Category Archives: Academics

California Red Flag Law Doesn’t Work

You might think that headline is the big news. Not really. We already know red flag laws don’t work.

The news here is that Garen Wintemute, the victim-disarmament advocate who previously couldn’t find data he could not twist, finally hit a brick wall. And worse.

Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law
VROs were not associated with reduced population-level rates of firearm violence in San Diego County, but this may change as the number of orders increases over time; the association between GVROs and firearm violence at the individual level cannot be inferred from our findings and should be the subject of future studies.

Wintemute is notable for crappy “studies” using bogus tools like synthetic controls (imaginary populations, because real populations wouldn’t support his predetermined “results”), tossing out most of the inconvenient data (because two-thirds of the subjects declined to kill themselves), and using personally identifiable data obtained through legally dubious means (so dubious that California tried to pass a bill to legalize it). He has also violated privacy rules with covert surveillance.

This paper was another example of a synthetic control; an artificial “San Diego.”

To estimate the association between GVRO implementation and firearm violence in San Diego, we used the synthetic control method, a quasi-experimental comparative case study design.

This was a particularly egregious example. To the extent that synthetic controls have any value, you build one by using data from populations (other California counties, in this case) with conditions and populations similar to the variable you wish to examine, except for the variable in question. That is, when studying the effects of a red flag law on a county, you would make up an imaginary comparison county from places that don’t have a red flag law.

All California counties were subject to the same statewide red flag law.

Properly, if you want to see the effects on San Diego County of the red flag law, you simply do a temporal analysis of per capita homicides and suicides in San Diego prior to law passage and after implementation. Wintemute didn’t need a synthetic San Diego to come to a conclusion; he already had real San Diegos without a red flag law (pre-2016) and with a red flag law (post-2016). You use a synthetic control when you don’t expect real world data to support your preculsion.

For example, one year after Florida passed a red flag law, homicides and suicides went up. That was especially nasty, because for two years prior to passage both rates had been declining.

Two years after the Florida law’s passage, and homicide and suicide rates were still increasing.

[Side Note: To anyone with an operational brain, this was… a no-brainer, so to speak. You have a potentially violent –to self or others — person. You piss him off, or depress him, off by stealing his property without due process. Then you simply leave him loose on the streets. WTH did they expect to happen?!]

So what was really happening in San Diego County?

Violent Crime Rate per 1,000*
2011: 3.49
2012: 3.75(up)
2013: 3.35 (down)
2014: 3.28 (down)
2015: 2.35 (up slightly)
2016: 3.3 (down) Red Flag Passes
2017: 3.41 (up)
2018: 3.42 (up)
2019: 3.4 (inch down)
2020: 3.45 (up)
2021: 3.74 (UP!)

The violent crime trend reversed post-Red Flag, to increase.

Suicide Rate per 100,000
2013: 12.9
2014: 12.5 (down)
2015: 12.0 (down)
2016: 12.0 (no change) Red Flag Passes
2017: 12.3 (up)
2018: 12.86 (UP!)

The suicide rate trend reversed post-Red Flag, to increase.

Such a surprise. Not.

Wintemute et al went with a synthetic control — showing no effect of the Red Flag law to hide the fact that no only did it have an effect, but it appeared to make things worse.


* Sorry; I had to go with Violent Crime Rate, which includes homicides, because multiple fast searches didn’t turn up homicide rates broken out separately. There’s only so much I can do without funding.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Not Anti-Gun Per Se”

Ah, victim-disarmers being reasonable again.

Column: Firearms have no place in civilized society. We should repeal the 2nd Amendment
“Constitutional Carry”: What a euphemistic, “newspeak” concept!

Passed to the governor for signature a day ahead of the announced schedule, depending largely on his political ambitions, not merit or lack, for passage. Next probable and equally “logical” step: Unregulated firearm ownership for every man, woman and child in America.

The weirdly disjointed sentence structure, and the peculiar “logical” leap from “one state passed Constitutional Carry” to “totally unregulated firearm ownership for absolutely everyone in America” was an instant warning that I was reading the ravings of a not-entirely sane person. I scrolled down to see who this Paul Shriver is.

Paul Shriver, EdD, is a forensic and clinical psychologist.

Sad to say, but in my experience (and others*) psychologists have a strong tendency to be b–f— nuts. As you’ll see, this appears to be the case with Shriver. Couple that with a pointless EdD, and we have a perfect storm of irrationality. He doesn’t have both oars in the water. The elevator doesn’t go to the top. Pick a metaphor.

Firearm use is by definition a violent act (homicide when a human is the recipient) and has no place in civilized society.

He seems to be unaware of target practice; which would explain another statement he makes later. He also seems to think that humans invariably, without exception die when shot. Chicago says otherwise.

No reasonable person could possibly imagine that expressing one’s feelings or opinions with a bullet could be equivalent to “free speech” or even exist as a “right” on the same piece of paper.

Projecting much, Shriver? Offhand, I don’t recall ever firing a round to express an opinion.

But let’s get to the meat.

The only real solution must begin with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in its entirety and without delay. It might then be re-written in clear language as a privilege to be strictly regulated — the details to be worked out later by usual democratic means.

Never mind that the Supreme Court has already found that it is a right, not a privilege; and that it pre-dates the Amendment he finds so bothersome. And he seems to be ignoring Indiana’s own pesky constitution.

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

He’ll be needing to convince his neighbors to repeal that one, too. Based on my time living in Indiana, I’d say not damned likely.

In the interim, of course, all guns in current ownership, manufacture, storage, etc., would need to be recalled, and if not “re-legalized,” eliminated. Some current types and uses, would be restored, regulated and licensed as appropriate with little real inconvenience. Thus, this idea is not anti-gun per se, nor in any sense extreme.

Repealing the Second Amendment and confiscating all firearms in the country is anti-gun. And it sounds pretty damned extreme. And about as “anti-gun” as one could get.

Hmm. No exception there for police. Universal disarmament. hat should be interesting.

Meanwhile, I and my personal gun: Locked, no bullets, single action, and not very accurate (and therefore little threat) remain very truly yours for peace, good will, and universal disarmament in our times.

I imagine the “not very accurate” issue lays mainly in his lack of practice, since he wouldn’t want to violently attack a peice of paper. But if all firearm use is violence, why does he have one? Perhaps Paul Shriver should be red flagged, starting his “universal disarmament” with himself.


* I knew a woman with a doctorate in psychology. She once told me she left the field — research psychology — when she realized that most of her peers were nuts. She also told me that clinical psychologists are worse.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Hogg Hunting

How much for a Hogglet tag?

If killing people has become legal — a bit of news I somehow missed — I’d pay a premium for a Hogg-hunting tag. Not that I’d use it; it would just be worth it for Hogg to simply know he was a lawful target of the people whose rights he wants to violate.

If you need a license to kill deer why don’t you need one to kill humans?

Let’s look at his other non sequiturs.

If you need a license to drive car, cut hair or to hunt you ought to need one to buy a gun.

I only need a license to drive a car on public streets. I don’t need a license to buy one.

I need a license to cut hair professionally, not to buy clippers or cut my own hair or that of family members.

