The Democrats held up the Coronavirus stimulus so they could try and steal elections

It is absolutely unconscionable that Speaker Nancy Pelosi held up the Coronavrius relief package for about a week in order to advance a progressive wish list.  The worst provisions of this progressive wish list were those that were supposed to federalized elections.  This would have guaranteed that Democrats would win the majority of all elections going forward, especially presidential elections.

The provisions imposing voting by mail and same day registration on all states would have opened US elections to an enormous amounts of fraud.  This is nothing compared to the amount of fraud that would have unleashed on US elections if the provision discussed in this Breitbart article Pelosi ‘Stimulus’ Bill Imposes Nationwide ‘Ballot Harvesting’ Without ‘Any Limit’ was imposed on all 50 states.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s new stimulus bill would mandate nationwide “ballot harvesting,” allowing party operatives to return other people’s ballots to polling places without “any limit” on the number of ballots.

“Ballot harvesting” was legalized in California in 2016, and first used in the 2018 midterm elections. It allows anyone to drop off someone else’s mail-in ballot at a polling station. There is no process for vetting or verifying those delivering the ballots — no background checks or identification requirements. Democrats dropped hundreds of thousands of ballots off at polling stations in 2018, helping Democrats as they flipped seven Republican seats.

Here is the actual text of the ballot harvesting provision.

shall permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization provides compensation on this basis; and (B) may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return to the post office, a ballot drop off location, tribally designated building, or election office.

When Nancy Pelosi attempted to insert the ballot harvesting provision into the bailout legislation she knew well that it will lead to Democrats stealing elections because it succeeded when it was tried in California.  This is documented in the Breitbart article Blue State Blues: Democrats Stole the Election in California — Legally, Through ‘Ballot Harvesting’

California Democrats “stole” the midterm election using a new method that is illegal elsewhere but completely legal in the Golden State: a practice called “ballot harvesting,” which allows third parties to submit mail-in ballots for voters.

The practice explains several mysteries about the 2018 election, such as: why mail-in ballots caused massive shifts toward Democrats in races Republicans thought they won on Election Night; why Republicans won the turnout battle in the primary, but lost it in the general election; and why Democrats with party backing defeated fellow Democrats without it — even when the latter had more money.

It is true that the proposed changes to election law could favor both parties however the Democrats have demonstrated a remarkable proclivity for cheating and fraud.  That is because they have embraced Marxist philosophies and Saul Allinsky’s Rule for Radicals. Their success is documented in this San Francisco Chronicle article

California Democrats took advantage of seemingly minor changes in a 2016 law to score their stunningly successful midterm election results, providing a target for GOP unhappiness that is tinged with a bit of admiration…Few people noticed when Gov. Jerry Brown signed the changes in AB1921 into law two years ago. In the past, California allowed only relatives or people living in the same household to drop off mail ballots for another voter. The new law allowed anyone, even a paid political campaign worker, to collect and return ballots — “harvesting” them, in political slang.

In Orange County alone, where every House seat went Democratic, “the number of Election Day vote-by-mail dropoffs was unprecedented — over 250,000,” Fred Whitaker, chairman of the county Republican Party, said in a note to supporters. “This is a direct result of ballot harvesting allowed under California law for the first time. That directly caused the switch from being ahead on election night to losing two weeks later.”

Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate Republicans must hold strong.  They must make sure the Democrats never take control of our electoral system.

The great toilet paper shortage was caused by laws that prevent price gouging

Anti price gouging laws were enacted across this nation with the best intentions however they very often produce shortages of essential goods.  This is exactly what happened at the beginning of the Coronavirus crisis.  In a purely free market economy the shortage of toilet paper would have been mush less severe.  We probably would not have witnessed near riots and even fist fights over a shortage of this so necessary product.

When the mass buying toilet paper began and store inventories began to run low the store keepers should have automatically raised prices.  A drastic run on  toilet paper should have led to a drastic rise in the price.  This would have discouraged the mass buying and hording when inventories in the stores began to run low.

Because of the increased sale of toilet paper the store owners would have ordered more toilet paper from their suppliers who would then charge the store owners more if their supplies began to run low.  Quickly, because of free market forces the increased price and demand of toilet paper would have reached the manufacturers who would produce more and ship it faster down the supply chain to the stores.

Here is how the Foundation for Economic Education explained the factors behind the toilet paper shortage:

From an economic perspective, the value of toilet paper is much higher now than it was pre-pandemic. But with the price of toilet paper the same as it always was and not reflecting its increased value, there is nothing to prevent individuals from buying as much of it as possible. Indeed, that’s the rational consumer response. But if shopkeepers increased the price of toilet paper to reflect its new value, suddenly we would think twice about hoarding it and only take as much as we need. These rising prices would also signal supply chains of the increased value of toilet paper, prompting toilet paper manufacturers to boost production.

In natural disasters, like a hurricane or an earthquake or a pandemic, we often hear people decry “price gouging” and blame “greedy shopkeepers” for trying to profit off of misery. Yet, price gouging is an unfair term. If the shopkeeper raises the price of toilet paper (or hand sanitizer or bleach or eggs or any of the other items that are currently in high demand), then it incentivizes the consumer not to hoard and to buy only as much of an item as is truly needed. It’s not greedy, it’s responsive.

If the store charges too much customers will not buy the product or they will buy very little then the store will need to lower the price.  When more product becomes available the store will need to lower the price if it does not sell.  The store will eventually need to order less causing the price up the supply chain to fall signaling the producers to produce less.

Because of the price controls restricting the price the store can charge they are not able to pay their suppliers more.  The suppliers are not able to pay the manufacturers more.  There is no incentive for the producers to rapidly produce more and no incentive for the suppliers to rush the product down the supply chain resulting in delays in restocking shelves.

Government interference in the free market always produces far more negative results than positive no matter how well intentioned they are.  Unfortunately most colleges do not teach free market economics and politicians who  do not support anti price gouging laws are decried as monsters.

President Trump’s deregulation efforts have saved a lot of lives

I’ve maintained for many years that government regulations do far more harm than good.  Unfortunately the Coronavirus crises has more than proved me right.  Government red tape cost the lives of many Americans early on during this pandemic and the deregulation efforts by President Trump will have saved a substantial number of Americans before the crisis is over.  If you think I’m being melodramatic check out the Townhall article The Red Tape Pandemic by John Stossel.

The number of test kits available when the crisis began to unfold was disgrace and directly attributable to government regulations.  This had a major impact on how far and how fast the virus spread across the United States.  The Townhall article explains how a much larger number of test kits in South Korea resulted in a much less dire situation than we now face here.

Coronavirus deaths leveled off in South Korea.

That’s because people in Korea could easily find out if they had the disease. There are hundreds of testing locations — even pop-up drive-thru testing centers.

We can compare that to what happened here due to the low number of test kits.

In America, a shortage of COVID-19 tests has made it hard for people to get tested. Even those who show all the symptoms have a difficult time.

Why weren’t there enough tests?

Because our government insists on control of medical innovation.

The shortage of test kits was caused by government regulations.

When coronavirus appeared, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made its own tests and insisted that people only use those CDC tests. But the CDC test often gave inaccurate results. Some early versions of the test couldn’t distinguish between coronavirus and water.

Private companies might have offered better tests, and more of them, but that wasn’t allowed. The World Health Organization even released information on how to make such tests, but our government still said no. Instead, all tests must go through the government’s cumbersome approval process. That takes months. Or years.

Hundreds of labs had the ability to test for the virus, but they weren’t allowed to test.

As a result, doctors can’t be sure exactly where outbreaks are happening. Instead of quarantining just sick people, state governors are forcing entire states to go on lockdown.

At the same time, many people who show no symptoms do have COVID-19. Without widespread testing, we don’t know who they are, and so the symptomless sick are infecting others.

The shortage of test kits was relieved by President Trump relaxing regulations.

A few weeks ago, the government finally gave up its monopoly and said it was relaxing the rules. There would be quick “emergency use authorizations” replacing the months- or years-long wait for approval. But even that took so long that few independent tests were approved.

So President Donald Trump waived those rules, too.

Now tests are finally being made. But that delay killed people. It’s still killing people.

Doctor and nurse shortages have also impacted the Coronavirus crisis.  This issue was solved by a combination of President Trump and the governors of many states.

In some states, there’s a shortage of doctors or nurses. That, too, is often a product of bad law — state licensing laws that make it illegal for professionals licensed in one state to work in another. Trump said he would waive “license requirements so that the doctors from other states can provide services to states with the greatest need.” Then it turned out that he could only allow that for Medicare; he didn’t have the power to override stupid state licensing rules.

Fortunately, many states finally waived harmful licensing laws on their own.

It’s good that governments finally removed some rules.

This National Review article Deregulate to Help the Private Sector Fight Coronavirus also proves that government regulations have been costly in the fight against Coronavirus.

Amid the humanitarian and economic crisis brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, an intelligent policy response can save lives and livelihoods. In addition to the many measures being introduced and passed into law, including economic-stimulus measures and funding for testing, one critically important government response is to cut red tape and regulatory burdens that stand in the way of a quick and impactful response from businesses that can meaningfully help in the crisis.

The level of food and necessities has stabilized in the past few days.  One deregulation effort by President Trump’s administration helped bring that about.

since 1938, federal regulations limit most commercial truck drivers to eleven hours of driving time in a 14-hour workday. The restriction is intended to reduce accidents caused by highway fatigue. The rule doesn’t necessarily encourage safety, however, as truckers may be forced off the road at the end of their workday in areas not hospitable to truckers…Last Friday, after the president’s declaration of a national emergency, the Department of Transportation announced a nationwide exemption to the 82-year-old rules. Now truckers can help deliver badly needed supplies more quickly and efficiently while still safely splitting their required ten-hour rest period into two separate breaks instead of having to all take it at once.

Hopefully when the Coronavirus pandemic is over we will remember that government regulations made the crises worse and relaxing the regulations had very positive results. When it comes to getting rid of government regulations we need to go much further

We can’t let this become the new normal

I was completely startled at how rapidly everything escalated over just one week.  One minute I was watching a Red Sox preseason game where they were talking about the possibility of the halting preseason games, then, with in a few days governments at all levels were shutting down just about all normal activity.  Everything that happened was so unprecedented here in the United States. 

I’m worried that since it has happened once it will now happen over and over again.  Am I being paranoid about that?  I don’t think so.  Over the past decade I’ve studied history in great detail, with a particular emphasis on different forms of government.  The one theme that has repeated itself most often is that once a government body has tasted power it will soon become addicted to it and will wield it as often as it can. 

Were all of the orders to shelter in place and shutter businesses necessary?  I don’t know.  The only way to prove that it wasn’t is if governments did nothing,  I believe the price for that may have been a very steep price, just look at conditions in Italy.

We the people must take careful steps to make sure that this type of government forced social disruptions happens only when absolutely needed, only under the most dire of circumstances.  The way we do this is different for each level of government.

The way to prevent the federal government from abusing emergency powers and closing society down is simply to read the Constitution, understand the Constitution, and make sure the federal government follows the Constitution.  Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to restrict what individuals and businesses can do under any circumstances, even during an emergency.  That power is not granted to the federal government anywhere in the Constitution therefore it is left up to the state and local government levels.  If you don’t agree check out this Tenth Amendment Center article.

I believe some state governments, especially the governors, have gone too far with their Coronavirus measures.  Now that they have done it once I believe some governors will do it for much less of a crisis or a made up crisis such as climate change.  The residents of all of the states need to order their state governments to reign in emergency declaration powers through legislation.  Most governors can declare emergencies on their without the approval of the state legislatures.  I believe that if an emergency will last more than 48 hours the state legislatures should approve all plans and measures.  What constitutes an actual emergency must also be defined by legislation. Clear guidelines must be included in the legislation to protect the tights of individuals while protecting the health of everyone.

Local governments should be the freest when it comes to declaring emergencies and should have the least restrictions because most emergencies are local.

We the people must remain vigilant and make sure that the federal government and state governments do not make emergencies such as the one we’re dealing with now common place.  I fear that they will.

The Coronavirus and the Liberty versus saving lives debate

The Coronavirus pandemic has ignited online one of the most important debates, where do you draw line between saving lives and protecting freedom and liberty. This is also an internal debate I’ve been struggling with since this whole crisis began and I’ve switched back and forth as things have developed, often too rapidly to keep up with

When the voluntary mass cancellations of sporting events, the closings of schools, and the travel bans from overseas first occurred I believed all of this was an unnecessary overreaction on a major scale.  I maintained that belief for several days.  It wasn’t until I learned the goal behind all of this was to “flatten the curve” that I changed my mind.  Reading this article from The Federalist Papers article Coronavirus Control Measures Aren’t Pointless – Just Slowing Down The Pandemic Could Save Millions of Lives is what changed my mind about all of this

The goal is to “flatten the curve.” Rather than letting the virus quickly rampage through the population and burn itself out fast, the idea is to spread all those infections out over a longer period of time.

Flattening the curve is another way of saying buying more time. Yes, it would potentially prolong the epidemic. But in doing so, public health agencies and the health care infrastructure gain invaluable time to respond to the crisis.

Most importantly, “flattening the curve” provides an opportunity to significantly reduce deaths from COVID-19.

On the steep rise of the epidemic curve, especially when testing capacity is lacking, there is a tremendous burden on health care providers – many of whom will fall ill themselves and be forced to self-isolate, becoming unable to provide care for those in need. At the same time, there is immense pressure placed on health care facilities where demand for patient care will outpace capacity – things like the number of hospital beds, ventilators and so on – for a significant amount of time.

Now that I’m familiar with the topic of flattening the curve I can see that this disruption of normal life is necessary when a society is facing a dangerous contagious disease.  This health crisis introduced me to another new concept which can halt the spread of a communicable disease:

Social distancing requires changes in how people work, live and interact with each other. It may require canceling or avoiding big events, limiting nonessential travel and rescheduling conferences. Traditional classroom instruction may have to move to online delivery – already happening in some colleges and universities, though less easy to do for K-12 schools.

Unfortunately this current threat is a completely new strain of virus, one where no one has a natural immunity.  It is the unknown nature of the threat that convinced me that the closings and cancelings are necessary.

The complete clinical picture with regard to COVID-19 is not fully known. Reported illnesses have ranged from very mild (including some with no reported symptoms) to severe, including illness resulting in death. While information so far suggests that most COVID-19 illness is mild, a reportexternal icon out of China suggests serious illness occurs in 16% of cases. Older people and people of all ages with severe chronic medical conditions — like heart disease, lung disease and diabetes, for example — seem to be at higher risk of developing serious COVID-19 illness.

The CDC Website on COVID-19 contains a wealth of great information on this current threat.  It is the communicable nature of this disease that convinced me that these steps are necessary.

A pandemic is a global outbreak of disease. Pandemics happen when a new virus emerges to infect people and can spread between people sustainably. Because there is little to no pre-existing immunity against the new virus, it spreads worldwide.

The virus that causes COVID-19 is infecting people and spreading easily from person-to-person. Cases have been detected in most countries worldwide and community spread is being detected in a growing number of countries. On March 11, the COVID-19 outbreak was characterized as a pandemic by the WHO

This Newsweek article Newt Gingrich: I Am in Italy Amid the Coronavirus Crisis. America Must Act Now—And Act Big was the final piece of information that changed my mind and convinced me that all of this is necessary.

These steps are not an overreaction. The coronavirus is out of control of in Northern Italy. As of 6 p.m. local/1 p.m. EST on March 10, there were 15,113 total cases in Italy, with 12,839 active cases, 1,016 deaths and 1,258 recoveries. And there were 162 total cases here in Rome.

The hardest-hit region around Milan has had to improvise as its health system has been deeply stressed by the sheer number of patients. In Milan and Brescia, field hospitals have been set up in the fairgrounds as the local hospitals have been drowned in patients.

Because the demand for respirators and intensive care has been beyond any previous planning, doctors have been forced into the kind of triage thinking developed for intense battlefield casualty situations. There are reports that emergency room doctors are allotting respirators to those with higher life expectancy due to the limited equipment in the hardest hit areas of the province. If you are older or have other illnesses, you may simply not be eligible for treatment.

As Libertarian I am 100 percent against the government at any level, but especially the federal government, ordering the mandatory canceling of events, domestic travel bans, and closing private businesses.  A much better solution would be for the government to urge, suggest, and educate that all of this necessary, and it takes place.  A voluntary curtailing of social activity is the only way to preserve our freedom and rights while protecting our health.  The mandatory steps taken by Governor Charlie Baler and the rest are wrong because they are mandated by the government.

Unfortunately a lot of people do not listen to good advise and refuse to stop engaging in behavior that puts others at risk of catching this disease, which could cause the virus to spread uncontrollably.  What do we do about that?  UGH.  That is the question that I’m struggling with the most. Liberty is the freedom to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others.  Spreading the virus to others definitely harms them and could harm society as a whole.  

Is Joe Biden a moderate? Checkout his campaign website

It has been often reported by the liberal media, and even some on the political right, that Joe Biden is a moderate.  My immediate reaction to these statements is that they are a bunch of bunk. After studying his positions and statements on issues I knew he is nearly as far  to the left as Bernie Sanders.  To confirm this I checked out the Biden for President official website.  Here are his positions on some of the most important issues.  All quotes are from his campaign website and all emphasis is from the website.

Joe Biden still is completely all for ObamaCare, which was a socialist takeover of our healthcare industry.

As president, Biden will protect the Affordable Care Act from these continued attacks. He opposes every effort to get rid of this historic law – including efforts by Republicans, and efforts by Democrats. Instead of starting from scratch and getting rid of private insurance, he has a plan to build on the Affordable Care Act by giving Americans more choice, reducing health care costs, and making our health care system less complex to navigate.

Because Joe Biden supports the public option rather than the full Medicare for All, he is slightly more moderate on healthcare than Sanders.  He is only slightly less to left of Sanders because the public option has always been a stealthy installment plan way of eventually reaching an entirely government run healthcare system.

Giving Americans a new choice, a public health insurance option like Medicare. If your insurance company isn’t doing right by you, you should have another, better choice. Whether you’re covered through your employer, buying your insurance on your own, or going without coverage altogether, the Biden Plan will give you the choice to purchase a public health insurance option like Medicare. As in Medicare, the Biden public option will reduce costs for patients by negotiating lower prices from hospitals and other health care providers.

As you can see from this quote on gun control Joe Biden is very much a radical leftist.

It’s within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment, which is limited. As president, Biden will pursue constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies.

As president Joe Biden would use executive orders to drastically infringe on our right to bear arms.

Joe Biden also knows how to make progress on reducing gun violence using executive action. After the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, President Obama tasked Vice President Biden with developing both legislative proposals and executive actions to make our communities safer.

Here is a very radical gun control proposal.

Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products

Here are three more gun control quotes from his website.  Judge for yourself whether they are radical or moderate.

Get weapons of war off our streets. The bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Biden, along with Senator Feinstein, secured in 1994 reduced the lethality of mass shootings.

Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets.

Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.

That last quote is one of the most radical positions I’ve encountered.  The government at any level has no right to tell anyone how many guns they can own.

The immigration section of the Joe Biden Website is very lengthy and very far to the left.  Here is the most telling quote,

Creates a roadmap to citizenship for the nearly 11 million people who have been living in and strengthening our country for years. These are our mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. They are our neighbors, co-workers, and members of our congregations and Little League teams.

This one quote is an attempt to appear more centrist. Democrats have promised border security but have never delivered.

As president, Biden will finish the work of building a fair and humane immigration system–restoring the progress Trump has cruelly undone and taking it further. He will secure our border, while ensuring the dignity of migrants and upholding their legal right to seek asylum.

On the environment Joe Biden is very much a radical leftist.  As you can see he fully supports the Green New Deal which is a 90 trillion dollar laundry list of liberal dreams and desires.

Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected.

Spread the word on social media that Joe Biden is very much a radical leftist

If we could stop looking to the federal government to solve our problems that would be great

It is abundantly clear from the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention and the transcripts of the Ratification Debates, the framers of the Constitution would never have dreamed that the federal government would become the primary solver of all the problems facing the people of the United States.  In fact most would be horrified, saddened, and confused to learn how it is now.

The framers of the Constitution would be horrified to learn that most problems are now solved on the federal government level because they knew the end result of this would be an extremely large and powerful federal government.  They knew that such a large and powerful federal government would be an extreme threat to the rights and liberty of the American people.  They took great care to write a Constitution that would prevent the federal government from growing so large and powerful.

The framers of the Constitution would be saddened to hear that the American people chose to abandon the constitution that they so expertly crafted for us.  Only by abandoning the Constitution could we allow the federal government to become the solver of all of our problems.

The framers of the Constitution would be confused that the federal government is now the primary solver of most of our problems because of all the provisions they worked into the Constitution to make sure the federal government would not have power and authority to carry out this role.  The federal government created by the Constitution was only meant to carry specific roles namely, to defend the United States as a whole, to represent the United States as one nation diplomatically to other nations, and to prevent the individual states from squabbling with each other.  The Constitution created a federal government with a very limited number of powers, all of them clearly spelled out.  None of those powers grant the federal government the power and authority to solve problems such as healthcare, poverty, education, and so much more.

The framers of the Constitution knew that the individual States, local governments, and individuals were the proper places to solve the problems of this nation,  That is exactly the blueprint they used when they wrote the Constitution.

Here is my solution to the healthcare crisis that would fit into the Constitution, and has a remarkable probability of working: let each state come up with their own unique solution to the problem for the residents of that state.  The government of each state could communicate with each other to find out which solutions worked the best and perhaps copy it.

The federal government has tried to fix education and has only made the problem far greater.  The same holds true for poverty.

To increase the prosperity of individuals the federal government needs to get out of the way.  For far too many decades the federal government has smothered private businesses with too many regulations.  President Trump has begun to dial this back, however, there is so much more that needs to be done.  Greatly slashing tax rates would be a tremendous help also, the first Trump tax were only a small step in that direction.

The war on poverty has only resulted in more poverty and way too much dependence on government handouts.  Private charity would do far more good along with the greatly increased standard of living that would be generated for everyone with slashed regulations and taxes.

So many other problems we are looking to the federal government to solve would actually be solved at the state and local level if we let that happen.

Are teacher unions behind the indoctrination of school children?

The indoctrination of American youth is one of the most major calamities facing this nation.  For a very long time I’ve suspected that teacher unions are most responsible for the indoctrination.  It is an informed suspicion based on a lot of research and because I was forced to join a teacher union when taught part time at a community college. 

My suspicions were confirmed when I read the Life News article  Most teachers quite disturbed about their unions’ push for sexualization and indoctrination of school children,  The article chronicles a speech made by a teacher at a Heritage Foundation event.  Here are the opening paragraphs of the article:

Speaking in the nation’s capital, a 28-year veteran California teacher explained that most teachers are disturbed by the decades-long push to indoctrinate and oversexualize school children by teachers’ unions dedicated to far-left cultural and political causes and not the well-being of kids. 

“When you hear that teachers are behind comprehensive sexuality education or that teachers agree with the sexualization of children, that’s a huge deception,” said Rebecca Friedrichs.   

On the contrary, “America’s real teachers are deeply distrubed by the sexualization of our children,” said Friedrichs.  

“America’s real teachers have been silenced and bullied by the very organization that is pushing the sexualization of children: That is, labor unions,” she declared.  

As you can see, Fredrichs is clear that the teachers unions, not the teachers, are behind the indoctrination,

The unions attack the very virtues that most teachers cherish. They have used the teaching profession to gain unfettered access to America’s children

She further emphasizes this with the following story.

At National Education Association (NEA) events, “Teachers were wined and dined, and if you agreed to start a gay-straight alliance on your campus, you could get big money,” said Friedrichs. “You could also get money to push LGBT activism in the classroom. But can you get money to actually do something to help your students? No. Can you get support — as a union leader — for your colleagues? No.” 

Most of the business items at NEA conventions “are about far left politics, the LGBT agenda, and divisive narratives,” said the veteran educator. “Every divisive word you hear or see in our culture was first mentioned or made up inside the unions.”

At NEA representative assemblies, I have teacher friends who have been fighting against the oversexualization of our children for over 30 years,” recounted Friedrichs.    

“Here’s how they’ve been treated: They have been spit upon. They have been screamed at. Their path back to their seats have been blocked. They have been barred from serving on sex-ed and health committees.

The over sexualization of children is the most dangerous and despicable form of indoctrination being pushed on school children across this nation.  Most parents are not aware of this.  They would be shocked and disturbed if they were better informed.   Here is a list of graphic examples from the article”

“So teachers are bullied on every level, and we are horrified at the instruction we are being told to teach to your children,” declared Friedrichs.

She offered a few examples:

We’re told to teach children of their ‘sexual rights,’ that they should have sexual pleasure at all ages; 

That out of wedlock sex with anyone you want is just fine from any age, and hey, you shouldn’t think you’re not bisexual or homosexual.  Don’t knock it until you try it.”

We are told that the number one goal we are to teach children is to prevent pregnancy.  

We are told to teach children how to use condoms by bringing in fully erect penics models for them to manipulate. Ten and 11 year olds.  

All of this has to be done in mixed company because we are told to tell the children as young as four, ‘your parents didn’t know your gender when you were born, so they assigned you a gender. There is really a huge spectrum of genders. You will figure out your gender someday. That is child abuse. It is also the abuse of parents. It’s also religious abuse.  

We are told we have to tell children how and where to obtain birth control, including the morning-after pill and abortion without parental knowledge or permission from age 12. 

“The details are so inappropriate that I cannot even mention them to you today,” continued Freidrichs. “But they’re being said to our children in America’s schools. That is evil.” 

Parents need to speak out loudly and stop this madness.

Shining some light on the true nature of Socialism

The fact that Bernie Sanders, the self avowed socialist, appears to be currently the front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination is proof our educational system has failed to properly educate far too many about the true nature of Socialism.  It is up to us on the political right to set the record straight on social media. To make this easier I’ve assembled a selection of quotes from a couple of articles.

The first collection of quotes are from this American Thinker article Bernie Bros and the Catastrophe of Socialism

This first quote is not to flattering, yet it is accurate.

The love affair of young Americans with Bernie Sanders is the result of their disturbingly disastrous belief that they are entitled to what other people worked for. Pied Piper Bernie seduces young followers with his seductive lie: “You deserve and I will give you everything for free.” Ponder that, folks. In Bernie’s America, no one has to work for anything.

This next quote perfectly sums up one aspect of socialism the youth of this country fail to appreciate, it primarily benefits the least productive workers at the expense of the most productive.

You and Larry have summer jobs as waiters. You work your butt off, remembering patrons’ food orders correctly and swiftly filling their empty glasses; doing everything in your power to make their dining experience enjoyable. For your excellence, patrons tip you generously.

But rather than your well-deserved hard-earned money going into your pocket, it goes into a tip jar to be distributed equally between you and Larry. Meanwhile, Larry routinely arrives late, reeks of alcohol, takes long smoke breaks, routinely gets food orders wrong and does not give a rat’s derriere about the patrons. Management (government) forces you to share the fruits of your labor with lazy Larry. That is the major flaw of socialism.

Most students are not informed that socialism was attempted in several of the earliest colonies of this nation, and it failed each time.  One attempt was made in Plymouth Plantation.

William Bradford was the first governor of the Pilgrims’ Plymouth Colony. Bradford tried socialism, which meant that everything belonged to the community and everyone supposedly did their fair share of the work. Because of lazy Larrys, it failed. Therefore, Bradford wisely decided to give everyone their own land, which was extremely successful. Due to an abundance, families began trading goods and services. Capitalism.

I don’t think too many millennials would be thrilled to learn that socialism would put an end to innovation in the United States.

Duped Bernie Bros are thrilled over his promise to confiscate all earnings over a million dollars. Cell phones, the internet, medical breakthroughs, and other blessings are the result of individuals being allowed to be the best they can be; striving to reap great rewards for themselves and their families. Folks, there is nothing evil about that. If the government takes everything over a million dollars, why would anyone take risks or pursue new breakthroughs?

This next article, from the Mises institute, is rather technical, however, it contains a treasure trove of information Socialism: A Brief Taxonomy

As you can see from this quote, the most often cited definition of Socialism is incomplete:

The contemporary meaning of socialism often runs along the lines that it is a politico-economic theory in which the means of production, wealth distribution, and exchange are supposed to be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. This characterization of socialism emphasizes its important economic features; however, it cannot be considered a comprehensive definition. The wording implies a narrow understanding of socialism from the point of view of materialist and positivist currents of socialism but does not fully encompass the features exhibited in antimaterialist, anti-Cartesian, and Kantian members of the socialist family.

Here is a much more complete definition:

Socialism is a set of artificial socioeconomic systems that are characterized by varying degrees of collectivization of property, or consciousness, or the redistribution of wealth… socialization of property, collectivization of consciousness, and wealth redistribution are necessary and sufficient causative factors that taken separately or in combination unambiguously define an ideology as socialistic and designate preferred paths to socialism

The Mises article contains definitions of many different types of Socialism that have cropped up over the centuries, the one for Democratic Socialism is the most crucial to understand considering the popularity of Bernie Sanders.

Democratic Socialism in the USA, is a significant revision to Marxism, which practically does not leave even the foundation of genuine Marxist principles. Reformism has been a mainstream form of socialist ideology and practice since the end of the nineteenth century. Redistribution of wealth and partial socialization of consciousness are the main paths being utilized by the doctrine. Socialism is supposed to be gradually built within a capitalistic society by methodically changing the socioeconomic laws of the land using parliamentary procedures. Great importance is also attached to the mental transformation of members of the society through the indoctrination of the population in educational institutions and the propaganda of the socialistic ideals in the mass media, social networks, and materials of pop culture.

Equity – The latest hot concept in progressive indoctrination

Progressive indoctrination in the United States was once confined primarily to colleges and universities.  It has now infected grade schools and high schools across this nation.  The purpose of this indoctrination is to convert this nation from a liberty based free market nation into a Marxist nation.   This is chronicled in the Townhall article; Marxism Sugarcoated And Forcefed To Schoolchildren As ‘Equity’

American elementary schools have spent the past decade rapidly introducing leftist and socialist curricula into classrooms of little children. This type of leftist propagandization was previously reserved for older children in colleges and high schools. But the Obama era, followed by the shock of Trump’s election, catalyzed a more emboldened approach for leftist pedagogy. 

The progressive indoctrination has been spread through our schools by using many different warm and fuzzy sounding phrases and buzzwords.  This is a subject I’ve studied in great detail online and have covered it on several occasions on this website.  The concept of equity versus equality is a new one to me even though I’ve encountered many examples over the years.   Here is how it is defined by the author of the Townhall article:

Enter the new era of socialist propagandization of children: “equity.” Equity is taught as a type of superior fairness. It replaces the now archaic concept of equality. Equality is explained to our children as “generic” and “equal,” apparently bad things, while equity is pedestaled as “fair. ” You see, equality means that everyone has the same, equal opportunities, but this leads to unequal results. Equity, on the other hand, ensures identical results and thus leads to “fair” outcomes. The idea that America should offer equality of opportunity, not equality of result, is now dead, and has been replaced with the reverse standard – that America should offer equality of result

This nation was founded on the concept of each and every individual being created equal, we are all familiar with that most important line from the Declaration of Independence.  Hopefully it is still being taught in schools.  With the sad state of public school education you just don’t know.

The founders of this nation all knew that because every individual is truly unique, everyone with different talents, intellect, skills, and ambitions, every individual will achieve different levels of prosperity in a truly free society, with a free market economy.   They firmly believed that even though some individuals would achieve a higher standard of living than others, there was no better system.  Their belief in the rightness of that system is based on the fact that government force and coercion would be needed to guarantee equal outcomes for every individual.   They knew that money or other property would have to be forcibly taken from individuals with more wealth and redistributed to those who have less.  This is true in the United States thanks to the progressive income tax and redistributive welfare programs. If you don’t think force and coercion are involved here in this country try not paying your taxes. 

Like all indoctrination, clever and subtle messages are the most effective way to implement it such as this:

To teach the concept, children are shown an example of three kids trying to look over a fence: a short, medium, and tall child. In the first slide, each of them is given an equally-sized box to stand on. This results in the shortest kid not boosted up enough to be able to see over the fence, while the tallest kid is shown to be getting a boost that he doesn’t really need. Next, a second slide is shown. The tallest boy’s box is given to the shortest kid, with the shortest kid now standing on two boxes. The middle child keeps one, and the tallest gets none. The result is that everyone can now see over the fence, equally. The conclusion is taught as: “Fair isn’t everybody getting the same thing … fair is everybody getting what they need in order to be successful.” 

The first time I encountered this example on social media I noticed several glaring flaws which I know are most likely not dealt with in the classroom. 

First, where do the boxes come from?  Socialists would believe that everyone has a right to a box and government must provide it which means the boxes were taken by force and redistributed.  If individuals who do not pay to view the game are given boxes by the government to see the game who would pay to enter the stadium and watch?  Is that fair to the owners of the team and the stadium?  Wouldn’t it be best if the kids who wanted to see the game earned the money necessary to buy a ticket?

The author of the article shared this solution to the progressive indoctrination crises, one I very much agree with:

The only way to stop this socialist infestation of our grade schools is to stand up for your children, to vociferously object to every lesson plan that shows socialism dressed in sheep’s clothing. Keep an eye on your children’s homework and talk to them every day. Set aside Family Learning Time to teach your kids the truth about “equity” and what happens in the real world when equal results are forced. Remember, it is impossible to make everyone equally rich; it is only possible to make everyone equally poor.