Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Bit-by-bit, people are putting a higher priority on teaching old-fashioned civics. About five years ago, “a coalition of prominent leaders assembled by the Arizona-based Joe Foss Institute launched a Civics Education Initiative.” They started with the premise that students shouldn’t graduate unless they pass the same test that immigrants must pass when they apply for citizenship.

This movement started after it was discovered that “fewer than half knew that John Roberts is the current chief justice of the United States. More than one-quarter thought Brett Kavanaugh was.” When students were asked the term length for U.S. senators and representatives, “fewer than half of college graduates could give the correct numbers.”

While this is disturbing information, there’s more frightening news lurking on the horizon:

As Education Week has reported, the very idea of schools using the citizenship test elicits a “torrent of criticism from leaders who favor the new, broader conception of civics education.” Jessica Marshall, former social studies director for Chicago schools, put it this way: “[The citizenship tests] don’t tell us if young people know how to mobilize their communities to get resources or pass laws they care about.”

It isn’t the job of schools to teach students how to be progressive activists. Back in September, I wrote about Rep. Dean Urdahl’s op-ed (Part I and Part II). In that op-ed, Rep. Urdahl wrote this:

Next session, the MSBA [Minnesota School Board Association] plans to double down on its campaign against civic education. MSBA officials want to no longer have to offer the civics test. This crosses the line from passivity to enmity regarding civics. Testing conveys a message; we care about what we test. Eliminating the test implies MSBA doesn’t think civics is important. In Minnesota, it should not be about the number of tests, but rather, are we testing the right things.

Rep. Urdahl also wrote this:

The failure is measurable. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, the highly respected “Nation’s Report Card,” reports that 75% of our graduates leave high school not proficient in civics. They are failing. A nationwide poll found that two-thirds of Americans can name an American Idol judge, but only 15% can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. One-third of our graduates can’t name a single branch of our government. The Annenberg Study revealed that 37% cannot name one right guaranteed in the First Amendment. There are students who think Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court.

Rep. Urdahl also wrote that MSBA wants school boards, not voters, to have the final say on operating levies:

Over 332 school boards are elected by their communities. These members are trusted and charged with the governance of school property, budget, curriculum, technology, taxes, student achievement and teacher quality – ensuring excellence and equity in all public schools. Therefore, MSBA asks that you honor and trust the work of these local officials by allowing school boards to renew an existing operating referendum, by reducing the current number of mandates, and provide flexibility to meet the unique needs of their schools and communities.

TRANSLATION: Those pesky citizens shouldn’t have a say on their property taxes. We know what’s best. That’s what progressive arrogance sounds like.

Since the DFL controls the House in 2020, it isn’t likely that they’ll say no to MSBA. That means we’ll need the GOP Senate to stop this unaccountability initiative dead in its tracks. Trusting school boards to do the right thing is like giving matches to an arsonist, then expecting him to not set something on fire. That isn’t insanity. It’s stupidity.

It’s also imperative that we elect a GOP majority in the House and maintain the GOP majority in the Senate in 2020. We can’t afford unified DFL state government. We saw what a disaster that was in 2013-14.

These things should be taught until students understand why we adopted this Constitution and why the US is the greatest nation on earth. We should make it illegal to teach political activism in schools. That’s the job of political parties and outside groups. Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for that stuff.

In addition to emphasizing teaching civics, it’s essential to emphasize teaching history, math and science, too. It’s important to de-emphasize the victimology classes, too. Civics classes unite us as a nation. Victimology classes divide us. Let’s work to unite, not divide, this great nation.

There are some serious fights amongst House Democrats. According to the Intercept, Rep. Cheri Bustos, the chair of the DCCC, “counted as many 111 primaries for her incumbent members, a higher-than-normal number as the Democratic Party struggled with the leftward trajectory of their new coalition, which is less white, more educated and youthful.”

In this article, we are told about incumbent Mike Doyle, who has represented the district since fist winning election in 1994. According to his primary opponent, Jerry Dickinson, Doyle isn’t liberal enough:

Twenty-plus years is a long time in office. Look at the record. Is Doyle liberal enough to lead what is a safe, strongly Democratic district? The answer is no. Think about the safe blue districts all across the United States, whose representatives take on the liberal mantle, who are loud. They are leaders. They stick their neck out on the issues that really, really do matter to liberals. That should be happening here. This is a post-industrial liberal enclave, which actually makes it in a unique position to actually be the leader on all major issues.

The Democrats’ spinmeisters have consistently told us that Democrats could investigate and legislate. Then Democrats like Jessica Tarlov have insisted that there are lots of Democrat moderates. Based on what’s just been reported, there are more AOC progressives than there are ‘Tarlov moderates’.

Republicans are dealing with retirements, most of which are from solid red districts. Will Hurd seems to be the exception to that pattern. If AOC Democrats have gotten into the circular firing squad business, that could help Republicans retake the House.

Speaker Pelosi has done her best to keep the turmoil within her conference a private matter. After reading this article, I’d say that train has officially left the station. This started when Pelosi tried putting AOC in her place. That didn’t sit well with the uppity socialist, who insinuated that Pelosi is a racist.

Once that happened, it was just a matter of time before this went nuclear. When Justice Democrats announced that they were primarying members of the Congressional Black Caucus, aka CBC, it was just a matter of time before the retaliation started. There’s no pretending that there’s much goodwill left between the 2 warring factions. This isn’t just politics anymore. It’s personal now. Here’s why it’s personal:

Justice Democrats is backing primary challengers to eight-term Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), a Hispanic Caucus member, and 10-term Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). The insurgent group also made noise this year about challenging Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), a CBC member seen as the heir apparent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

And CBC leaders are fretting that Justice Democrats may target other black lawmakers in the coming weeks and months, including Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and Anthony Brown (D-Md.). Brown said the group has been making calls in his district, actively trying to recruit a challenger to run against him — something that Justice Democrats denies.

That’s caused the CBC to retaliate:

In an interview with the Daily News, Meeks fumed over Ocasio-Cortez’s recent racial beef with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and pushed back against her left-wing allies at Justice Democrats for openly backing insurgent candidates trying to unseat members of the Congressional Black Caucus. He also said the CBC can play the same game.

“Primaries go two ways,” Meeks said when asked whether his wing of the party would consider challenging progressive members next year, including Ocasio-Cortez. “If someone picks a fight with somebody else, you fight back. That’s what my parents told me.”

It’s going to get nastier than this. Check this out:

“They are going after the wrong target. Instead of fighting Republicans and defeating Trump and holding on to our majority, they find it convenient to go after their own, which is to me a bunch of B.S.,” Clay told The Hill.

I love this. I’m not alone:

I’ll sell the tickets, Ben. Who pops the popcorn? This is gonna get good.

Joe Biden’s frontrunner status in the Democrats’ nominating process just got significantly shakier. The subject of that article is why Biden has earned the title of “1% Joe.”

At a fancy fundraiser Tuesday night, Biden is quoted as saying “Remember, I got in trouble with some of the people on my team, on the Democratic side, because I said, you know, what I’ve found is rich people are just as patriotic as poor people. Not a joke. I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who’s made money” Biden told about 100 well-dressed donors at the Carlyle Hotel on New York’s Upper East Side, where the hors d’oeuvres included lobster, chicken satay and crudites.”

Later, Biden said this:

“Truth of the matter is, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. “We can disagree in the margins. But the truth of the matter is, it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change.

From a policy standpoint, this isn’t a major problem in a general election. In a Democrat primary, it’s like lighting a short fuse on a big stick of dynamite. Nothing good will come of it. I can’t picture Bernie Sanders not bringing this up at next week’s debate. Further, I can’t picture Biden not attempting to explain why this is much ado about nothing. Good luck with that, Joe, especially in light of his Hyde Amendment fiasco.

Think that this fundraiser will be accepted by progressive activists? Think again:

This will go over as well on the left as cockroaches and ants invading a picnic. Biden won’t drop 20 points by the end of July but he’s about to experience a major correction in his polling.

Thus far, Vice President Biden has hidden his gaffes fairly well, with the Hyde Amendment fiasco being the biggest exception. This statement returns the spotlight to Biden’s gaffes. The worst gaffes are the ones that reinforce an image that’s already well-earned. This isn’t going away because Vice President Biden is a certifiable gaffe machine.

The truth is that Joe Biden is almost as terrible of a candidate as Hillary was. This field of Democrat presidential candidates isn’t that impressive. Still, another of these gaffes and Biden will be wondering how he’ll stop Amy Klobuchar’s momentum.

Let’s stipulate at the start that progressives hyperventilate about virtually anything conservative anytime it’s brought up. Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings aren’t an exception, apparently. This article fits into that category.

It starts by saying “The Brett Kavanaugh hearings—such as they are—began on Wednesday to take on a shape that ordinary citizens can understand. When discussing the law, Judge Kavanaugh has been an impressive witness. But anyone watching the hearings Wednesday morning could see the discomfort on Kavanaugh’s face when Senator Patrick Leahy asked him about his potential knowledge of the theft of Democratic-committee emails a decade and a half ago.”

I watched yesterday’s hearing. Actually, you couldn’t “see the discomfort on Kavanaugh’s face when Senator Patrick Leahy asked him about his potential knowledge of the theft of Democratic-committee emails.” Check out this video and determine for yourselves if Judge Kavanaugh looked uncomfortable at any point in this heated exchange:

There was a point when Judge Kavanaugh looked inquisitive but there wasn’t a point when he looked worried.

For months, perhaps years, it’s been obvious that the energy in the Democratic Party has been in the ‘Bernie Sanders wing’ of the party. One thing that showed up bigtime in last night’s Democratic Party primaries was the ‘Bernie Sanders wing’ of the party. In “Nebraska, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wanted former Rep. Brad Ashford as its nominee for an Omaha-based seat. But Tuesday night ended with liberal Kara Eastman, a social worker, proclaimed the winner by more than 1,000 votes.”

The voters said that Ashford wasn’t radical enough for their liking.

In Pennsylvania, Greg Edwards, who lost the primary to Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, and winner Susan Wild, summed things up perfectly when he said “That’s where the momentum is. If you try and run a Republican-lite or a Democrat-lite candidate, it suppresses the Democratic vote.” Also in Pennsylvania, another moderate candidate, Rachel Reddick, “lost to ‘proud progressive’ Scott Wallace. The self-funding millionaire drenched the airwaves with TV ads that attacked Reddick for recently being a registered Republican.”

So much for Democrats recruiting candidates like Conor Lamb that “fit their districts.”

This isn’t good news for the blue wave theorists in the media:

Eastman’s victory had liberals feeling emboldened. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal group, said Tuesday night that Eastman’s win should teach Democrats that “the way to inspire voters in 2018 is to campaign on a bold progressive agenda of Medicare for All, higher wages for workers, and other economic populist ideas that help working families and challenge corporate power.”

Progressives mix together with moderates like oil mixes with water. The question most likely to be asked after these primaries is whether Democrats will unite behind these candidates or will they stay home. With a message like this, Kara Eastman won’t win in November:

Seriously? Health care, raising the minimum wage and “debt-free education”? In Nebraska, she’s gonna run on those? I can’t picture those issues playing well in Nebraska.

For whatever it’s worth, St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis said that St. Cloud would have a zero tolerance policy against hate. Nobody seems to know what Mayor Kleis means by that but Eunice Adjei of the St. Cloud Area Regional Human Rights Commission is applauding him for that, saying “We stand with our mayor in his zero tolerance policy against hate groups.”

I did a little digging into the SCARHRC. What I found in their minutes is rather interesting. What I found in their minutes is essentially the DFL social issues agenda. I wish I could say that I’m surprised but I’m not.

For instance, one thing I found in the SCARHRC’s minutes is where it identifies “Students for Social Justice” and the DFL as “multicultural organizations,” with the implication being that the DFL is a tolerant organization. That implication is BS, as I highlighted in this post. There’s a significant portion of the DFL and DNC that are fascists who claim that they’re fighting fascism with fascist tactics.

What I’d like to know is whether the SCARHRC uses the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate map:

If the SCARHRC is the DFL front organization that I think it is, then it’s virtually certain that they take their ‘hate guidance’ from the SPLC. This paragraph especially caught my attention:

White nationalist/supremacist, anti-Semitic and other hate groups exist throughout the country, including Minnesota. Additionally, some hate groups have posted flyers at colleges and universities in our state and region.

It isn’t surprising that leftists haven’t included Antifa and BLM in their list of hate groups.

The dishonest media is doing its best to whip the nation into a frenzy by not reporting the contents of President Trump’s EO accurately. Democrats are doing everything possible to keep the public misinformed. Kamala Harris, who replaced Barbara Boxer as the junior senator from California, is protesting President Trump’s EO that temporarily bans Muslims from 7 specific nations known as terrorist hotbeds. Rather than doing the job that people expect them to do, which is to accurately inform people of what’s happening in Washington, DC, the dishonest media is doing its best to mislead the public while telling people that President Trump is a racist and an Islamophobe.

William Jacobsen rightly said in this post that people “should actually read it“. The important part of what President Trump’s EO said actually cites the US law that permits him to act in our nation’s national security interests. It says “Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

Not only is the dishonest media getting things wrong. It’s badly misleading people to the point where it’s difficult that this isn’t intentional. Progressive activists aren’t helping, either, by flocking to social media to complain about President Trump’s EO, then aggregating them under the hashtag #MuslimBan. What the dishonest media and these progressive activists haven’t explained is how the so-called #MuslimBan doesn’t include the nation with the biggest Muslim population in the world (Indonesia) or how Muslim nations like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia aren’t on the list.

Then there’s this:

The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.”

If Trump is anti-Muslim for temporarily banning people from these countries, then former President Obama must be anti-Muslim, too, because he signed the bill into law. Thomas Lifson’s article highlights the fact that Syria is the only nation named in President Trump’s EO:

I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it. Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq.” Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban?” It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.

This is proof positive that President Trump is right in calling the dishonest media the opposition party. I’d go a step further. I’d argue that they’re unindicted co-conspirators with dishonest Democratic Party politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.

If their collective dishonesty were political capital, that bunch would rule Washington, DC for decades. Thank God that isn’t the case. They’re just a bunch of dishonest progressive politicians that the nation rejected this past November. I’ll leave you with this video:

It’s video of a manipulative, dishonest politician. I never thought I’d say this but I think I’d prefer Harry Reid over this politician.

Robert Reich’s opposition article is proof that Democrats refuse to listen to the American people. In his article, Reich called for progressives to fight the Trump First-100-Days Agenda, listing off actions progressives should take. He listed 12 action items, none of which do a thing to solve a pressing problem.

Couple this with Chuck Schumer’s promise to Rachel Maddow that he’ll do anything possible to prevent a Trump Supreme Court justice nominee from reaching the high court unless Sen. Schumer deems the nominee a mainstream nominee. Schumer promises to lead the opposition to fixing the Anything But Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

Combine Sen. Schumer’s promises with Reich’s action plan. It doesn’t take Albert Einstein to figure out that Democrats plan to a) take a hard left turn, which will make them less popular in the all-important swing states than they already are and b) be all opposition all-the-time.

This is Reich’s action agenda:

There’s nothing positive or solutions-oriented about it. It’s mean-spirited and vindictive from start to finish. The closest Reich comes to policy is this action point:

Start a move in your state to abolish the electoral college by committing your state’s electors to vote for the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote.

This is anti-American. We’re known as the United States of America. Winning landslides in California, New York, Illinois and winning a handful of other reliable left wing looney bins won’t unite the country. This idea should be immediately rejected by people of all political stripes.

Democrats are bitter after losing an election they should’ve won. They rigged their primaries to favor a high profile candidate who wasn’t qualified, honest or likable. They only have themselves to blame for their historic defeat. Rather than fess up, they’ve decided to be bitter partisans. It’s going to take them time to be competitive again. (I’m thinking 2022.)

I’ve always enjoyed watching conservatives debate progressives. I especially appreciate it when the progressive hasn’t thought things through. Fortunately, that happens relatively frequently. A great case-in-point was when Tucker Carlson debated Alex Uematsu, a student protest organizer attending Rutgers University, about immigration policy. Thanks to this mismatch, the progressives’ immigration policies were exposed as intellectually flimsy.

Another thing that was highlighted was the fact that Tucker Carlson’s new show will be a major winner and that Carlson is destined to be FNC’s newest star. The intellectual mismatch started when Carlson asked Uematsu “who has the right to come to the United States? You apparently assume that these people have the right to be on your campus, taking a state-subsidized education. Who has a right to come to the United States”?

Predictably, Uematsu replied “I believe that everyone should be able to come to the United States. We are and always have been a nation of immigrants and so I believe that there is no line we can’t let in as many people as we choose in terms of policy and there are artificial limits set on who can come in and who can’t…”

Rather than transcribe the entire interview, just watch this video:

The frightening part, though, was watching Mr. Uematsu sit virtually motionless when Carlson said that illegal immigrants are a net drain to taxpayers. It was apparent that Uematsu wasn’t taking in Carlson’s information because it was different than the propaganda he’s been fed by his professors.

Thus far, Carlson hasn’t suffered the liberals he’s interviewed. His aggressive debating style, combined with his unwillingness to let the left’s false premises stand without contesting them, have helped him shine. He’s 3 shows into his primetime career but it isn’t overstatement that he’s a gifted host and interviewer.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,