I need a license to hunt some game, not to buy a gun.

There is something of a difference between buying a tool, and using said tool in a specific manner.

But Hogglet is to too g-ddamned stupid to grasp that.

Your right to own a gun with little regulation matters a lot less to me than the rights my classmates had before they were killed.

What do my rights have to do with what a known criminal in another state did to your classmates?

That’s not a rhetorical question. I’m waiting.

-crickets-

But let’s look at that “little regulation”:

18 U.S. Code § 921

18 U.S. Code § 922

18 U.S. Code § 923

18 U.S. Code § 924

18 U.S. Code § 925

18 U.S. Code § 925A

18 U.S. Code § 9226

18 U.S. Code § 926A

18 U.S. Code § 926B

18 U.S. Code § 926C

18 U.S. Code § 927

18 U.S. Code § 929

18 U.S. Code § 930

That’s just at the federal level. It’s harder to do a straightforward list of state laws. Picking my own state as an example…

2020 Georgia Code Title 16 – Crimes and Offenses

You’ll have to go through that to find all the firearm specific restrictions and crimes.

Firearms are hardly “little regulated,: which Hogglet would know if he had the brains G-d gave a grapefruit.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Time For Another Irrational Comparison To Rationalize Gun Control

At least it isn’t cars vs. guns again.

It’s been a while since I delved into the murky world of scholarly pro-victim-disarmament papers. Let’s take a look at Can States Block or Heavily Restrict the Second Amendment Constitutional Right by Following the Design of Texas Bill 8? (PDF). Basically, the weirdos compare the alleged right to abortion to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (yet oddly keep talking about licensure). The paper is a difficult to read mess, mainly — I suspect — because they have no frickin’ clue what they’re talking about.

In this research we ask three interrelated questions. First, does the Second Amendment right constitute an afront to International Law’s right to life under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”)? If yes, can states adopt a design similar to Texas Bill 8 to ban or extensively regulate the second amendment right? Finally, what are the intrinsic differences between the right to bearing arms and the right to abortion? If they are intrinsically different, this research calls for examining each of them under a different scrutiny standard. In order to answer the last question, we assess two landmark cases regarding abortion and right to bear arms currently pending before the US Supreme Court, in an attempt to predict the future of those rights.

At the first glance, it follows from a logical point of view that allowing anyone in the street to possess lethal weapons only results in more homicides, assassinations, and general chaos even when initial purchasers meet the arm licensing conditions. [emphasis added]

Only?

Yet the potential dangers surrounding bearing arms did not enter public discourse until after the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Not until 1963? I seem to recall something in 1934.

Money quote:

Taking our findings into account, we argue that the US Supreme Court should assess the right to abortion under a strict scrutiny standard, and the right to bearing arms under an intermediate scrutiny standard.

So abortion, not a right until 1973 — and not to be found enumerated anywhere in the Constitution should be given strict scrutiny. But a right recognized by states prior to the Constitution and specifically enumerated therein for more than two centuries should only get intermediate scrutiny?

The second practical concern was to guarantee personal and state autonomy against the federal government. This was influenced by John Locke’s thesis legitimizing revolution against oppression or injustices.36 By examining these practical concerns in the 21st century, they seem to be largely hyper-vigilant. Further, these practical concern could easily be rebutted by the distinction between militia’s right in bearing arms (which is currently substituted by the police force) and bearing arms for personal self-defense.

Ah, NO; the “police force” is not the militia. One might expect a law professor to know something about the law, particularly in an area he chose to write about. But clearly he doesn’t:

Perhaps the majority created this exception on a misreading of history regarding the ban of shotguns and machineguns…

When did that happen? I was aware of registration requirements for machineguns and short-barreled shotguns (the previously linked National Firearms Act of 1934), but when did this alleged ban happen? Anyone? Bueller?

Dear Bog, they even slipped in this BS argument:

In contrast, an accurate originalist interpretation of the second amendment would lead to a contrary result: namely, banning most firearms currently existing since they are not the same – technologically – as the ones existed in the 18th century when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson drafted the second amendment.

-sigh- Allow me to quote myself.

The next victim-disarming idiot who uses a smart phone connected to a computer network operating over fiber optic lines to tell me the framers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment never envisioned modern firearms, and that the Second Amendment only protects muskets is getting bitch-slapped.

James Madison, known for his role in drafting the Bill of Rights (including that pesky 2A) lived through the rise of repeating firearms, breechloaders, paper cartridges, percussion caps, metallic cartridges, pinfire cartridges, centerfire cartridges, revolvers, and mass production of firearms.

Consider yourselves slapped, bitches. And recall that repeating firearms predated the very existence of the United States. By centuries. These folks’ knowledge of history is matched only by their knowledge of federal law. Well, lead author Yacoub is an “International Lawyer” practicing in Egypt, so perhaps there’s some slight excuse for his ignorance. But Briggs claims to be a practicing US attorney; G-d save her clients.

Section II of this paper gets interesting, in a morbid way. Now they bring up the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights — more a hash of muh socialism and a checklist of things governments can do to their citizens, than a bill of individual rights — and argue that it trumps the Second Amendment, because life. You see, keeping and bearing arms somehow violates someone’s right to life; but ending a life through abortion doesn’t.

The right to life was specifically mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); regional conventions such as the American Convention on Human Rights among others.90 Invoking the right to life was very influential in abolishing the death penalty in many nations.91 Yet the indirect relationship between the right to life and the US constitutional right to bear arms remains unexplored to a large extent.

In the HRC General Comment No. 36 issued in 2018, paragraph four, in particular, connects the right to life and states’ obligation to implement policies so a person is not arbitrarily deprived of their life. “[A]rticle 6 of the Covenant provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and that the right shall be protected by law.

No.

Under the Convention, gun control is essential to protecting the right to life. While persons can claim self-defense of the individual person as an exemption to criminal responsibility, it does not trump the fundamental right to life that is inherent in international human rights law.109 Even if there was a so-called “right to self-defense,” States still have a positive legal obligation under the Convention to implement gun control measures to protect their citizens in the collective sense and not the right of one individual to carry a gun.

I said, “No.” An aggressor’s “right to life does not trump my right to self defense — protecting my own life, BTW. And defending myself against a specific individual who attacks me is not arbitrary; I’m not randomly shooting every sixth person that walks past.

I really wanted to analyze this whole mess for you, so you wouldn’t have to. But I’m going to have to stop only a third of the way through, for the sake of my own sanity if nothing else. Feel free to read it yourself. But be aware that it only gets worse.

As a warning of what you’ll encounter, note that these two scholastic schizos have done a number of papers together. My personal morbid favorite is the one where they argue for the United States to adopt Sharia law to “solve the problem of US mass incarceration.”

Beating, hand-chopping and beheading as an alternative to prison time? That might make “the rehabilitative approach of the Icelandic criminal justice model part a bit tough to implement.

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

Going Retro

You know, I really like the fashion of the 1930s. I feel they were very classic, flattering and stylish.

Pure class

And there were some great old movies in the 1930s. Among them: Gone With The Wind, King Kong, Pygmalion, Robin Hood, Stagecoach and of course, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.

