Frankly, the Dems – especially those in Congress – should just come out and be utterly so utterly honest. They are, and have been since even before Trump was elected to the Presidency, engaged in a concerted and coordinated coup attempt against the American People’s duly elected POTUS. And they have made it clear that there is no act too base or too vile for them to engage in, even to the point of inciting their base to attempt mass assassinations.
Some people question the value of modern, Liberal education. We call those people intelligent, patriotic Americans. This is because, academics aside, there is nothing of value in Liberal education and much that actively seeks to devalue America.
Worse, the higher one goes in education the lower one seems to sink into treason and evil.
Harvard is a perfect example of this. Academically, it’s a very fine university. What it teaches its students beyond academics is another and more horrific story altogether. Take what the once august institution taught one of its students, Sandra Korn, to believe and then allowed it to be published in the The Harvard Crimson as evidence of this.
In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that â€œTeachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.â€ In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.
Â Yet the liberal obsession with â€œacademic freedomâ€ seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has â€œfull freedomâ€ in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publicationÂ are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever â€œfreeâ€ from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of â€œacademic freedomâ€?
Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of â€œacademic justice.â€ When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.
Yes, that’s right. The Harvard bint was academic and scientific freedom curtailed in favor pandering to the desires and agendas of certain special interest groups and those among the student body who enable them. It’s what she’s been taught is justice, which must, in what passes for her mind, trump freedom every single time.
Consider this – In this modern and woefully (mis)educated age the greatest and some of the most pernicious examples of injustice have been and are being perpetrated for the sake of abolishing the perceived inequalities of outcome of certain protected individuals and groups. Properly blind justice has been sacrificed on the alter of forced egalitarianism.
During the 2008 Presidential Election armed and unformed operatives of the hate group, The New Black Panther Party,deployed themselves outside of at least polling place in order to intimidate White voters. This was a clear case of overt and thuggish voter intimidation and directly violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial epithets and military-style uniforms.
The thugs were escorted away by the police and later a civil suit was brought against them.
Of course, the quasi-terrorist thugs involved – New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson – refused to appear in court to answer the accusations over a near-five month period, court records said. Therefor the court rendered a default judgment against the vermin on April 20.
Sadly for actual Americans, political appointees by President Obama, our First Black President, who report to Attorney General Eric Holder, our First Black US Attorney General, ordered the career Justice Dept. lawyers to reverse their decision and drop the already won case without sanctions against the Black Power extremists.
A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections.
Apparently, under President Obama and A.G. Holder, the “change we can expect” is a complete change in the meaning of “under Color of Law” – at least when it comes to who is allowed to vote in safety.
Read the rest of this entry »
President Obama is supposedly a great admirer or America’s 16th President, Abraham Lincoln. At least he, his staff, and their media sycophants have made a point of trying to link Obama to Lincoln in many ways. Somehow, given Obama’s actions, I think that this is nothing more than posturing and capitalizing on Lincoln legacy.
I know this would make the Lincoln weep – or have Obama hold off in chains:
As reported by CNN:
Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.
But the proposal would be “dead on arrival” if it’s sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.
Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.
No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.
The groups also cited an increase in “third-party collections” estimated in the 2010 budget proposal — something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.
Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under “consideration.”
“A final decision hasn’t been made yet,” he said.
Currently, veterans’ private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.
— Adam Levine
CNN, The 44th President, 1st 100 Days
It’s well known by all reasoning Americans that President Obama, like most – if not all – Liberals, has little or know love or respect for the members of the US Military; he’s already made that abundantly clear. This proposed action goes beyond disrespect though; it is an overt act of disloyalty and is an explicit assault on the morale and operating efficiency of our brave soldiers.
Surprisingly and thankfully, even the Democrats in Congress can’t – judging from Sen. Patty Murray’s (D-WA) blunt language – stomach this betrayal of our military
President Obama wants our armed forces to use their own insurance to pay for line-of-duty injuries? I guess his desire for Universal Healthcare doesn’t extend to the military. Maybe he thinks they don’t deserve it, or that America can’t afford to provide the care they deserve – though we apparently can afford to provide that care for other demographics.
Over the course of man’s history various rulers and regimes have made the mistake of failing to support their armies. Most of them didn’t last overly long, either due to the military deposing them or the military “failing” to prevent others from deposing them.
I’m not 100% certain at this point exactly how I feel about this being repeated one more time… 🙁