Dear Liberals: Dissolving The Dept. of Education Would NOT End Public School

The Libertarian Republic  "When I was a freshman in college, I was in a research-based writing class that consisted of a very small student-to-faculty ratio and allowed us attendees, a roster that barely broke the double digits, to personally interact with our teacher and have meaningful conversations and debates rather than simply sit back in a huge lecture hall and be talked down to. I much preferred this downsized format, as the smaller, more localized execution of college courses tends to breed more interaction and discourage straight-up lecturing. And as the research shows time and again, whether it be at the undergraduate level or even at the level of highly specialized graduate programs, the discussion model (also referred to as “cooperative learning”) crushes the lecture model every single time in areas of retention, enjoyment, and intellectual stimulation.

"As a result, many colleges and universities (especially the private, autonomous ones) have been shifting their class structures from the giant lecture halls to the more intimate seminar rooms, and “student-to-faculty ratio” is now one of the boxes for every who’s-who college to tick in their profile on U.S. News and World Report. It’s something colleges strive for. And it proves that in an educational setting, smaller, localized, and more controlled management breeds the best results.

"So imagine my surprise when, upon overhearing a conversation between myself and two other students discussing the political merits of (at the time) presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul, our class teacher decided to butt in and loudly proclaim for the whole class to hear that Ron Paul was a naive, silly choice for a candidate because he “wants to abolish the Department of Education!” Seeing as how I could tell this was a sore subject for her (my teacher), and my grade was important to me, I didn’t press the matter much further. But looking back on that moment, I wish that I had." . . .

Why Is CNN Refuting The Susan Rice Story It Refuses To Cover?

CNN has decided to debunk the story about Susan Rice unmasking information on citizens close to Donald Trump before reporting on it.

Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist

"For months, CNN has been all over stories that attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency by suggesting ties to Russia. It would be impossible to catalogue the hourly drumbeat of “new” stories on this angle that have gone on for months, despite the lack of named sources or actual evidence.

"The cable news outlet heavily pushed the infamous “Russian dossier” story that was quickly harmed by BuzzFeed showing how dubious to the point of laughable the dossier was. The network’s obsession extends to running red-washed photoshopped graphics of Trump advisors in front of St. Basil’s. The Russia scare headlines run into the dozens each and every day.

"A couple weeks ago, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee publicly stated that he’d seen dozens of reports that were disseminated widely in the intelligence agencies featuring unmasked information on people close to Trump. He stated that these reports were of little to no intelligence value, so that the unmasking was disconcerting. He also stated that these reports had nothing to do with Russia.

"Devin Nunes, the Intel chair, wasn’t speaking anonymously. He was being specific about what he saw and what concerned him. Surely you would think the network that breathlessly reported what turned out to be an easily debunked dossier would understand the significance. Surely you would be wrong." . . .

Susan Rice’s White House Unmasking: A Watergate-style Scandal

Her interest was not in national security but to advance the political interests of the Democratic party.

Andrew C. McCarthy   "The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations. 

"Remember that. 

"Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose identities and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets? 

"Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the identities of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned. The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people. 

"That won’t wash. 

"In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA. All three agencies conducted a probe and issued a joint report in January. That was after Obama, despite having previously acknowledged that the Russian activity was inconsequential, suddenly made a great show of ordering an inquiry and issuing sanctions." . . .  Full article here.

A Confederacy of Leftists

Alan Wellikoff   "What we most often refer to as "the Civil War," really wasn't one. A civil war occurs when two factions go to war over control of the same government. While it once made a stab at invading Washington, Lee's army didn't want to seize the city for the Confederate capitol. The South had already established its own seat of government some 90 miles away in Richmond. Despite whatever else might be said of it, the Civil War was a war for independence -- Southern independence.

"What now impends is something different. Less a regional than an ideological conflict – it is one in which one faction (the Democratic Party-occupying regressive left), has lost control of the democratic institutions through which it was able to apply, consolidate, and enforce its ideology over the past eight years. Worse, as the IRS scandal, the Benghazi cover-up and the Fast & Furious fiasco have variously come to show, these efforts were usually undertaken in ways that trash the Republic's centuries-old rules for governing. Instead, they undermined laws and tradition via methods that might be termed “cynical” -- although “Stalinist” wouldn’t be a harsh miss-characterization.

"To the Democrats, the courts, Congress and presidency have constituted institutional versions of that which Lenin famously termed “useful idiots.”  . . .

Democrat base demands 'dumbest' filibuster in Senate history

Joseph Smith  "The Democrats' expected filibuster of Judge Neil Gorsuch may be the "dumbest" in the Senate's history, as Rich Lowry writes at the New York Post, but it's all about keeping their agitated base at bay.

"Nate Silver, writing at fivethirtyeight.com, as posted at Real Clear Politics, makes the case that while the "Democrats' political endgame is unclear" the Gorsuch filibuster "may simply be a sign of the liberal base's increasing influence over the Democratic coalition."

"Based on data from an outside "Election Study," Silver finds that 69 percent of "politically active Democrats," defined as those who donated, went to meetings, put up signs, and the like, "identified as liberal."

These were some of the voters who helped propel Bernie Sanders to almost two dozen primary and caucus victories last year.

"Silver's article includes a state-by-state table showing the 23 Democrat senators up for re-election in 2018 (plus two independents) alongside estimates for the liberal base in each state.

"The table shows that in 30 of 50 states, more than two thirds of politically active Democrats identified as liberals.  In addition, seven of the ten Trump-state Democrats up for re-election are from those 30 states." . . .

How Feminists React To Muslim Vs Conservative Beliefs On Women

Tiffiny Ruegner   "What a grand idea!!!! NOT! The Huffington Post decided to “celebrate” Muslim Women’s Day with a hashtag #MuslimWomensDay. It didn’t go quite how they expected.

"The funny part is that the recent ‘Day Without Women’ was organized by a Palestinian terrorist who has now been forced to leave the country for lying on her VISA application. She was responsible for the deaths of two Israeli students. Even the Washington Examiner reported that the 69 year-old Palestinian activist was convicted in the 1969 supermarket bombing in Israel that killed two Hebrew University students. Another woman who helped organize the Women’s March, Linda Sarsour, was accused of Islamic Terrorist links.

Ironically, the left aligns themselves with Muslims who oppress women, gays and anyone who disagrees with their religion. Now Huffpo is dealing with having to learn the reality of the Muslim religion that is definitely NOT supportive of feminism or any women’s rights. Ironically, the right has been the leader of women’s rights for over a hundred years. The suffrage movement was a Republican led movement… but of course the left doesn’t want you to know about that. Check out the hilarity on twitter:" . . .

Tweet: "More women fly military jets in Israel than can drive a car in Saudi Arabia. That's what #muslimwomensday means to me pic.twitter.com/9ftbqoySbR"


Hat tip to Chicks On The Right

Democrats Ask Teachers To Destroy Books Written By ‘Climate Deniers’

Daily Caller

"Three senior House Democrats asked U.S. teachers Monday to destroy a book written by climate scientists challenging the environmentalist view of global warming.

"The Democrats were responding to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 science teachers. Democratic Reps. Bobby Scott of the Committee on Education, Raúl M. Grijalva of the Committee on Natural Resources, and Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology all issued a statement telling teachers to trash the book.

“'Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin,” Scott said. “If the Heartland Institute and other climate deniers want to push a false agenda on global warming, our nation’s schools are an inappropriate place to drive that agenda.”

"The book’s three authors all hold doctorates and taught climate or related science at the university level. The book was written by former Arizona State University climatologist Dr. Craig D. Idso, James Cook University marine geology and paleontology professor Robert M. Carter, and University of Virginia environmental scientist Dr. Fred Singer." . . .  Read more.

Ten companies pull ads from O’Reilly show

xfoor

"Ten companies are pulling advertisements from Bill O’Reilly‘s primetime cable program on Fox News following a Saturday report that the host paid $13 million to five women who accused him over the years of sexual harassment. 

"Hyundai, BMW of North America, Untuckit, Constant Contact, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, GSK pharmaceuticals, Allstate and Sanofi consumer healthcare have said they are pulling their commercials from “The O’Reilly Factor,” NBC News and The New York Times reported Tuesday.

"Global asset management firm T. Rowe Price also joined the list, while Mercedes-Benz announced on Monday that it was pulling its ads from the 8 p.m. ET program.

"O’Reilly, who has been the top-rated host in cable news for 15 consecutive years, was the subject of a front-page New York Times article this weekend that detailed sexual harassment claims by five women that resulted in $13 million in payouts from the network and O’Reilly.

"Hyundai said it made the decision to no longer advertise on the show due to “recent and disturbing allegations,” according to the New York Times.

"BMW North America based its decision “in light of the recent New York Times investigation.' ” . . .

Strategic Debate in Gorsuch Battle: Use Filibuster Now or Later?

NY Times

"The first possibility is that the showdown over abolishing the filibuster rule takes place now. If so, its framing will be Democrats’ general anger at Mr. Trump as well as their specific outrage over what they consider the theft of a Supreme Court seat by Republicans’ refusal to give a hearing last year to President Barack Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland, to fill the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February 2016. 

"The substantive stakes now are relatively low: Judge Gorsuch appears to be very conservative, but so was Justice Scalia. Confirming Judge Gorsuch would merely preserve the ideological status quo on the closely divided Supreme Court. Should the confirmation move ahead, all 52 Republican senators will probably stick together, bolstered by a few Democrats from conservative-leaning states. Those are enough votes to easily clear the way for confirming Judge Gorsuch — and all future nominees — by a simple majority.

"But the dynamics could play out differently in a second situation: Judge Gorsuch is confirmed, but the filibuster rule survives. If Mr. Trump then gets to nominate a successor to a moderate or liberal justice, the substantive stakes would be much higher." . . .

UPDATED: Prepare to Be Shocked: Mike Pence Is Christian Husband with Morals

What a disgusting display!

By Caleb Parke at Todd Starnes  "Behold, America, our vice president is a Christian husband with morals and values.

"The Washington Post did an in-depth look into Mike Pence's marriage with his wife, Karen Pence, his "prayer warrior," and "gut check and shield."

"What could've read as a puff piece about the Second Lady, ended up being a stealthy hit piece.

"The WaPo author, @AshleyRParker, tweeted out the article with this synopsis: "Mike Pence never dines alone w a woman not his wife, nor does he attends events w alcohol, w/o her by his side."

"So the crux of the article about Karen Pence was actually about Mike Pence? Yeah.

"After some pretty vile attacks from other "verified" journalists on Twitter (which I will spare you from), @AshleyRParker, tweets this: "In 1991, Karen Pence wrote a letter to the editor, outlining her views against homosexuality."

"Then she shares this conclusion about her article: "The whole point of the profile is that she is highly influential w her husband (incl on social issues)..."

"So this piece was essentially written to solidify the notion that Pence is anti-gay, backwards, and out of the mainstream.

"Aren't you glad we have journalists like @AshleyRParker to inform us how a good Christian couple serving our nation is actually colluding, or possibly canoodling, in backrooms, hiding their bigoted, backwards views.

"This article should be a newsflash everywhere for journalists all across America to befriend Christians and try to get to know them instead of vindictively attacking them in ink.

"Most Americans would be happy to know that our current vice president honors his marriage to his wife. We've had endless amounts of politicians on both sides of the aisle fail in this category.

"It's easy to criticize and tear down, but this one is especially rich.

"The family unit is the most basic unit and building block of society, from the union of Adam of Eve, until today, marriage has been a bedrock of society.

"Through strong marriages, future generations are given the most optimal upbringing. That's not a modern-day revelation, we've known this since the beginning of civilization, and societies and religions have tried to alter marriage to no avail.

"Science and Judeo-Christian values back this up, and this doesn't make it homophobic. It's just the way it is.

"When honoring marriage becomes a bad thing, we all lose.

"But maybe the author was just trying to reaffirm the time-tested truth: "behind every great man is a great woman.' " . . .

UPDATE:   Don’t You Dare Place Your Marriage Above Your Politics

"Place your wife in a station above all other women at your own peril"

Do Pence’s rules to avoid temptation to commit adultery

trammel women’s rights? | Opinion http://bit.ly/2n7S5oB 

. . . "The Atlantic dug in further and learned Pence routinely turned down cocktail invites from men just as frequently, but that doesn’t make sexy outrage bait.

The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”

The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.

Get Back in the Kitchen and Bake Me Another Petition!

“I’ve never seen a bunch of poor, oppressed feminists board a leaky boat in Miami in order to paddle their way to freedom in Castro Cuba. But I do have a few friends in South Florida who escaped from communism. They still have their boats. We’d be proud to give these Marxist feminists a lift to Havana any time.”

Mike Adams

"Dear UNC President Spellings: I am writing today to express my disgust with you over recent remarks you made about me to a “progressive” newspaper reporter. As you will recall, some feminists had started a petition, which was seeking my termination from employment in the UNC system. In order to bolster their case, they included a number of remarks I had made on social media, which they deemed to be “sexist.” When the reporter asked you about the petition, you characterized my views as both “abhorrent” and as “hate speech.” I am writing today to provide a rebuttal to your comments, which I view as both abhorrent and hateful. Please allow me to back up my claims with evidence. 

"Put simply, Margaret, it was both hateful and abhorrent for you to characterize my views in such a negative manner based on just a few out­of­context quotes. Had you exercised more self­control than the unhinged feminists calling for my termination, you could have made a better judgment about the nature of my speech based on a larger sample. Today, I write to provide a few other samples of my speech upon which you could have made a more informed assessment. Although inspired by many, these quotes are all my own: " . . .

The left: defending freedom of speech for decades

Image by Miguel Guanipa