I think we need another Mr Smith to head to Washington DC STAT, as in January 20th.

While I love the fashion and movies of the 1930s, I am not loving the feeling of living in 1930s Germany. And I think we are.

The obligatory disclaimer, I’m not a doctor, I’ve never played one on TV, heck I didn’t even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I do know a bit about medicine.

Once upon a time, if you went to a doctor about an illness, and you got bad news, or you just weren’t sure you completely trusted his opinion, you would get a “second opinion”. Some doctors even encouraged it. The same with lawyers, if you didn’t like what one had to say, consult with another one. Those days are gone. Now there is only one medical opinion allowed, no dissent will be tolerated and if you do so you risk your medical license. I also wonder why we bother asking anyone if they have any allergies, because hey, all bodies are just alike, right?

You will notice most of the video links are to Rumble, not YouTube. Because YouTube in it’s best censorship fashion doesn’t allow videos like these to be posted.

What we’re seeing now is similar to I would imagine people in 1930s Germany saw. From my book Nazi Propaganda, State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda:

So about voter turn out.

We have a regime in power that determined to force Americans to submit to their will. The “For the people act” will abolish “We The People” by legalizing the rampant voter fraud that took place in the last election. In addition to the complete and utter debacle in Afghanistan, I think the Xiden regime will go down in history (may it be soon, please G-d) as the one that decided to turn all of America into one giant lab, will many unwilling, and many uninformed participants. The participants being the lab rats. This is only one of the things that makes what is going on so detestable. There is a lot of information that is coming out about the experimental mRNA injection (it is not a vaccine, in case you didn’t know) but the majority of it is being censored.

You have the inventor of the PCR test saying it shouldn’t be used to diagnose disease and why. This video is about 16 minutes long and very informative. It even has a clip with the late Kary Mullis in it.

WATCH: A Clear Counter-Argument To Getting The “Vaccine”…

There is a lot coming out about the experimental gene therapy injection. It is gene therapy, because it alters your RNA, and once it’s in, it doesn’t come out. There really isn’t any going back.

German Physicians Reveal Horrific Findings In The Blood Of Vaxxed Patients

Stew Peters and Dr Jane Ruby: What Is Graphene Oxide

American Conversations with Vaccine Injured Episode 1 – Interview with Dr. Danice Hertz

As was mentioned in the video A clear counter argument, there was a Fakebook group with 65,000 injection injured people in it before it was inexplicably taken down.

Speaking of things going missing, did you know, Pfizer and Moderna lost the clinical control group that they did the study with? Yep. Go figger. With Pfizer Likely to Get FDA Approval Monday It’s Worth Remembering Pfizer and Moderna Lost The Clinical Trial Control Group Testing Vaccine Efficacy and Safety. And I thought losing keys was bad.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccine tests were conducted, as customary, with a control group; a group within the trial who were given a placebo and not the test vaccine. However, during the trial -and after the untested vaccines were given emergency use authorization- the vaccine companies conducting the trial decided to break protocol and notify the control group they were not vaccinated. Almost all the control group were then given the vaccine.

Purposefully dissolving the placebo group violates the scientific purpose to test whether the vaccine has any efficacy; any actual benefit and/or safety issues. Without a control group there is nothing to compare the vaccinated group against. According to NPR, the doctors lost the control group in the Johnson County Clinicial Trial (Lexena, Kansas) on purpose

If that doesn’t inspire confidence, I don’t know what could.

Perhaps the number of doctors far more credible that Tony Fauxci who have been censored and have been trying to warn people. People like Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA technology. Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer chief scientist, and others have been speaking out.

Powerful: The Narrative Is Crumbling. Resist COVID-1984.

There is evidence that injection doesn’t even work as it was advertised.

Vaccine FAILURE! Dr. Peter McCullough Reveals Data, Damning to Efficacy Narrative

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky Increased Risk of Severe Disease Amongst Those Vaccinated Early

Vaccinated People Getting COVID, Becoming Worried As Scientists Can’t Provide Answers

How Many Have Died From COVID Vaccines?

Wow! Who could have seen that coming? Oh wait, no one, because this crap is basically uncharted territory and there is nothing to compare it to, well, unless you want to count all the lab animals that died.

And in fact, the injection may be making things worse.

Nobel Prize Winner Professor Luc Montagnier Says Vaccine Is Creating Variants

But the push to get it FDA approved, wow. ‘No need to rush’: Senator warns of FDA’s shortcuts to full approval of COVID-19 vaccine

Hocus Pocus! They say that the Pfizer jab has been approved. Not so says Dr. Robert Malone (again, the inventor of the mRNA technology). There are two letters. One is for the Pfizer jab, and it is not approval. The approval is for Comirnaty, which doesn’t exist yet.

Dr. Malone explains

https://rumble.com/vlmd4g-pfizer-seeking-full-indemnification.html

Links to the two letters he mentions

Letter to Pfizer: https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download

Letter to BioNTech: https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download

How you ask, could it be approved so quickly? From Dr Zev

Follow the Commissioners…

Scott Gottlieb – Former Commissioner of the FDA resigns and then goes to Pfizer to be on the board of directors.

Stephen Hahn – Replaces Gottlieb as FDA Commissioner and eventually resigns. He is now the Chief Medical Officer for Moderna.

Janet Woodcock – Wrongly advises Rick Bright (a fully-controlled individual) that HCQ is a dangerous drug requiring EUA that should be ONLY limited to hospitalized patients. Remember, all of the relevant clinical data at the time showed HCQ to be extremely effective in early treatment and NOT in hospitalized patients. Several months later Janet Woodcock replaces Stephen Hahn as the Commissioner of the FDA.

Is this all making sense yet?

All this plus more it’s no wonder people don’t want the experimental injection. And those trying to force tyranny down our throat do want it approved and fast. Not only to take the focus off Afghanistan, but because they think it will push people to want the injection. And remove a barrier to forcing it in us.

And force is certainly a word they are comfortable with, and desire to exercise more of it. Lots more of it. And that’s really the point of this column. With all the information I’ve listed, and questions that have been raised it is astonishing to see the lengths governments around the world are willing to go to in an effort to force this experimental substance into people. And they wonder why people are against their jab?

Australia, New Zealand and New South Wales appear to be ground zero for the harshest measures…..so far. But what makes it even more bizarre is the small number of deaths that are being used to justify their actions.

Australia Suspends Human Rights And Freedom For Four COVID-19 Deaths Per Day

New Zealand to go into national lockdown over one Covid case

But in one of the creepiest, and most horrifying attacks, they went after the children. Up to 24,000 Australian teens jabbed in mass vaccination effort while police, not parents, supervise

SYDNEY, Australia (LifeSiteNews) — A plan to jab 24,000 Australian teenagers at a mass vaccination site raised eyebrows after New South Wales Health Minister Brad Hazzard advised parents to “stay outside the arena” while their children were “ushered” inside by police officers and nurses.

In a video that was clipped and posted to social media, Hazzard told parents of teens invited to get their first jab at Qudos Bank Arena to stay outside while their children were given the experimental shot, which has been linked to serious possible side effects for young people, including myocarditis.

AUSTRALIA- 24,000 children will be vaccinated in a stadium next week. No parents will be allowed access.

Parents were assured their children would be well looked after and fine.

Two are already dead. 2 Kids DEAD After 24,000 Children Herded Into Stadium for JAB! But listen to the dystopian atmosphere of the stadium! They talk about it in the video. Even the kids were creeped out.

Meanwhile from Israel: 93 Israeli doctors: Do not use Covid-19 vaccine on children

“We believe that not even a handful of children should be endangered through mass vaccination against a disease not dangerous to them.”

Apparently the Israelis actually like their kids. Maybe even want grandkids. Does it affect fertility? Who knows?

But the American force machine has their plans as well.

Florida Students Placed in Isolation or Quarantined Over New COVID-19 Protocols

As schools reopened in Florida, several parents in Flagler County received weekend phone calls saying their children were on “a list” because they “may” have been exposed to someone who “may” have had COVID-19. Some parents were told their children could not return to school until they passed a series of COVID-19 tests. Other children were pulled from class and placed in isolation while parents were called and told to come pick them up “immediately.” The process has caused confusion and raised legal questions, leaving many parents feeling very angry.

On Aug. 8, Jessico Bowman—a director of the Florida Liberty Caucus—received a call from a person who claimed she was from the “health department.” She would not give her name. Nor would she identify which “health department” she represented.

“I regret to inform you that your daughter may have been exposed to COVID,” the woman said.

“I don’t have a daughter,” Bowman told the woman. “I have a son.”

Mississippi health official threatens to jail COVID-19 patients who don’t quarantine

But wait, there’s more.

Order Authorizes Natl Guard, Quarantines, Involuntary Commitment for ‘Certain Healthcare’ Operations

And the CDC has plans for you as well, you “vaccine hesitant” person you. It’s called “shielding” and it amounts to a internment camp. And this is worth at least taking a look at so you understand what they are planning. By the way, the plan is dated July….of last year.

Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings

The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.

Current evidence indicates that older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.3 In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.4,5 For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.

Looking for a job? Go Army. INTERNMENT/RESETTLEMENT SPECIALIST (31E)

But before the isolation of the “camps”, we are seeing the medical apartheid of tyranny show its ugly head. The government is using private sector to enforce it. There are videos of police going from table to table in France asking to see people cell phone with their green passport at outdoor dining restaurants. Healthcare works who were “heroes” last year as they worked through the pandemic un-jabbed are being told now they take the jab or they don’t have a job. Medicare reimbursement you see. The employees are all jabbed or medicare may not reimburse those hospitals. No doubt the FDA approval will now speed that up.

Isolation, not a new idea

They are trying to divide us, they are trying to make us feel isolated. Medical apartheid….

Nothing new under the sun, right? The un-jabbed are going to be denied social opportunities and isolated. And in a stunning betrayal of their Hippocratic oath, 75 Florida doctors walked off the job in the middle of their shift rather than treat an un-jabbed patient. Meth head? No probs. Alcoholic? No probs. Wife beater shot by cops? No worries. Weigh 400 lbs and have an extensive medical history? No problem. But un-jabbed. Well! But honestly, look at the picture of the “doctor”. More Than 75 Doctors Walk Out of South Florida Hospital Rather Than Treat the Unvaccinated. What is striking me as odd is the blond chick they are interviewing. Her scrub top is embroidered “Doctor”. That’s it. In all my years I’ve never seen that. I’ve see it Doctor Welby, Doctor Kildare, Doctor Whoosename, but just doctor? No. Is she labeled so she won’t forget what she is or what? That’s just weird.

But, there is hope. The only way they were able to get the Emergency Use License for the experimental jab was to deny there was any effective treatment. There is. Ivermectin or Hydroxychloraquin, zinc, vitamins, azythromyacin etc.

Indian Bar Association sues WHO scientist over Ivermectin

The Indian Bar Association (IBA) sued WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan on May 25, accusing her in a 71-point brief of causing the deaths of Indian citizens by misleading them about Ivermectin.

Point 56 states, “That your misleading tweet on May 10, 2021, against the use of Ivermectin had the effect of the State of Tamil Nadu withdrawing Ivermectin from the protocol on May 11, 2021, just a day after the Tamil Nadu government had indicated the same for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.”

….

Advocate Dipali Ojha, lead attorney for the Indian Bar Association, threatened criminal prosecution against Dr. Swaminathan “for each death” caused by her acts of commission and omission. The brief accused Swaminathan of misconduct by using herposition as a health authority to further the agenda of special interests to maintain an EUA for the lucrative vaccine industry.

….

Dr. Swaminathan was called out for her malfeasance in discrediting Ivermectin to preserve the EUA for the vaccine and pharmaceutical industry. Point 52 reads, “It seems you have deliberately opted for deaths of people to achieve your ulterior goals, and this is sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution against you.”

….

“The Indian Bar Association has warned action under section 302 etc. of the Indian Penal Code against Dr. Soumya Swaminathan and others, for murder of each person dying due to obstruction in treatment of COVID-19 patient effectively by Ivermectin. Punishment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is death penalty or life imprisonment.”

I am so anxious for the day that Tony Fauxci and every doctor or medical professional that told a Covid patient “that stuff doesn’t work” when the patient requested Ivermectin or Hydroxychloraquin will be called to account for their actions.

The lunacy in Australia has taken on epic proportions.

How you ask, could this happen? Australian Gun Law Update – a step back in time to 1996

Oh, I guess that’s how. I wonder if Australia can do a recall election.

And you have to wonder how many of these world governments are following Jacques Attali’s play book.

Jacque Attali

But Australians are fighting back against tyranny, Indians are fighting back against the medical lies, and we as Americans will have our fight too. But we are Americans, we don’t embrace tyranny, and we serve a powerful king who is on our side. The king of the world. This is the month of Elul, when the king is in the field, he meets us where we are, and so a very propitious time to talk to him. About anything. As a friend of mine reminded me, stay focused on G-d.

We do not live in fear, fear is what they used to control us. We live by G-d’s laws, and we can put our faith in him. Tehillim – Psalms – Chapter 91

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

Lifting the Veil On [S]BLM[K]

 

 

 

My heart goes out to the brave men and women of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement. You put your lives on the line to protect America from enemies foreign and domestic. Your countrymen have betrayed you. They have handed her over to these people who hate this country and despise everything for which you stand and fight.

At the start of each New Year, pundits and commentators on the passing scene typically offer a retrospective best and worst of list for the preceding year. This is my offering for the Ten Biggest Whoppers of 2020:

1. Mostly peaceful protests.

2. Two weeks to flatten the curve.

3. Social media supports the 1st Amendment.

4. Black lives matter to Black Lives Matter.

5. Follow the science.

6. Emulate your political “leaders”; always wear a mask and social distance.

7. Fair and honest elections.

8. AOC is not an eighth grade girl blogging from her bedroom.

9. Nancy Pelosi does not sleep with the undead.

10. Joe Biden is president.

Growing up in America, like anyone else, I was an avid consumer of pop-culture entertainment, film, and music. By my university years, I perceived the Left was using these medium to inculcate unsuspecting youth with their subversive “values”. Their goal is to deconstruct Judeo-Christian based Western Civilization. Like shop-a-holics, credit card in one hand phone in the other watching the HSN Channel, people seemed incapable of resisting indoctrination. Too many bought into the value system and worldview peddled by cultural and political revolutionaries without question. Even more insidious are public school teachers serving as their political commissars in classrooms. Has there been a ripple effect to this brainwashing?

I have been a Formula 1 racing fan, the world’s premier motorsport, since childhood. My favorite teams included Lotus and McLaren. Several years ago, I gravitated toward Mercedes with her glittering silver cars trimmed in teal. Englishman Lewis Hamilton won his first World Championship with McLaren and then six more with Mercedes. Wikipedia, perhaps the worst source for information, lists Hamilton as black. However, he is actually mixed-race. His dad is black from the Caribbean and his mother white from England where Lewis was born and raised. Over the years, I collected Hamilton apparel, biography, autographed picture, and die-cast racecar. However, because he chose to inject politics into the sport, my Hamilton memorabilia is no more. I have binned it all. Last year, Hamilton decided he was an angry black American, from South Central Los Angeles no doubt, who took up the cause of black Americans BLM claims the police are systematically murdering on behalf of white America. This millionaire jet-setting bon vivant was soon sporting BLM shirts and hats, kneeling sans American flag, and raising the Marxist clenched fist before each race. However, that was not enough. He publicly called out as racists, drivers who did not kneel with him. He forced them to wear black T-shirts reading “End Racism” during the host country’s national anthem. Formula 1’s panjandrums decreed that racetracks and buildings display slogans about racism. However, that was still not enough. Mercedes repainted their shimmering silver cars an angry flat black with BLM-like slogans on the car’s halo device. I was stunned. BLM, started by three Marxists, is a domestic terrorist organization with the blood of police officers and citizens on its hands. Heading into a new season, I wondered how much of BLM’s Kool Aid motorsports fans had imbibed. Time to find out.

I joined several Face Book Formula 1 Groups. One gentleman lamented the manner in which Hamilton has injected politics into the sport causing “divisions” between fans. I noted the hypocrisy of Hamilton and Formula 1 claiming to be fighting oppression while holding races in countries with state sanctioned slavery and in Islamic states where women are second-class citizens. Mr. Qundiso Mpofu challenged me to name such countries. I listed several in Africa, the Middle East, and Red China. Mr. Mpofo insisted there was as much oppression against blacks in the United States as in any other country. Then he made the jaw-dropping claim there was as much slavery in the U.S. as in China! I suggested he had taken leave of his senses and asked him to provide me examples. No response was forthcoming. He was alone among black Hamilton fans who equated criticism of BLM with racism.

On the FormulaNerds page, a member also bemoaned the degree to which Hamilton’s political activism was damaging the sport. I agreed noting, although Hamilton is a great driver worthy of the hype, I could no longer support him. Four members of my family served in the U.S. Military and two, including me, in Law Enforcement. I feel betrayed by his support of BLM. For a week, members responded with “likes”. Then a Liston Alexander asked how, by standing against racism and racial oppression, Hamilton had betrayed me. He asked if the “cellphone pictures were faked”? He chided “people like you” with “law enforcement experience” see the world differently than others, meaning blacks. I asked him to what cellphone images he referred and who was committing acts of oppression and violence against blacks in America’s cities. It is not police gunning down blacks in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, and Philadelphia among others. Does Hamilton speak out about oppression of blacks by other blacks? He has thrown support behind BLM whose message is the white race is inherently (born that way) racist, they constructed America’s institutions to preserve white hegemony by suppressing blacks, and the white race is waging a war of genocide against the black race, with police their instrument of extermination. Considering these are monstrous lies, guaranteed to generate hatred and violence between races, how could I support Hamilton?

Liston Alexander responded writing I had no empathy or understanding of the centuries of systemic racism inflicted on African-Americans. He claimed the only terrorists in America are the “armed supporters of Satan who stormed the Capitol building” and for me to shift the blame to BLM for anything, and black people, who are the “victims tells me exactly who you Are” [capitalization in the original]. I responded writing I owed Mr. Alexander an apology presuming he was an educated intelligent person but that was clearly not the case. I noted the greatest oppression of blacks occurs between Mauritania in the west to Somalia in the east and Chad in the north to Zimbabwe in the south. In addition, I had grown up partly in Baltimore and Philadelphia’s inner cities, and attended majority black schools. Whites did not oppress blacks they were terrified of them. BLM never mentions this. No response.

An argument commonly employed by supporters is to say they do not endorse BLM’s Marxist goals and violence only its struggle against racism. It does not work that way. As the Monster from Austria [MFA] built the National Socialist German Workers Party, he attracted Germans with disparate grievances. Germany’s military was its pride and joy. Veterans believed politicians stabbed them in the back while still on battlefield at the end of the Great War tarnishing them with the stain of defeat. Soldiers wanted the military returned to its former glory. Germans crushed by the burden of war reparations, as well as union workers, believed MFA would restore the economy and jobs. Others rejected the war-guilt clause of the Treaty of Versailles and many Germans feared the rise of the Communist Party in the Weimar Republic. Of course, there was the bizarre cult that saw Jews as subhuman and poison to German culture. People representing these factions found themselves supporting the Nazi Party vigorously or as the lesser among several evils.2 History demonstrates that one cannot disaggregate responsibility for the evil a group does by declaring support for only part of its actions. This would be like declaring, although one opposes lynching, nevertheless, they joined the Klan because it supports strong families. In addition, sans support for the NAZIS by these factions, they would not have come to power. This is why, after the war, the Allies did not allow Germans who were members of the Party to say they never supported persecution of and ultimately mass murder of Jews. Who then, is Black Lives Matter?

Former police officer and currently a forensic criminologist Ron Martinelli, Ph.D. writes of BLM, “This is an organized and well-funded, media savvy, national, and international movement, based upon revolutionary Marxist ideology. The movement seeks to systematically attack, diminish, and eventually overthrow the rule of law and the democratic form of government to free whom they see to be the oppressed masses”.3 How can those supporting BLM, like American professional athletes and Lewis Hamilton, not know this? They support an organization seeking to overthrow the U.S. system of government in favor of a Marxist dictatorship. They say so. BLM and its “ancillary militant groups and organizations” drive to defund law enforcement, in order to upend the rule of law, is preparatory to overthrowing American’s “democratic way of life”.4 If this is true, how can so many people, black and white, support [S]BLM[K]? Could the answer be what I have written is false? To answer this question, we repair to BLM’s Webpage from 2015.

Three female Marxists founded BLM in 2013 following the jury’s acquittal of George Zimmerman charged by the state [Florida] with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. BLM used the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri [2014], as the vehicle to catapult it to national prominence.5 BLM’s founders, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, used rare police shootings of unarmed black men to claim these shootings were, instead, the norm and represented a monstrous conspiracy by the white to exterminate the black race. Garza, a lesbian Marxist, began the call for Black Lives Matter on Face Book. Cullors, also a lesbian Marxist, joined the nascent organization while running a convict “advocacy” organization in prisons. Tometi, a Marxist immigrant from Nigeria, ran an advocacy group for black immigrants.6 In 2015, BLM’s website consisted of history, a mission statement, and various political declarations. They asserted white cops were waging a war of terrorism against the black race. Their credo under “We Affirm That All Black Lives Matter” clearly explains “Black lives matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It’s an affirmation of Black folk’s contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression”.7 Systemized and intentional means; people organize a process to achieve a specific goal through methods standardized to the point they become a replicable system. It requires an objective and metrics by which those managing the system can measure progress toward that goal and a definition of what accomplishing that goal looks like. Intentional means individuals deliberately created the plan and system with a specific goal in mind.8 Therefore, BLM argues leaders within the white race decided to exterminate the black race. They created a standardized plan to achieve their goal (systematic), methods to ensure its success (institutionalized), and a means (the police). The white race has purposed to commit genocide against the black race according to BLM’s webpage (if they have not sanitized it yet). BLM affirms its right to fight back by any means. They mean killing police officers and race war.9 What do they mean their movement is “ideological”? Clicking on text boxes quickly provides an answer.

Under “Black Villages” it reads “We are committed to disrupting the Western prescribed nuclear family structure requirement supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another and especially ‘our’ children to the degree that mothers parents, and children are comfortable”.10 Other textboxes contain militantly feminist, homosexual, and “transgendered” (sic) statements. BLM is committed to dismantling the traditional Judeo-Christian family structure replacing it with a lesbian ruled matriarchy wherein hermaphroditic men serve their interests like worker bees. They declare, “We are working to [re]build the Black Liberation Movement”.11 Liberation from what? In the 1960s, the Black Power Movement, a liberation movement, founded by Stokely Carmichael, Malcom X, and others broke with Martin Luther King over his insistence on non-violent resistance and universal brotherhood. They preached gathering arms to execute violent revolution and enact revenge on the white race with separation being their ultimate objective.12 The Black Power Movement’s view of the white race as an irredeemable enemy and call for violent revolution, with separation into a black nation lines up with today’s BLM movement.

Calls for healing, reconciliation, and unity are contrary to the worldview of the BLM movement. They despise notions of black life’s “fate in America decided inevitably by white people”. Liberation is freedom from “the power of whites” who have no future in their world.13 BLM denounces “buy black” campaigns because they ignore “our sisters queer, and trans (sic) blacks”. They affirm, “The lives of black queer and trans (sic) folk, disabled folks, black undocumented folks” and black prison inmates “along the gender spectrum”. They assert black poverty is the result of state directed genocide. Blacks in prison are innocent victims of “state violence” and “Black queer and trans (sic) folk bear a unique burden from a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us like garbage and simultaneously fetishes us and profits off of us and this is state violence”. Their slogan is “justice, liberation, and peace”, identical to the slogans of communist guerillas in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.14 Knowingly or not, anyone who dons BLM apparel, raises a clenched fist, or takes a knee metaphorically spitting on the American flag, lends support to BLM’s claim white people are beyond salvation and their call to race-war.

I understand the pique of blacks at my critique. Pathologies afflicting black cities include high rates of unemployment, poverty, crime, drug use, school dropouts, and unwed mothers. BLM and its supporters have invested too deeply in white oppression narratives as the cause of these pathologies to countenance contrary explanations. Racism is the root cause of their lagging academic and employment accomplishment, compared to Asians and Hispanics. If not for the white race using its institutions and police to hold him down, they would succeed like everyone else. Black crime rates are no higher than other races; the police simply target only them for enforcement. Challenging BLM’s assertions, I encountered anger and brick wall like resistance to the truth. It is easier to blame scapegoats than accept perhaps to some degree; pathologies plaguing inner cities might be self-inflicted. Equally, I understand the pique of whites. From them I rob any rationale for purging their “white-guilt” through self-hatred and prostration before blacks, believing they rightfully deserve the hatred, opprobrium, and debasement BLM hurls at them. I take away the validity of “deconstructing” their whiteness through acts of self-flagellation.

Why do whites submit to debasement and humiliation by BLM and its allies? Why are they sock-puppets spewing the propaganda of those who hate them? What has so annealed them to the point they cannot be reached? Two culprits come to mind. Had pop-culture and public education not first fertilized their minds with the manure of lies and evil propaganda, America would not today be harvesting such poisoned fruit.

22 The BBC, Higher Learning, “Why The Nazis Achieved Power”, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitsize/guides/zsrwjxs/revision/7

33 Ron Martinelli, Ph.D., The Truth Behind The Black Lives Matter Movement And The War On Police (Temecula, California, Martinelli & Associates, Justice and Forensic Consultants, Inc., 2016), 3.

44 IBID. viii.

55 IBID. vii-viii.

66 IBID. 1-2.

77 Black Lives Matter, 2015, at http://www.blacklivesmatter.com

88 Yitzhak Goldstein’s definition derived from educational theory with respect to measuring learning progress.

99 BLM Webpage.

1010 IBID.

1111 IBID.

1212 Daniel J. Boorstin and Brooks Mather Kelley, A History of the United States Since 1861 (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1990), 437-439.

1313 David Horowitz, Hating Whitely And Other Progressive Causes (Dallas, Texas, Spence Publishing Company, 1999), 82-83.

1414 BLM Webpage. I am not writing from memory. Not only did I take notes, I downloaded and copied their 2015 webpage.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Wake Up, We Are At War

Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well—by creating the international child of the future.”1

Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry, Harvard University

There is a threat posed to human freedom by the enormous power of the modern state. History teaches the dangers of government that overreaches—political control taking precedence over free economic growth, secret police, mindless bureaucracy, all combining to stifle individual excellence and personal freedom.”2

Ronald Reagan

As I write these words, premeditated illegal aliens, hoping to become legal aliens under Joebama’s planned amnesty, amass at America’s southern border.3 They are colonists, not immigrants. Visit any number of “Little Italy’s” in America’s cities. You find Italian flags, food, music, and some people still speaking the old tongue, but it will have a distinctly American feel. The ebb and flow of life is pure Americana. Not so with more recent “immigrants”. They colonize areas to which they migrate transforming them into the places from whence they came. Visit California and you will understand. Colonization, not assimilation.

Prior to the “election”, Republicans from Sean Hannity to President Donald Trump warned that Democrats were “radical” and “extreme” socialists different from previous party liberals. They made a mistake in the first case and were wrong in the second. Calling liberal Democrats radical socialists was preaching to the choir. They already knew this. Republicans needed to reach the average American. Those who attended public schools. Teachers often do not explain what socialism is nor its long tragic history. Instead of labels and name calling, Republicans needed to make the case that socialism destroys economies, destroys freedom, renders people subjects not citizens, and why. Are contemporary liberal Democrats more socialistic than party liberals of yore?

Beginning with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, liberals transformed America into a “Welfare State”. “The premise of the welfare state is the federal government is basically responsible for the material well-being of the American people”4, which, of course, flies in the face of constitutionally limited government. Programs falling under the welfare-state umbrella include poverty assistance, food stamps, medical insurance, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, bank and business bailouts, college tuition subsidies, and so forth. The “federal” government funds these programs by transferring the income from those who produced it to those who did not. However, this is not socialism, right?

As defined by two former adherents, socialism is “The economic system” in which “human” and “material resources” are managed and controlled by a relatively small group of people according to their view of a common good. The difference between socialism and capitalism is, in the former, the few make economic decisions, in the latter, private individuals do.5 Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifesto wrote, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.6 When government takes resources, whether corporate or individual, by force, and transfers them to those with lesser resources, they are acting out Marx’s maxim. “Recipients of entitlement spending, whether Social Security benefits, Medicaid, or food stamps, have property rights to income that takes precedence over the property rights of those who produce the income”.7 If a government owns material resources and controls their distribution to effect a desired outcome with respect to the material “well-being” of the people, it is a socialist system. If another government takes by force, through taxation, fees, and import duties, the material resources of corporations and individuals, transferring them to businesses and people to whom they do not belong, in order to effect a desired outcome, this too is a form of socialism. The difference being, in the latter case, private individuals still own the resources. However, since the purpose and outcome for both, determined by the few, is largely the same, the difference is in degree.8

Franklyn Roosevelt’s use of centralized top down economic decision-making to “manage” private resources led to a wholesale takeover by government. This is socialism. At the end of W.W. II, President Truman issued executive orders to seize private businesses “including a coal mine, three oil refineries, an airport, cotton mills, a railroad, the Chicago cab industry, and a rubber plant”. He asserted presidents had constitutional authority to take over private industries during emergencies. Democrats had used W.W. II to force Americans to accept government regimentation of all aspects of their lives. Nevertheless, Truman and New Deal Democrats were wrong on all counts. What they promoted was unconstitutional. After the war, Truman pushed socialized medicine, government control over prices and wages, and even threatened to draft striking coal miners into the U.S. Army if they did not go back to work.9 Lyndon Johnson’s implementation of socialist Great Society Programs would take pages just to list. How are these liberals different from those who Republicans call “radical socialists” in the modern Democrat Party? The difference is in what liberals can get away with now versus then.

Instead of fighting Democrat socialists tooth and nail for the past decades, Republicans waxed sanguine over compromise with their “friends across the aisle”. How is someone determined to destroy the religious and cultural way of life of others, their friend? How does one compromise with those whose lifegoal is to destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights? They are not your friends. They are at war with you. Through use of language, liberals spill the beans.

First, as a policeman in California’s radical Bay Area, and later as a public high school teacher in a socialIST studies department, I was the target of numerous unprovoked and unsolicited debates with liberals. They typically took the form of hit-and-run verbal attacks. From these experiences, I reached two conclusions. First, liberals tend to use “Republican” and “conservative” interchangeably as if synonymous. Second conservatives and especially Republicans do not appear to grasp they are in a war with liberals for the fate of liberty. Their attitude toward political defeat is similar to losing a baseball game; “We lost today but we’ll get them the next time”. Could such naïve attitudes explain Republican’s lack of support for President Trump in the face of the nation’s first coup? The struggle to preserve and regain lost freedom is not a sporting event. There will be no rematch, no comeback, and no tomorrow.

The term “conservative” represents an ideology based on a shared set of cohesive and interrelated economic, philosophical, political, and social norms grounded in Judeo-Christian principles.10 Republican on the other hand refers to a political party. Parties are “a group of citizens organized to win elections, control government, and set public policy”.11 The latter lacks the ideological underpinnings of the former. In general, conservatives believe rights are inviolate bestowed on people by G-d as stated in the Declaration of Independence.12 Conservatives embrace the Founder’s cornerstones of American democracy: individual liberty, limited government, representative democracy, and rule of law.13 Liberal’s misuse of terminology and assumption that conservative and Republican are synonymous is autobiographical. It reveals that, for them, ideology and political party are inseparable. They assume Republicans are doctrinaire conservatives because so many Democrats are doctrinaire liberals. They hate Republicans not because they are rivals for political power but because they are engaged in an ideological war and assume Republicans are as well. However, this is not the case.

For example, George Bush 41 let Americans down as much as Bill Clinton did with respect to onerous gun-control laws. Bush 43 stated he would sign a so-called “assault weapons” ban if it reached his desk.14 Former Massachusetts Republican Governor Mitt Romney supported abortion, homosexual “marriage” (sic), gun control, and state mandated health insurance, positions no conservative could ever embrace. Since the 1960s, liberals have worked to wed leftist ideology to the Democrat Party until they are one and the same. Historian John Dziak notes that the conjoining of a political party with the state (government) led to the creation of a security state in the former Soviet Union. It was obsessed with protecting its power and rule through the identification of enemies, “real or notional, and then destroying them.” It created a security service that “penetrated and permeated all societal institutions” including education, mass media, and the military. From the Cheka to the KGB, it was ruthless and driven to find and destroy all “enemies”.15 Liberals used to make thinly veiled suggestions that conservatives were crypto-Nazis. Now, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Sandy Cortez, Kali Harris, CNN, the New York Times, and many others are out of the closet asserting conservatives are Klansmen, Nazis, and vile racists, enemies America must destroy. Thin veils are gone.

David Horowitz contends that, until the ascendancy of George McGovern in the Democrat Party (1972), American political contests between Democrats and Republicans were non-ideological family feuds. This changed in the late 1960s when the counterculture Left took control of and reshaped the Democrat Party in its own image. He argues the Democrat Party is now almost indistinguishable from the traditional left-wing parties of Europe that made up the “Second Socialist International”. American liberals in general view rights as creations of government a view shared by European socialists. They reject the principle of limited government as well as the contractual nature of the Constitution. What the liberal media refers to as a “culture war” represents a conservative reaction to the Left’s assault against the Republic’s founding principles. Nevertheless, conservatives, especially those calling themselves Republicans, do not realize they are in a war according to Horowitz.16 Country club blue-blood Republicans from Theodore Roosevelt, Nelson Rockefeller, both President Bush’s, and Mitt Romney appear to view the Republican Party simply as a vehicle through which they can express their sense of noblesse oblige (nobility obligates). It is their duty to govern by virtue of their aristocratic birth. Ideology plays no role in their motivation to seek office. To win elections they are forced to associate with undesirables in the Republican Party; farmers, blue-collar workers, Christians, pro-lifers, 2nd Amendment advocates, supporters of traditional marriage, NASCAR-types, and the sort who shop at Bass Pro. Once elected, the blue bloods are free to disassociate from the rabble until the next election cycle. Laura Ingraham writes that many Republicans look down “on socially conservative, middle-class Americans as being too radical and hard-edged”. She calls them elitists and notes they “pride themselves on their ‘moderation’ ‘pragmatism’ and ability to forge ‘bipartisan agreements with their ‘good friends’ the Democrats.” She names Senators Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins as examples of liberal Republicans who demonstrate their sophistication and fair-mindedness by agreeing with the liberal Democrat agenda.17 I could add to this list many other names. How are Republicans, doormats for Democrats, a viable alternative?

When Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House, they will be free to implement their three-pronged strategy to remake America in their socialist image and leave Republicans a permanent minority party. They will continue to neutralize conservatives through smear and slander campaigns rendering traditional Judeo-Christian moral values socially unacceptable. Liberals will denature the Republican Party by convincing them election of another Reagan is impossible. Instead, they must nominate “moderate” Republicans (liberals on the installment plan) to have any chance of winning the White House. This will kill support among real Americans for the Republican Party. Democrats will pass far-reaching socialistic legislation to further American dependency on the government guaranteeing Democrat rule in perpetuity. People will vote Democrat or risk losing goodies such as “free” healthcare. In addition, their assault on conservative radio and social media will escalate. Their listeners represent what former Maryland Governor Spiro T. Agnew called the “silent majority”.18 If liberals can discredit these spokesmen for conservatism, their voice and influence will disappear.

Former Connecticut Republican Congressman Chris Shays built a long career of bipartisanship by aping his liberal Democrat colleagues. Earning a lifetime score of only 44% from the American Conservative Union before he was retired, Shays told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that the Republican Party should broaden its base to include so-called moderates and liberals. Is he an Episcopalian? He added that former Vice President Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh should not be deciding who is or is not a good Republican and that Colin Powell was indeed “a good Republican for a long time”.19 After “good Republican”, Colin Powell turned on John McCain and endorsed Democrat Barack Obama he hit the speaking circuit with further denunciations of conservatives. He warned Republicans must broaden their party’s philosophical message meaning, become liberals. When asked by Bob Schieffer to respond to Limbaugh’s claim he was really a Democrat, Powell stated, “Republicans would be better off if they didn’t have Rush Limbaugh out speaking for them”.20 Regrettably, President Reagan appointed classroom Lt. General Colin Powell to deputy national security adviser in 1987.21 George W. Bush later appointed Powell to be Secretary of State. David Frum, liberal’s favorite “conservative Republican”, (who came out in support of homosexual marriage and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016), jumped on the bandwagon with Powell and Shays. He agreed with Obama Chief of Staff and former Clinton hatchet man Rahm Emmanuel that Limbaugh is aggressive, bombastic, has a history of bad marriages, is a fat drug addict, and now is the head of the Republican Party. He accused Rush of wanting the party to lose because this will somehow increase his control over them. He advised Republicans to “modulate” their “social conservatism” meaning silencing the voices of Christians, pro-lifers, and those who support Biblical “marriage”.22 In short, faux conservatives like Shays, Powell, and Frum pushed to transform the Republican into the Democrat-Party Lite. Democrats fight for what they believe in and Republicans help them. Perhaps Republicans forget Reagan won two terms as Governor of a liberal state. When he ran for president, Reagan refused to modulate his conservative message that government was the problem not the solution and won two-landslide elections in the process.

I have no doubt Democrats rigged the 2020 presidential election and, through massive fraud and ballot stuffing, stole it from Donald Trump. It represents the first Lain American style coup in U.S. history. Americans are witnessing a political party, in cahoots with an entrenched bureaucracy, State media, and Big Tech, successfully depose an elected president. If Americans do not take a stand, if they do nothing, it is over. My respect for this country, its institutions, and neighbors will be gone. It will be time to furl the flag. If I am correct about them, Republicans will cast about for a Mitt Romney, Nikki Haley type “me-too” Republican for 2024. They will work behind the scenes to silence Trump supporters and his influence from the party…forever.

RINOs in action

 

 

1 Great Quotes from the War Over Education, Education Watch at http://www.edwatch.org.

10 Clarence B. Carson, Basic American Government (Wadley, Alabama, American Textbook Committee, 1996), 502.

11 Richard J. Hardy, Government In America (Boston, Massachusetts, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), 268.

12 Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative (New York, N.Y., Manor Books, Inc., 1960/1975), 9-14. See also; Clarence Carson’s Government, 61-66, Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America (Washington D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2002), -7, 10-12, 310, 396, 397-400, 406-13., Thomas E. Woods Jr., The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004), 2-6, 17, 20-22., Kiron K. Skinner, Annelise Anderson, Martin Anderson, editors, Reagan In His Own Hand (New York, N.Y. The Free Press, 2001), 174-78, 359-360, Gregory L. Schneider, editor, Conservatism In America Since 1930, (New York, N.Y. University Press, 2003), and George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement In America Since 1945 (Wilmington, Delaware, Intercollegiate Studies Institute,1996.

13 Hardy, 31.

14 Eric Lichtblau, “Irking N.R.A., Bush Supports Ban On Assault Weapons”, May 8 2003, The New York Times, at https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/08/irking-nra-bush-supports-the-ban-on-assault-weapons.html

15 John J. Dziak, Chekisty: A History of the KGB (Lexington, Massachusetts, Lexington Books, 1988), 1-18.

16 David Horowitz, The Art of Political War (Dallas, Texas, Spence Publishing Company, 2000), ix-xii.

17 Laura Ingraham, Shut Up And Sing: How Elites From Hollywood, Politics, And The U.N. Are Subverting America (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing Inc., 2003), 11-12.

18 Francis X. Clines, “Spiro T. Agnew, Point Man for Nixon Who Resigned Vice Presidency, Dies at 77” New York Times, (Thursday September 19, 1996), at http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/19/us/spirot-t-agnew-point-man-for-nixon-who-resigned-vice-presidenc

19 Scott Whitlock, “Andrea Mitchell Features Good Republican Chris Shays to Critique Steele,” News Busters at http://www.newsbusters.org (Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center).

20 Colin Powell on Rush Limbaugh at http://rightwingnews.com

21 Ronald Reagan, An American Life: The Autobiography (New York, N.Y., Simon and Schuster, 1990), 535.

22 David Frum, “Why Rush Is Wrong” Newsweek (March 16, 2009), 25-32.

2 Ronald Reagan, Speaking My Mind (New York, N.Y., Simon and Schuster, 1989), 111. An address to the members of the British Parliament, Palace of Westminster, June 8, 1982.

3 Editors, “Immigration Officials Anticipate Flood of Illegal Immigrants Under Biden Administration”, Headline News USA, December 16 2020 at https://headlineusa.com/flood-illegal-immigrants.biden.

4 Clarence B. Carson, A Basic History of the United State, Volume 5: The Welfare State 1929-1985 (Wadley, Alabama, American Textbook Committee, 1987), 1.

5 Brian Crozier and Arthur Seldon, Socialism The Grand Delusion (New York, N.Y., Universe Books, 1986), 15.

6 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works In Two Volumes, Volume II (London, England, Lawrence And Wishart, LTD., 1950), 13-15. See also, https://www.britanica.com/biography/Karl-Marx/quotes. From Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1972, David J. Romagnolo, editor, page 10 at http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/M&E/cgp77.html.

7 Paul Craig Roberts, “GOP’s Deficit Phobia Ignores Larger Entitlement Problem” Human Events (March 3, 1995), 20.

8 Brian Crozier and Arthur Seldon, Socialism: The Grand Delusion (New York N.Y., Universe Books, 1986), 15-17.

9 Brion McClanahan, 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America and four who tried to save her (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2016), 102-118.

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