The latest stooge to run the Democrat “Department of Just Us.”
October 7, 2021 WarOnPress
Americans are learning a painful lesson about what the Democrats count as “SCOTUS material.” Barack Obama and his accomplices were so eager to corrupt the SCOTUS with one of the most ghoulish of extreme left operatives, they even asked the Patron Saint of lefty justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to step out to make way a Garland replacement.
When she refused, the Democrats went straight to an apparent “plan B” of “wet works.” After Obama dissed his victim Scalia and refused to even attend his funeral, he got right to work with intense pressure on Congress and the Senate to replace the corpse they buried with the Frankenstein of their making.
Whereas conservatives were duly skeptical based upon the clear desperation of the most suspicious of hard left politicians to robe up their ghoulish Garland, we’d all have to wait until years later and the other side of a stolen election to see the true beastly nature of leftism incarnate.
And now with his help, the same Democrats who doled out huge payouts to their proxy army of BLM, Antifa and ISIS, have declared the concerned American parents as “terrorists.” Here the great Senator Tom Cruz calls out another accomplice for the astounding hypocrisy.
Since our Recipe for Parkland Shooting was published we’ve yet to encounter any serious minded exploration by any proponent of gun control of the “8 Ingredients” we enumerated and detailed.
One would think that if the parties that routinely invoke the horrible memory of that day might take themselves seriously enough to examine the combination of factors that led to the Parkland Shooting and that will invariably present as factors in the inevitable “next time.” And yet, today, none have taken up the challenge.
There’s not a problem the left won’t try to “solve” without destructive legislation and policy. “McMarxism,” is the wildly flawed ideology promoted by sinister politicians and their corporate masters with an appeal to the most naive and base of the “entitled.”
Whereas Democrat policy appeals to the least fit and lowest common denominator, there’s more to the makeup of their party than just the super low IQ and low information handout voters that make up the fattest section of their party’s curve. These include the unwashed hoards they invite to build up their numbers which, by their open borders policies are most attractive to those who can neither read nor write in their own language.
Thanks to school by Zoom, parents are often treated to samples of what’s happening in their child’s classroom. Whereas I would expect a fair amount of leftward bias and propagandizing, today I noticed some odd business that inspired me to write the following letter to a teacher which I may or may not send.
Dear Mrs. Teacher,
I realize that curriculum isn’t prepared by individual teachers, but it’s my hope that the discussion of “feedback vs. criticism” could be given a fresh look.
In a lesson given to my child, “feedback” and “criticism” are being taught as alternatives. The students are being instructive to see “feedback” as a replacement word for what was previously taught as “constructive criticism.” Assuming we want our children to understand language, the definition of words, and some logical thinking, this misses the mark.
Treating “feedback” and “criticism” as mutually exclusive forms of communication is simply incorrect. Whereas “feedback” can be used as a softer word for “criticism” of any form, and might “imply” that it’s delivered in a friendly and encouraging manner, “feedback” is a superset and criticism comes in different forms, ranging from constructive, neutral and destructive, and these are all forms of “Feedback.”
Furthermore, contrary to what’s implied in the California curriculum instruction, “feedback” can include raw praise which isn’t synonymous with “constructive criticism” nor any other sort. For example, “I really love the way you draw!” is a form of feedback, that is a subset called “praise,” and thus mutually exclusive from the other variety of feedback we’d count as criticism.
The way this is being taught is clearly devised to cause students to reconsider how they present critique to others, which is nice. But it suggests that the person offering feedback, (in one of its many forms,) has all the power, and responsibility.*
Under the brand, “Legal Eagle,” one Devin James Stone takes seemingly sensible legal advice to YouTube on a variety of practical legal questions, and some of these contributions are arguably quite useful.