, why not others? Can there be any doubt as to where this will lead?

The Career Suicide Gang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ongoing Tales of the CSG (Career Suicide Gang)5

Nancy Pelosi,6 whose visage evokes images of dark cobweb, choked ancient castles where Dracula reposes, recently used the old “fire in a crowded theater” cliché in support of Beijing Biden’s plan to confiscate from Americans various classes of firearms.7 In a 2017 interview, Pelosi first repeated the hackneyed cliché that no right was absolute because you cannot yell “wolf in a crowded theater”.8 In her dotage, we can forgive a misquotation but not Constitutional ignorance. Pelosi wrote a letter to the ‘National’9 (sic) Park Service demanding they not grant a permit to “alt-right” group, Patriot Prayer, to hold a demonstration. A journalist asked Pelosi, whether her request infringed on the group’s First Amendment rights. She answered, “The Constitution does not say that a person can yell wolf in a crowded theater” adding no one has a right to say anything that would endanger others.10 Unfamiliar with this “alt-right”, I read Michael Malice’s book on the subject. I concluded they are comprised of Leftwing capitalists, Rightwing socialists, and anarchists. I came away more confused than ever.11 I never heard of Patriot’s Prayer. Liberal online sites label them racists and “white nationalists”. However, their webpage denounces racism and violence. It concedes such groups show up at their rallies along with violent goon squads from Communist Pantifa chapters but they have no control over this.

If Pelosi knows anything about the Constitution, she keeps this knowledge a secret. The Constitution recognizes, not grants rights. It is a restraining order against government infringing on the rights of individuals. Because rights are G-d given, they preexist all governments. Those rejecting divine origin nevertheless insist rights are part of one’s humanity. People create and construct government solely to protect these rights. The subordinate cannot modify the supremacy of the superior. Government has no authority to regulate free speech nor may it deny a group access to the public square because it finds its speech objectionable. Police authorities are “required to protect liberty” as much as they are people. Pelosi mangled a phrase uttered by Chief Justice of the United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes at the conclusion of Schenck v. U.S. (1919). In support of the Court’s 9-0 vote to suppress a man’s free speech, Holmes quipped that the First Amendment did not protect anyone who “falsely” shouted “fire in a theater causing panic”. Schenck was such a bad ruling even Holmes came to regret it. The Court overturned it in Bradenburg v. Ohio, 395, U.S. 1969. The Court held that under the First Amendment, an individual could, “advocate violence even in front of an armed crowd” as long as the speech was not intentionally planned to result in immediate acts of violence. Yet Pelosi reprises a quip from a discredited case.12

What did Schenck say that was so terrible? It was 1917 and President Wilson had just taken the U.S. into Europe’s Great War. Wilson worked feverishly to suppress criticism of his decision. Schenck, Secretary of the Socialist Party, USA, published and distributed a pamphlet arguing conscription was unconstitutional. Wilson, a ‘Progressive’, arrested and prosecuted Schenck under the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, which ruled against him. Holmes’ made his comment about shouting fire in a theater after the Court’s decision. It was unrelated to the facts of the case. It was not part of the ruling and had “no binding authority”. Today, those who deny any right is absolute use Holmes’ quip to justify intentions to violate that right.13 Denial of a right being absolute of necessity requires someone to determine the limits of that right. Naturally, that “someone” is government. To employ Holmes’ rationale for denial of a right creates an open-ended justification to impose any number of restrictions on the exercise of that right.

What purveyors of the yelling fire cliché miss is the real standard established by Holmes. He declared government could suppress free speech if it determined that speech posed a “clear and present danger” to the government’s effort to prosecute the war.14 His standard assigns government the power to create its own test for what constitutes a clear and present danger. If governments, at all levels couple this “authority” with declarations of states of emergency, from tornadoes to a virus, the threat to the Bill of Rights becomes particularly dangerous. Liberals use Pelosi’s adaptation, “one cannot yell rats on a Black Friday sale in Saks Fifth Avenue”, and Holmes’ clear and present danger test to promote a political agenda having nothing to do with the First Amendment. They use it as a rationale to suppress Second Amendment rights.

If enemies of individual liberty convince Americans Holmes’ comment carries the weight of law, “proving” no right is absolute, what follows? They will use it to restrict targeted rights, incrementally, e.g. Second and First Amendment rights to bear arms, religious expression, and free speech, respectively, ultimately to extinguish them.

A union worker approached Joe “Boss Tweed” Obiden who was touring an automotive plant in Detroit, Michigan accusing him of wanting to take away people’s guns. OBiden flared up in anger and told the worker he was full of s#*t, that he supported the Second Amendment, but he would take away “AR14s (sic). OBiden declared no right was absolute. No one can yell fire in a crowded theater. He also threatened to slap the worker.15 To prove he supports the Second Amendment, OBiden stated he and his sons own “shotguns” and “hunt”.16 OBiden evinces little knowledge of firearms. Growing up in Maryland, I heard his campaign ads, including on gun control, from nearby Delaware. The words, ‘blithering idiot’ come to mind. This is how OBiden and other Liberals read the Second Amendment:

The people, following submission to an extensive and expensive federal

background check, training, and testing, proving a need to own a firearm

may purchase one from a government approved list for hunting and target

shooting at approved ranges. They must register it with the government

and reapply for approval on an annual basis. All semiautomatic rifles and

handguns are military weapons, the property of the U.S. government and

must be surrendered to the nearest arsenal”.

Nick Leghorn notes gun control advocates “invariably” recite the Holmes’ cliché to “prove” no right is absolute therefore they can limit the types of firearms citizens may possess. Holmes based his free speech exception on an emergency; government does not have to tolerate as much free speech in wartime as in peace.17 Holmes was wrong on every count. The Constitution is over and above the government. The subordinate cannot alter this relationship. The Constitution provides no exceptions or escape clause for government to violate the Bill of Rights. Those who argue to the contrary are setting the stage for intended violation of rights based on some conjured up exigency. Leghorn follows this argument to its logical conclusion.

Yelling fire in a theater when there was none would be illegal. However, if there was a fire, or a pack of Pelosi’s wolves running loose, it would not. If mere possession of a human voice does not constitute a clear and present danger, neither does mere possession of a firearm. Government may not regulate the ability to speak prior to criminal misuse. The same holds true for firearms. Mere possession of an AR15 poses no greater potential threat of criminal misuse than OBiden’s shotgun. For the government to apply the Schenck standard to restrict gun ownership, it would have to prove all people purchasing guns do so with the immediate intention to harm someone. This standard is even more problematic considering most purchases are for self-defense. Buying a firearm does not automatically cause harm to anyone. Arguments based on the potential for future harm are hypocritical otherwise gun-Confiscationists would ban the more lethal automobile. At best, banning an AR15 would do nothing with respect to reducing crime (their misuse being miniscule), and, at worst, would infringe on an individual’s ability to protect himself. According to the Declaration, the right to life is, absolute. For an individual to illegally shoot an innocent person violates the latter’s absolute right to life. Sanctions should be on individuals, not the means.18 Nevertheless, the Pelosi’s and Schumer’s of the world stamp their feet insisting no right is absolute so the state has the power to restrict rights.

Thomas Jefferson described rights as “unalienable” meaning under no circumstances could government or anyone else separate people from them. Because rights are endowed by G-d, they exist prior to and apart from government. They are inherent in one’s humanity.19 Because of their inherency, if one person has a right, all do. For a right to be a right, the “exercise of the identical right at the same time” by more than one individual does nothing to compromise its exercise by anyone else. If government can alter or rescind a right, it never was a right. It was a privilege.20 The Constitution contains no ‘Bill of Privileges’. An individual’s exercise of free speech, religion, and association does nothing to limit the same exercise by others. If someone is giving a speech or preaching a sermon, no one is compelled to visit that venue and listen. The same holds true for firearms. Individual possession of a firearm does not deny the same right or pose a threat to anyone else.21 How can proponents of using the yelling fire standard to limit rights define where limitations would end? They cannot. Instead, they would establish an arbitrary standard. Because their plan is to limit targeted rights, that standard is already contaminated. It is beholden to an agenda seeking to abolish that right. Thus, we can see, the yelling fire position is invalid. Perhaps we should prohibit yelling liberal in a crowded fire as it might provoke a search for more gasoline.

11 From my contemporaneous Journal, names included January 27 2010. The student was in what used to be called the Learning Disabled Program (LD) changed simply to Special Education. I was one teacher selected for a push to “mainstream” Sped Kids in regular classes. In the end, he did not transfer from my class, did well, and said he like the class and me.

22 Joshua Rhett Miller, “Kansas Teacher Claims Conservative Views Led to Job Loss”, FOX NEWS, June 12, 2009 at https://www.foxnews.com/story/kansas-teacher-claims-conservative-views-led-to-loss-of-job/. I communicated with Tim by email at first and then by phone. Not only did he lose his job, his Lawrence Kansas District blacklisted him to make sure he never could work as a teacher again. I cannot prove the powers that be are doing the same to me but…

33 The principal operated under a popular business model. Bosses, managers, principals, etc. bring in the accused and confront them with charges. Regardless of the validity or veracity of the charges, the accused is supposed to supplicate themselves, confess to their crimes, admit total guilt, and beg forgiveness. The boss then guides them back onto the right path meaning becoming a total “yes-man”. I read this in one of the books they assigned teachers to read. They told us to skip a chapter in the book and of course, I read it. I also witnessed this. A math teacher, who I had never met, came to me in anger. Why me? Everyone had told him I was the principal’s favorite “whipping boy” and he was to stay far away from me. He was a math teacher, who was butting heads with the principal and wanted my advice. I told him to shut up, stop talking about the principal, stop confiding in other people, and to trust no one. He chose another path. He became a supplicant and allowed the principal to reform him. Once completed, he would not give me the time of day. I was in the right, the target of a malicious campaign by the Turnip Witches to get me fired, so I refused to play the game. I learned how vindictive the principal was.

44 IBID. At the risk of sounding cliché, the account was worse than space allows me to express. Much worse.

55 CSG: “Career Suicide Gang” is a label invented by my final socialIST studies department supervisor when he saw me standing in the hallway talking to CC, also in the principal’s hot seat but nowhere near my level of revulsion and hatred shared by the principal and his stooge minions. It was his way of warning other teachers never to associate with people like us.

66 Known affectionately known as ‘Bela Pelousy’ in some parts…

77 William Jennings Bryan won the Democrat nomination for President in 1896, 1900, and 1908. He lost all three times.

88 David French, “Yelling ‘Wolf’ in a crowded theater? Nancy Pelosi Flunks Constitutional Law” August 24 2017, National Review at https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/yelling-wolf-crowded-theater-nancy-pelosi-flunks-constitutional-law/

99 Federal and National are not the same or interchangeable. A “Federal” government may exercise only those powers delegated it by the States. No such power to create parks exists among the federal government’s powers in Article I, Section 8.

1010 French.

1111 Michael Malice, The New Right: A Journey to the Fringe of American Politics (New York, N.Y., St. Martin’s Press, 2019).

1212 French.

1313 IBID.

1414 Richard Parker, “Clear and Present Danger Test”, Middle Tennessee State University, at https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-present-danger-test/

1515 Kylee Zempel, “Biden Tells Man Accusing Him Of Gun Grab He’s Full of Sh_t’ But I’ll Take Your AR-14s”, The Federalist, March 10, 2020 at https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/10/biden-tells-man-accusing-him-of-gun-grab-he’s-full-of-sh-t-but-will-take-your-ar-14/

1616 IBID.

1717 Nick Leghorn, “The Second Amendment And Yelling Fire In A Crowded Theater”, The Truth About Guns at https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/second-amendment-yelling-fire-crowded-theater/amp/

1818 IBID.

1919 Mark Spangler, Editor, Cliché’s of Politics (Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1996), 9. From Charles Baird’s essay, “I Have A Right”.

2020 IBID. 9-10.

2121 IBID. 10-11.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Wise Judges, judgment and the lack thereof

Admittedly, this column is a bit behind the times, I apologize. Parshah Shoftim was a few weeks ago. And part of the Parshah really hit home. Probably because if I spend any time at all listening to the news, all I hear is impeachment, impeachment, impeachment (said is the best Jan Brady whine). The secret Soviet style hearings which include only progressive #Demoncrats, the liar Adam Shiff-less., and lots of leaks, lots and lots of leaks.

Shiff-less

But here’s the relevant portion of the Parshah that got me to thinking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part of Parshah Shoftim

This is from Deut./Devarim דברים

19:16.

Haven’t all of the women hired to attack Kavenaugh recanted? After they and their complicit media tried to ruin his and his family’s lives. Of course.

And the penalty for that?

No matter the crime, gun control is the answer. Knee-jerk gun control response to deadly shootings

Honest law-abiding gun owners, judged guilty for the acts of criminals.

And as Sammy “The Bull” Gravano points out, the mob will always have guns. You only have to listen to the first couple minutes if you want.

Well, the mob and #Bozo’s armed guys he would have sent in to make sure American Citizens complied with his rules, so they could “recover” the AR-15s and AK-47s. Recover? Were they missing before they were stolen by #Bozo?

The murderer of Kate Steinle went free, he literally got away with murder. And posters put up at a liberal Kalifornia college campus honoring her and reminding people of the cost of illegal un-checked invasion have been deemed racist my the college administrators. Color me shocked.

This is wise judgment?

But the real hypocrisy of liberals is on full display in a fairly recent bill proposed by Sen. John Cornyn -Rep of Texas. He proposed a bill to “combat mass shootings”. He proposed to do this by

It would expand resources for mental health treatment, facilitate the creation of “behavioral intervention teams” to monitor students exhibiting disturbing behavior and offer new tools for law enforcement.

The bill’s school safety proposals are a response to years of school shootings perpetrated by young people described as isolated and troubled.

What is their objection you ask?

Privacy experts and education groups, many of which have resisted similar efforts at the state level, say that level of social media and network surveillance can discourage children from speaking their minds online and could disproportionately result in punishment against children of color, who already face higher rates of punishment in school.

“This is all very frightening,” an education policy consultant, who has been tracking the legislation, told The Hill. “There’s no real research, or even anecdotal information, to back up the idea … that following everything [kids] do online is really a way to determine that they’re going to be violent.”

Now, I’m not a fan of monitoring or big brothering anyone. But this is hypocrisy at it’s finest. And if you don’t believe me, you could ask Alexandria Keyes. She was suspended from school for five days after she posted a picture of herself with her brother.

The two are shown holding guns and the photo is captioned, “Me and my legal guardian are going to the gun range to practice gun safety and responsible gun ownership while getting better so we can protect ourselves while also using the First Amendment to practice our Second Amendment.”

Oh the shock, the horror, the carnage! Oh, wait there wasn’t any. The girl and her brother just went to the range practiced marksmanship and harmed no one. But panties were being twisted into a bunch at a rapid rate, and Alexandria was suspended for disrupting school. Huh? She wasn’t at school, she didn’t use a school computer to post the picture. Sen. Cornyn’s bill only monitors online activity while the students are using school computers.

Abbe Smith, Chief Communications Officer for Cherry Creek School District, told me that the decision to suspend Keyes “involved multiple social media posts that concerned the school community and resulted in multiple parents keeping their kids home from school out of concern for safety.” Smith said that federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act protections prevent her from discussing the details of the case, including disclosing the other photos the district allegedly considered in Keyes’ suspension.

More about this

The school’s policy references Colorado law, which defines the grounds for suspension as “behavior on or off school property that is detrimental to the welfare or safety of other pupils or of school personnel, including behavior that creates a threat of physical harm to the child or to other children.”

… According to Cherry Creek School Board policy, the school district reserves the right to suspend students who “[repeatedly interfere] with a school’s ability to provide educational opportunities to other students.” Over the phone, Smith noted that since multiple parents kept their children home after becoming aware of the post, Keyes’ photo could be viewed as an impediment to the school’s ability to educate, even if the district didn’t ultimately make its decision based on the chances that Keyes posed a physical threat. Does this mean parental fears can be a mechanism for the school district to veto a teen’s extracurricular activities?

Is Cherry Creek not worried that this is going to prevent Alexandria from speaking her mind online? Maybe Cherry Creek never got the memo from the educational policy consultant that monitoring online activity of children is not effective in determining if they are going to be violent later?

And those sanctimonious sniveling parents that bullied the school into suspending her? They have accused her falsely. She has done nothing wrong. They have left a mark on her school record because of their hoplophobic tiny minds. They have allowed their lack of education and knowledge to deprive her of five days worth.

What should then be their sentence?

False statements given to police because someone wants someone’s guns seized in a storm trooper operation because they are A) mad at their uncle B) don’t like how someone voted C) don’t think people should be allowed to own guns D) ___________________ for whatever reason. Police show up, guns are seized and sometimes, sometimes, people die. Red Flag laws, the height of hypocrisy coming from progressives.

What then should be their sentence? And what should their sentence be if it results in the death of an innocent gun own, exactly as they intended it would?

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail