Tag Archives: public indoctrination centers

We Are Not The Same- A Turning Point

As the sane members of our nation mourn the death of a good decent man, who was a father, husband and role model we are seeing the naked raw ugly true face of the left exposed. Charlie Kirk was an extraordinary man, who was skilled in debate while seldom, if ever, losing his kind pleasant demeanor. His command of facts, figures, history and insight into the human mind and relationships was amazing. Many have been watching the Charlie videos since his murder. Charlie could and did talk to anyone during his popular “Prove Me Wrong” appearances. You could see young and old people who had been indoctrinated begin to engage their remaining lonely two brain cells and start to think about the information Charlie presented them that gave them a more accurate picture of reality.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8hoA24NYRKk

Charlie was a strong supporter of the one tiny Jewish state, Israel, having visited it and talked about his experiences.

His murder was committed by a 22 year old who grew up in a good family from all available information. But in the last few years he had taken a hard left turn. He became involved with a man who was transitioning to a woman. Sooo, he was gay? From the slogans engraved on his cartridges he was also apparently involved in Antifa, or in this case, Transtifa as I wrote about in my last column which was up the day before Charlie was murdered.

FBI Confirms Suspect in Charlie Kirk Killing, Reveals Disturbing New Details

His boyfriend/ transitioning girlfriend has denied prior knowledge, and is supposedly cooperating with the police investigation allowing them to read and photograph messages from his/her phone.

Some of the text messages

Relative Spills on Lance Twiggs’ Relationship with Charlie Kirk Assassin: ‘Full of Evil and Hatred,’ Feared He Might Hurt Someone, Raged Against Christians and Conservatives

I know the reason I had nothing to do with him is he (Lance Twiggs) is full of evil and hatred,” the family member alleged about Lance Twiggs. “While this is extremely shocking, I was afraid he might hurt someone,” they said, claiming this belief was based on “things he would say to family members.”

Kind of gives me pause as to how accurate that information he is sharing with the FBI might be.

Dr. Robert Malone wrote this two years ago, it’s information is as relevant today as two years ago, if not more. He gives a lot of information on how truly violent and dangerous they are. Much more so than many would believe.

What the Heck is Trantifa?

And they are as organized as Antifa. Trans Social Media Users Posted Hints of Foreknowledge; Suspicious Out-of-State Radicals Visited Kirk Assassin’s Home

A neighbor’s eyewitness account of suspicious activity at accused Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson’s Utah residence, which he shared with a transgender boyfriend, has raised suspicions about possible involvement from out-of-state radicals.

Robinson is accused of shooting Kirk, 31, moments after the Turning Point USA founder addressed a question on transgender mass shooters.

FBI Investigating ‘A Lot More’ Than 20 People in Chats With Suspect in Charlie Kirk Assassination, Patel Says

I see the public reports that the Discord thread had as many as 20 additional users,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) asked Patel. “It sounds like you’re trying to run down all of that to see if that’s accurate, who else may have been on that thread, what they may have known. Is that fair to say?”

Patel told the senator, “It’s a lot more than that, and we’re running them all down.”

Marxist LGBTQ Paramilitary Group in Utah Under Investigation by FBI Regarding Kirk Assassination as Group Leader’s Ties to State Department and United Nations are Revealed

mass shootings by demographics

Charlie Kirk Assassination Suspect’s Bullet Casings Had Messages: What We Know

Apparently it’s the new in thing. Writing messages on the casings? I’m not sure that will be useful when you attempt to convince anyone there’s no way the murder you just committed wasn’t premeditated. Also not sure what the gay/transitioning boyfriend thought was going on when his love interest was sitting there engraving cartridge casings.

Charlie himself has tweeted about the assassination culture on August 8th of this year.

One of Charlie’s tweets

And that brings me me to the aftermath which has been almost as horrifying in its own way as the murder.

Here Are Some Heinous Members of the Professional Class Who Cheered Charlie Kirk’s Death

Florida Officials Send Brutal Message to Teachers Celebrating Charlie Kirk’s Death

GLAAD’s Statement on Charlie Kirk Proves It’s Not Just Fringe Leftists Justifying Political Violent

Chloe Cole is an outspoken detransitioner, writing in her X bio, “At 13, I was put on puberty blockers. By 15, I’d had surgery. By 16, I realized I’d been misled. Now, I speak out so other kids don’t go through what I did.” At one time, she was exactly the kind of person GLAAD would’ve gone to bat for. But she decided to detransition and speak the truth, so GLAAD washed his hands of her.

US State Department Warns Visa Holders Against Cheering Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

Not without reason….can we report Ilhan Omar? She hates U.S.

The deputy secretary of state on Thursday called on people to report foreign visa applicants and holders in the United States if they’ve expressed statements praising, making light of, or rationalizing the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The conservative commentator was killed on Wednesday at a college campus in Utah.

In light of yesterday’s horrific assassination of a leading political figure, I want to underscore that foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country. I have been disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action,” Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau wrote in a statement on social media.

He also wrote, “Please feel free to bring such comments by foreigners to my attention so that the @StateDept can protect the American people.”

MSNBC Fires Matthew Dowd Over Comments on Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Appearing on the network during live coverage of the incident on Sept. 10, Dowd suggested that Kirk had it coming.

He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger, figures in this who has constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that’s the environment that we’re in,” he said.

You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and then not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we’re in.”

Dowd also said, “We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration.”

Honestly, it’s MSDNC so the bar is pretty low, but this is an amazing level of stupidity. A supporter just firing the gun off in celebration?? You moron, it’s not Chiraq or Kandahar . His little bubble is so small he doesn’t even know any normal gun owners.

Oxford Union Trust Secretary Resigns in Protest After President-Elect Glorifies Charlie Kirk Assassination

A thoroughly vile disgusting DEI student.

TMZ Staff Laughs at Charlie Kirk’s Death, Then Denies it – but TGP Has Proof!

Patrick Bet-David, a podcaster and owner of Valuetainment has gently tried to tell the two dipwads that were broadcasting they should be more honest. There are cameras all over the office, it’s their business model. Their schtick is to catch celebrities in compromising situations, give them a chance to fess up and then air the whole mess. Well, nope old Harvey and Charles are taking the approach of “No! Honestly our employees that all hate Charlie Kirk were totally cheering at a OJ style car chase because we so love the police.” So basically, they got caught doing what they do to everyone else. Media….

Pentagon Announces ‘Zero Tolerance’ for Military Personnel Celebrating Charlie Kirk Assassination

FEMA Official Caught on Undercover Video Laughing About Assassination of Charlie Kirk, Says He “Kind of Deserved It” – Update He’s FIRED!

I think I know why FEMA responses to disasters over the last few years have been horrible. They’d be better off calling HEB Groceries store chain than FEMA.

I’m getting the idea our Federal Government is filled with horrible creatures. Drain the swamp faster folks!

Office Depot Corporate Responds and Gen Manager Leaves Voicemail For Teen Organizer of Charlie Kirk Prayer Vigil After Employees Refused To Print “Propaganda” Posters For Them: “Uh, Understand we had um, a print job…”

These truly are some of the most arrogant despicable land mammals lumbering across our country. Absolutely horrid. Mercifully FED-EX printed the posters in time for the prayer vigil for the group for free. Last I heard Office Depot only fired one of them. There’s video….there’s more than one involved Office Depot….Note, the kids had paid in advance!

In the most horrifying fiction ever written by hack Stephen King he tweeted…Stephen King Scrambles to Apologize After Realizing His Defamatory Smear Justifying Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Could Cost Him MILLIONS in Court

He advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin’.”

Sic ‘em Erika…..

Multiple people fired or on leave over social media posts related to Charlie Kirk assassination

One teacher in South Carolina was fired for a post that read, “Thoughts and prayers to his children but IMHO America became greater today. There I said it,” according to The Hill newspaper.

A teacher in Oregon wrote that Kirk’s assassination “brightened” up his day.

….

The U.S. Secret Service put an agent on leave after he posted on social media that Kirk “spewed hate and racism on his show.”

See, our government is infested with vermin. I want my tax dollars back!

Christian Nurse Bravely Pushes Back Against Doctor Celebrating Charlie Kirk’s Assassination But SHE is the One Put on Leave-Lawsuit Filed

Meet Lexi Kuenzle. She’s one of the good ones. Yesterday, in front of a nurses’ station — with 8 (eight) nurses & a PATIENT —Dr. Matthew Jung said in front of everyone, ‘I hate Charlie Kirk. He had it coming. He deserved it.’”

Lexi, a registered nurse, was the ONLY one that spoke up: ‘You’re a doctor. How could you say someone deserved to die.’ Lexi said you could hear a pin drop & no one said anything, including the patient.”

Boy howdy if that doesn’t inspire trust in your hospital and doctor I don’t know what would. <insert eye roll here>. A doctor celebrating the death of an innocent man. After this hit Twitter, the facility did some fast back tracking, the doctor resigned to go on and spread his version of “healthcare” elsewhere and Lexi still apparently has a job but what a crappy place to work.

Speaking of someone unstable having your life in their hands.

American Airlines Pilot Who Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Assassination in His “Fat F**king Forehead” Immediately Removed from Service

WaPo Writer: I Was Fired…for Making Up Quotes About Charlie Kirk

WaPo fired Karen Attiah for posting a fake quote from Charlie Kirk. She claims her post received “virtually no public backlash.” (Perhaps she believes this because she posted it in an echo chamber.) Now she’s crying that she’s the victim of a race-related cancelation.

….

Karen Attiah, who was just fired from the WaPo for making up a Charlie Kirk quote, lobbied to get an editor fired for publishing an op-ed from Tom Cotton.

So no, I’m not interested in hearing free speech absolutist arguments from these people now that it’s convenient.

The mainstream media, make up stuff, lie, if you get caught lie some more.

The one that may take the cake though, is this one.

Teacher Suspended After Forcing 10 Year Olds to REPEATEDLY Watch Graphic Charlie Kirk Assassination Video in Class, Telling Students Charlie Deserved to be Murdered

Can anybody imagine a teacher showing students as young as 10 the video of Charlie Kirk being murdered by a gunshot to the neck?

The Toronto District School Board is investigating an allegation of this happening at a Scarborough elementary school.

Several students from his class went home and complained to their parents, traumatized at witnessing the on-camera death, which they were forced to witness numerous times over,” a source close to the situation alleged. “Parents subsequently reached out to school administrators, who will be putting him on leave at the start of the school day September 12th 2025.”

While playing this video repeatedly, he gave a speech to his students regarding anti-fascism, anti-trans, and how Charlie Kirk deserved for this to occur,” the source claimed.

The insanity continued on into the prayer vigils held for Charlie.

Fight Breaks Out After Far-Left Radical BLM Activist Shouts Profanities in Front of Idaho Capitol During Peaceful Charlie Kirk Vigil

Brave University of North Texas Student Confronts Classmates Laughing at Charlie Kirk Assassination Video — Says Professor Kicked Her Out for Speaking Up

“Look I’m Charlie Kirk…F**k that N****!” Alleged Texas State University Student Caught Mocking Kirk’s Assassination at TPUSA Event on Campus – Governor Abbott and University Respond

The Enemy Within: Leftist Demons Burn Down Beautiful Charlie Kirk Memorial Put Up By Colorado Family and Smash Family’s Car Windows

Evil Texas Tech Student Arrested and Expelled After Assaulting Mourners at Charlie Kirk Vigil, Shouting: ‘F-ck ‘Yall, Yo homie Dead! He Got Shot in the Head!’

The unhinged lunatic reportedly shoved an elderly veteran and a young mother with her child.

Booker jumped around, yelling vile taunts like “F–k y’all homie dead, he got shot in the head,” directly at people paying tribute to the Turning Point USA founder.

The incident unfolded at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas.

So how did these mentally unstable people come to think this sort of thing is acceptable, even admirable?

The ‘Progressive’ Left – The ‘Democratic’ Party – Has Shown You Exactly Who They Are

.

I quickly received a phone call from them apologizing. They “hadn’t realized” that I was actually friends with him, as if that made them being a sociopathic asshole cheering someone’s death simply because they wouldn’t conform to the politics the “tolerant” left, somehow better. We’ve seen this again, but even more so, with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

Lefty Trump Supporter Nails Why the Dems’ Reaction to Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Is Worthless

I’ve greatly admired Batya Ungar-Sargon since I heard her interviewed by Dennis Prager on one of his Fireside Chats.

There’s a tacit admission from the Left that their side is the violent side. Note how no one is boarding up American cities. The gross irony is that the Left demonizes the Right and their guns, while at the same time relying on their conservative neighbors’ forbearance. pic.twitter.com/ZrBLnmcn9n

Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) September 12, 2025

.

Even in their denunciations, the left is gaslighting us about the truth: The vast majority of the political violence in this country is coming from their side. And they are unwilling to take an ounce of responsibility for it.

They can’t — because there’s nothing in their philosophy to explain why the cold-blooded murder of Charlie Kirk is wrong. They view the world not through the Judeo-Christian lens of right versus wrong, but through the lens of power. In their view, people with less power have no moral responsibilities.

Cenk Uygur Loses His Mind When Dave Rubin Reads His Own Words About Charlie Kirk Back to Him

Or, as Dr. Gad Saad calls him, “Chunky Yogurt”…. He proves Batya’s point. Despite have called Charlie all kinds of vile name, it’s not his fault.

I’ve been trying to be as reconciliatory as possible, but it’s hard when the people who call us all Nazi’s pretend they had nothing to do with any of this.

So I just read Cenk’s video titles about Charlie and Trump back to him.

It went as well as you would expect. pic.twitter.com/x3F1eqIvh3

Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) September 12, 2025

Wisconsin Rep. Derrick Van Orden Lights Up Legacy Media to Their Faces “You are responsible for that assassination yesterday!”

Every one of you, you are, you’re complicit in the attempted assassination of Donald Trump twice. You bear…..”

A reporter attempted to interject, but Van Orden fired back, “Just be quiet!”

You are responsible for this because you are echoing the horrifically horrible, political, violent rhetoric that’s being produced by the Democrat Party. Every single one of you here.”

House Republicans Demand Investigation Into Left-Wing Networks After Charlie Kirk Assassination

A group of 23 House Republicans, led by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), is calling for a full congressional investigation into the funding and coordination behind what they describe as the radical left’s assault on American values, law and order, and free speech—catalyzed by the assassination of conservative leader Charlie Kirk.

GOOD! My coffee dream is to see the members of the MSM hauled before congress, every one of them that has labeled people like Charlie Kirk “fascist” “far right” “extremist” etc and asked what facts, statements or evidence do you have to support that opinion. If it airs on CSPAN maybe some of the people that hold opinions about the right will begin to see they’ve been lied to for a very long time. I have a dear friend who was discussing the murder of Charlie with her daughter who is in her 40s. This girl grew up very bright and conservative, good values and in her youth would have been a prime TPUSA member. But she told her Mom, my friend, that while she was sad Charlie was murdered she heard some things about Charlie, and he wasn’t a very good person and she couldn’t support him. My friend told me her son-in-law listens to CNN. And we knew.

Some on the left are getting their previously held opinions broken up close and personal.

Man Who Was Debating Kirk When Shot Fired Breaks His Silence

In that post, Kirk wrote: “The suspected Minneapolis school shooter included a ‘Defend Equality’ sticker in his manifesto that included a rifle over a trans flag. He also allegedly pursued a legal name change to Robin, his apparent trans name. He wrote ‘Kill Donald Trump’ on the weapon used in the school shooting. First Nashville, now this. How many times makes a trend?”

Kozak disputed Kirk’s characterization of transgenders and argued they are “surprisingly and extremely nonviolent.”

.

As he explained in the video, “people have obviously pointed to the irony that the point I was trying to make is how peaceful the left was … right before he got shot.”

Political Violence in America is Not a “Both Sides” Problem

The question is no longer whether violence is a “both sides” issue; it’s whether Democrats and their media allies will finally admit they bear responsibility for the chaos and evil they have fomented that is now wreaking havoc on American society.

I think Batya is correct, they will not.

Greg Gutfeld pointed out this is not “both sides”

So in addition to the media radicalizing the unsuspecting, we have the colleges and universities, most of which should be shut down.

The academic puppeteers are more dangerous than the puppet who killed Kirk

We no longer fight ideas: we want to destroy those who hold them. Tyler is the puppet behind which stand the most lethal puppeteers: the university professors, the network of “progressive intellectuals,” the wicked teachers who turned Robinson into a killer

I think Scott Adams has an excellent take on this.

https://rumble.com/embed/v6wr0jq/?pub=yv4og

And as often happens, the Babylon Bee expresses it through satire.

Democrats Say There’s No Place For Violence Against Evil Nazi Republicans That Are Literally Killing People And Destroying America

Democrats Wondering If Maybe They Should Stop Saying The Things Assassins Are Having Engraved On Bullets

Democrats Confused After Seeing Conservatives Hold Weird Molotov Cocktail That Never Explodes

Cancel Culture: Leftist Fired Simply For Having A Different Opinion On Whether Conservatives Should Be Murdered

“They’re so closed-minded about me wanting them all dead,” Sparks lamented in a subsequent post about her firing. “All I did was say that it’s great that someone was assassinated for saying things I didn’t like and that everyone like him should also be murdered. That’s all. Is that so bad? What happened to free speech?”

While this is a satire, it brings up a point. The first amendment says you may more or less say as you wish and the government will not interfere with you. Your employer however is entitled to expect a certain code of conduct from you. Especially when it will reflect badly upon them, costing them business and their reputation. Same for institutions getting taxpayer dollars, and where other students have paid tuition.

I am truly dismayed at the number of doctors, healthcare workers, veterinarians, people in government, law enforcement and yes professions like airline pilots that celebrate murder as an acceptable form of debate. Someone says something you disagree with or holds values contrary to yours? Kill them? That’s where we are? These people are mentally unstable, not to mention morally bankrupt. They belong nowhere near children, patients human or animal, and certainly not flying a metal tube through the sky. They are a risk showing up armed at a dispute, possibly no more mentally balance than the people that are at the situation to which they’ve been called to intervene. I can only imagine being the parent of a 10 year old who comes home and says “Mommy our teacher made us watch a video of a man being murdered and there was so much blood! It was coming out of his neck and went everywhere! Our teacher said it was ok because he was a bad man because he was a fascist. Mommy whats a fascist? He made us watch it a lot.”

“I Would do That 100%” – Trump says He Would Designate ANTIFA and Other “Radical Groups” as Domestic Terror Organizations, Wants RICO Charges Brought “Because They Should be Put in Jail”

President Trump on Monday told reporters that he is “100%” willing to designate violent radical leftwing groups as domestic terrorist organizations in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week.

I don’t know that before Charlie’s assassination we had any idea the depth of the sickness in this country. It’s not just the actual members of Antifa, it’s the entire Demoncratic party.

With the exception of John Fetterman, again. Senator John Fetterman Calls Out His Party for Second Time in Two Days: ‘Don’t Ever, Ever, Call Someone Hitler’ It’s the teachers and not just in colleges and universities. It’s the medical system and how they’re training doctors. It’s the government and who they hire. There is a very deep spiritual sickness in our country. I’m not saying it because someone holds an opinion contrary to mine, they’re entitled to be wrong. I’m saying it because they feel the murder of a good and decent husband and father is cause for celebration and joy. Then you must look at the reasons how and why they feel that way. As in the movie Jaws, I think you’re going to need a bigger boat President Trump because they are much more numerous than just Antifa. With the left it’s all about power, by any means necessary. And it is just possible, they have brought about the very thing they fear. Loss of power. The right is no longer will to accept unacceptable behavior. I don’t care if as Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert suggests they don’t know any better, or they’re just that depraved. No more calling people with a differing opinion fascist, racist or slur of the day, no more lying and slandering people and presenting it as news. There needs to be accountability. Yes, this time the left may bring about what they fear. There are videos out there of people saying they’ve been demoncrats, but watching the response to Charlie’s murder has made them say they will never vote blue again.

12 Million Charlie Kirks Created Overnight

The number of applications for Turning Point USA chapters has exploded. There have been more applications to start Turning Point chapters than are currently working. The last number I heard was 54,000 applications.

No, no, we are not the same, the left and right and you should not want unity with evil. What a horrible price, but may this be a turning point, for our country. May we speak out with courage and conviction for what is good, decent, moral and G-dly.

“Turning Point” – Charlie Kirk’s Legacy

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Hannukah Times

We are living in Hannukah times. Today in school rather than learning actual American history, children are taught the 1619 nonsense, or anything bad about America, whether true or not that the woke teacher decides to shove down their gullets. Merrick Garland’s son-in-law makes his money selling critical race theory books to schools. I guess this would explain why parents who don’t want their children being taught they will never succeed in life because of their skin color are labeled terrorists. Math? Nope that’s too hard for blacks and Hispanics so standards are lowered so it will make rotten teachers look acceptable. Science? Trust the science? HAHAHAHAHAHA, no one is ever believing that old canard again or probably trusting much in the way of the medical industrial complex or the pharmaceutical industry again either. Nor should they. One commercial on TV is for a pill, five minutes later it’s for a lawyer advertising to represent you if you’ve been harmed by it. “Safe and Effective” is destined to be a punch line on late night TV if there are ever comedy shows on it again some day. I’m guessing patriotism in school these days is as dead as the trust level in the federal government after the #TwitterFiles stories have come out. Not to mention the CIA involvement in the JFK assassination. Our bodies and our children’s bodies no longer belong to us or the parents, according to the government of some countries. With the vaxx or be fired, vaxx or no organ transplant it’s been made clear we’ve been sold out to the medical industrial complex. And tragically in addition to the corrupt FDA and CDC pushing the death dart on innocent people including children it was clear that those agencies have been corrupted and captured beyond repair. Or belief. The only people that believe them are getting their 7th booster and still wearing 3 masks. And now the blood supply. Twice recently parents very reasonably asked for their infants to be given safe unvaxxed blood during surgery. Both parents lined up safe, unvaxxed compatible blood donations for their infants. In New Zealand; New Zealand government tries to seize guardianship of baby after parents demand unvaccinated blood for surgery they did seize the baby and did the surgery. Despite the parents having 20 donors lined up, the hospital refused to use them. They haven’t told the parents if they used contaminated blood or clean but so far the baby is still alive. In America it didn’t turn out so well for the baby. HOSPITAL HOMICIDE: Newborn baby DIES from “huge blood clots” following pre-surgery transfusion of covid vaccine-tainted blood This one the parents also had clean blood that had been donated for the baby, following all the hospital rules. They hospital “couldn’t find it”, so they gave the baby contaminated blood. And then proceed to delete records. Some stories I’ve seen said they’ve upped the ante saying they didn’t treat him.

Baby Alex was born with a 95 percent survivable congenital heart defect as well as anemia, which required a blood transfusion. Since a close friend of the family had previously died after getting injected for the Fauci Flu, Alex’s parents specifically asked for clean blood to go into his body.

A member of the family’s church who is both unvaccinated and a blood type match donated the blood to Sacred Heart, which agreed to use it in the transfusion. However, when it came time to do the procedure, the hospital claims it “lost” the pure blood sample, after which staff members proceeded to give Baby Alex blood from the general pool.

The baby developed a blood clot which didn’t respond to anti-coagulant therapy. If you’ve seen some of those blood clots they fish out of people that’s kind of understandable. They aren’t really blood. Unvaccinated Blood Is Now in Very High Demand

A growing number of people in need of blood transfusions are requesting blood that comes from people who haven’t received COVID-19 shots

Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole compared the current unknowns regarding “vaccinated blood” with HIV-tainted blood that was used for transfusions in the 1980s

Directed donations and autologous donations, or self-donation, are options for receiving blood free of mRNA, but in both cases you’ll need your doctor to submit a Red Cross Special Collections Order form

A “Safe Blood” donation campaign has also been formed to match blood donors and recipients who have not had COVID-19 shots

It’s unknown whether blood donated by people who’ve received mRNA COVID-19 shots poses a risk to those who receive it. A growing number of people aren’t willing to take any chances, however, and are requesting blood that comes from unvaccinated patients.

In the leftist media and schools they’re doing their best to confuse children as to their gender, and in kindergarden and grade schools children are being sexually groomed. Guess that explains why a bunch of kids can’t read now. Which got time to learn about reading when there’s a drag queen in class to hand out brownies and teach the tiny tots about butt plugs?

If they can rip every shred of certainty out of the kids, they will be so much easier to manipulate because they have nothing to hold on to as true, as certain, as real. They will become as easy to manipulate as your average college student.

In the leftist world

So how does this hot mess stack up against Hannukah times? Well, in 174 BCE (3586), Antiochus IV ruled the region. He wanted to be called Epiphanes, meaning “the gods’ beloved”. We called him Epimanes “madman”, He was harsh, cruel corrupt and did nothing for the land of Israel or the people there. Ok, lining up so far as leadership I’d say. Israel was ruled by the Syrian-Greek style which meant Judaism was pretty much outlawed. What weren’t we allowed to observe? Jewish worship was forbidden, and the scrolls of the Law were confiscated and burned. Sabbath rest, circumcision and the dietary laws were prohibited under penalty of death. Many brave Jews refused, preferring death. Meanwhile the Hellenized (assimilated) Jews were peachy fine with all this and were on board with getting rid of such outdated “customs”. Obviously they must not have considered the word of G-d to be taken seriously, right? So parents had no control over how their children were raised. No Jewish education, no circumcision, no word on tattoos or gender reassignment that I could find. This gave rise to the attempt to secretly teach some of Judaism and Torah using the Dreidel or Sevivon. What about control over our own bodies. Yeah, not always so much. Part of the start of the Maccabean war was sparked by Hannah, the sister of the brothers. Seems the custom of the time was when a woman (or young girl) married, she had to spend her wedding night with a Greek governor, because they couldn’t get women to sleep with them any other way I guess. Actually this last link talks about each of the five brothers. Only Judah was Maccabee.

The law at the time required every Jewish woman to spend her first night as a married woman with the Greek governor. This decree went on for a while, causing many women to either not marry or to endure this horrible violation. On Chanah’s wedding night, she spiritedly persuaded her brothers to stand up for justice and to rid themselves of the depraved governor.38

The Maccabees resolved to take on the Greeks, stormed the governor’s palace, killed him and wreaked havoc in his camp. This incident served as another spark that catapulted the already unsteady military situation into a full-on war

Yep, bodies not our own and the Greek version of various and sundry politicians and denizens of Hollyweird.

No worship or Shabbat? Hello Covid lock-downs.

Yeah, I’d say we’re there. I could come up with plenty more ways but I want to touch on a couple of other things.

Judah. Maccabee, the meaning has a few possibilities. Either Hammer, for his ferocity in battle or his preferred weapon. Or as an acronym for Mi kamokha ba’elim Adonai, “Who among the gods is like you, O Adonai?” Which was the battle cry. The family was called Hasmonean. The link above gives each of the other sons surnames, even though they all became know as the Maccabees.

This kerfluffle started when the army of Antiochus IV came to Modi’in to try to force the group there to sacrifice to an idol. Mattias the priest would not betray G-d. He said “Not only NO, but HELLenized NO”! A Hellenized (assimilated ADL type Jew) stepped forward and said “Ah, it’s no big deal, I’ll do it”. Then Mattias said “The HELLenized you say!! Over your dead body!” And he killed him. I love a happy ending. The family realized the ATF and the IRS Seleucid army was fixin to descend on them and they took to the hills. Those lads knew how to fight a guerrilla war, until enough had joined them to fight battles head on.

Which brings me to another one of my what seems to have become Hannukah traditions. Posting Judah Maccabee’s speech.

1 Maccabees Chapter 3

10 Then Apollonius* gathered together the Gentiles, along with a large army from Samaria, to fight against Israel.

11 When Judas learned of it, he went out to meet him and struck and killed him. Many fell wounded, and the rest fled.

12 They took their spoils, and Judas took the sword of Apollonius and fought with it the rest of his life.

13 But Seron, commander of the Syrian army, heard that Judas had mustered an assembly of faithful men ready for war.

14 So he said, “I will make a name for myself and win honor in the kingdom. I will wage war against Judas and his followers, who have despised the king’s command.”

15 And again a large company of renegades advanced with him to help him take revenge on the Israelites.

16 When he reached the ascent of Beth-horon,* Judas went out to meet him with a few men.

17 But when they saw the army coming against them, they said to Judas: “How can we, few as we are, fight such a strong host as this? Besides, we are weak since we have not eaten today.”

18 But Judas said: “Many are easily hemmed in by a few; in the sight of Heaven there is no difference between deliverance by many or by few;

19 for victory in war does not depend upon the size of the army, but on strength that comes from Heaven.

20 With great presumption and lawlessness they come against us to destroy us and our wives and children and to despoil us;

21 but we are fighting for our lives and our laws.

22 He* will crush them before us; so do not fear them.”

23 When he finished speaking, he rushed suddenly upon Seron and his army, who were crushed before him.

24 He pursued Seron down the descent of Beth-horon into the plain. About eight hundred* of their men fell, and the rest fled to the land of the Philistines.

Hannukah refers to dedication, as in after the Hasmonean army captured The Temple, it was in shambles and profaned having had pigs sacrificed on the alter. They set about restoring and rededicating it. Which brings me to miracles, one of my favorite subjects.

There are several miracles actually. They found a small jar of oil, enough for one night. There is a tradition that is what Jacob went back across the river to fetch when he and his family left Laban’s fine company and hospitality. I find that miraculous. It was still in the Temple with the seal of the High Priest. That’s pretty miraculous too. Enough oil for 1 night lasted for 8 nights, the amount of time to make a new batch of kosher oil for the Menorah. That’s miraculous, 7 of them as there was enough for 1 night to start with. But there is still an 8th miracle in there. Rather than saying “Well nuts, lighting for one night isn’t going to do anything. We should hang on to this, we don’t want to light for just one night and then have to wait 7 more”. The miracle was even though it seemed pointless, even though it seemed like there was no purpose in doing it, they went ahead and could not bear to delay putting off the Mitzvah of lighting the Menorah. They couldn’t wait to begin to shed light to drive away the darkness. And that’s how I think I should be. While I may not be able to right situations, or fix everything, I must do what I can to kindle my flame and drive out the darkness I can. Even though sometimes it seems like that is beyond me, with his help, it’s not. It’s why I’m here. It’s why we all are here in the place, at this time. Apologies Esther. We aren’t called upon the change THE WORLD, we are called upon to change ourselves and the world around us, in whatever ways G-d puts to us. Look at the impact one man, Elon Musk is having. Is he a certified good guy? As far as free speech he is. The flow of information is going to have an impact I believe.

And lastly I will share a deep secret with you I learned today from my Rabbi; why do we eat all those fried foods at Hannukah? Sufganyiot and Latkes? Well, in contrast to the ideal of outward beauty held by the Greeks and Syrians, Judaism emphasizes truth and moral purity, as commanded by G‑d in the holy Torah. The Jewish people could never give up their faith in G‑d and accept the idol-worship of the Syrians. The Greeks were all about the body, naked exercise at the gym, worshiping the physical and the spiritual was ignored.

The Jews rebelled and said “NO WAY, are we going to be like that! Pass me the sour cream for my latke please and I’ll have the lemon sufganiyah!”

Dreidel Dog, Moshe the Mensch on a Bench and the Zebra from Zion. Brad’s Hannukiah in the background
Because I can never see this enough.

I’ve added the Zebra from Zion to my Moshe the Mensch on a bench and Dreidel dog this year. Yes, I think I’m done. The Hannukiah in the back ground was Brad’s. I treasure it every day, and bless Jo Ann for giving it to me but I especially treasure it this time of year. It is the most amazing Hannukiah I’ve ever seen.

It’s about spreading the light, no matter how little oil it feels like we have.

First night of Hannukah is tomorrow night.

חג חנוכה שמח

Happy Hannukah!

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

Lifting the Veil on BLM: Critical Race Theory Rejects King’s Dream

PART III

“When people are solely fixated on the issue of race, they tend to view everything that happens to themselves and others of their racial group through a prism that has only two colors—black (oppressed) and white (oppressors). That is far from the reality in America today”.1

Dr. Ron Martinelli

“All the Panther lovers. All the ‘Do it or Die.’ All the ‘by any means necessary negroes…I didn’t see ‘em stand up and do nothing’. Oh really, I don’t believe in marching, I believe in offing the pigs’. Well they got pigs out there. You ain’t offed one of them. What I believe in, I do. Do what you believe in. Or shut up and admit you’ve lost your courage and your guts to stand up…’I’ll off the man. Well off him. Plenty of crackers walking right around here tonight”.2

Al Sharpton, Speaking to Students, Kean College, New Jersey, 1992

On 28 August 1963, in what became the largest civil rights march to date, Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech before a huge crowd in Washington, D.C. His vision foresaw a future in which “my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.3 King expressed the Biblical principle of universal brotherhood wherein people of all races see their own humanity in the faces of others. In G_d’s eyes, there is only the human race. One’s heart and character define who they are. However, Critical Race Theory (CRT), the intellectual foundation of BLM, denounces King’s colorblind society and equality of races as a trap set by white supremacists.

Samantha Vincenty, senior staff writer for the Oprah Daily, who is white, insists a color blind society is racist because it “ignores the realities of systemic racism” and thus hides the fact that blacks are “mistreated, underserved, and underpaid”.4 CRT’s adherents and BLM base their “proof” for systemic racism on de rigueur claims police are engaged in a genocidal war of oppression against blacks.5 Mistreated, underserved, and underpaid by whom? Where are the examples? Has she not heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, especially Title VII? If race-based discrimination in pay were occurring, Civil Rights attorneys would like to know.6 Nevertheless, Vincenty makes the self-validating claim blacks must suffer mistreatment because CRT presupposes “systemic racism” as an incontrovertible fact for its starting point. If not true, their remedial solutions collapse like the proverbial house of cards. Systemic racism is an amorphous creature whose singular quality is plasticity. It is possessed of many meanings and no definitions. From there, Vincenty jumps to the conclusion not to see race is itself racist. Why? It allows those who utter statements about a colorblind society to ignore systemic racism.7 Being called a racist is the greatest fear among the whites she knows but it pales in comparison with black’s greatest fear, “not surviving an interaction with a police officer”.8 Like communist professor Howard Zinn, who used no footnotes in his writing,9 Vincenty provides no sources for her claims. This shields authors from having to defend their research, such as it is, on the one hand and blast critics as racists on the other.

Vincently asserts when white people hear the term racism, they see Jim Crow laws establishing segregated schools, neighborhoods, restaurants, hotels, and public transportation. Since this is illegal, white people assume racism no longer exists. This view blinds whites to black poverty and lack of educational and employment opportunities resulting from institutionalized racism. Institutionalized by whom? Whites, of course. In order to preserve their dominant position in society, white Americans erected a system of structural racism built on oppressing other races. She does not explain how her boss, Oprah Winfrey, overcame structural racism to become one of the richest women in the world. Vincenty also sees the American tradition of individualism as racist and a source of pathologies plaguing black society. Individualism allows whites to see poverty, academic failure, alcohol and drug dependency, and the inability to find and hold jobs as “personal moral failings” rather than identify the real cause. That cause, of course, is systemic white racism. Worse, individualism teaches if one engages in right behavior, (studying in school, working hard, obeying the law), one succeeds in life. If you don’t, you won’t. This view places blame for personal failures on the individual rather than on where Vincenty believes it really belongs, systemic white racism.10 This view generates a neat and tidy rationale for recurring and seemingly impregnable pathologies plaguing black inner cities. It is the white man’s fault. One could ask who created “pregnant teens; families without fathers; or a 50% high school dropout rate” as well as rampant drug abuse among this demographic. Who created its “murderous street gangs preying on their own communities and killing young black adolescents and young adults”? Who gave birth to and promotes “gangsta rap” which denigrates girls as “bitches” and “ho’s”?11 In addition, critics of CRT point out African immigrants from Nigeria are among the most educated and successful of any immigrant group.12 CRT proponents counter the difference is the legacy of slavery.

According to Brandon Jones, blacks suffer a transmissible and inherited generational form of PTSD resulting from slavery, humiliation, discrimination, and hatred by whites in America.13 Original rationales justifying slavery evolved into a systematized structure of oppression by the white against the black race. If this were true, why would black and brown people become police officers? Vincenty claims some minorities are willing to serve Caucasian’s system of racial control to the point of oppressing their own.14 Spokesmen for BLM and their allies are less generous referring to these officers as race traitors.15 Vincenty, writing from the ultra-liberal enclave of NYC, is more than an opinion essayist she is a propagandist for CRT, which, itself, is an adaptation of Karl Marx’s theory of class conflict and exploitation.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels authored the Communist Manifesto. They boiled history down to a constant struggle between two economic classes, oppressors and the oppressed. The former, capitalists, own the means of production as well as natural resources. The latter own nothing therefore trade labor, far below its value, to their oppressors for goods and services. Therefore, these classes are “in constant opposition to one another”. Either this ongoing clash leads to a “fight” ending “in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large” (with the end of oppressors owning the means of production and private property) or it ends “in the common ruin of the struggling classes”.16 As society evolves, the classes remain the same because oppressors devise “new conditions of oppression” resulting in “new forms of struggle that replace old ones”. Society exists in two hostile camps, “bourgeoisie, and proletariat”. The bourgeoisie construct society to prevent the oppressed from ever rising above their class.17 Does this sound familiar?

Proponents of CRT adapted Marx’s theory replacing economic with racial class. Just as Marx contended due to oppression by the bourgeoisie the proletariat could never rise above its station in life, CRT argues the same with respect to race. Whites are the bourgeoisie and blacks the oppressed downtrodden proletariat. As butterflies pinned to a museum display case, blacks cannot escape their race. Born black, black they will always be. Because whites designed society to exclude them, it automatically denies blacks full participation. Where did CRT come from? Like any movement, CRT has its pioneers.

Derrick Bell, Professor of Law at New York University, together with Alan Freeman, a white “scholar”, State University-Buffalo Law School, created the foundations for Critical Race Theory. They and those who followed cleverly refashioned Marx’s theory to explain why blacks fail to thrive in white society.18 It should not escape notice white people were integral to the black struggle for equality going back to abolition. Much like Vincenty, Bell brushes aside this untidy fact asserting, “Whites support civil rights protections for blacks only if those protections would also promote white self-interest and social status”. He views blackness as equivalent to membership in a “permanently oppressed caste”. For white people, “racism is a normal, permanent aspect of life”. For blacks, notions of “equality before the law” is an affront, an insult because systemic white racism fixes blacks in an inescapable oppressed class denied the same rights enjoyed by whites. Therefore, black “moral claims” to equality before the law “are superior to those of whites”.19

Professor Bell, like his CRT replicates, “built his academic career” on “the endless repetition of the claim that whites and white institutions are irremediably racist”. He also embraces Race Traitor, a journal dedicated to the “abolition of whiteness”. Its motto is “Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity”.20 Bell, like other CRT adherents, insists the American legal system is structurally racist.21 This includes its laws, courts, police, and prisons.22 In addition, “American society at large” is “racist” in its very “construction”. White racism permeates all aspects of American culture and life. This includes its educational, economic, governmental, health care, and religious institutions. Because whites constructed them to promote white supremacy, racism is intertwined with and inseparable from their institutions. Therefore, “oppressed racial groups have both the right and duty to decide for itself” which laws they will obey.23 Looting during summer riot seasons is acceptable because blacks are re-appropriating what whites stole from them through slavery and exploitation.24

Bell condemns and rejects all standards with respect to research methodology as racist constructs. Flouting convention, he eschews source citation contending black oral “storytelling narratives” are more legitimate. Do universities allow white professors to do the same? This carries over in his demand universities hire and promote blacks irrespective of qualifications. Harvard Law always prided itself on hiring professors with law degrees from elite universities, who clerked for the Supreme Court, and worked in a major law firm. In response to pressure from the Black Law Students Association, Harvard hired Bell who met none of these qualifications. He “mocked” them as “exclusionary constructs of a racist white power structure” erected to “deny blacks an opportunity to teach at the nation’s elite schools”.25 Does this hold true for white law school graduates denied employment by Harvard who lack these requisite qualifications? Bell complains, “White society condemns all blacks to quasi-citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents”. Slavery shows what white people did and could do again and “black people will never gain full equality”. Blacks “must confront and conquer” this “reality of our permanent subordinate status”.26

Kathleen Cleaver, once Communications Secretary for the Black Panther Party, is a senior lecturer in law at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. She insists the Panthers were part of a “liberation” movement and violence committed by blacks, especially against police, constitutes “righteous resistance” and “self-defense”.27 Is this not what BLM and its surrogates say? Is there a connection between BLM’s claim attacking police is self-defense and the dramatic spike in assaults against officers? Cleaver teaches revolution to overthrow white society in American and Europe is necessary because they built their societies on colonization and enslavement of black and brown peoples. She embraces communist dictatorships as well as Muslim terrorist groups. In short, she finds common cause with anyone who hates America and the white man.28

Lewis R. Gordon, professor of Philosophy, Temple University, joins professors Bell, Freeman, and Cleaver in pushing CRT. Not only is he a member of the Radical Philosophy Association, but he has authored articles for Political Affairs, the “theoretical organ of the American Communist Party”. He teaches, “White America does not see blacks as individuals, but as a threatening ‘existential reality’ waiting to overtake the country”. He argues blacks suffer “humanistic anxieties” resulting not just from past injustices but “modern slavery and racism”. These injustices continue because white Americans refuse to regard blacks “in racial terms in their ‘blackness”. A color-blind society would cause blacks to disappear. He calls for teaching a new African philosophy that rejects Western Philosophy. Professors should view students “as potential agents to be deployed in the service of ‘progressive’ politicians”. Like other CRT adherents, he speaks extensively on “liberation” of blacks from the white society that “cruelly oppresses them”.29 They can only achieve this through revolution and overthrow of all aspects of white society.

This constitutes but a sampling of CRT proponents. They exist on virtually every college campus. White majority public schools are rushing to implement CRT curriculum. How many Americans understand what CRT is? How many know it is the intellectual foundation of BLM? How many know liberal white teachers have been promoting CRT in public schools for some time? CRT and BLM cannot survive a color-blind society. For them, race identifies who is part of the oppressor and oppressed groups. Therefore, they reject Martin Luther King’s call for non-violent resistance and a color-blind society. Yusra Khogali, co-founder of the Toronto, Canada BLM Chapter, declared BLM rejects the goals and tactics of the “old-guard” who led the civil rights movement in the 1960s. They reject notions of equality, integration, and assimilation into mainstream America. Instead, they want to overthrow it.30

CRT is an adaption of Karl Marx’s theory on class conflict and oppression. It teaches that Caucasians are inherently racist as if part of their DNA. They are irredeemably racist unable to escape their history of exploitation, oppression, and enslavement of black and brown people. They built their civilization and wealth on racial expropriation. They maintain comfortable middle and upper class lifestyles by denying blacks a seat at the table. Whites constructed their institutions to ensure hegemony over other races. The police enforce white rule. Therefore, liberation for the black man can occur only when he overthrows white society and all its institutions. This then, is CRT.

1 Ron Martinelli, Ph.D., The Truth Behind The Black Lives Matter Movement And The War On Police (Temecula, California, Martinelli & Associates, Justice & Forensics Consultants, Inc., 2016), 153.

2 “Flashback, Al Sharpton Screaming At A Crowd to ‘Off the pigs’ and ‘crackers” at https://www.dailywire.com/news/flashback-al-sharpton-screaming-crowd-pigs-and-chase-stephens.

3 Daniel J. Boorstin and Brooks Mather Kelley, A History of the United States Since 1861 (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1990), 695.

4 Samantha Vincenty, “Being ‘Color Blind’ Doesn’t Make You Not Racist—In Fact, It Can Mean The Opposite”, 12 June 2020 at https://www.oprahdaily.com/life/

5 Black Lives Matter at http://www.blacklivesmatter.com/. This is from BLM’s 2015 webpage. They have sanitized and scrubbed some content from their webpage to hide who they really are.

6 National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), “The Current Stat of Equal Pay Laws, at https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/the-current-state-of-equal-pay-laws.aspx

7 Vincenty, “Being Color Blind”.

8 IBID.

9 David Horowitz, The Professors (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2006), 358-364.

1010 Vincenty, “Being Color Blind”.

1111 Martinelli, 113.

1212 B. Joseph, “Why Nigerian Immigrants Are One of The Most Successful Immigrant Groups in the U.S., 2 July 2018, at https://medium.com/@joecarleton/why-nigerians-are-one-of-the-most-successful-immigrant-groups-in-us-23a7ea5a0832

1313 Brandon Jones, M.A., Psychotherapist and Behavioral Health Consultant, “Legacy of Trauma, ‘Context of the African American Existence”, at https://health-state-mn-us/communites/equality/projects/infantmortality/session2.pdf.

1414 Vincenty, “Being Color Blind”.

1515 Donna Weaver, Staff Writer, “Black Police officers talk about being seen as traitors by community”, The Press of Atlantic City, 1 March 2016, at https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/crime/black-police-officers-talk-about-being-seen-as-traitors-by-community/article_aef98ab2-dd96-11e5-a926-eba8ce62ad69.htm;

1616 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Joseph Katz, editor, The Communist Manifesto (New York, N.Y., Washington Square Press, Pocket Books, A Division of Simon & Schuster, 1974), 57-58.

1717 IBID. 59-66.

1818 Horowitz, 56.

1919 IBID, 56.

2020 IBID, 56.

2121 IBID, 56-57.

2222 IBID, 57.

2323 IBID, 57.

2424 Khaldea Rahman, “Black Lives Matter, Chicago Organizer Defends Looting: ‘That’s Reparations”, 12 August 2020, Newsweek at https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-chicago-defends-looting-reparations-1524502.

2525 Horowitz, 57.

2626 IBID, 60.

2727 IBID, 89.

2828 IBID, 90-91.

2929 IBID. 197-199.

3030 Taleeb Starkes, Black Lies Matter: Why Lies Matter To The Racial Grievance Industry (Lexington, Kentucky, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016), 30-34.

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

Freedom and the Role of the Militia Part II

What I find most galling are not Republican allegations former Democrat Vice President Joe “Boss Tweed” Biden leveraged his position to benefit his son Hunter in Ukraine.1 Nor do I find Democrat accusations President Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine pressuring President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate potential Biden influence peddling most galling. Democrats want Americans to believe Trump withheld aid while Ukraine was at war with Russia. However, Putin invaded Ukrainian Crimea on 20 February 2014 and later sent military units across Russia’s western border into Ukraine to assist “separatists” in May of the same year. Trump did not place his party line call to Zelensky until July of 2019, five years later.2 Can we be frank? Notions Ukraine would survive let alone prevail in a war with Russia are preposterous. Therefore, American military and economic aid would be pointless. Why then do Democrat and Republican administrations send it? Are Americans willing to offer their sons to die for Ukrainians fighting Russia? Is the U.S. willing to risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine? We must address yet another reality.

Since Tsar Nicholas I, Russia has pursued a policy of “Russification” in conquered nations and territories. Imperial Russia took control of the education system, mass media, and popular culture in subjugated countries. They replaced native tongues, customs, history, literature, art, music, and holidays with those of Mother Russia. Whether the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for those who attended public schools) the Caucasus, Poland, or Ukraine, conquered people were forced to grow up as Russians.3

Soviets added a new dynamic to Russification by transplanting hundreds of thousands of Russians to the Baltics and especially Ukraine. The Communist’s goal was to displace natives and breed them into a minority population or, at least have a forward base of Russian immigrants embedded in targeted nations. Under Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviets uprooted entire Russian villages and moved them to Ukraine. In 1926, only 8.2% of Ukrainians were ethnic Russian. That figure rose to 16.9% in 1959 and 22.1% in 1989. In addition, by 1985, the Soviets had relocated by force, over 185,000 Ukrainians to faraway places in Russia and to the Baltics. So successful was Russification (America’s open-borders crowd pay attention), that native Ukrainians living along their eastern border with Russia dropped from 33.4% in 1926 to 2.3% by 1970. In a conflict with Russia, where will their loyalties lie? With whom will ethnic-Russian “Ukrainians” side?4 The idea that America can simply show up with her military and straighten this all out is ludicrous but still, this is not what is most galling. Instead, it is the profound degree of self-inflicted constitutional ignorance afflicting so many Americans. Who asks; what part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to seize the wages and property of American citizens and hand it over to foreigners in other countries? Go ahead and look. I’ll wait. You will be the subject of an archeological dig before you find it because no such authority exists. What the Constitution does not authorize it forbids.

The Constitution’s Framers and State Ratifying Conventions were clear in 1787-1788; powers they delegated to the new federal government were finite and few. The Framers enumerated (listed) them in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. These powers are explicit. They rejected notions that, through novel interpretations later on, anyone could create implied from explicit powers. Scottish immigrant James Wilson became a prominent Philadelphia attorney and patriot. He signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and was a “Federalist” delegate to the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention. Wilson described the new form of government that would replace the Articles of Confederation as a “confederate republic”. It was not a “single centralized state” because that would lead to “despotism” and tyranny. The federal government had only those powers delegated to it by the States. It could not exercise powers it did not have nor could the government imply powers into existence.5 No one is asking why the U.S. government, under Democrats and Republicans, is stealing the money and property of its citizens in order to buy and reward “friends” around the world.

I suspect to some degree America’s ruling class elite have always hamstrung the cause of liberty. They do not quite trust Americans, even their political followers, with liberty. A condemnation of liberals and Democrats? On the contrary. Republican Presidents, including Richard Nixon, George H W and George W Bush, and candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney ran as conservatives who would defend the Constitution. Once in office, as Presidents, Governors, or Senators, they shed conservative principles like snakes squirming from old skin. It is as if they believe the job of supporters is to get them elected and then shut up and go away until the next election. They talk a good game and then make one compromise after another always moving in the direction of opponents. One can find unease and mistrust of social “inferiors” even in the writing of some conservatives.

Writing for conservative The American Spectator, Daniel McCarthy notes liberals believe the mere existence of firearms, in conjunction with the election of Donald Trump, whose words have radicalized the young, is the cause of public mass shootings (PMS). For liberals the only remedy is to remove Trump from office, ban and seize all firearms in private hands, and double down on suppression of “hate speech”. This in spite of the fact police investigations reveal those guilty of PMS are typically creatures of the Left, not Trump supporters. McCarthy notes the Second Amendment’s intent was to protect the firearms liberals want to seize. He adds that a “well-regulated militia” means a citizenry well practiced with arms as opposed to a standing army. To be effective, the militia must have the same firearms as a federal standing army. So far so good. Then McCarthy runs off the rails. He asserts notions the Second Amendment supports citizen rebellion, like Shays’ Rebellion, is “right-wing folklore”. McCarthy offers as proof the Virginia Declaration of Rights, authored by George Mason that “inspired” the Second Amendment. Its stated reason for arms is to maintain a well-regulated militia “under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power”.6 Where to start? Part one covered the meaning of “militia”. Here we turn to a story of mistrust by the people’s “betters”.

Typical high school government textbooks allege the Articles of Confederation had failed. This led to unpaid State and private debt, violence, and economic chaos verging on tearing the union apart. “Shays’ Rebellion in Western Massachusetts (31 August 1786-June 1787) was only the most spectacular of several incidents”.7 They assert “By 1786, people in many states were on the verge of rebellion…Led by Daniel Shays, a veteran of the Revolution, hundreds of angry farmers and laborers banded together, marched on court houses, and freed imprisoned debtors from jail”. Richard Hardy, like other government textbook authors, uses Shays’ Rebellion (a name invented by enemies of the farmer’s protest) as an argument for abolishing the Articles and replacing it with a strong national government of centralized powers.8 This interpretation was strongly echoed by liberal teachers (is there a distinction?) with whom I taught and the jock-coaches principals assign to teach government. Ill-versed in the subject, the latter deviated not from the script. Little, if any, of what they teach, including the book’s representation, of Shays’ Rebellion is accurate. The same holds true at the University. For example, a typical college text explains “hard times, tight money, and heavy taxes” sent Massachusetts farmers to debtors’ prison while others “lost their land”. The farmers’ rebellion was “put down” by “state troops”.9 Liberal John Garraty’s text asserts Shays’ Rebellion was the result of Massachusetts attempting to pay off its war debt with the tax bite “falling most heavily on those of moderate income”. He describes mobs shutting down courts to prevent foreclosures and Daniel Shays leading an army to seize the federal arsenal in Springfield, a battle they lost.10 Liberal historian Samuel Eliot Morison, despised by Communist Howard Zinn, author of the most popular fictionalized history passing as truth in public schools and universities,11 writes that Shay’s Rebellion consisted of poor farmers facing harsh economic conditions who demanded relief from their State government. They seized control of courts in Western Massachusetts preventing them from opening until the legislature amended the Constitution. Their demands included ending requirements debts be paid in specie and ending legal favoritism of coastal commercial interests at the expense of farmers. Morison labels Massachusetts’ Governor James Bowdoin a “staunch conservative” who called out the militia to put down these illegal protests.12 Postwar economic conditions were indeed harsh in several colonies but were not the cause of the so-called Shays’ Rebellion. Liberal teachers wield the story in classrooms as a “cautionary tale” to convince students the United States must have a strong national government of consolidated powers. Moreover, at the expense of State and individual rights.

Scare stories are part and parcel of the weapons used by those pushing an agenda to effect a desired outcome. Their creators spin and spoon-feed them to gullible Americans all too willing to embrace lies over truth. It works because Americans are too intellectually lazy to think beyond the accepted wisdom of the herd. Manipulators fuel preexistent worry and fear already planted by mass media and government schools (global warming, Putin under every bed) to create panic and alarm. Their goal is to cause rash imprudent reaction. The nation’s “Father” was the target of such an effort.

With no desire to leave Mount Vernon again, George Washington was enjoying retirement from public life. In 1786, he received visitors and letters from friends and veterans reporting on a “rebellion” in Massachusetts. Their shared goal was abolition of the Articles of Confederation and replacing it with a strong national government of consolidated powers. They wanted to reduce or eliminate State sovereignty. They weaved scare stories ranging from exaggeration to outright lies. Washington was already discomfited by hysterical scare stories he read in newspapers written by editors who also shared a strong desire to scrap the Articles. Political leaders, former army officers, bankers, merchants, and large landowners added their voices to claims the nation was falling apart and about to disintegrate into revolution or civil war.13

General Henry Knox, Washington’s former artillery commander, along with others, knew Washington was a large landowner constantly dealing with squatters. Therefore, they painted Massachusetts’ rebels in the most lurid and false terms. They told him rebels wanted to close courts to stop foreclosure on land for unpaid debt, seize land belonging to the rich, and that Massachusetts’ militias were too weak to oppose them. Knox claimed a “licentious spirit” was widespread among the rebels and they were “malcontents” and “levellers” who, through violence, would abolish all social, economic, and class distinctions. In addition, they would erase all private debt and redistribute amongst themselves the land they seized.14 Knox used the term “levellers” to spark alarm in Washington and others. It sprang from the English Civil War of 1642 between Charles I and Parliament. Near the end of that war, common soldiers discussed what improvements they desired for postwar England. Levellers wanted to abolish the tax-supported state church, establish basic natural rights belonging to all men, declared sovereignty was in the people not kings, and that government was a social-compact with the people.15

Through malice or ignorance, Knox was conflating Levellers with English “Diggers”. The latter were essentially proto-communists. Basing their doctrine on the New Testament, Diggers wanted all unenclosed land seized and made communal, farmed, and its produce distributed by the commune to the poor. England would abolish private property along with “unequal wealth”.16 Knox’s misrepresentation of Shay’s Rebellion, and use of the term “Levellers”, had the desired effect. He conjured images of rogue uneducated, poor, and debt- ridden rabble rising up to burn the homes and farms of the rich, looting businesses and banks, and overthrowing the government in Boston. None of this was true.

The men in Western Massachusetts who marched on and closed courts in several towns were comprised of farmers, large landowners, merchants, Revolutionary War heroes and veterans, and political leaders. They were typically middle class, from leading long established families, and were neither poor nor debtors. They rebelled because land and note speculators, led by Governor James Bowdoin, had taken over the government in Boston. Like other states during the war, Massachusetts issued paper notes to pay its soldiers, farmers, and merchants from whom it requisitioned supplies. Not backed by specie, inflation ensued and soon, like the famous Continentals, they were worthless. People had to eat and pay bills so, when speculators offered to buy these notes for a fraction of their face value, their holders sold them. After the war, Bowdoin and his cronies bought up as many notes as they could. Once in power, they passed a law requiring the State redeem them at full face value, with interest, and much of it paid in specie. To finance redemption, Bowdoin’s government passed a head tax on families for every male 16 and older and farm families tended to be large. In addition, the state would tax their land. Those unable to pay faced losing family farms and going to prison. The State had forced soldiers, farmers, and small merchants to accept worthless notes during the war. From them speculators bought these notes for next to nothing. Now the state was taxing those who lost an enormous sum selling the notes to speculators to pay an even greater amount to redeem them on their behalf.17 Public school texts seem to leave out this part of the story.

Is it any wonder farmers in Western Massachusetts reacted in anger and protest? They demanded a change in the law. Specie was scarce and farmers knew the government in Boston was robbing them to benefit Bowdoin and his wealthy cronies. Boston was deaf to farmers’ complaints. Their protests became larger and eventually they closed local courts to force change. They were not attempting to overthrow the government. Bowdoin reacted with force. The State Legislature granted him authority to arrest, torture, and even hang rebels. He could also seize their land and sell it. To his benefactors, naturally. He suspended habeas corpus meaning he could arrest and keep rebels, even political enemies, in jail until they rotted. This he did. Massachusetts’ militia was more than large enough to suppress the rebellion but, when Bowdoin called it out, they refused. They would not march against men they knew to be honorable, patriots, and war veterans. Bowdoin and his rich speculator friends passed the hat amongst themselves and raised enough money to hire a mercenary army of 4,400 led by war veteran General Benjamin Lincoln to suppress the “rebellion”. Following several skirmishes, the rebellion ended when Lincoln’s State army seized the federal arsenal at Springfield before the farmers did.18 Proponents of a new “national” government did not tell George Washington this side of the story.

Although a war hero, Daniel Shays was a newcomer to Western Massachusetts. He was leader of one of many groups who protested what Boston was doing. Those comprising “rebel” groups never called themselves “rebels, insurgents”, or “Shayites”. The press and allies of Bowdoin invented these labels. The same way the left uses “right-wing” for conservatives implying the latter are Nazis. Shame on you Daniel McCarthy. Instead, they referred to themselves as “Regulators” a term originating in England during the 1680s. Britons who took this name opposed corruption, cronyism, and tyranny in government. Americans knew this history. The term Regulator gained usage In Britain’s North American colonies in the 1760s, first in North and then in South Carolina. Lawyers and land speculators gained control of Carolina County Courts and used their position to levy heavy taxes, fees, and fines on farmers. They jailed delinquent taxpayers, seized, and sold their land. When the governments in each colony refused to reply to the farmer’s pleas for relief, they took matters into their own hands forming organizations of Regulators who drove corrupt lawyers, judges, and officials from office. Like Massachusetts, the aristocracy consolidated political power into its hands rewarding themselves and cronies at the expense of farmers, exactly what Britain’s appointed Royal Governors had done in the colonies. Each state in turn suppressed rebellion. Following in the footsteps of those who came before, Massachusetts’ Regulators vowed to end tyrannical government in Boston based on cronyism and corruption. Their goal was to rewrite the hated State Constitution of 1780.19

Men who favored creating a European style strong national government with centralized powers used Shay’s Rebellion to argue the government under the Articles was too weak to survive. They stoked fear and panic. “Nationalizers” created and disseminated false narratives through the media they controlled. They pressured Madison and Washington to support abandoning the Articles in favor of a yet, unwritten new form of government.20 It is remarkable that American patriots did not realize that, in beholding the rebels of 1786, they were seeing themselves in the mirror of 1776. There can be but one explanation. These men evinced a trait shared from time immemorial among those who would rule. They do not trust “lesser” citizens to rule themselves sharing the same amount of freedom as their “betters”. It is why they target the Second Amendment, freedom of speech, and challenge the outcomes of elections. Even some Republicans, conservative pundits, opinion makers, and movers and shakers believe in government for, not of the people. They want their base to vote and then shut up. Do not accommodate them. Read and learn the truth.

11 Peter Schweizer, Secret Empires (New York, N.Y., HarperCollins Publishers, 2018), 55-73. Spoiler alert, Republicans have their hands in the till as well.

22 Natalyia Vasilyeva, The Associated Press, “Russia’s Conflict With Ukraine: An Explainer,” 26 November 2018, The Military Times at https://www.military-times.com/news/yar-military/2018/11/26/russias-conflict-with-ukraine-an-explainer/

33 Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia, Sixth Edition (Oxford, England, Oxford University Press, 2000), 332, 333, 380, 394, 397, 575-576.

55 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York, N.Y. Simon & Schuster, 2010), 104, 108.

66 Daniel McCarthy, “Liberalism Cannot Stop The Shootings”, American Spectator at https://spectatorus/liberalism-cannot-stop-shootings/

77 William A. McClenaghan, Magruders’ American Government, 2000 Edition (Needham, Massachusetts, Prentice Hall, 2000), 37.

88 Richard J. Hardy, Government In America (Boston, Massachusetts, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), 45.

99 Rebecca Brooks Gruever, An American History, Second Edition, Volume 1 to 1877 (Reading, Massachusetts, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1976), 175.

1010 John A. Garraty and Robert A. McCaughey, The American Nation: A History Of The United States, Sixth Edition (New York, N.Y., Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987), 151.

1111 Mary Grabar, Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation against America (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, 2019), 6, 12, 14, 23-28, 251, 257.

1212 Samuel Eliot Morison, The Oxford History Of The American People, Prehistory to 1789 (New York, N.Y., A Mentor Book from New American Library, 1972), 390-394, 395.

1313 Leonard L. Richards, Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 1-3.

1414 IBID. 3-4.

1515 Goldwin Smith, A History of England (New York, N.Y., Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974), 305-334.

1616 IBID. 334.

1717 Richards, 1-10, 15-16.

1818 IBID. 23-61.

1919 IBID. 64-74, 61-63.

2020 IBID. 89-116, 129-138.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Shot through the Heart and you’re to Blame, Liberals Give Manhood a Bad Name

“It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.”2

Jeff Snyder

“So long as assault rifles (sic) like the AR15 are legally sold in this state, so long as they are not banned, their threat to civilians will remain in every school, every mall, every movie theater, every nightclub, and in every place the public gathers.”3

Oscar Braynon, State Senate Democrat Leader, Miami Gardens, Florida.

Dressed all in black, including ski mask, he pointed a gun not hesitating to shoot me in the chest. With sounds of screaming, people scrambling to escape, and the gun shot echoing in my ears, I wondered how it had come to this. I had been a police officer trained in dynamic entry,4 hostage negotiation, and firearms but here I was, shot down in a public school. My thoughts drifted back to early morning, 3 November, 2015, where it all began.

Students had the day off but not teachers. High school administrators herded us into the Lecture Hall. What was up? We were being trained to repel attacks by terrorists and active-school “shooters” (sic). Teachers sitting around me, mostly from the English and Math departments, expressed apprehension because none had ever held let alone fired a gun. What did colleagues in my socialIST studies department think? I had no idea. Convicted of being a conservative, I was subjected to the Amish-Shun Syndrome. They sat as far from me as possible. Trainers included city police officers, teachers, and administrators trained in the latest techniques. Considering current policy was assuming the fetal position in classrooms, waiting to be saved or shot, whatever they had in store must be an improvement. Finally this large suburban school district was getting serious about fighting back. Filled with optimism, I scanned the room looking for racks of hangers festooned with body armor, boxes bulging with smoke bombs, tear gas canisters, and flash bang grenades. Maybe there were sign-up sheets for teachers to check out Glock 17s and AR15s. I called dibs on Spikes’ Tactical AR sporting a Crusader on the receiver, the last icon ammonium-nitrate reeking Islamic Jihadi terrorists would see before cashing in on the 72 virgins deal…or is it raisins?5 But I saw none of these.

Presenters not only led off with scare tactics and propaganda, they also used students to spew wanton misinformation. For example, they claimed school shootings were on a marked upswing, getting worse, and our lives were in peril. They displayed graphs and charts mounted on easels to drive the point home. For once, gabby teachers were silent. As the student sock-puppets read off alarming statistics, teacher’s brows furrowed their heads nodding in grim unison. But what the sock-puppets and teacher string-pullers were saying wasn’t even true. It was all lies.6 It stank like a truck load of fish heads spilled on a Los Angeles freeway.

“Facts” presented about the epidemic rise in school shootings came from Everytown for Gun Safety, a faux grassroots gun control organization. It’s the brainchild of and funded by liberal gun confiscationist former New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg.7 Everytown claimed 74 school shootings had occurred since Sandy Hook, Elementary, in 2012 and this was the basis for the present state of crisis. Everyone assumed the statistic referred only to mass shootings inside schools. No one seemed aware this statistic had been exposed as bogus. Its definition of “school shootings” included “isolated arguments between students [a gun was discharged but the suspect had no intent to shoot anyone] accidents, suicides, and gang activity.” It included every incident in which a gun was discharged, accidental or not, even if no one was struck. And it included shootings occurring near, but not actually on school property, having nothing to do with the school and or its students. Worse, it included gang related shootings in Baltimore and Chicago’s inner cities, with schools nearby, dramatically ratcheting up the statistic.8 If thugs shot it out in an alleyway, or fired at a rival’s homes in a drive by, and a school was in the neighborhood, Everytown counted it as a “school shooting.” But as far as teachers were concerned, based on this statistic, there was an epidemic of “school shootings.” Is it appropriate to harness students to promote a fraud? Appalled, I began telling those around me this information was false, lies. A few looked at me but none responded. No one speaks to those upon whom the principal’s disfavor rests. Why didn’t I take the floor and address this charade of indoctrination and idiocy? Being the victim of a witch hunt (May, 2015) taught me, when they’re looking for witches, they find witches. I was on step three of a three step termination process, for being a conservative in public, and on double-secret permanent probation. As far as I knew, no one had ever been placed on permanent probation before.9 One mistake and I was fired. That pressure, and a heart attack, forced me into retirement that year. I could say nothing.

Training began with presenters passing out black cords resembling fat shoestrings. For the next quarter or an hour, maybe more, we practiced tying knots so complex they’d have given sailors fits. Fire department codes prohibit classroom doors that open inward eliminating the ability to barricade them against intruders. The solution is tying one end of the plump shoestring into a complex knot and attaching the other end to chairs and desks. The idea is, once the attacker(s) shot the lock off the flimsy door, and yanked it open, the cord would drag school furniture along with it blocking entry. Stop laughing, I’m not making this up. Even if this wasn’t an appallingly stupid idea, I wondered how panic stricken teachers would remember let alone be able to tie complex Gordian knots while Jihadis were banging away at them with AK-47s.

Hands shot up. Teachers wanted to know what they were supposed to do if bad guys defeated the knots. A tall young blonde female to my right raised her hand and suggested a solution. When the bad guy pokes his gun through the open door, grab it by the barrel and pull it out of his hands. I stopped breathing. An involuntary response. Shocking. Breathtaking. Unbelievable. Like when the news reported President Ronald Reagan had been shot. I looked around waiting for someone to explain to her why, besides becoming an instant bullet-bag, this was a terrible idea, beyond stupid. To my utter amazement no one did. Instead teachers agreed heartily it was indeed, a good idea. This from teachers who had never held and even loathed guns. My jaw dropped so far open, I was certain colleagues could hear its horrified tendons distend. My life and the lives of your kids are in the hands of shepherds such as these?

But wait, certainly those in authority, those with a modicum of common sense, would speak out against this absurdly dangerous notion of grabbing the barrel of an AK-47 trying to wrestle it away from the bad guy as it’s fired in your face. Right? Considering teachers are responsible for so many lives, this couldn’t’ be more important. Certainly the proverbial “adults in the room,” were obligated to speak up disabusing colleagues of such reckless notions. I looked at the trainers in the front of the room waiting. Some were cops. Good. They would know what to say. They remained silent. This was probably because they were composing the kindest way to tell the teacher her idea was ill advised…and nuts. Instead, several presenters actually agreed with her. Having worn the blue, I stared at the cops in the front psychically imploring them; please, step in and save us from this train wreck. They said nothing. Principals can also destroy SRO jobs.

A student high on insanity, mayhem, meds, and rage, or Islamic Jihadis fueled by violent berserker blood rage, shoves their gun through the door, or bursts into the room blasting anything that moves and twice if it doesn’t, and you’re going to run over and pull the gun from his hands!? Are you kidding me? Could it get any worse?

Hands went up again. Okay, the bad guys defeat the knots, get the door open, and we’re too far away to grab the barrel. Now what? Trainers instructed teachers to repel the attack by rushing the bad guy, throwing books and staplers to distract him, and then wrestle the gun away. Let me see if I understand this. It’s World War I and the French are huddled in trenches awaiting the German assault. Instead of letting artillery and bullets fly as they cross no-man’s land, the French wait until the Boche are upon them and then bean the Krauts with boiled beef and biscuit cans, wrestle their guns away, and kill them. Or, unarmed, rush German machine gun nests, flinging ration cans as they go, and then take the guns from the Huns. I’d call this moronic but, as the saying goes, it’d be an insult to morons. I prayed retirement came before such a tragedy.

Presenters then revealed if an attack occurred and SWAT nailed the scumbag scrote (my words) and we were no longer in any danger, we’d remain under lockdown. No one would be allowed to leave until authorities had searched and cleared every classroom, office, and nook and cranny, one by one. This would take hours. Several teachers asked what to do if students had to go potty. Presenters said, have them pee in a trash can. What about the girls, another teacher asked. Use T-shirts, sweatshirts, and jackets and hold them up around her, providing a privacy curtain, while she tinkles in the can, came the response.

When did man-hides get turned in for sheep hides? Schools could avail themselves of a voluntary cadre of armed ex-cops and military, and trained citizens. They could open up an irresistible can of whoop-a#% on bad guys taking them out before anyone had to pee in trash cans. I could barely sit still wanting to speak out against this self-inflicted victimhood and cowardice. But, step three of a three step termination process…

Next, in order to be properly trained, completion of role-playing scenarios was required. In addition to the black cords, we were given handfuls of miniature orange whiffle balls. They only had a couple left when they got to me. Teachers were assigned areas in the school where they pretended to be milling about as they would during class passing times. A signal over the PA would announce we were under attack by active “shooter(s)” (sic) and now under lockdown. We were to run to the nearest room, shut and lock the door, employ our newly mastered Houdini-defying knot tying skills, and hide in the dark, maybe peeing on our shoes, until given the all clear.

I wondered, what if the bad guys seized administrators and forced them at gun point to give the all clear? On probation, I said nothing. Once locked in the rooms, police, teacher, and administrator role players, dressed in black including ski-masks, and armed with CO2 paint ball guns, would assault our rooms. If they defeated the knots, they would shoot us. But not to worry, although each gun was loaded with a CO2 canister, there would be no paint ball. We would feel a strong “puff” from the gun. It wouldn’t hurt.

Several young female teachers near me became very emotional, visibly upset. One began to cry in fear. It took presenters several minutes to calm and talk them off the ledge. They were scared. Mortified at being shot by a puff from a paint ball gun? Are you kidding me? This was role playing. Acting. Hadn’t any of them ever played capture the flag, hide and go seek, or at least tag? If they were falling apart over the prospect of being shot by a puff of air from colleague role players, what would they do if confronted by the real deal!

I was assigned to loiter in the lobby of the junior varsity building. It’s an area forming the gaping black mall of the SocialIST Studies Department also known as Mordor. When the alarm blared, everyone stampeded toward my department supervisor’s room. This did not augur well. He called me, and anyone brave or stupid enough to associate with me, the Career Suicide Gang, with me leader for life. He and other teachers warned colleagues, especially rookies, being seen so much as speaking with me was toxic to their careers. I was radioactive and everyone should stay far away from me. This they did. For years. The isolation was so bad, I declared myself a school. I was the principal, teacher, nurse, guidance counselor, custodian, and lunch lady all rolled into one.10 Back to the story.

Everyone made a mad dash for the room. By the time I got there, last, colleagues were trying to Pontius Pilate me, shutting the door in my face. Forcing my way in, I found most teachers were hiding in the office of this former science room, whose door they had shut and locked. The remainder hid in the classroom as the knot-tiers worked their magic. With no place left to hide, I stood along the wall near the door. Defeating the knots and cords, the black-clad shouting role players burst into the room. One pointed a gun at and shot me. For a brief moment I thought I recognized the maniacal blue eyes behind his goggle lenses. Naw, couldn’t be. Was I bothered? No. Running and locking myself in a classroom isn’t what I would have done in the first place. It’s like chickens, fleeing a butcher, running and locking themselves in their coops or, fleeing a monster, a teen girl runs up to the second floor of a house and hides in a closet or under the bed. Instead, taking as many kids as possible, I’d have run down another hallway toward various doors, or up to the second floor, drop down from a window onto the breezeway, and gone. Terrorists shooting to inflict as much carnage as possible will fire into the center mass of stampeding hysterical people. They might notice a few peeling off but the economy of inflicting mass casualties as quickly as possible dictates letting them go. Hide in a room?

I got into trouble at my police academy in California while practicing nighttime vehicle stops. Coppers, role playing as bad guys, were behind the wheels of the cars trainees pulled over. Each time trainees approached the car, asking for drivers’ license and registration, the bad guys got the drop on and disarmed them. Except for me. I’m no former Force Recon Marine, Navy Seal, or a Billy Bad a*%, but every time they pulled a gun on me, I did the same, shooting back. Role players became exercised over my response. The expectation was, anyone with a gun in their face would surrender theirs and, if shot, be dead. I reacted without thinking, looking to escape and evade, fight if I must. Hey, I lived in Baltimore and Philadelphia. Back to the school active “shooter” (sic) training.

I finally learned the purpose of the miniature orange whiffle balls. They simulated the staplers and books we were to throw at bad guys in order to distract them and take away their guns. Oh brother. We ran the drill two more times and each time colleagues slammed the door in my face as if I was a Jehovah’s Witness. With ceremonial hands washed, I was Pontius Pilated each time, gunned down in the hallway. One lesson became immediately clear beyond the inevitable failure of knotted black cords keeping bad guys out of classrooms. Hysterical code red lockdown stampedes for classrooms meant not everyone would make it. Kids, your kids, would be trampled and or abandoned in halls.

Following these melees of madness, teachers reported back to the Lecture Hall for de-briefing. Presenters said, once we in our classrooms, and the doors shut and locked, under no circumstances were we to open them. Teachers asked, suppose a kid, for whatever reason, was slow to get to a classroom and the door already shut and locked. Can we let them in? No. Don’t open it, came the curt reply. A bad guy could be holding a gun to a kid’s head directing him or her,11 to say the coast was clear. An older teacher, whose daughter was in one of my classes, became upset voicing her opposition to this policy. She was certain her daughter, for physical reasons, wouldn’t make it in time. Trainers wouldn’t budge on this policy. I whispered to her that, no matter what, I’d make sure she was safe.

Instead of orange whiffle balls, staplers, and books, wouldn’t it make more sense to arm the appropriately qualified teachers with Glocks? For the idiots who keep lying claiming school districts want to arm “all” teachers, no one ever suggested that. No one. Suggestions have been made to arm those motivated to go through the extensive training in order to qualify. An “informal” poll suggested, out of 200 teachers, maybe 3 or 4 at my school might be willing. But the point is moot. Tremulous districts that teach the best course of action when faced by a grave threat is to curl up in a ball and hide, aren’t about to allow armed teachers, even if in so doing, lives are saved. Political correctness and the liberal’s masculinity drain will not allow it. No one had the moral courage to call out the district’s plan for the hollow feel good sham that it was.

The post Hide and Cower in Place debriefing filled me with equal measures of chagrin and a sense of doom. Teachers, especially those so fearful of the hide-and-go-see game we played, expressed relief saying they felt much better now that we’d been “trained” to fight back. They no longer needed to fear a terrorist/active “shooter” assault on the school. Armed with magical cords, trained to throw books and staplers at bad guys and grab guns away from them, they felt “empowered” to defeat bad guys. Unarmed. I was sick to my stomach. Isn’t it irresponsible, even negligent, to train people for life and death situations with strategies that will get them killed? Isn’t it equally irresponsible filling their heads with an extremely dangerous false sense of security? People who believe they have the answers, don’t search for more. When did Americans, especially men, genetically wired to protect families and the vulnerable against harm, become such Henny Penny’s? When did the idea of fighting back become a notion impossible to consider?

Within a week of training, an assistant principal sent an email asking teachers to report any unsecured aspect of their classroom so it could be fixed. Teaching in a bunker-like room with no windows, I was also blessed with two doors, one of which did not lock. I promptly reported this. Several weeks passed in which I received no response to my email nor was the door fixed. Students aware of the unsecured door became upset so I sent a second email in November, 2015. It still had not been fixed when I walked out the door for the last time in May, 2016. Stay tuned. More tales from the files of the CSG to come.

CSG

Career Suicide Gang

Career Suicide Gang12

1212 Disclaimer: This picture is a representative model for and not the real Career Suicide Gang. No inference should be made otherwise.

22 Jeff Snyder, Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control (St. Louis, Missouri, Accurate Press, 2001), 17.

33 Steve Bousquet, 22 February 2018, Miami Herald, “Democrats demand assault weapons ban; Republicans call it ‘politically motivated,’ at http://miamiherald.typepod.com/nakedpolitics/2018/02/democrats-demand-assault-weapons-ban-republicans-call-it-politically-motivated-html.

44 Assault on barricaded and armed suspects, often holding hostages.

55 Cathy Burke, Tuesday May 2016, “Muslim Academic: Koran’s Reward of 72 Virgins a Bad Translation, (It’s, “Raisins), NewsMax at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax/article/730516/16.

66 Jesse Singal, “Mass Shootings Aren’t On The Rise,” New York Magazine, at http://www.nymag.com/scienceofus/…/mass-shootings-aren’t-on-the-rise.htm. See also: Pamela Engle, “Why The Supposed Rise of Mass Shootings Is a Myth,” at: http://www.businessinsider.com/america-isn’t-becoming-more-violent-2014-6?scrylbrkr=fbd57C16.

77 Johannes Paulsen, “Everytown For Gun Safety Admits It Misrepresented Facts. Lawsuit Pending. The Truth About Guns at http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/johannes-paulsen/everytown-gun-safety-admits-misrepresented-facts-lawsuitpending/ampl.

88 Engle, Business Insider.

99 I taught Advanced studies American history. At the time, we used two books, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, and Steinbeck’s, The Grapes of Wrath. It was easy to recognize that both books pushed a very socialist to communist perspective. Colleagues taught the novels as fact. I contacted the Ayn Rand Institute. I procured a deal wherein the Institute would provide students editions of Atlas Shrugged and teacher’s guides, free. I presented it to my Advanced Studies colleagues, who rejected it even though it would cost the school nothing. A parade of teachers (his words) had gone to the principal demanding I be disciplined and or fired. He called me in, accused me of being a conservative, said the two novels were necessary to teach kids about socialism, and angrily dismissed me from his office. Subsequently, I was demoted by the principal from Advanced Studies to teaching Regular Education American history. I remained part of the American history test writing team. We designed a standardized common test to be used by both Advanced and Regular Education American history teachers. When the young team leader, hand-picked by the principal, asked my opinion about the test questions, I demurred. I didn’t want to be accused of being controversial or non-collegial, for which I had already been written up, step one of a three step termination process. She insisted I share my concerns. I responded it sounded like the test was almost set and I had no problem taking it up the following school year. Again, she insisted I voice my concerns. Because I compose thoughts better in writing than verbally, I asked if I could forward my concerns in an email. She said that would be fine. This I did, because, like anyone else, I make stupid decisions. I pointed out some questions reflected a liberal bias and were historically inaccurate. They mirrored the point of view promoted by the two novels, asking for factual responses based on fictional material. When I was still an Advanced Studies teachers, I had contacted history professors asking them if my conclusions about bias and historical inaccuracies in the two novels was correct. They said “yes.” I reluctantly submitted my concerns, being as respectful as possible…and then she, at the urging of liberal colleagues, promptly ran to the principal with them. I asked her why she had done that. She said my concerns were over her head so she had no choice. He was furious. After school he came unannounced to my room, slammed and locked the door, and proceeded to shout in my face and pound his hand on my desk. He yelled he had been a good social studies teacher (there was no context for this rage filled comment), and accused me of attacking the team leader. I told him he was wrong. My son attended a school in a different district and the team leader’s sister taught at that school. During Back to School Night, I approached and told her what a great teacher and team leader her sister was at my school. I had gone overboard in being careful in phrasing my concerns. He yelled this was only to mask my passive-aggressive behavior! He told me were “through” and he was “finished” with me. He stormed out of the room and then we went on Thanksgiving Break ruined by worry over what would happen. When I returned, he wrote me up for alleged conservative bias not being “collegial,” and for using too many free market sources in my class (I counted, this was a lie). Step One of the Three Step Termination Process. I was also suspected of being a “Libertarian,” and from that point on would have to turn in every assignment, homework, quiz, test, and all materials to him to scan for conservative bias. And what I said in class? No sweat, socialIST studies colleagues had already been hiding outside my room listening, (students told me so and I caught them), and liberal teachers questioned mutual students over what I said in class. And they pawed through every article, hand out, and assignment I turned into the copy clerk for copies (she told me). Less than two years later, I was demoted again. Don’t tell me about tenure. I was in my 21stth year.

1010 This list is not intended to represent a hierarchy. I spent much more time talking with custodians and lunch ladies than I ever did colleagues and administrators…once the shunning began. I never had to worry about walking away from conversations with them and having to check my back for a knife.

1111 Yes, Virginia, there are only two sexes. Gender refers to the masculinity/femininity of words, not people.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail