The Christian case for Trump

By Mark Landsbaum

The world spends a lot of effort persuading people that evil is really something good: the killing of babies in the womb, engaging in sexual perversion, confiscating of what belongs to someone to give to someone it doesn’t belong to.  These are all evil acts — unless you ask the worldly.

But the Evil One is even more insidious.  He also ironically manipulates good people’s fear of embracing evil.  A handful of Christian friends, among those who receive a weekly Bible study I write, have announced they cannot vote for Donald Trump.  Their bottom-line objection is that a Christian shouldn’t vote for such an unpleasant, some say despicable person.

The irony of their self-righteousness apparently is lost on these friends.  I confess to having had similar reservations four years ago.  But as the election neared, I decided that impetuousness and obnoxiousness were a better bet than a proven criminal who would unashamedly advance outright evil, such as baby-killing.  Time has shown that I gambled right.

Donald Trump has done more for the cause of life, for religious liberty, for improved economic conditions of people of all races, for law and order, for ratcheting down overbearing government, for easing tax and regulation burdens and a host of other good things than any president in my lifetime.  Even Ronald Reagan.

It’s understandable that people are put off by the prospect of having to choose “the lesser evil.”  But that’s the wrong way to frame the choices.

Every candidate falls short of the glory of God.  The choice is, and always is, which candidate will do more good.  That choice in November is obvious, especially given Trump’s track record and the threatening promises of his opponent to renew Barack Obama’s destructive transformation of America.

For my Christian brethren, who are considering voting for Trump’s opponent or not voting at all, I add to my prayers this reminder.  Throughout history God has used people to do great things even to be His own disciples whom the self-righteous wouldn’t have chosen.  As the apostle wrote:

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.  But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;  God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,  so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (1 Corinthian 1:26-29)

If that is not sufficient reminder, consider the roster of the Christian faith hall of fame, as it were, as enumerated in Hebrews 11:32.  Christian author Gary DeMar reminds us that this is a list of bad guys that probably no political party would have nominated for dogcatcher.  But God chose them. 

  • Gideon (an idolater)
  • Barak (a coward)
  • Samson (a womanizer far worse than JFK and Bill Clinton)
  • Jephthah (son of a prostitute, who “lived with a gang of scoundrels,” and made a reckless vow that cost his daughter her life)
  • Samuel (a terrible father who raised evil sons)
  • David (an adulterer and murderer)

As has been the case for several election cycles now, this vote comes at a pivotal time for the nation.  Americans have clear-cut alternatives: big, invasive, dictating government that will advance actual evil (see their party’s platform).  Or voters can choose a continuation of the liberties and blessings delivered by a too-often abrasive and obnoxious president, who already has shown what great good he can deliver.

Donald Trump is a fallen sinner like Gideon, David, Samuel, and the rest of us.  But his track record is proof that he is clearly the better choice.  This should be clear even for those of us inhibited by self-righteousness.

As one of my favorite Bible study leaders frequently reminds us, “Get over it.  Do the right thing.”

Let’s not forget he is not a politician, but a genuine leader a real, executive. The office of the president is called the executive office.

Stop Infantilizing African Americans

By Lipton Matthews

All too often, the message conveyed by media, academia, and government is that African Americans are incapable of expressing agency. Policy wonks never discuss a Jewish, Asian, or white agenda, because these groups are deemed sufficiently competent to solve their own problems. Few recognize the covert racism of attempts to “assist” African Africans. Economic freedom, for example, does not feature prominently in the liberal quest to ameliorate the conditions of American blacks, because it does not fit the agenda. We are told that there is something inherently fragile about African Americans, making them perpetual victims. 

Many have espoused the subtle racism of the Black Lives Movement, without recognizing an effort to infantilize African Americans. African Americans possess the foresight and talent to uplift themselves from the trenches without the benevolence of the state. Abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood this quite clearly even in the nineteenth century. In an address to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in 1865, Douglass noted everybody had asked, “What should we do with the Negro?” Douglass remarked: “I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall… And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!”

Perhaps we need to be reminded of the strides African Americans made in creating self-sufficient communities before the Great Society. Residing in an environment rampant with racism and actual structural barriers, the African American community attained phenomenal success in improving social welfare. During, the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century, African Americans were pioneers in chartering self-help societies. “The popularity of the fraternal society among African Americans rivaled, and often exceeded, that among immigrants,” writes historian David T. Beito in his essay, “Mutual Aid for Social Welfare: The Case of American Fraternal Societies.” “Unlike their white counterparts, African American secret societies were more likely to offer formal life and sickness insurance as well as informal mutual aid. In 1919, the Illinois Health Insurance Commission estimated that 93.5 percent of the African American families in Chicago had at least one member with life insurance. African Americans were the most highly insured ethnic group in the city.”

Some reformers automatically assume that more government programs can reduce poverty in the African American community. Yet the evidence shows that such initiatives not only sap individual efforts but also crowd out nongovernmental actors necessary for fostering trust and social capital in communities. Private welfare allows people to develop relationships in their communities, thereby creating long-lasting networks that are often useful in other aspects of life such as business and professional relationships. In detailing the pernicious effects of welfare, economist Assar Lindbeck notes that “generous welfare-state arrangements in Western Europe are, therefore, an important explanation for the limited per capita hours of work in that part of the world. As a comparison, per capita hours of work (per year) in the United States are between 30 and 50 percent higher than in Western Europe.”

Furthermore, history informs us that when African Americans are provided with the freedom to participate in the economy their community thrives. Professor Loren Schweninger has furnished a surplus of data chronicling the rise of African American entrepreneurs in the South, during the late eighteenth century. He sharply illustrates the success of African American entrepreneurs in an environment of hostile racism: “Despite the anti-free black sentiment among some whites, free Negroes in the region entered a variety of business pursuits. In towns and cities, they became builders, mechanics, tradesmen, grocers, restaurateurs, tailors, merchants, and barbers. Even during the American Revolution, a small group of skilled artisans and craftsmen had emerged in Charleston, South Carolina. By the 1790s, several had built up thriving businesses, especially in the furniture and building trades. Housebuilder and carpenter James Mitchell, who for many years lived above his shop, had become so prosperous by 1797 that he sought to rent a six-room house with stables and outbuildings.”

Even in the presence of deep-seated racism, African Americans are indeed capable of functioning on their own. Maverick economist Thomas Sowell promulgates this argument in his book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? Sowell argues that the number of blacks in high-level professions more than doubled between 1954 and 1964, whereas their advancement in other types of occupations was astounding in the 1940s, before the apex of the civil rights revolutions, than in the 1950s, when the civil rights movement was in its heyday.

Helping African Americans means creating an environment where they can unleash their entrepreneurial abilities. A major impediment to economic empowerment in the black community is occupational licensing. Matthew D. Mitchell of the Mercatus Center reports that “the licensing of barbers reduces the probability of a black individual working as a barber by 17.3 percent.” States like Florida and Pennsylvania have successfully embarked on major reforms to reduce the impact of occupational licensing requirements on employment prospects. Similarly supporting educational freedom by promoting school choice in the form of charter schools, for example, is a proven strategy to boost the performance of African American students. Studies show that African American charter school students outperform their peers in the public-school system, but they are consistently berated by leftists as agents of racism. Notwithstanding the reverence for government handouts on the left, the truth is that the government can only empower African Americans by offering them the freedom to fail or succeed as individuals. 

Why It Should Matter that Kamala Harris Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

By Mark A. Hewitt

If the media were to ask President Trump, “Are you a natural born citizen?,” he would probably respond with, “My father, an American citizen, Fred Trump, was born in New York City, and my mother, Mary Anne, was born in Scotland and became a naturalized American citizen in March 1942.  I was born in Queens in 1946.  Yes, I am a natural born citizen.” 

When Kamala Harris was asked the same question, her response was anfractuous and curious: “Look, I’m very clear-eyed about the fact that they are going to engage, as you said, in what they have done throughout this administration, which is just, let’s just be very candid and straightforward, they’re going to engage in lies, they’re going to engage in deception, they’re going to engage in an attempt to distract from the real issues that are impacting the American people.”

In other words, “No.”

If you are constitutionally eligible, what is the harm in laying out a response?  “Mom and dad were both American citizens.”    

But Senator Harris would rather engage in actions to circumvent the U.S. Constitution over articulating her ineligibility.

If you listened to the media, you would think there is no definition anywhere of “natural born citizen.”  The media assert that the clause “natural born citizen” isn’t defined anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.  But the media hide the fact that “natural born citizen” was specifically defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790

Here is the law and the wording.  Congress’s first act concerning citizenship, the Naturalization Act of 1790, provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens” (Act of March 26, 1790. 1 Stat. pages 103, 104 [emphasis added]).

Let’s be clear because this is important: the Naturalization Act of 1790 unambiguously defined that children of citizens of the United States shall be considered natural born citizens irrespective of where they are born.  Children of citizens of the United States may be born beyond the sea, out of the limits of the United States.  It doesn’t matter.  Being a natural born citizen has nothing to do with where you are born but strictly to whom you are born — as long as it’s to American citizens.  This is the media’s and the Democrat Party’s great lie going on twelve years now.  There are many ways to become a U.S. citizen, but if you are to seek the office of the president (or the vice president), you must be a child born of American parents. 

And it was so blindingly obvious and repetitive that children of citizens of the United States shall be considered natural born citizens irrespective of where they are born that Congress removed the wording during the replacement Naturalization Act of 1795.  What else can it be?  For over 200 years, no one had any questions about what was meant by natural born citizen until despicable and reprehensible lawyers claimed that the Constitution was wrong or discriminatory in order to disqualify Republican presidential candidates who were born abroad to American parents, such as Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, George Romney, and Christian D. Herter. 

And now, when the political foot is well on the other side of the aisle, now any challenge is considered a “distraction.”

What we see is that when there is an obvious case of ineligibility and the media’s chosen candidate is a Democrat, such as Barack Obama (father was a British subject, a Kenyan national, on a student visa and was never a naturalized citizen) or Kamala Harris (mother and father both born abroad; one naturalized citizen at the time of birth), the media freak out, attack, and smear Republicans.  Instead of acknowledging they are not natural born citizens or seeking to resolve the issue in a court of law, they choose to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

That is what all this media-driven red herring birtherism nonsense has been about — not place of birth on birth certificates, but, two lines down, the nationality of parents who are not American citizens whose children wish to run for the office of the president (or vice president). 

How did we get to this place?  In 2020?  This is unadulterated media malfeasance.  They act like three year-olds caught stealing candy.  They could have been adults and reported the law and the facts but chose not to. 

Up until the 2008 election, every previous presidential candidate knew the constitutional requirements, but only Barack Obama chose to circumvent the Constitution.  Emboldened by Obama’s successful run at the White House, Senator Harris is making a go.  Good luck, Kamala.  It will not work this time.

The Founders were sensitive to foreign influence in the new government.  The natural born citizen requirement for presidents has always been about erecting a barrier against foreign powers scheming a way into our government. 

This is a topic that will not ever go away.  The left rejects the Constitution and will keep throwing ineligible candidates for high office for as long as it takes to have a president who can shred the Constitution. 

The Federalist Papers made it clear.  The below is from No. 68, The Mode of Electing the President, from the New York Packet, Friday, March 14, 1788.  (My emphasis.)

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.  These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

A reasonable, intelligent person who isn’t committed to deceiving the American people should have little problem recognizing the spirit and intent of the definition of “natural born citizen.”  Liberal lawyers writing in law reviews and their friends in the media have always attacked the Constitution as faulty, and they cite the law and references that support their twisted view of a fairly straightforward topic. 

The U.S. Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 cite multiple instances of “natural born citizen” and make clear the Framers’ connotation and intent: that children of citizens of the United States shall be considered natural born citizens irrespective of where they are born. 

It is a lie of the left that the natural born citizen clause is ambiguous.

Even if they do any research, the left will fail to cite the letter predating the appearance of the phrase in the Committee of Eleven report, when John Jay wrote to George Washington (The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, page 61):

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise … to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the american (sic) army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.

The Jay letter is consistent with Hamilton in Federalist 68; some have assumed the Jay letter to be the source of the phrase in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  The only firm conclusions that may be drawn from Hamilton and Jay is that it was in the interest of the new government to keep foreigners away from the presidency and that the president and commander in chief should be a natural born citizen.

I do not see any ambiguity; the president must not be born of a parent of a foreign power and need not be native born, but must be born of American citizens.  To be a natural born citizen, it doesn’t matter where you are born as long as your parents are American citizens.

A Pandemic of Socialism

By Anthony J. Ciani

In mid-March of 2020, the United States of America became a socialist country, despite President Trump’s promise in his State of the Union address one year prior.  To those who lost their non-essential jobs, those who met empty shelves, those who discovered that their “free” education was too costly, those driven insane by incessant fear-mongering, and those faced with capricious and nonsensical restrictions — welcome to socialism.  Deceived by the arrogance of science and appeal to authority, or perhaps with false science to mask nefarious motives, public health and safety were used as a contrivance to replace liberty, freedom, and democracy with the Game of Socialism, in which (elected) tyrants play with our lives.  Do health and safety trump liberty and freedom, and must we sacrifice one for the other?

The Constitution of the United States provides for no limitation of our liberty, freedom, or democracy in an emergency.  Is this because our Founding Fathers had never heard of the Black Death (1347, multiple) or the Great Plague of Marseille (1720) or the Yellow Fever from the Caribbean (1793) or smallpox (vaccine 1770)?  Why, then, did they limit powers in the face of such great calamities?

Absent such powers, the federal government cannot take advantage of panic, real or contrived, to tyrannize the states or the people, and with the 9th and 14th Amendments, neither can the states (or cities) tyrannize their people.  The protections of our Constitution have been eroded over the last century by a crisis culture that has people abandoning liberty for (illusory) safety, as notes Robert Higgs,

But if the dominant ideology does not give strong support to the Normal Constitution, it will eventually be overwhelmed by the Crisis Constitution.  Step by step, a ratcheting loss of rights will attend each episode of national emergency.  And we may as well admit that such emergencies are inevitable.

But without that “Crisis Constitution,” how can government keep us safe from disease?  There is no scientific study demonstrating that liberty and freedom are required to spread disease, although there are works of assumptions masquerading as such.  To the contrary, a 2001 study published by George Washington University and Johns Hopkins University recommends against large-scale quarantine, isolation, and other liberty-infringing actions in favor of informed individual action.  One finding is particularly interesting:

During the past century in the United States, professional medical and public health familiarity with the practice of quarantine has faded.  A review of the medical literature found no largescale human quarantine implemented within US borders during the past 8 decades.

The 1918 “flu” pandemic has been largely compared to COVID-19.  Just like with COVID-19, wide-spread quarantine and isolation were implemented.  While many modern public health experts credit the quarantine with saving lives, one article noted:

Despite high mortality rates and the need for increased appropriations, the 1918 pandemic failed to stimulate extensive influenza research or a dramatic increase in permanent funds for PHS. … [Surgeon General] Blue’s appeal for a permanent mechanism to prevent and control diseases such as influenza was quickly forgotten as postwar America sought to heal its war wounds and seek a return to “normalcy.”

During experiments with the 1918 influenza virus in 1931, Shope showed that it was a mild infection; indeed, its progeny are still with us.  “Flu” often appears in quotes among medical writings, indicating it as an incorrect term.  Shope showed that the 1918 disease was likely two separate infections: viral influenza followed by bacterial pneumonia caused by Haemophilus influenzae (the “flu”).  Modern research has shown that oxidative stress and immune depletion after a viral respiratory infection open the way for bacterial pneumonia.  Perhaps you have noticed increased sensitivity to allergens or irritants after a cold?  There is nothing novel about 2019-nCoV; many common viruses do the exact same thing.

So how did a mild influenza turn into a “flu” pandemic, and why did the country abandon mass quarantine and isolation?

The National Archives hosts documents related to the 1918 pandemic, including letters from nurses and doctors.  A letter from Dr. D.A. Richardson describes the two distinct stages.  The first is “influenza proper,” from which the patient recovers in four days.  While convalescing during the required (and unnecessary) ten-day quarantine in hospitals filled with pneumoniacs, the victims caught pneumonia and died of the “flu.”  The 1918 pandemic was secondary, hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia spread in quarantine.  They made the (healthy) patients wear masks, which probably caused something akin to ventilator-associated pneumonia.  If patients recovering from influenza proper were instead sent home to recuperate in fresh air, sans mask, they probably would have lived, and 1918 would have been unremarkable.

The quarantine, isolation, and mask-wearing failed to diminish the spread of the influenza.  Instead, the practices likely increased fatality and had disastrous economic consequences.  The medical policy of 1918 was contrary to the medical science of 1918, and the destructive practices of quarantine, isolation, and mask-wearing were largely abandoned.  The United States embraced socialism in the first half of the 20th century, and the pain sent us running back to freedom and liberty in the 1950s and 1960s, until 100 years later, when socialists once again abandoned medical science in favor of panic and socialist policy.

The parallels between 1918 and 2020 are extreme.  The mass isolation and quarantine had no effect on 2019-nCoV and ruined our economy.  The mass quarantine of the most vulnerable into nursing homes and the use of mechanical ventilators with their high occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (1.5% per day) led to over 60% of the deaths, otherwise 2019-nCoV is far from the mass murderer it was hyped to be.  Why quarantine and intubation?  Medicare cut reimbursement for non-invasive ventilators, and Congress rewarded the use of ventilators on (presumed) COVID patients and their deaths.  Socialist medicine transforms doctors into highly paid executioners of the elderly, weak, and infirm.

You say these were just mistakes of science and implementation?  Under “ideal” socialism, the restriction of liberty is still valid?  Perhaps mistakes, but an argument over science trumping liberty is a red herring.  Lives versus lives is part of the Game of Socialism, which ignores the possibility that liberty is necessary for the public good — rather, dismisses it.

Social media trolling and unethical reporting exaggerated a cold into a plague, and socialist health and safety advocates panicked the world into surrendering liberty and implementing socialism.  All of the damage attributed to COVID-19 was instead caused by the socialism meant to protect us.  COVID-19 is a pandemic of socialism.

America has always favored strong political leaders and rejected the weak.  We need ballsy politicians to confront the socialist nonsense masquerading as health and safety.  Elect Biden, who embraces health and safety, and the socialists pulling his strings will abuse the “Crisis Constitution” to give us COVID-19 every day.

K–12: Ten Lies Teachers Tell You

By Bruce Deitrick Price series #7

May 4, 2020

Hopefully, no one will forget our debt to Rudolf Flesch.  He was a great man with a great mind.

Almost forty years ago, Flesch published Why Johnny STILL Can’t Read, wherein he continued his crusade against Whole Word (AKA Whole Language, Sight-Words, and other aliases).  In this book, Flesch attacked the Education Establishment and its counterfeit merchandise in a unique way.  He pointed out that all the things the professors assert most loudly and proudly are nothing but alibis — a polite way of saying lies.

Has there ever been a field, in all of human history, that could be best defined by its alibis and lies?  And not just a few of them.  There are ten big ones.  Identifying and illuminating them are where Flesch’s genius shone.

Our Education Establishment, in its dedication to falsity, is almost superhuman.  After all these years, these people are still pushing the same inferior theories and methods.  Their gimmicks are disproven by almost all research and experience.  These faux reading experts can do nothing but build a case on lies.

The Education Establishment tells these lies because its partisans know that the public wants desperately to believe they are true.  The educrats are happy to let you have your illusions, as these are the intellectual basis for their dumbing down of America.

The first lie is “Everything Is Hunky-Dory.”  Isn’t that comforting and reassuring?  Parents with kids who can hardly read a word are naturally worried and nervous.  Teachers, in many different ways, are trained to say everything is perfect, your child is on track to be a lifelong reader, don’t worry.

The next lie is “We Do Teach Phonics.”  The context here is that parents hear how other schools teach reading and ask teachers, What about phonics?  Sometimes the teachers will claim that phonics doesn’t work.  But the parents might know more than the teachers.  Then it’s simpler to say, Of course we teach phonics.  The professors might concoct debased versions of phonics (e.g., intrinsic or analytic), or they cripple phonics with counterproductive details, so children get phonics in name only.

Another way to undermine the claimed superiority of phonics is to say, “No One Method Is Best.”  Probably this lie has been uttered billions of times because it’s handy in so many situations.  If parents have a good argument for anything, the teacher dismisses it by creating a promiscuous justification for everything else.

The next lie is used like a flamethrower throughout the reading wars.  Professors of education disdainfully sneer that phonics is a moot point, as “English Isn’t Phonetic.”  Flesch did his own calculations and concluded that English is about 97% phonetic.  Other experts suggest similar or higher numbers.  But every English word, even if irregular, is still phonetic.  You would need a word like XY4Z, pronounced “sailboat,” to have genuinely non-phonetic language.  English has nothing like that, and the professors know it.

Notice, by the way, how simple and comforting these ten lies are.  They are all in the great tradition of “the check is in the mail” and “I’ll still love you in the morning.”  There’s no way to look at the verbiage and know whether it’s a lie.  You have to depend on the speaker’s honesty.  Good luck in K–12.

This next one is sick: “Word Calling Isn’t Reading.”  A version of this claims that when children read successfully what’s on the page, it’s not reading; it’s only “barking at print.”  In other words, your kid, the best reader in his class, is only a dog.  Reading words quickly off the page is precisely the first step toward real literacy.  That’s why the professors try to stop it with this silly sophistry.  Note that if adults read a paragraph by Hegel or Heidegger, they might not be able to explain precisely what the gnarly philosophers mean.  Don’t make a sophistry out of less than perfect comprehension.

Your Child Isn’t Ready” is what school officials tell parents if a child is less than literate.  This tricks the parents into backing off and waiting a few years.  A simple lie buys time, maybe several years during which the child might learn nothing at all.

“Your Child Is Disabled” means there is some problem in the kid’s brain, not in the school’s approach.  Again, this lie buys time, provides an endless alibi for malpractice, and takes everyone’s mind off the real instructional problems in our elementary schools.  For example, a diagnosis of dyslexia is the all-purpose explanation for bad readers.  As the Church Lady says, “How convenient.”

“It’s the Parents’ Fault.”  As soon as Sight-Words were introduced and children began to falter, psychiatrists came up with convoluted ways to blame the parents — obviously, they were irresponsible, alcoholic, fighting in the home, abusing the children, not preparing a wholesome home environment, not treating the medical problems which children most likely have, ad nauseam.

“Too Much TV” is a common excuse.  Flesch decided that many kids are watching TV not because they really want to, but because nobody taught them how to read. 

“We Now Teach All Children” suggested a racist explanation for schools failing.  School officials point out that lots of minorities are in the schools now, and they can’t handle real literacy, so averages will fall. 

The ten alibis/lies are still the essence of how the Education Establishment created an artificial reading crisis.  Happily, it’s easy to fix.  Get rid of Sight-Words.  Make phonics the default method for reading instruction.

Bruce Deitrick Price’s new book is Saving K–12: What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them?  Price deconstructs educational methods at

The only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction

Number 6 in our series on “the Indoctrination of our Public Schools.”

May 04, 2020  Opinion

Pulitzer malpractice: Apparently, willful error can now win you the most elite prize in journalism. Mike Vitelli/ for The New York Times

As it was designed to do, The New York Times’ woefully mistaken 1619 Project just won a Pulitzer Prize. Worse, the award for commentary actually went to Nichole Hannah-Jones for her essay introducing the series — that is, to the article that brought the most sustained criticism from historians across the spectrum for its naked errors of fact.

The project’s central conceit is that “out of slavery grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might, its industrial power, its electoral system.” Hannah-Jones even argued that the main reason American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery — a claim so contrary to the truth that the Times eventually corrected that part of her essay, though only to add two words: Now it says “some of” the founders fought chiefly for that reason.

It’s still not true — and the experts she consulted told her so. Leslie M. Harris, a black history prof at Northwestern, says she warned Hannah-Jones: “Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies.”

Apparently, willful error can now win you the most elite prize in journalism.

Nor was that her only distortion. Hannah-Jones also claims that President Abraham Lincoln “opposed black equality.” As part of The Post’s weeklong Twisted History series on the 1619 Project, historian Allen Guelzo pointed out that that Lincoln called for black voting rights and was hailed by Frederick Douglass as “emphatically the colored man’s president.”

But Hannah-Jones’ project barely mentions Douglass — a giant of 19th century America — or other great black freedom fighters. Even the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the entire civil-rights movement get short shrift because they contradict her thesis.

Slavery and Jim Crow are tremendous stains on America’s history. But Hannah-Jones took it far beyond that, insisting that they are the nation’s essence. That’s why the country’s top US history scholars — Princeton’s Sean Wilentz and James McPherson, Brown’s Gordon Wood, CUNY’s James Oakes — united to denounce Hannah-Jones’ core claims.   Too bad the Pulitzer committee now thinks that facts are irrelevant to journalism.                                            New York Post (Original link)

The Toxic Influence of Progressive Education Schools on K-12 Curricula

This is post # 5 in this series

By Chuck Rogér

In the 1960s, America’s education schools began conditioning teachers to peddle impossible social and economic theories to captive human sponges in K-12 classrooms.  Since then, teachers taken in by progressive indoctrination have been planting fallacies in students’ minds using a pernicious device: the “deconstruction” of reality.

Deconstruction aims to disassemble traditional Western culture and replace that culture with a collectivist utopia operated under rules set by the deconstructors.  Between Inauguration Day 2009 and the January 2011 GOP House takeover, a congressional wrecking crew led by President Barack Obama did an amazing amount of deconstructing.

The ouster of much of the wrecking crew in last November’s election was a small step toward stopping America’s descent into a utopian hell.  But it is the 2008 election of a full-bore statist and the statist’s still decent approval rating which suggest that too many Americans embrace socialist-collectivist promises.  Such naïveté and ignorance of socialism’s miserable track record are stunning.

Though naïveté will always afflict some people, ignorance can be corrected by objective education and heightened awareness.  One thing is certain.  The nonstop flow of pre-primed, left-indoctrinated university graduates must be stopped, which means that the K-12 education system which feeds the universities must be rehabilitated.

Cleaning up K-12 requires understanding how schools devolved into left-wing ideology centers.

Starting in the 1960s, academics took heightened interest in Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s cultural Marxism.  Members of the political class glommed onto the resulting “social justice,” affirmative action, “diversity,” multiculturalism, political correctness, and other malignancies spawned by cultural Marxism.  Progressive politicians came to view society as a hodge-podge of racial, ethnic, gender-based, and now also sexual orientation-based groups locked in zero-sum combat with Western whites.

Generally speaking, cultural Marxism’s indoctrinees have learned to view morality and knowledge as “constructs” and social and economic power as commodities to be transferred from “oppressor” to “oppressed.”  Progressives routinely label minorities as oppressed and anything that benefits minorities as moral. Such thinking dominates the Democrat party platform.

In embracing Western middle class deconstruction, universities took a radical left turn.  To ruinous effect, the radicalism gradually descended below freshman level.  Cultural Marxism entered high school, then middle school, and now infests elementary schools as well as preschools.  One illustration of the use of anti-wealth, anti-American fallacies in K-12 classrooms is the showing of the virulently anti-capitalist video, The Story of Stuff.  The video presents baseless, hysterical vitriol as fact.  For instance, schoolchildren are told that:

… extraction … is a fancy word for natural resource exploitation, which is a fancy word for trashing the planet. What this looks like is we chop down trees, we blow up mountains to get the metals inside, we use up all the water and we wipe out the animals.

Thousands of schools and churches have the video, while “hundreds of teachers” have required students to view the propaganda on the Internet.  Googling the phrase, “The Story of Stuff,” nets 2.2 million hits, and though the web buzzes with concern over exposing schoolchildren to the video’s venomous distortions, interspersed amid the alarm is a shocking amount of gushing praise.

What motivates such praise?  What motivates teachers to bias students against capitalism?  Answers lie within education schools which influence K-12 teachers and curricula.

University of Arkansas researcher Sandra Stotsky found that education schools push “evidence-free theories” to influence curriculum development.  One theory, “constructivism,” argues that children learn best by constructing class topics and methods in ways which leverage the children’s personal experiences.  The notion “feels” seductive, but contains no factual basis.

Constructivist theory recklessly assumes that racial, ethnic, gender-based, and sexual orientation-based subgroups learn what’s truly important by absorbing teacher-led dissection of Western middle class knowledge and values.  Constructivism holds that after such cleansing, the subgroups should be qualified to select study topics of their choosing.  The method aligns with the equally baseless views of early progressive education theorist John Dewey, who wanted children to specify “relevant [classroom] material.”[1]

Related to constructivism, “reader response theory” teaches students to ignore authors’ actual words and assign preferred meanings to written works.  Children are conditioned to believe that truth is relative to individual or tribal experience.  Ayn Rand captured the tribalistic aspect of minority exploitation in her essay, “Global Balkanization.”[2]  Rand observed that government “manufactures pressure groups,” especially ethnic groups.

The profiteers are those group leaders who discover suddenly that they can exploit the helplessness, the fear, the frustration of their “ethnic” brothers, organize them into a group, present demands to the government-and deliver the vote.

By encouraging minorities to resist socioeconomic assimilation, progressive politicians maintain a nationwide nursery of government-dependent adults from which to draw lifelong votes…and income.  Progressive teachers steer students toward a strange-brew mindset of anti-assimilation, collectivism, diversity, and we-are-the-world-ness.

Stotsky points out that the “evidence-free” education school theory of “social justice” alleges that minority children learn best when encouraged to embrace grievances against middle class whites.  Social justice-indoctrinated teachers instill resentment in “non-dominant” (minority) children and guilt in “dominant” (white) children.  Judging by the abundance of guilt-ridden white Americans, the tactic is working its magic well.

Social justice education deemphasizes knowledge retention and the development of traditionally productive skills.  The theory’s fanatical adherents maintain that teaching American history to blacks and Hispanics is oppressive.  It’s also oppressive to force blacks to “think like whites.”  “Diversity consultant” Glenn Singleton teaches that blacks must be excused from developing “annoying white characteristics, such as being ‘task-oriented’ and ‘intellectual.'”  Together, government dependency and social justice education have fashioned a super-progressivism turbo-charged by cultural Marxism.  Stunted black academic achievement and disintegration of the black family are but two of the many devastating results.

In truth, disintegration of not only the black family but of wholesome tradition itself begins in preschool, as discussed in my introductory analysis of Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s influence on early childhood curricula.  A study by Stanford education professor David Labaree frames the scope of disfiguration of America’s education curricula.  Education schools fit “solidly in the progressive camp.”  Teachers are conditioned to “integrate the disciplines,” use “socially relevant themes,” and push morally relativistic versions of “community, cooperation, tolerance, justice, and democratic equality” in ways that make the concepts appear noble, indeed innocent.

But there is no innocence in the effects of the progressive conditioning of teachers.  More K-12 students than ever are now being manipulated through lesson plans warped into platforms for moralizing against capitalism, the white middle class, and America.  The deconstruction of American society is proceeding.  The ghosts of Gramsci, Dewey, and Vygotsky are probably smiling.

A physicist and former high tech executive, Chuck Rogér invites you to visit his website,  E-mail Chuck at

[1] John Dewey, The School and Society and The Child and the Curriculum, BN Publishing, 2008, p. 94.

[2] Ayn Rand, “Global Balkanization,” in Return of the Primitive, 1999, p.198.

The Morning Briefing: Defund the Leftist Public Education Indoctrination Mills


Indoctrination Isn’t Education

The happiest of Fridays to you, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing readers. Let’s #TGIF the heck out of this thing.

The riots and protests that have been raging on, with activists demanding that American cities defund their police forces, are being carried out by a generation of American youth who have been indoctrinated with anti-American notions that were mostly planted in public schools. They were given the ability to grow even larger if the young person went to college. But the genesis of the problem is to be found in a public education system that is funded by American taxpayers of varying ideologies but controlled by radical leftist teachers’ unions.

While I have never been one to view anything as an existential crisis, I’ve more and more come to believe that the upcoming presidential election will be a watershed moment for the United States. If Joe Biden wins, it will be the complete triumph of decades of public education indoctrination. The drift of so many young Americans toward socialism and anti-American sentiment is the direct result not being taught real American history while being fed a leftist line that seeks to rewrite and/or whitewash much of what made this country great.

In the current public education environment, children are taught more about climate-change nonsense than they are about the founding fathers. Public education really isn’t education anymore, it’s more of a leftist catechism class.

The fact that we’re having conversations about defunding police is a strong argument for having a conversation about defunding the Dept. of Education.

Leftists go insane even if cuts to the Dept. of Education’s budget are suggested. It’s as if American children will no longer be able to read if the federal education overlords aren’t the executive producers of the show. Most don’t know that the Dept. of Education is a relatively new cabinet-level department, having been made one by Jimmy Carter in 1979.

It would be difficult for even the most ardent leftist to make the case that public education in America was suffering before that. We did, after all, manage to get to the moon without the help of Common Core math.

The public education indoctrination mills are currently embracing The New York Times‘ a historical “1619 Project,” which is so historically inaccurate it’s been thrashed by leftist academics. On Thursday, Sen. Tom Cotton took a step in the right direction and filed a bill that would defund any public schools that tried to indoctrinate students with this trash.

It’s not enough. Serious discussions about slashing the Dept. of Education’s $64 billion annual budget are in order.

The notion that federal-level involvement is integral to properly funding schools is absurd.

I was educated before the Dept. of Education existed. I went to six years of public school and six years of Catholic school, so I have a good background for comparing things. I can unequivocally say that I got a better education in the Catholic schools. Still, I had some good public school teachers.

Back in those pre-Dept. of Education days public school teachers weren’t buying their own supplies. All that the Dept. of Education has introduced into the mix is the bloated inefficiency of the federal bureaucracy.

Public education is currently held hostage by the most evil organizations in America: teachers’ unions. The National Education Association is a nightmarish leftist political lobby that extorts money from all levels of government that are involved in education. The NEA’s primary mission is to make more money for the NEA, but it uses the “for the children” smokescreen to get its way.

The most powerful union in the far-left hellhole of California is the California Teachers Association. The status of the union and the politics of the state cannot be divorced from one another.

These unions are the people who control public education and they’re being funded mostly by the federal government.

Cut off their supply.

The New York Times agrees that there is a problem with public education, but they don’t think it’s the unions. They think it’s — drumroll please– white people.

When it comes to cabinet-level departments I would do away with, Education always tops the list. In the hands of its leftist union overlords all it does is turn out little future Soviets. The Dems hate Betsy DeVos so much because she isn’t in the unions’ pockets.

Let’s defund this anti-American boondoggle.

We’ll probably be able to get to Mars quicker if we do.

Op-Ed: U.S. civil unrest a reflection on public education—

  • Jul 6, 2020

A burned down building in Minneapolis following a night of rioting in response to the death of George Floyd.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”

– Vladimir Lenin

In the 1920s, Hitler’s Nazi Party targeted Germany’s youth to maturate their holocaustic movement. Their message misrepresented the party as a youth movement: dynamically resilient, futuristic and enterprising. Millions of young Germans were ushered into the world of Nazism in their classrooms. The system was purged of teachers unwilling to proselytize this doctrine. The Nazis seized control of public education for the sole purpose of creating a society Hitler could use to advance Nazism.

Not only did Hitler’s plan allow the Third Reich to indoctrinate impressionable children, but it helped remove them from the influence of the parents who opposed his hate regime. Hitler and his party knew families were cohesive groups and were an obstacle for him to accomplish his goals. Hitler adroitly used public education to destroy the family unit. By destroying family loyalty, he could make youths loyal to him. This is what the left has been doing for years in America with public education.

Since 1979, when Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education (DoED) to buy votes from the National Education Association (NEA), liberal politicians have leveraged this unholy alliance to their benefit. Progressives and socialists have taken positions at every level of public schooling and the NEA. Since state colleges and universities are stocked from this gene pool, they have locked down key positions as college professors, deans, and members of Boards of Regents around the nation.

“Now we can only teach what the Democrats allow us to teach.”

– David Byrd, Oakland, California teacher

Until Carter federalized education, public school and state college curriculum was developed and controlled by local school boards and states. Although leftists had infiltrated education for years, it was not until the election of Barack Obama that they succeeded in exterminating traditional education. In 2008, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano led a squadron of liberal educators, governors, politicians and corporate officers to literally rewrite public education methodology into the monster it is today.

This entourage developed what is now known as Common Core, aka the liberal education wish list.

Common Core was the mechanism the federal government needed to totally control education. Obama’s policy gurus required states to adopt Common Core to obtain funds from the DoED with delusive federal strings attached. All but five states took this provocative bait. This hammered the coffin shut on local education and allowed the teaching of new liberalism to all future generations.

Common Core erased or rewrote everything in history leftists didn’t like. This was funded by liberal elitists and influential leftists like George Soros. They disparaged the genuine cultural and political history of our republic to portray socialism superior to capitalism. Textbooks expunged events, left out or misrepresented facts, inserted new unimportant individuals, chastised our founder’s works, and criticized the Constitution as out of date and something politicians could change if they did not like it.

“Our public schools are designed as the great equalizers of our society.”

– Janet Napolitano

Common Core re-educated America’s youth by not only misrepresenting U.S. history, but by also glorifying the benefits of socialism. They eliminated civics courses, the concepts of free speech, religious freedom, and the importance of the Second Amendment. Students no longer learn about the importance of the Electoral College, the Declaration of Independence, and even our Constitution.

It is this demeaning of America that taught today’s students the U.S. is racist, violent, oppressive, homophobic, and is a white privileged society, that has led to the current civil unrest in the United States. When students are indoctrinated with leftist propaganda that every American institution is flawed and they do not have to show respect for our founding documents, and not taught who our real American heroes and villains are, they take the law into their own hands – and they run with it.

We’ve watched America’s cities burn, businesses looted. We’ve witnessed rioters destroy every piece of U.S. history they get their hands on. We saw the 54th Massachusetts monument to the black Union Civil War regiment vandalized. Humanitarian Paul Harris and abolitionist Matthias Baldwin got the same treatment in Philadelphia. The sacred Emancipation Proclamation Monument in Washington was only spared because of the National Guard. Toppling statues is a bad sign in our republic. It’s less a policy for police reform, and more of a riotous coup to initiate regime change and revolution!

When we see nonviolent protesters burning our flag, an act 30 years ago that created such outrage it spurred Congress to pass a law against it, today it doesn’t even get media coverage? And these revolutionary sentiments have been repeated by liberal politicians, reporters and corporate officers who support them. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said “250 years of American racism excuses violence.” In Fairfax, Virginia, a leftist official said, “Rioting is an integral part of our march towards progress.”

“Ah, don’t you tell me over and over again, we’re not on the eve of destruction.”

– Barry McGuire

The DoED is responsible for this. This national display of disrespect for law and legitimate ways to remedy abuse and corruption have very little to do with the murder of George Floyd and everything to do with the quality and credibility of Common Core public education. We used to have a collection of books and foundational education materials that embellished ideas that entrenched a bedrock of values and principles. This developed strong character and knowledge in our youth.

“The only ones keeping Common Core afloat now are teacher unions and people like Bill Gates.”

– Linsey McGoey

Since 2008, the degrading of the U.S. and promoting of socialism in our schools has resulted in 51 percent of our youth preferring socialism to democracy. According to a recent Harris poll, 72 percent of the voters under 34 favor a government guaranteed income. Two thirds of the millennials believe America is a racist and sexist country and 40 percent think America is “the most unequal society in the world.” These recent Common Core grads have adopted the same illiterate worldview of those who hate America.

Adolf Hitler once said, “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” Hitler conquered Germany by dividing the youth from their families and obligating them to turn in any family member who did not support the Third Reich. This is what the left has been doing since they sold Common Core to our states. And they used the nation’s largest public sector union, the NEA, to police and enforce it.

Education is about character and morality, which involves religion. Hitler banned religion in German schools to keep the youth subservient to him – just as we did with Common Core. We can’t mention religion or God without the risk of violating new liberalism. If we dare mention patriotism, we will be accused of nationalism. How long can America exist under Common Core’s liberalism before our republic meets the fate of Hitler’s Germany? Today’s riots validate we could be one election away.

“Whenever a vicious portion of a population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision stores, shoot editors, hang and burn the obnoxious persons at pleasure with impunity, this government cannot last.”

– Abraham Lincoln

Sad state of public schools

I have started a series of posts i hope some will take the time to read. These posts are from sources i find extremely interesting. They are not written by me, but they are very informative unless you are a liberal, socialist, communist, or anarchist. The first post is The Purpose of Government.

The list as they will appear.

The Purpose of Government published 7/30/20; The Riots in Portland Started in Public School; Op-Ed: U.S. civil unrest a reflection on public education; The Morning Briefing: Defund the Leftist Public Education Indoctrination Mills; The 1619 Project.

The Riots in Portland Started in Public School

By T.R. Clancy

Think of the rioting in Portland as our national Graduation Party.  The kids got permission to have an open house, and now it’s all gotten out of hand.  (Except when a traditional open house get out of hand, the police still show up.)

None of this should come as a shock.  The nightly attacks on statues, on a federal courthouse, and on police are the proof of Solomon’s injunction, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old[er], he will not depart from it.”  Solomon wanted children taught the fear of the Lord; but the principle applies no matter what you teach.

This is the moment that America’s teacher’s colleges, and the public-school systems fed by them, have been working toward since the 1960s.  That’s when the “education schools began conditioning teachers to peddle impossible social and economic theories to captive human sponges in K-12 classrooms,” as described here by Chuck Rogér:

[T]he “evidence-free” education school theory of “social justice” alleges that minority children learn best when encouraged to embrace grievances against middle class whites.  Social justice–indoctrinated teachers instill resentment in “non-dominant” (minority) children and guilt in “dominant” (white) children.  Judging by the abundance of guilt-ridden white Americans, the tactic is working its magic well.     

It’s even worse if you’ve been to college.

2017 poll suggested that a “majority of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist, communist or fascist nation rather than a capitalistic one.”  That makes slightly more sense when you see that only 33% of Millennials “were able to identify the correct definition of socialism.” 

Marion Smith, executive director of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, blames this preference for totalitarian systems on the “widespread historical illiteracy in American society regarding socialism and the systemic failure of our education system to teach students about the genocide, destruction, and misery caused by communism since the Bolshevik Revolution one hundred years ago.”     

Again, none of this should come as news to conservatives.  We revere history, and for decades we’ve been exercised by the left’s ceaseless revisionist propaganda.  It’s proof of leftists’ success that we’ve seen two generations of historical illiterates.  Studies have shown that 74% of Americans over 65 could correctly answer most of ten multiple-choice questions on American history taken from the U.S. Citizenship Test, but only 19% of those under 45 could pass.  Thirty-seven percent of test-takers believed that Benjamin Franklin invented the light bulb, “[t]welve percent incorrectly thought WWII General Dwight Eisenhower led troops in the Civil War,” and two percent thought the cause of the Cold War was climate change.  It helps explain why mobs think they’re fighting for racial justice when they deface statues of Columbus, Lincoln, and the memorial to the 54th Massachusetts Regiment.

Progressives have so masterfully imposed their anti-history that tens of millions of Americans never question the received doctrine that Republicans are the party of slavery and Jim Crow, that the problem with American public education is a lack of money, and that Democrat policies benefit blacks and poor people. 

The media play an obvious role in this, too.  “But the genesis of the problem,” says Stephen Kruiser at PJMedia, “is to be found in a public education system … controlled by radical leftist teachers’ unions.”  William Haupt III at The Center Square notes how, already since 2008, “[t]wo thirds of the millennials believe America is a racist and sexist country and 40 percent think America is ‘the most unequal society in the world.'”  Now a reported 3,500 classrooms across fifty states have adopted the New York Times’  own evidence-free1619 Project, so kids can learn that every accomplishment in America’s history came out of slavery.  This will further ensure that kids “unable to discern fact from fiction, will be subjected to a politicized, false history of their country.”

Even the less extreme classrooms have long since abandoned patriotism and Western values in favor of “woke” lesson plans that reinforce the rottenness of America and the villainy of white people.  “Most children no longer extensively read the literary classics,” says Justin Haskins of The Heartland Institute.  “And when they are in history classrooms, they are often bombarded with left-wing historical revisionism that turns American heroes like George Washington into racist moral monsters.”

It’s damaging enough that pupils steeped in revisionist history grow up believing lies that make them hate their country and loathe themselves, but being denied access to the notable works of Western literature has unlinked generations from the past, depriving them of the common sensibilities that enabled even fierce opponents in our bloodiest struggle — like U.S. Grant and Robert E. Lee — to sit down with one another with the humility and respect proper from one broken member of Adam’s fallen race to another.

Bob Dylan, in his 2017 speech to the Nobel Committee, said of his formation as a young musician that he immersed himself so deeply in the language and themes of traditional folk music that when he started writing his own songs, “the folk lingo was the only vocabulary that I knew, and I used it.”

But I had something else as well. I had principles and sensibilities and an informed view of the world.  And I had had that for a while.  Learned it all in grammar school.  Don Quixote, Ivanhoe, Robinson Crusoe, Gulliver’s Travels, Tale of Two Cities, all the rest — typical grammar school reading that gave you a way of looking at life, an understanding of human nature, and a standard to measure things by.  I took all that with me when I started composing lyrics.  And the themes from those books worked their way into many of my songs, either knowingly or unintentionally.  I wanted to write songs unlike anything anybody ever heard, and these themes were fundamental.  

That Dylan would credit the ethical and imaginative foundation of his earliest creative work to his school days, where he “learned it all” from stories and authors esteemed, until recently, as classics of a common literary canon, is the harshest indictment of present-day public education I can imagine.  Is there any sign anywhere, in the implacable wrath of the BLM demagogues or the pitiless inquisitions of the woke, of the presence of rational principles, or a standard to measure things by, or an understanding, or even tolerance, of human nature?  

It’s the total incapacity for tolerance, the ease with which they howl for the shunning, shaming, firing, and even deaths of those they perceive as their moral inferiors, all without a shred of compassion or a particle of self-awareness, that are the marks of an intellectual and moral poverty hard for members of my generation to grasp.  But bear in mind that no one is simply born with principles and rational standards and a magnanimous view of humanity: these have to be learned.  (Not that they can’t be unlearned, as proved by the older generation of Democrats who have voluntarily abandoned those things.)

But at school, these younger generations were denied access to the literature and history from which they could have gradually absorbed the fundamental ideals of their own civilization.  It was denied because their teachers preferred force-feeding them banal social justice nostrums, or encouraging the hottest marginal lifestyles, or repeating appalling fables about “Western villains endlessly tying to the railroad tracks of history an equally crude roster of innocent victims ‘of color.'” 

At the moment, for some racial crime or other, the Orange County Democrats are pushing to remove John Wayne’s name and statue from the county airport.  John Loftus at NRO has come to the actor’s defense on the basis of the traditional virtues portrayed in Wayne’s roles as Ethan Edwards, Ringo Kid, and John T. Chance.  Included in those virtues is what Loftus calls the “Christian conception of mankind, which holds that we are fallen and flawed but capable of striving toward improvement and ultimately redemption.” 

Is there a better description of what’s missing from the souls of those unhinged women shrieking at cops in the front lines of the BLM riots, or the Orc swarms of Antifa kicking a prostrate victim?  Not only do they reject the possibility of their enemies’ redemption from America’s “original sin of racism,” but they’re insensible to their own need of redemption and mercy.  They don’t know about the much graver Original Sin of Adam that starts all of us out on the wrong side of history.  None of their textbooks mentioned anything about souls.

And to think that even those moral monsters Christopher Columbus and Stonewall Jackson could have taught them that.      

T.R. Clancy looks at the world from Dearborn, Michigan.  You can email him at

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries