The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread


upload_2019-4-10_6-52-23.gif

3 Cheers for Betsy DeVos
Star Parker | April 10, 2019


fbbb88be-f6f4-4441-ae8c-6ceda61b268f.jpg

Logging on to the website of the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, the first flashing headline that meets the eye attacks Education Secretary Betsy DeVos: "Betsy DeVos and Her No Good, Very Bad Record on Public Education."


What perturbs the NEA is that DeVos sees her mission as education, which is not necessarily only "public education."

Surely, Secretary DeVos' new initiative, the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act, which has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Ted Cruz and in the House by Rep. Bradley Byrne, has the teachers unions on edge.

Education Freedom Scholarships provides dollar-for-dollar federal tax credits to those who voluntarily contribute to state-controlled and administered "Scholarship Granting Organizations" to whom parents can turn for funds to send their child to any school of their choice.

No, this does not expand federal control over education. It just provides a new source of federal funds to support state-administered programs that will help enable parental choice in education.

The proposed $5 billion in financing doesn't even amount to one percent of the $654 billion now being spent annually on K-12 education.

Education freedom is still a relatively new idea. Twenty years ago, platforms enabling parents to choose where to send their child to school were nonexistent.

Today, 482,000 children are participating in some kind of education choice program -- either through vouchers, tax credit scholarships or education savings accounts.

Which is still miniscule given that we have 56.6 million children attending K-12 schools and 50.7 million in public schools.


Why is parental choice so vitally important?

The education choice movement got started on the idea of competition. We know from our marketplace that nothing produces excellence like competition.

So why shouldn't we have it in something so vitally importance as education?

Arguably, it's even more important in education than in other areas. Why?

We know if we have competition in automobiles, we will get the best possible and most diverse production of automobiles for consumers. But nobody disagrees about what an automobile is.

But how about education? What is it? What does a child need to learn?

The Book of Proverbs teaches, "How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding is preferable to silver!"

In our secular culture, many argue that wisdom cannot be transmitted in schools. Education should just be geared to acquiring career and professional skills -- getting gold and silver.

But can we have a nation without wisdom and understanding? And should we pretend children can be educated without these? Of course not.

But in our divided and confused country, there's no consensus about what wisdom and understanding are.

To get back to the teachers unions, look at their websites. They are shills for abortion, same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights. They pretend this is wisdom. And this is what is passing for wisdom in the education monopoly called our public school systems.


Why, in our free country, should parents be forced to send their children to be indoctrinated in left-wing culture?

In 24 states plus Washington, D.C., public schools are required by law to provide sex education. What are the children being taught?

So freedom and competition in education is not just about a better product. It's about freedom to determine what the product is.

In a nation where the pillars of marriage and family have broken down, we must allow wisdom and understanding to be again taught. We must allow parents, particularly low-income parents, to send their children to Christian schools.

In a nation where the incidence of out-of-marriage births has quadrupled over the last half-century and the incidence of marriage has dropped 33 percent, we need education that conveys wisdom and understanding to our children.

In a free country, this can only done through education freedom and parental choice.

Three cheers to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
 
barr-smile.jpg

Barr: You bet I’ll be looking into how this Russia investigation started

JAZZ SHAW Posted at 9:21 am on April 10, 2019

Most of the Attorney General’s comments during congressional hearings this week were rather perfunctory from what I saw. Democrats were trying to score points with various declarations about how the entire Mueller report needed to be released, mixed with insinuations that the Justice Department must be up to no good somehow. Barr mostly stuck to the script and said he’d have the redacted report ready in the next week or so. But as John discussed last night, there was one moment where something unexpected happened. Following a question from Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama), Barr calmly announced that he would be looking into the origins of the Russia investigation and whether the entire premise of it was legitimate or not. This seems to go deeper than a simple clean-up operation following a long investigation and it’s taking the story in a direction the Democrats definitely don’t want to go. He plans on expanding upon the previous work done by IG Horowitz. (From John Solomon writing at The Hill)
 
One side of the story.

ScreenShot2019-04-09at5.44.27PM.png

Attribution: Image from CSPAN video
Candace Owens of Turning Point USA was not pleased when Rep. Ted Lieu played a recording of her remarks soft-pedaling Hitler's nationalism.
Right-wing clown show tries to turn a dead-serious hearing on hate into a travesty
Apr 09, 2019 7:00pm PDT by David Neiwert, Daily Kos Staff
comment_large-8adbba5c278ed0dbc656081bd1f2827c.png
80145
Republicans planned a clown show—featuring right-wing provocateur Candace Owens—for Tuesday morning’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism. They got one, of course.

But then, none of what went on inside the hearing room compared to the deluge of hateful sewage that surged online around it.

This was a stark and striking contrast with the rest of the hearing, in between outbursts by Owens, a conservative African American affiliated with the far-right Turning Point USA, and Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America, both of whom wanted to make the affair into a partisan circus with incendiary rhetoric that threatened to derail the decorum of the chamber.

When those two weren’t taking up oxygen, the hearing managed to produce some important insights into the rise of white nationalism, a phenomenon that concerns most terrorism experts, including the current FBI director, as the most significant terrorist threat facing Americans. As hearing participants learned, this is particularly the case given the rise of young white males being radicalized online by the white nationalist movement.

The difference between the behavior of the two parties was especially striking in regard to the somber nature of the matter being discussed. On the one hand there was Owens, who opened with a statement denouncing the hearing itself as an election-year stratagem:


The hearing today isn’t about white nationalism, it’s a preview of a Democrat 2020 election strategy, same as the 2016 election strategy. … The bottom line is that white supremacy, racism, white nationalism, words that once held real meaning, have now become nothing more than election strategies. Every four years, the black community is offered handouts and fear. Handouts and fear. Reparations and white nationalism. This is the Democrats’ preview.

Similarly beclowning the proceedings was Klein, who at one point claimed that the terrorist who murdered 50 Muslims at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, was actually a left-wing “ecoterrorist.” At other points, Klein argued that Muslims are predisposed to anti-Semitism because of passages in the Koran.

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas did his damnedest to take the facepalm prize with his attempt to grill representatives from Facebook and Google about their platforms’ supposed censorship of conservatives, pleading at one point on behalf of his “friends” Diamond and Silk.

But the spotlight went to Owens, who early on in the proceedings—after claiming that the “Southern Strategy” was “a myth”—got into a quarrel with Democratic Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, who had called out the attempts to turn the proceedings partisan as “despicable.” Owens, in retort, called Cicilline “cowardly,”which drew a reprimand from committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler.

Obviously tiring of Owens’ self-serving martyrdom shtick, Rep. Ted Lieu opened his remarks by playing remarks Owens had made earlier about Adolf Hitler while speaking at an event with Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in December. The room heard, in context, Owens tell her audience then, “You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted — he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize.”

Owens went stone-faced as the audio played, and then a little later ripped into Lieu, saying “that it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety.”

She concluded, however, on a typically strange, ahistorical note: “I do not believe that we should be characterizing Hitler as a nationalist. He was a homicidal, psychopathic maniac that killed his own people. A nationalist would not kill their own people.”

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal devoted most of her time to questioning the Facebook and Google representatives, but opened with an observation that may have been the final word on Owens’ participation:

I did want to say that the ranking member talked about the need to call out hate and stop playing to 15 minutes of fame, I think was the way it was phrased. And I do have to wonder then why the minority called some witnesses who in fact have actually traded in just this. …

My concern about some of the characterization of some of what’s happened is that we have a mass murderer who really did trade in hate, 50 counts of murder, 39 attempted murder counts, who did call out one of the witnesses on this panel as being his inspiration—whether or not she was, I’m not contending that. But I think for people across the country who are watching this hearing, the idea that we would give any kind of legitimacy to speech that in any way might be considered as triggering that kind of action—that’s different than saying somebody’s responsible, which I would never say, but I do think it is deeply hurtful for people across this country who might be watching this, to see some of those things expressed or given legitimacy to.

The bulk of the hearing was devoted to a sober discussion of the problem and its dimensions, as well as the challenges faced both by technology firms and by law enforcement and public officials in confronting the realities of radicalized white nationalists. One of its most moving moments came when Dr. Mohammad Abu-Salha described for the committee what it’s like to endure a hate crime, relating the tragic murders of his son and two daughters in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in February 2015 by a man who hated Muslims. Texas Democratic Rep. Sylvia Garcia was herself moved to tears as she struggled to retell to her fellow panelists how a young man victimized by a hate crime, who had testified before the same committee in 2007 in support of a federal hate-crimes law, had eventually committed suicide in its aftermath.

However, some of the most disturbing testimony came from the relatively clinical presentation of the Anti-Defamation League’s Eileen Hershenov, who explained how the bigotries that fuel hate crimes often overlap. “These things are absolutely linked,” she said. “You might start with some white supremacists on anti-Semitism, and you will get to anti-immigrant, refugees, Muslims, African Americans, and vice-versa.”

That was nowhere more evident than in the online world around the broadcast of the hearing on C-SPAN, where a deluge of online hate spewed forth in the comments sections of sites livestreaming it, notably on YouTube. It was so intense that YouTube disabled the comments under the video about 30 minutes in, and deleted many that had been posted.
 
I might be wrong but, does it seem to anyone else the libs in here have lost their will to beat up on Trump?
Funny how a 70 year old man took all you lying fuckying crybabies out.
You lose, again.
 
NEW: AG Barr tells Congress "I think spying did occur, yes. I think spying did occur" on the Trump campaign. He adds "The question was whether it was adequately predicated. And I'm not suggesting it wasn't predicated. I need to explore that"
 
Sen. Lindsey Graham at hearing w/ AG Barr: "You cannot possibly be surprised that President Trump would claim exoneration without having read anything. [ Laughs ] So, anyway."
 
Back
Top