Common Core: Right Wing Groups to be Described as ‘Fascist’


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.


I haven’t covered it as much as I should, but Common Core is the latest indoctrination program for use in the public schools.  And, since it’s a leftist creation, it’s full of lies, indoctrination, and blind obedience.  And, since the socialist state can tolerate no dissent, all opposition has to be smeared and discredited.   In that vein, it appears that Common Core dictates that all “right wing group” be portrayed as fascists, even though fascism and Conservatism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.  The Federalist Papers has more…

Via The Daily Caller:

Hillsdale professor Terrence Moore, author of  “Story Killers: A Common Sense Case Against Common Core,”  exposed some of the more distressing aspects of the controversial Common Core education standards program, saying that all teachers must tell young students that all right-wing groups are fascist.

Moore highlights how it is not just the reading lists and course materials — which have already attracted a large amount of criticism — that need to be examined by parents. It’s also the teaching notes and standard curriculum; the notes and standards come as part of a comprehensive package. Moore noted through his research that a distinctly political slant is introduced, one which dictates not only what children are taught, but also how they should be taught.

Next thing you know, they’ll be encouraging kids to turn their parents in for being “fascists.”    In the end, it is clear that Common Core is far more like fascism than any freedom loving American.


Dems: “The Gulag For Thee, But Not For Me”


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Hope and Derange

“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!’” – Hillary Clinton

Times have changed since Shrillary’s anti-Bush tirade in 2003. The Democrats won. Disagreement with their administration will now identify you as a ‘domestic enemy’ and probably cause you to be placed under NSA surveillance.

“Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out.”

The motto of David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine has never been more evident than in the wake of the recent ‘shutdown’ of the federal government.  From Poughkeepsie to Portland, apoplectic Stalinists … er, progressives … are clamoring for  the incarceration (or worse) of anyone with the temerity to oppose Barack Obama’s ongoing sovietization of their former country.  Much of this venom is being aimed at Ted Cruz, a Republican so depraved that he actually believes in the Constitution of the United States, an antiquated document that incites the holy wrath of both Redbirds and RINOs:

The man under FBI investigation for making violent threats against Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz was inspired to encourage violence by Democratic Party messaging efforts. (Daily Caller)


 • Democrats are openly calling for the arrest of Sen. Ted Cruz “for sedition”. Never mind the Constitution explicitly grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President. Never mind that James Madison himself described that the House could, in fact, shut down any program it wanted to. Never mind all that: the Constitution doesn’t matter to these hard left sixties retreads. They don’t want any political opposition. They want you gone. They want you silent, or in prison, or dead (what do you think Obamacare is really about?).

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 • MSNBC plainly calls lawful dissent “sedition”, presumably punishable by death.

 • Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen (TN) labels conservatives “domestic enemies”, alluding to presidential actions to secure the country from the Tea Party, veterans, and Constitutional conservatives.

 • A public petition calls for the arrests of Republicans in Congress by the Holder DOJ.(Doug Ross @ Journal)


Ted Cruz has recently … well you know what he’s been up to recently. Former Massachusetts. Governor and Republican establishment stalwart John Sununu, on the other hand, has recently been busy on Capitol Hill lobbying on behalf of the business interests of Castro’s Cuba, an official “State-Sponsor of Terrorism.” So which Republican is taking all the heat—and from the Republican establishment?(Townhall)

Let’s start calling it like it is: “Progressive” is the polite term that communists use to describe themselves.  And whenever and wherever they have gained power, they have filled countless jails and graveyards with their political opponents — 149 and a half million of them worldwide, by one estimate.  Ted Cruz is on their list.  And if you’re reading this, so are you.


Original Post: Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead


Great Moments in Civil Discourse: Pro-Life Women are “Men with Breasts?” Yes, According to PA State Legislator


It’s another example of ‘civility” from the regressives!  

Pennsylvania State Representative Babette Josephs believes that a woman who supports mandatory ultrasounds for abortion-seekers is really a man with breasts — and the local Democratic organization agrees with her. A bill that was brought by Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania that required pre-abortion ultrasounds was pulled two weeks ago, but that wasn’t sufficient for Josephs.

Josephs said the women sponsoring the bill “do what the men tell them … They must believe that they are not capable of making their own health care choices, but they are capable of voting on bills that control all of our behavior … I don’t understand it … I don’t believe they’re really women … I believe they’re men with breasts.”

Sally Lyall, chair of the Lancaster Democrats, the organization sponsoring the rally, echoed Josephs, saying: “That’s her way of questioning the bill, and we support Babette … We don’t move ahead if we don’t get people’s attention. If this gets people thinking, that’s the point of a rally like this.”

OK, this is typical, insult and degrade anyone who disagrees with the regressive agenda.  We’ve seem that a million times.  However, there is something else to this story-something that is deliciously ironic.  Here is a pic of Rep. Josephs…

To investigate Ms. Josephs, I’ve employed none other than  the infamous Austin Powers…

Are we sure her name isn’t Joseph Babette?


Antidote for the Occupiers


I know that the Occupy movement has been covered extensively here at CH2.0 and Matt has done a fine job of it. But in light of the latest round of civil disobedience by the Oakland Occupiers, I thought that this video might put things into perspective just a tad bit more.



“Tolerance and Diversity” on Display: Biblical Stance on Homosexuality Bullying?


Ah, the left.  They live in a land of duckies and bunnies, with unicorns that fart rainbows.  And, if you ask them, they are by far the most tolerant, diverse, and loving people in all of the world…unless, that is, you disagree with them.  For those that have a different point of view, or have the audacity to engage in dissent, all pretenses of “tolerance” disappears.  Dissenters are ridiculed, accused, accosted, punished, and sometimes physically attacked.  For, you see, tolerance is a one way street for our liberal friends.  For the latest example of this “tolerance,” we have to look at the story of a student that based an op-ed on, of all things, the Bible! 

A 15-year-old Wisconsin boy who wrote an op-ed opposing gay adoptions was censored, threatened with suspension and called ignorant by the superintendent of the Shawano School District, according to an attorney representing the child.

Wegner, a student at Shawano High School, was asked to write an op-ed for the school newspaper about whether gays should be allowed to adopt. Wegner, who is a Christian, wrote in opposition. Another student wrote in favor of allowing gays to adopt.

Wegner used Bible passages to defend his argument, including Scripture that called homosexuality a sin.

After the op-ed was published, a gay couple whose child attend s the high school, complained.

The school immediately issued an apology – stating Wegner’s opinion was a “form of bullying and disrespect.”

“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” the statement read. “We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”

So, the student writes an op-ed, in what seems to be a point-counterpoint format, with another student.  That might have been OK, but the student had the nerve to disagree with liberal doctrine.  But, what the school then allegedly did was more outrageous…

But Staver said what the school system did next was absolutely outrageous. He said the 15-year-old was ordered to the superintendent’s office where he was subjected to hours of meetings and was accused of violating the school’s bullying policy.

“The superintendent called him ignorant and said he had the power to suspend him,” Staver said. “He’s using his position to bully this student. This is absolutely the epitome of intolerance.”

Staver said the boy’s parents were never notified.

At one point, Staver said the superintendent gave him a chance to say he regretted writing the column.

“When Mr. Wegner stated that he did not regret writing it, and that he stood behind his beliefs, Superintendent Carlson told him that he ‘had got to be one of the most ignorant kids to try to argue with him about this topic,’” Staver said.

At that point, Staver said the superintendent told the boy that “we have the power to suspend you if we want to.”

The superintendent allegedly told Wegner that he was personally offended by Wegner’s column.

So, it appears that the kid was removed, taken to the superintendent, to “convince” him to apologize for his position.  In actuality, it appears that the school tried to bully the kid for taking a biblical stance on a social issue.  This is a familiar pattern:  liberals decided that they are infallible, and any disagreement with them is “hate.”  Then, once someone engages in “hate,” liberals can engage in real hate to punish the dissenter.  It is yet another manifestation of the leftist tendency to control, subjugate, and otherwise engage in tyranny.  In this case, over thought itself.

We also now have to add that anti-bullying rules at schools are going to be used against Christians, Jews, or anyone else that dares to cite the Word in schools.  People should be warned, but, at the same time, be bold, and refuse to back down from the schools, or any other servants of the really bad guy that resides down below.

And your kids are in public school why?

H/T:  The Daley Gator


Occupy Whistle-blower Gets Banned From Spokes Council: Is OWS a Microcosm of a Marxist Regime?


I’ve been noting for some time now, that OWS is a microcosm of the Marxist regime that they would prefer rule this nation.  Last month, I discussed the experiences if a feminist in at one of the European Occupy sites, and how she was threatened and silenced for pointing out inconvenient truths.  Now, we are seeing this being recreated at the mothership of the Occupy movement, Occupy Wall Street.

It seems that a female occupier, Nan Terrie, has been raising some uncomfortable issues for OWS, such as rape, robbery, and the suspicion that OWS funds are being misused.  The response by the leaderhip at OWS?  Ban her from the Spokes Council, the “governing body” of Occupy Wall Street.  Big Government has more…

The minutes of the January 20, 2012 Spoke Council meeting details some of the back-and-forth about excluding Ms. Terrie, who has been a vocal whistle-blower about theft, violence, and sexual assault, allegations that have been proven to be true as verified by outside reporting and police arrest records. Terrie has also asked for an accounting of money spent by the #Occupy movement. Further, she has alleged an organized coverup of violence and financial malfeasance by de facto leadership of the supposedly leaderless movement.

Ms. Terrie, an 18-year-old activist originally from Florida, was treated at the hospital for a concussion just two nights ago, after being hit in the head with a chair at a meeting.

Once again, historical parallels jump out at me.   I recall stories, from both the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Nazi Germany, of people reporting problems to the state, and abruptly disappearing.   In those nations, the state propaganda apparatus told the people, and the world, that everything was great and spiffy, and there were no problems with the great socialist system.  If there were acknowledged problems, they were the result of nefarious plots by Jews, imperialist Americans, Jews, evil capitalists, Jews, or Jewish bankers.  This set up a rather disastrous situation for those that pointed out problem with the spiffy system.

In the days before modern communication, it was rather easy for the state to control information.  If the state owned, or otherwise controlled the press, radio, television (if it existed), the population could be spoon-fed the approved propaganda of the day.  So, more often than not, the people bought into the message.  But, on occasion, a citizen would think the following; “Gee whiz, Comrade Stalin is so busy, perhaps he didn’t know that we are out of food, or our farm tractors are broken, and we have no spare parts.  Maybe I’ll write him a letter, and surely, he will help us.”  That poor soul would write a letter, and the KGB would get it.  The writer would be arrested, tried, and shot, or sent to a Gulag, or just taken out back and shot.  Why?  Because their sincere effort to elicit help contradicted the state’s position that everything was great and spiffy.  Going against the state’s position that everything was great was a crime, for “discouraging” the people, or creating dissent.  And, we all know how statists deal with dissent.  Dissent, and the dissenters must be marginalized, attacked, and otherwise silenced. That is what happened to Miss Terrie.

Of course, they did not kill her.  That would hit the media, and would be more bad press.  They don’t have sufficient control of information to cover up their activities, let alone a murder.  So, they settled for less, banning her from meetings, where her inconvenient truths can be ignored.  Also, it could be assumed that most of the occupiers are naive enough to think that they can install a Marxist government without killing millions of people.  So for now, they will settle for kicking out people that point out the obvious and predictable flaws in their system.  But what happens if they do manage to accomplish their goals, and people start dying of starvation, or there are massive riots, or when people simply refuse to be robbed of their property?


Does Freedom of Religion Constitute Bullying? Some in Tennessee Think so


We all know what the First Amendment states regarding religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

According to the regressives it ends right there, but there is more.

 or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

We see the establishment clause cited quite a bit.  For example, when I covered the Elwood City Nativity display, it was never proven that Congress had passed a law to put it up, and the critics of it certainly didn’t know about the “free exercise thereof.”   But, then again, the current “Separation of Church and State” has nothing to do with the  the intent of the Founders, which was to deny the Federal Government the power to create a National Church, as the monarchies had in Europe.

Here is the latest example of the separation between the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause.  Apparently, the state legislature in Tennessee is trying to pass a bill protecting the free speech rights of Christian students, as quoting the Bible has been declared “bulling.”  Culture News has more…

Pro-family advocates and lawmakers are advancing language for Senate Bill 0760 (House Bill 1153) to ensure freedom of speech and religion regarding public school anti-bullying, but critics say that allowing Christian students to cite Bible verses is bullying and should be outlawed.

From “Christian activist questions scope of anti-bullying law” by Andy Sher, Chattanooga Times Free Press 1/4/12

. . . leaders of the Tennessee Equality Project, a gay-rights group, charge the [religious liberty] legislation “would give students a ‘license to bully’ that allows them to hide their irrational biases behind an extreme religious belief.”

The Fowler-backed bill says anti-bullying programs and measures can’t use materials or training that “explicitly or implicitly promote a political agenda [and] make the characteristics of the victim the focus rather than the conduct of the person engaged in harassment, intimidation, or bullying.”

FACT said it “is wrong to bully people because of their sexual practices. But it’s wrong to bully people period. The larger lesson here is that these tragedies are often the rotten fruit of the all-about-me individualistic culture that comes when we deny the existence of God and his image in us. When life and people become cheap, tragedy becomes the result.”

In the interview, Fowler said gays are “not the only people who get insulted. The thing we need to concentrate on is not whether the characteristics of the victim justify being protected but on the conduct of the person engaging in the bullying while respecting constitutional rights.”

OK then, it’s “bad” to quote the Bible, as it might be bullying, but the Tennessee Equality Project stated, “…allows them to hide their irrational biases behind an extreme religious belief.”

Er, by their own standards, would that not be categorized as “bullying?”  Of course not! Bullying isn’t bullying when Christians are being bullied.

But on a less sarcastic note, this is typical regressive behavior.   They seek to make disagreement with them a crime, yet approve of the same exact behavior that they decry-providing that said behavior is is directed at those with whom they disagree.  I would have to add that if they are willing to effectively ban the Bible, what would be next, and where would it stop?



MSM DeathWatch: Even in San Francisco, People Don’t Listen to Liberal Talk Radio


What does it say when a liberal talk radio station has to do a format change in San Francisco?  Well, it’s happening, and some of the fallout is hilarious.  For starters, here is some coverage from Dana Loesch, of Big Journalism…

Even in a far-left city such as San Francisco no one listens to progressive talk radio. Green 960 will be replaced by a conservative talker KNEW, and KNEW’s old spot on the dial 910 AM will be relaunched as KKSF AM, another conservative talker. Both stations are owned by Clear Channel, which was obviously tired of bleeding money on the previous failed enterprise.

Predictably, progressives immediately developed the vapors. Comments via JWF:

“Obama should have fixed this mess by nationalizing radio. Then the good stations like KGO could re-hire all the people they let go. Green 960 could stay on the air.”

“Dec 1st and near 70f here in the eastbay…and conservative radio will never even accept global Neanderthal talk will thrive.”

“Conservatives have time to listen to these cranks because they are sitting around in dead-end jobs, if they work at all, blaming their failures on liberals instead of their own stupidity. Liberals are too busy. ”

“Why don’t we liberals listen to talk radio? Because we don’t need the constant reinforcement that perpetually insecure, professionally paranoid conservatives do to valid our political ideas. Conservatives desperately need their “bubble.” But I recall seeing an article forecasting the end of conservative talk blather in the next 5-10 years, as its 55-dead demographic is both dying off and unattractive to sponsors. “

Nationalizing radio?  So no other ideas but your own can be heard?  Sure, let’s replicate the Soviet Union, just like OWS wants, right?

Conservative Talkers won’t accept global warming the big lie?  Have you heard of Climate Gate 2.0?

We don’t work?  Then why are we concerned about our jobs, and the taxes we pay?

Demographics are not so important, ideas are.  Following the logic of the quoted libpod, radio audiences are a zero sum game.  Limbaugh has been on nationally since 1989, and if his demographic never grew, his show would have ended when a large number of his “55-dead” target group would have died off.  The dirty secret is this; people listen to Conservative talk, and many find that it resonates with them  That, my friends, is why the left wants to control all media.  Socialists/Communists/Fascists always ban any other ideas.  When people see that the system is failing, and hear alternative ideas, they bolt.  Kindly refer to fall of the Soviet Union for evidence.  We tolerate the MSM, and their propaganda and outright lies.  We don’t call for their elimination.  On the other hand, statists always want to ban dissent, because they don’t want their sheeple getting ideas of their own.

At any rate, the quoted rant is filled with projection and failure.

That, and I know the proper use of the word, “validate.”


The Utility of Free Speech Redux


If you read the recent post, From The Front Lines of the Culture Wars: Student Disciplined for Thinking Homosexuality is Wrong, you would have seen an interesting exchange between Harrison, of  Capitol Commentary, and myself.  While we happen to disagree on that topic, I consider him to be a good blogger, who often asks us to question some core beliefs.  Our exchange reminded me of the following, which was originally posted on September 29, 2009.  

As we all know, freedom of speech is under attack.  Mark Lloyd proposes to replace privately owned media with a government approved and moderated PBS.  Cass Sustein and Henry Waxman have both floated the idea of regulating Internet content.  Speech codes on campus restrict the free flows of ideas on college campuses.  The ACLU threatens to sue kids that pray at graduation ceremonies.  People are threatened if they pray in public.  Conversely, the left is able to engage in whatever outrageous activity they choose, and even do what they accuse the right of doing.  The double standard is sometimes astounding.

Following Marxist concepts like “tolerant repression,” the left seeks to limit or eliminate dissent. We understand that this is part of their effort to obtain power by silencing all opposition, or making said opposition ineffective, and unable to reach the people.  Their allies in the media do not cover stories critical of the left, or distorts them into a one sided attack on the opposition.  The government ignores mass protests and accuses the protesters of “racism, terrorism,” and being paid by special interests.  What they cannot ban, or cover up, they will discredit.  They attempt to cloud genuine dissent with hate, all in order to attack the messenger, and thereby cause the actual message to be ignored.

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, this is certain.  And we know that in a Constitutional Republic, free speech is vital for debate and the free flow of ideas.  Without free speech, the Republic that so many bled and died for would take a short trip into tyranny. All these are true, but I would submit that there are additional benefits to  freedom of speech.

Every nation has fringe groups; racists, religious extremists of every type, anarchists, communist revolutionaries, national socialists, and probably a huge number of others.  It is tempting to deny these people a public forum, as they are repugnant to most all Americans, irregardless of  political affiliation. But, I would submit that there are benefits to allowing them speak and function in the open:

  1. If they are public, we know who they are.  Putting a face to the hate allows us to confront it.
  2. If they speak openly, we can know what they believe, and what they want.  Knowing this allows us all to confront them.
  3. If they operate openly, we know what they are doing.  We can keep track of them, and monitor their activities.

If we ban free speech,or  even “only” the speech that we find disgusting, we lose some things:

  1. We will have no idea who the extremists are, as they won’t go away, they’ll go underground.
  2. We will have no idea what they believe or plan to do.
  3. By banning their speech, the government will prove most of their beliefs about their ideas being a threat to power.
  4. Being banned makes them more attractive to “recruits.” They will have the “truth that those in power don’t want you to know.”
  5. They become dangerous and more likely to take violent action.

Freedom of speech means that you might be offended by something that is said or written.  We can’t run and cry to government every time something upsets us.  We have to take hate for what it is, and confront it, or just let if fail under the weight of it’s own stupidity.  We have to allow all of it, or face tyranny, as when the state is given the power to ban some speech, it will eventually seek to ban more and more of it.   Then, one should not be surprised when it is their own  speech that is banned . The State is a hungry beast, and it always seeks more and more power upon which to feed.  Elimiating dissent is a fine way to accomplish that end.

In the end, no party or group should have the ability to eliminate freedom of speech, or our Republic is doomed.


Fairness Doctrine Officially Dead: Why That Means Absolutely Nothing


Yesterday, the FCC officially killed the fairness doctrine.  While it hadn’t been enforced since the late 80’s, the left would occasionally state the desire to resurrect it, and the right always feared it.  Here is coverage from The Blaze…

The last nail was finally driven into the Fairness Doctrine’s coffin when the FCC eliminated more than 80 media industry rules, ending the obsolete post WWII-era regulation. The doctrine, that sought to ensure inclusiveness of different viewpoints broadcast on the airwaves, was officially erased by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Monday.

Conservative critics of the Fairness Doctrine believed the rule violated broadcasters’ rights to free speech and feared Democrats would try revive the regulation to silence conservative talk radio programs. While the doctrine was essentially abandoned in 1987 during the Reagan administration, it remained on the books until Monday.

Apparently, the FCC tossed over 80 old regulations, and you know what?

It doesn’t mean a single thing!

Yes, the statists had been periodically dragging out the corpse of the fairness doctrine, using it to get Conservatives in an uproar, but in reality, they never really intended to re-instate it.  Instead, they were looking at different ways to implement something similar, while calling it something else.  I have covered that quite a few times in the past.  Here is some more background…

Our “progressives” are no different in their desire to control the flow of information. Over the last several years, they have pressed on with various “packages” for controlling information, and therefore, us.  I think a review of the various agendas is in order, as they have evolved.  Following the tendency to “call it something else,” the “progressives” have been morphing and relabeling their narrative, seeking something that will resonate sufficiently to implement.

Since I started the CH, I have been covering these efforts, as have my blogging friends.  So I think reviewing the last two years is in order.

First, back in later 2008 and early 2009, Henry Waxman was discussing a new Fairness Doctrine.  Of course, they would “call it something else.”

According to The Prowler, Waxman and his staff are already looking at ways to police content on the web. (emphasis mine throughout)

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the “Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such.

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. “It’s all about diversity in media,” says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. “Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them.”

Waxman and his staff are also thinking about creating congressionally mandated advisory boards to police both radio and TV programming:

One idea Waxman’s committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place “advisory boards” that would act as watchdogs to ensure “community needs and opinions” are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.

What about policing internet content?  According to The Prowler, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is already looking into this.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. “Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we’re seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information,” says on committee staffer. “We’re at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities.”

Then, I covered that the they were seeking different means to acheive a “fairness doctrine,” again, calling it something else.

To accomplish this piece of fascism, the messiah has created a “diversity committee” at the FCC to address the lack of minority and female ownership of radio stations.  Why is this important?  Well, according to a think tank put together by the messiah early in his campaign…

It also was reported when a think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama’s transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on conservative talk radio by requiring stations to be operated by female and minority owners, which the report showed were statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.

That report found the best strategy for getting equal time for “progressives” on radio lies in mandating “diversity of ownership” without ever needing to mention the former FCC policy of requiring airtime for liberal viewpoints, known as the “Fairness Doctrine,” a plan thrown out in the 1980s.

Then, facts about the “regulatory Czar,” Cass Sunstein, were revealed.

Now comes a more insidious form of thought control a la 1984, courtesy of long-time friend and probable new regulatory czar Cass Sunstein (who recently married another long-time confidant of Barack Obama’s, foreign policy guru Samantha Power).  Kyle Smith writes in the New York Postabout one aspect of Sunstein’s ideology:

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a “chilling effect” on speech that might hurt someone’s feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

Advance copies of Sunstein’s new book, “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,” have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now. Sunstein is President Obama’s choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It’s the bland titles that should scare you the most.

In “On Rumors,” Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. He worries that we are headed for a future in which “people’s beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire.” That future, though, is already here, according to Sunstein. “We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet,” he writes. “We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?”

Sunstein’s book is a blueprint for online censorship as he wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading “rumors.”

Smith notes that bloggers and others would be forced to remove such criticism unless they could be “proven”. The litigation expense would be daunting; the time necessary to defend a posting (or an article) would work to the benefit of the public figure being criticized since the delay would probably allow the figure to win an election before the truth “won out”. The mere threat of retaliatory actions would be enough to dissuade many commentators from daring to issue a word of criticism or skepticism.

This strikes me as interesting, as “progressives” tend not always ban activities.  Many times, they use regulations to make it so expensive, or so laborious, that the activity isn’t worth the time or expense.  This would be a prime example.

And, of course, a discussion on this matter would be incomplete without mention of Mark Lloyd.

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”

My general point is that if they had wanted the fairness doctrine back, they would have done it long ago.   Instead, they have spent considerable time and effort towards creating something that would accomplish the same thing, and would be called something else.  The result would be the same-the end of dissent, but it would be phrased and presented in a slightly different way.   So, while they have been busy scaring folks with the fairness doctrine, they have been working on other options to slide past us while we’re distracted.  Think of it this way, while one person is distracting us with something shiny, another is sneaking up behind us with a tire iron.

In other words, beware!  The “death” of something that was long dead anyway is nothing more than a distraction.  We need to be looking at what they ARE doing.


In Case You Never Really Knew What the Fairness Doctrine was all About…


Conservatives have long stated that the “fairness doctrine” was nothing more than a means to stifle debate on the airwaves.  And, in fact, with the doctrine in place-no one dared state too many “unliberal” opinions without getting complaints from liberal groups, threatening to have their FCC license yanked.  The result was one sided news.

Once the doctrine was removed under the Reagan administration, talk radio flourished, and is a dominating force today.  This has lead to the dissemination of Conservative ideas to millions of Americans.  The ideas of individual freedom, free markets, personal responsibility, as well as the ability to spread the word about big government failure have gained an audience of millions, much to the dismay of our would-be regressive overlords.

We also know that in any totalitarian form of government, the control of information is vital.  The elites in power do not want the people questioning their dictates, nor do they want information that displays their failure to be common knowledge.  Both of these weaken the power of the state.  We saw this in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China, and any other nation where the state exerts near total control of the populace.

Of course, regressives would mock these points as some sort of “conspiracy theory.”  However, comparing some notes will show that it does not.

Note 1:  Liberal groups on campus attempt to shut down Conservative Speech.  We’ve long covered the pattern of censorship against Conservatives on campuses across the US.  It is both pervasive and entrenched.  It can go from Conservative speakers being shouted down, to outright death threats and violence against Conservative students. Obviously, the regressives seem to think that it is appropriate and necessary to silence people that disagree with them.

Note 2:  In 2007, John Kerry state the need to return to the fairness doctrine. 

In a radio interview on WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show, excerpted on YouTube, Senator Kerry said he thought the doctrine should return. Calling it one of the “most profound changes in the balance of the media,” he said conservatives have been able to “squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views. I think it has been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public dialog,” he said.

Kerry joins what appears to be a growing Democratic push-back against conservative talk radio, which flowered after the FCC in 1987 declared that the doctrine was unconsititutional. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has called for the doctrine’s return, and Senator Diane Feinstein (9D-Calif,) says she is looking into it.

Note that the video linked in the excerpt has been removed.

While this is typical regressive calls for censorship, we have to laugh at the comment suggesting that NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN were not, and still are not, completely in control of regressives that two the party line.

Note 3:  This past Friday, Kerry called upon the MSM to censor politicians allied with the Tea Parties…

Once again, this is laughable.  At first, the MSM ignored the Tea Party movement.  Then, when they no longer had a choice but to cover it, they spent the next two plus years accusing them of racism, and (insert insult here). Kerry, following the regressive playbook, has repeated the same smug and condescending attitudes in the segment.

Here’s the overall point:  All the above examples show that the regressives are willing to enthusiastically censor or otherwise silence their political    opponents.    Again, with any totalitarian form of government, information must be controlled, and dissent must be silenced.   Some have even suggested that Kerry has reversed himself.  He has not.  The fairness doctrine was about censorship.  His statements from Friday are completely consistent with that same concept of censorship.


The Left Keeps Grasping for a Justification to Censor: Schultz and Sharpton Propose the Latest


I’ve said many times that the “progressives” seek to eliminate dissent by regulating media. Why do I say it? Because they have done it before, via the (un)fairness doctrine. Also, because organizations like Media Matters spend millions of George Soros’s dollars to distort what Conservative personalities say in order to justify muzzling them. We’ve documented, many times, the efforts at floating regulatory schemes designed to silence anyone who disagrees with the “progressive” line. You have to excuse them, it’s like a holy grail to the left.

It seems that Ed Schultz and Reverend Sharpton got together to conspire on how to pull this off. Here is the latest, courtesy of the Daily Caller.

However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t still those who want to see government intervene and regulate the airwaves in a way a Fairness Doctrine would. On MSNBC’s Monday airing of “The ED Show,” host Ed Schultz asked his guest, National Action Network President Al Sharpton, if there should be ways that the Federal Communications Commission could intervene in the wake of the alleged hostile reaction to a California state senator’s proposed boycott of Rush Limbaugh.

How would you anticipate the FCC governing what talkers might say on the air in situations like this?” Schultz said. “Would there be a review board? Would it go — because obviously once the license is given out, they still put talkers on the air. What if they continue to act like that and who would be the judge on what’s over the line?”

Sharpton said Schultz’s suggestions could work and would be appropriate just as profanity is regulated on the airwaves.

I think that they can determine that in public hearings,” Sharpton said. “There could be a review board. There could be a commission. Just as they do when they enforce – you can’t use profanity and other things on the air. There are already standards they have even after they give licenses. This would only include in the existing list of things they set as standards in the first place, particularly given a climate like this.”

Just as a guide to understanding this exchange, remember that any dissent is defined as “hate,” “racism,” “homophobia…” you name it. You don’t actually need to have ever said or done anything offensive. That’s how the narrative works. By distorting reality, they can then justify all sorts of censorship in the name of fighting “hate.” Of course, it is not any hate that you might harbor; it is the hate that they have for your interference with their long dreamt nanny state. For them, the ends justify the means, and if they have to lie, cheat, or steal to get it, so be it.


Apparently, Socialists Are not in Favor of Dissent: Venezuela Jails Two for Twitter Posts


Now, we all know that, according to Sean Penn and Oliver Stone, Hugo Chavez is a really swell guy, and not at all a dictator.  However, reality intervenes and sheds light onto his true nature.  The Washington Times recently published an account of what happens when you disagree with the kindly communist dictator in Venezuela.

In Venezuela, Luis Enrique Acosta Oxford’s ordeal began June 30, when he posted a 120-character piece of financial advice on the popular micro-blogging site Twitter: “Ladies and Gentlemen, don’t say you weren’t warned… Pull out today… I’m telling you, there are just a few days left.” Eight days later, Venezuelan authorities incarcerated Mr. Oxford, 41, and a fellow Twitter user – Carmen Cecilia Nares Castro, 35. A court this week charged them with “disseminating false rumors” on Twitter to “destabilize the banking system.” They were released pending trial and face up to 11 years in prison.

Translation: They warned others, and have to be punished.  That, and given the damage that Chavez has already done to the economy there, warning people of more economic downturns is not prudent, but a crime. In the socialist utopia, the truth is a crime. Here’s some more…

What’s more, Venezuelan authorities have indicated they may pursue similar charges against 15 others. “The assault on free, independent, and critical media in Venezuela has run its course,” said Thor Halvorssen, the Venezuelan-born president of the Human Rights Foundation (HRF), a New York-based nongovernmental organization that monitors human rights conditions in the Americas. “There is little left for the government to do, considering it has used every tool at its disposal to silence dissent,” he said, noting a crackdown on media critical of the government. “This is phase two – going after individuals in private action for simple freedom of expression.” Mr. Halvorssen said the Twitter arrests were carried out to have a “chilling effect.”

Chilling is right.  They want to discourage anyone else from speaking out against Chavez.  Come to think of it, why doesn’t Chavez have his media call anyone who disagrees with him a racist?  Oh, that’s what happens here in the US, my bad.

“What began with the closing of Radio Caracas Television in 2007 and the harassment and closures of other media outlets has now trickled down to the silencing of ordinary citizens,” Mr. Lansberg-Rodriguez said. “These arrests, and the precedent they set, should concern all Venezuelans, regardless of political affiliation.” In March, he openly declared his intent to tighten Web restrictions for other Venezuelans. “The Internet cannot be a completely free space where anything is said and anything is done,” he said. “No, each country must impose its own rules.”

No Mr. Chavez, for you, and your “progressive” cousins here in the US, free speech interferes with your acquisition of power.  People speaking out, sharing ideas, and even worse, exposing your failures, cannot be tolerated.  Here in the US, they are just having the government, the Democratic party, a host of related interest groups, and the MSM marching in lockstep to silence any dissent.  No jails, yet. For commentary from the US Government, let’s turn to Mark Lloyd, Diversity “Czar” at the FCC…

Hmm, I see he’s not really on our side here.  Come to think of it, Cass Sunstein, and even SCOTUS nominee, Elena Kagan have made statements regarding limitations on free speech.  Maybe the White House will be of some help?

Well, their mouthpiece didn’t seem very helpful, especially since what we were talking about back then is actually happening now.  That, and she seemed to be encouraging people to turn in others for saying what we now KNOW to be true. Could it be that there are those in our own government that share the same views as the dictator Chavez? It’s more likely than you think.


It’s All Broken: Congress, Presidency, Courts…


It has been years in the “Breaking” but I think that the official diagnosis is we’re broke, broken, and continuing to break. This opinion comes from the observation that there is “No One” in government that is paying one whit of attention to what the people want and need. As America flips and flops like an oil coated fish gasping for its last breath, government is busy protecting itself. The Republicans are trying to keep the Tea Party from having an effect on the Party and Democrats are looking to tax oil, energy, manufactured goods and anything else they can.

Obama has proven that he has no use for the “Truth” or “America” as we have known it. Even now he hopes to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and fragment the US Military. The military has already advised that this is not the time to address this issue. After all Mr. Obama, who cares what the morale is of the majority of our fighting men and women is as long as you appease those who have decided to honor your promises to? You have made promises to All Americans but as of today you have not kept or have broken all but a few. The only thing I have seen for sure is your “Fundamental Change” of America. We don’t want it.

Arizona has passed a law to get the federal government to act and the only action from that goverment has been ridicule and lies. The administration sticks to its talking points and refuses to engage Arizona’s problem on even the most basic level. Worse yet the problem is not just illegal Mexican Immigrants but rather Millions of Immigrants from every nation on earth who have come on vacation or whatever and never gone home. This includes your garden variety terrorist as well as others who have no investment financially or emotionally in this nation. Still there’s no action from Obama. In fact the only real action that Obama’s folks have taken is for ICE to say they may not take any prisoners that Arizona arrests. How arrogant and unreceptive can a Government be? We might as well be asking for China to give us Tibet. We would stand a much better chance than asking our government to do its job.

It is no wonder that there is an anti-incumbent sentiment in America. The truth is we want you all out of there, including you Mr. Obama, and we can’t get it done fast enough to suit us. In the meantime we are dealt blow after blow of government incompetence, neglect, corruption, and disregard. Worse still we Americans feel our liberties and freedoms being stripped from us. One would think that only an elite few in government and a select group of citizens matter. One would be very close to the truth if “One” thought that.


How I Argue in Person Against Leftists


Since the passage of the Health Care Reform bill, my approach to political discussions has changed in a fundamental way: I no longer allow lies to prevail. My style though, like so many other styles, is unique. First of all, I’m not an overly nice guy, I mean “fake” nice smiling at everything people say. In other words, I’m not a politician. What I do emphasize is two things: respect and factual accuracy. These two basic approaches are devastating to the leftists who tend to base their arguments on gross distortions of the truth and emotional appeals. Here are some examples of how this has worked in practice:

– Discussing education with a teacher, one of her arguments for why education in this country is not doing as well as it should was that this “The US is committed to education for all children of all people to the limit of their capacity. This idea is unique, no other country has had either the vision or the resources to undertake this task.” Note: this is a teacher in charge of teaching our children. As many people know, most if not all industrialized countries in the world have a system of universal education at least from K to 12 with the same “vision,” in fact, all of the countries that rank ahead of ours have such a system. Without facts, this discussion would have been based on a false premise and I would have been at a disadvantage. This underscores the importance of independently researching topics that matter to us as a society. It also shows that our teachers need to be better educated before they infect our children with such drivel.

– Recently, I posted a comment on an article written by a conservative and received an email from a liberal who had a problem with what I wrote. He wrote: “I do not go the a website (i.e Huffington post) to read posts that I agree with….I do not need affirmation of my liberals beliefs…..unlike u dittoheads and Beck worshippers who only seek affirmation of your racist and narrow minded views.” We see here clearly that the liberal uses his oft-repeated accusations of racism and stupidity/ignorance laced with other assumptions. My reply was lengthy and so I won’t post it here, but to paraphrase I explained to him my multiracial background, the fact that I read articles from different perspectives, and I suggested that he practice more of that liberal “tolerance” that they preach before he starts accusing people of things he knows nothing of. At the bottom of my email I wrote “God bless you.” This final part was the most important for various reasons, first of all he seemed very very angry and possibly needed to be reminded that though we may disagree, we don’t have to be nasty. Second, the far Left gets even more incensed when conservatives wish them well or invoke God and I wondered if he was that type. If someone is an ideological enemy, it does not mean that they are our mortal enemy (though often the converse is true) therefore we must remember to retain civility in discussions since this is far more powerful that foaming at the mouth (as they tend to do). Respect your opponent and never underestimate him.

– Discussing an article by Newt Gingrich with a liberal, instead of debating the content of the article he went on attacking Gingrich personally, calling out bullet point after bullet point of why he is a terrible person. Here’s one of his gems:

Considering that he cheated on his wife while she was dying of cancer at the exact same time he was trying to impeach Bill Clinton, I’m betting it’s that he’s a lying sack of shit.

For those paying attention, this accusation is false (his marital problems took place more than a decade earlier) but that won’t stop this guy. Another interesting part is that he, in an episode of projection, called Gingrich’s article “intellectually dishonest.” My reply was “you attack the man not the message, THAT is intellectually dishonest… Shame on you for debating things outside this article.” Only after this, did the liberal realize that he was getting out of hand and promised to “tone it down.” Fortunately, we were eventually able to discuss the actual content only to have him misrepresent data and force me to, again, correct him. This is what many on the Left do, especially the more extreme ones, they choose to sidestep the argument completely in favor of pointing out something distasteful yet unrelated. Whenever you see someone opt for attacking a person or thing related to the topic instead of discussing policy head-on, it shows that either they cannot intelligently discuss policy or have opinions that are based on whether they personally like someone or something, as opposed to analyzing the benefits and risks of the policy in question. Having a clear head, pointing out when they are being cruel or dishonest, and having facts on hand is critical to refuting the near-constant barrage of disinformation that liberals spew during debates.

These are just some of my more recent encounters with the Left, all of them show the shallowness of their arguments and highlight the importance of both respect and factual accuracy when engaging them. On the national scene, this becomes more pressing… but I say that the conservative revolution must be from the bottom-up and in the microcosm that is our everyday lives we must make sure that we blast away the silly leftist ideas every chance we get, but do it with respect so that the liberal can back away with dignity. Who knows, we might even convince a few of them in the process.


Original Post: NeoRepublica


Psychology Today Blogger Channels Psikhushka


One of the many abuses of human rights in the Soviet Union was the use of psychiatric treatment for people that did nothing more than disagree with the state and communist party.  Diagnosed with “Sluggishly Progressing Schizophrenia,” dissidents were subjected to forced treatments, that, when exposed to the world, caused universal condemnation.

Here is a description of the “treatment” of dissidents.

In the Soviet Union, psychiatry was used for punitive purposes. Psychiatric hospitals were often used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally; as such they are considered a form of torture.

The official Soviet psychiatry allegedly abused the diagnosis of sluggishly progressing schizophrenia (??????????? ??????????), a special form of the illness that supposedly affects only the person’s social behavior, with no trace of other traits: “most frequently, ideas about a struggle for truth and justice are formed by personalities with a paranoid structure,” according to the Moscow Serbsky Institute professors (a quote [4] from Vladimir Bukovsky‘s archives). Some of them had high rank in the MVD, such as the infamous Danil Luntz, who was characterized by Viktor Nekipelov as “no better than the criminal doctors who performed inhuman experiments on the prisoners in Nazi concentration camps[4] .

The sane individuals who were diagnosed as mentally ill were sent either to regular psychiatric hospitals or, those deemed particularly dangerous, to special ones, run directly by the MVD. The treatment included various forms of restraint, electric shocks, electromagnetic torture, radiation torture, entrapment, servitude, a range of drugs (such as narcotics, tranquilizers, and insulin) that cause long lasting side effects, and sometimes involved beatings. Nekipelov describes inhuman uses of medical procedures such as lumbar punctures.

At least 365 sane people were treated for “politically defined madness” in the Soviet Union, and there were surely hundreds more [4] .

Note the emphasized section.  People that were concerned with truth and justice were determined to be mentally ill.  How many Americans, therefore, would be diagnosed with “Sluggishly Progressing Schizophrenia?”

Yesterday, Newsbusters discussed a post from Michael Bader, a blogger for Psychology Today.

And now we have a Marxist blogger for Psychology Today who proposes that Tea Party participants suffer from a mental disorder.

These tea-party folks seem to most liberals-well, to most of us who live in the “reality community,” or, as I like to call it, “reality”-like crazy f—ers.

Bader doesn’t hide his outright hate for the tea party folks:

I hate these folks but I also understand them. And, well, uh, I also empathize with them. They share the same psychology as the paranoid patients I treat every day. The only difference is that the paranoid beliefs of the tea-party movement are political while those in my consulting room are of a more personal nature.

So it’s all just a mental disorder, just like what the Soviet dissidents suffered from. Bader then proposes to “understand” the tea partiers…so as to fight them:

I have come to have empathy for the tea-party’ers, even as I despise their influence and work hard to defeat their ideology. It’s crucial that progressives do likewise because if we don’t understand the ways that decent, god-fearing, and victimized people can come to espouse such a dangerous ideology, we won’t be able to fight them effectively.

So then, there must be a fight against freedom?  Liberty is insanity?  Small government is a delusion?  Pointing out what the POTUS says and does is psychosis?  To the left, of course it is.  Truth is irrelevant, and the ends justify the means.

The person who claims that Michael Bader is a Marxist is…Michael Bader as you can read in his biography:

I was always a lefty. My father was the only liberal in a family and community of racist republicans. My older brother went to U.C. Santa Barbara in 1967 and gave an adoring younger brother regular reports from “the front.’  And I went to Berkeley from 1970 to 1976.  ‘Nuff said.

At first, politics for me was all about the New Left, Marxism, and political economy. I was “out-there,” active in various extremist groups, and fully engaged at the same time with the counter-culture.  Eventually, with the decline of the New Left, I gave up being active in the public political world and chose a profession—psychology.  I never gave up my sentiments or beliefs, but couldn’t figure out how to blend them with my work, since I don’t believe that good therapy should have a political agenda in any way.

Ok then.  Note the similarities between the Soviet model of using psychiatry, and what this guy is talking about?  No, I’m not suggesting that the nice young men in the clean white coats are coming to take us  away, but the ideological frame work is in place for such a thing.

This is a man whose ideology clearly taints his professional work.  His hatred for all ideas of individual liberty provide the actual danger here.  It’s thinking like this that leads to the loss of civil liberties, and eventually, the same torture that was perpetuated by the Soviet State.  No, I’m not stating that Mr. Bader is going to start his own “Psikhushka,” and torture people that he disagrees with, but his tone is one that I have heard from the left-one that reserves the right to discount, degrade, and mislabel those who endorse the ideas of individual freedom and limited government.

Again, I’m struck by the irony that the forces of “tolerance and diversity” are so eager to define anyone who disagrees with them as “paranoid”, or is it “Sluggishly Progressing Schizophrenia?”


There is No Debate with the Left- My Confrontation with Mr. Liberal History Teacher


There is no debate with the left- there is submission or opposition which must be submitted. This fact is not just in evidence when our leftist President speaks- Obama in his infamous health care speech said that there is no debate and that he will not tolerate any discussion on the issues. But it isn’t just the President- I think this is an inherent feature of a leftist liberal Democrat- that there is no debate with them, and this reminded me of a recent run in I had with another teacher.

As you are aware, I’m a teacher at a secondary school near Detroit. In my social studies department, which is quite large, we have many teachers, most of them liberals and one or two conservative. Last week I was talking to another teacher, who considers himself to be the guru of history and who’s style of teaching is to let students bathe in his brilliance, and we were talking about methods of teaching history.

So I said to this liberal teacher- “So what method of history do you focus on when you teach? Do you subscribe to the regressive model, where the past was a romantic perfect world and we have fallen? Or do you subscribe to the progressive model, where in the past man was less evolved and intelligent but as we progress in the future man gets better? Or are you perhaps a fan of the Great Man Theory, where history is shaped by great individuals?”

To be perfectly honest, I already knew what sort of method Mr. Liberal History Teacher taught in his classroom- he believed that history was a conflict, and out of these conflicts man moves forward. Typically in his class he would present a conflict, talk about the response to the conflict, and then teach about how the tension between the two was resolved. The key conflicts that he focused on was the conflict between classes. He also likes to focus in his classes on how the minority groups dominate or exploit the working class and the importance of revolution. In a nutshell, he is a Marxist. I already knew this, but he answer as to what sort of method he taught in surprised me.

“There are no different methods of teaching history,” the liberal teacher said, “There is no politics in history- the only possible way that history can be taught is as the progress of the workers against capitalism. You can not teach about wars. Do not teach about religion. You are not to teach about free market economics. There can be no debate on this if you are to teach history.”

This surprised me, so I said “That sounds to me like a method of teaching history, one that is kind of political in nature.”

“It is not political in any way- it is the way that history is to be taught. There is to be no debate on this, and no discussion on this. The only way that history can really be taught is this way- if you do teach about wars, religion, economics, freedom, liberty, property rights, or other concepts like that, you are politicizing the issue. Don’t make history a political game- teach it like I do,” he said- which meant teach it like a Marxist.

It was the way he said this that bothered me. I switched the subject and moved past it, but it took him a while to let go of his belief that there was only one way to teach history, the Marxist way, and that any debate or discussion about methods was wrong and a game that I was playing to score political points. Then when I watched Obama’s speech on healthcare and heard him accuse Republicans of playing games and say that there was to be no debate on the issue, and it hit me- for liberals there can be no discussion or debate on issues, only submission to them.

Liberals want you to submit to their authority. Sadly, liberal teachers believe this is their job- to stop debate and discussion and use their classrooms to make you submit to their authority and buy their version of events in the world. In my classroom, there is intelligent discussion, lively debate, questions posed and asked, and different views and methods presented. It is a lively room, where a conservative teacher teaches students how to think, read, write, and do well in life and on tests. In his classroom, there is one view presented, and students are driven to subscribe to that view by a liberal teacher who teaches students to submit and grovel before his brilliance.

This is what is happening in schools today, in little ways and big ways, and although it might scare you, it is important for you to hear stories like this from a teacher like me, who battles every day in the trenches to advance the principles of liberty and freedom.

Originally posted at the Conservative Teacher.


ClimateGate: Wikipedia’s Role


Nowadays, when you go to Wikipedia, you see an appeal from Jim Wales for money.  Here’s why you shouldn’t give them a dime.

One of the controversial issues with the AGW crowd is the Medieval Warm Period.  From approximately 1000-1400 AD (the exact years are open to debate), the Earth’s climate warmed considerably, perhaps even warmer than today.  Greenland actually earned it’s name during this time, and some of the best wine was made in what is today the UK (The grapes won’t grow there, even now).  Populations rose, crops were plentiful, and the life span increased.  The warm period was followed by what is known as the Little Ice Age, a period of great cold, including a “year without a summer, “ in 1816.

The Medieval Warm Period poses a problem for the AGW crowd.  There was radical warming, to perhaps a degree greater than (allegedly) seen now, but there were none of the following:

  1. Coal or petroleum in any significant use.
  2. Cars, or worse, SUVs
  3. Power plants of any kind
  4. Aircraft
  5. Large, power-hungry flat screens
  6. Raging droughts
  7. Horrific hurricanes
  8. Continents being swallowed by the seas
  9. Mass hysteria, starvation, or other related death

Hence, since this does not at all go along with AGW theory that humans cause the earth to warm, and that the Earth being warmer is a tragedy, history must be re-written.  This is where the ClimateGate scientists come in.  Here are excerpts from a very comprehensive article on the subject.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

But the Medieval Warm Period was not so great for some humans in our own time — the same small band that believes the planet has now entered an unprecedented and dangerous warm period. As we now know from the Climategate Emails, this band saw the Medieval Warm Period as an enormous obstacle in their mission of spreading the word about global warming. If temperatures were warmer 1,000 years ago than today, the Climategate Emails explain in detail, their message that we now live in the warmest of all possible times would be undermined. As put by one band member, a Briton named Folland at the Hadley Centre, a Medieval Warm Period “dilutes the message rather significantly.”

Even before the Climategate Emails came to light, the problem posed by the Medieval Warm Period to this band was known. “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” read a pre-Climategate email, circa 1995, as attested to at hearings of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. But the Climategate transcripts were more extensive and more illuminating — they provided an unvarnished look at the struggles that the climate practitioners underwent before settling on their scientific dogma.

But the UN’s official verdict that the Medieval Warm Period had not existed did not erase the countless schoolbooks, encyclopedias, and other scholarly sources that claimed it had. Rewriting those would take decades, time that the band members didn’t have if they were to save the globe from warming.

Instead, the band members turned to their friends in the media and to the blogosphere, creating a website called “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds” in aid of “combating dis-information,” one email explained, referring to criticisms of the hockey stick and anything else suggesting that temperatures today were not the hottest in recorded time. One person in the nine-member team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

So, this is so typical of the left.  When history is inconvenient, they try to make it disappear down the memory hole.  It’s not so easy now, is it?  Especially since we are around to archive things and are able to write about them.  It’s just another example of the complete fraud that is AGW, and the unethical efforts of it’s supporters.

This is also a result of the blessing, and curse, that are the operations of Wikipedia. Since the MediaWiki software is available to anyone (I could create a wiki here in 20 minutes if I so wanted), and anyone can contribute,  it’s pretty simple to create an online encyclopedia.  As such, Wikipedia has grown to be the largest on-line encyclopedia.  There are articles on just about anything available, and millions of people use it on a regular basis.

But therein lies the curse.  Fraud can be rampant.  I could go on Wikipedia tomorrow, and make subtle changes to articles, or wholesale re-writes.  I wouldn’t even have to know anything about the topic at hand! I could re-write just about anything, but not on the Medieval Warm Period.  That article, at the time of this writing, is locked…by a man that is allied with the ClimateGate scientists.

I think I’m done using Wikipedia.