Beyond the Cusp

September 18, 2017

Republican Party Committing Electoral Suicide

 

It seems there are two Republican Parties today. One is the elite, loyal guard who are what one might call the core of the presumed power structure. The other are the ones who win despite the party mostly ignoring their needs and election campaigns where they receive minimal help but run populist campaigns knocking on doors and speaking at every church, synagogue and every society which will allow. The power structure have campaign chests which if theirs and the Democrats’ were combined, the United States could probably put a good sized dent in the national debt. They are reelected because they have much of their district or state in their pocket and all the media give them good coverage always speaking respectfully of them. These long-time Congressional denizens also make up the core of the “Never Trumpers” who are making life near to impossible for the President. With the party split like this, it is not difficult to see a disaster in the making. And now the Republican “Never Trumpers” have decided that their opposition to the President surpasses the good of the Party. They refused to work with President Trump on repeal of Obamacare and are now rising for a fight over Tax Reform. When President Trump decided to pass the controversy over the repeal of President Obama’s DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) to Congress rather than acting unilaterally, they decided they would refuse to act. Facing such stubborn refusal for cooperation from his own Party, President Trump did what he was all but forced into, he made a deal with the Democrat Party and now you should hear the howling. Those very same “Never Trumpers” are accusing the President of treason against the Party. But that is politics as usual, push somebody away and refuse to work with or even listen to them and then when they decide to work with other politicians who promise to be more receptive, then they are a traitor and are compromising your position and chance for reelection.

 

These head games and power struggles within the party are toxic, nothing less. The voters watch what is happening and eventually they are sickened and turn away. The Republican Party cannot understand why they can never hold a majority in the Congress for more than a couple of election cycles while the Democrat Party can do so often for decades at a time. One can only wonder if the Republicans ever take a moment from their internal squabbles to watch the Democrats in Congress. When there is a vote on any major legislation where the Democrat voters have shown a preference, the Democrats invoke Party solidarity and almost the entirety will vote as one. The Republican base of support gave a voice of support and preference over the past six years since Obamacare was passed that they wanted it repealed. The Republican base has always supported tax code simplification and lower taxes. They have always supported fewer regulations. President Trump has made a ruling that for every regulation enacted, that department must retire two regulations. President Trump has repealed numerous regulations which were invoked by Presidential edict by President Obama by using the identical power to revoke them. President Trump agreed to permit the Congress to consider three separate means to choose between to repeal Obamacare, and they chose none of them largely because the Republican Party could not enforce Party unity while the Democrats were the epitome of Party unity. Then they threatened an entangling argument over tax reform and rate lowering just because President Trump needed it and they hate President Trump and believe he is a false Republican. President Trump has tried to represent the Republican conservative agenda but apparently, that has not been good enough and that is why they are opposing exactly the things they had promised they would work on to their constituents.

 

Never Trump Republican Core

Never Trump Republican Core

 

Of course, they are playing the usual games and each taking a turn to vote for everything while in the end voting against them all so when asked they can claim they supported the exact things they defeated. We have explained this game before where they have more than one of the same bill so each can vote for one while voting against the others thus defeating important bills but being able to say on the campaign that they voted for the best version of the legislation and it was not their fault it failed, it was those other Republicans. They make it so they can all have the same excuse and depend on nobody being able to understand the backhanded dealings they use to deceive their constituents. That has become the whole new game, fool the voters into believing that you are doing as they desire while serving to enlarge the government and give more power and wealth to the top five percent, and both parties are playing the same game. The difference is that the Democrats are at least slightly more honest as they purport to serve the ever greater government, the Republicans are supposed to be for limited government. For those old enough, this can be confusing as in our youth the Democrats were for less government and the Republicans were for more government. We guess that is also part of the political cycles. There are all forms of political cycles. There was a time when the Republicans voted as a block much of the time and the Democrats were the party of the loud arguments. That was back when the Democrats wanted smaller government. Apparently, if you desire to make government smaller, then you argue because everybody wants to make government smaller by taking from the other places while keeping all the government which enriches your voters. The problem is to make government smaller, you have to take away from somebody and the best method would be to have everybody volunteer to surrender something such that everybody invests in a smaller government. But it will never work because then there will be arguments that one only lost fifty jobs and my district would lose two-hundred jobs and that is not fair. When you are a politician, you can demand that everything be fair as long as they are more fair for you and yours.

 

The Republicans were given a mandate by those who elected Donald Trump to be President. They stated four or five basic things that they insisted be accomplished. They demanded Obamacare be repealed, taxes be lowered, regulations be repealed, government be shrunk, and that the Republicans work together and accomplish this immediately if not sooner. This has not happened and unless it does before the end of the year, then the voters will be very upset. There is a reason why the Republican Party does not dominate the Congress year after year. It is not because they do not have the voters potentially. The problem is that the Republicans have upset so many voters who have let their registration slip away and never returned to the voter rolls. Their actions have even sent such a distracting and fractured message that some conservatives have simply never registered believing that it really does not matter because no politician ever actually represents true conservatism. The Republicans just have this ability to appear as if they are in a constant state of confusion leading to indecision followed by the inability to accomplish anything of consequence which their voters demand of them. This leads to frustration for their voters and this also leads to them turning away from political news and stop voting. Part of the problem can be represented through the Congressman who represents the first Congressional District in Oklahoma, Jim Bridenstine. He won a populist primary to win his first term by walking much of the district going door-to-door meeting the constituents. When he came up for reelection after winning by a near record vote his first term, the Republican Party should have rushed and supported him but instead they ran a Party functionary against him in the primary elections. Jim Bridenstine defeated this Republican challenge in an embarrassing and overwhelming manner and has served to the current time. Jim Bridenstine now leads President Trump’s list to become the next head of NASA which makes sense, as he is an Air Force veteran and also has a degree in administration. Perhaps this is yet another Republican conspiracy to replace him in Congress. How is that for a wild conspiracy theory. Perhaps it is the Republican secret plan to lose the seat to the Democrats, except this would be next to impossible. On the other side, a Democrat from this district would be more conservative than a Republican from Massachusetts.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

September 8, 2017

Identity Politics also Morality Politics

 

The new form of politics asks simple questions hoping to illicit simple answers and push votes without much thinking. They ask the obvious as those are the questions which require no deep thought. Do you care for the poor? Do you want to improve education? Do you care about equality? Do you want the country to flourish? Do you support the military? Do you support funds for saving the animals? Do you support the symphony orchestra? Do you support more libraries? Do you support immigrant assistance programs? Do you feel for the children? You know the entire gambit of questions and both sides of the political spectrum have their pet programs and the questions to match. The candidates know which questions to use framing the people by groups and their particular preferences. They tailor their speech for each group with their handlers to keep them on message. Politics has become a game of words and specific realities on which each side preys. Love of country, love thy neighbor, help the poor, support equality and the terms go on and on and we hear them repeated often by the same people every election. The same campaigns keep the same people in office where they build up huge campaign chests making their reelection more likely term after term and the people ask why things seldom change. When challenged about their own representative who has been in office for three, four, five or more terms; the reply is that they are not the problem. So, if each individual Representative and Senator is not the problem but the government is dysfunctional, then somewhere there must be a problem.

 

Politics have slowly been evolving to the point where one can have their lives destroyed if they supported the wrong candidate. Then the questions become charges. Instead of do you care about, it becomes you do not care. Instead of do you support, it becomes you hate and do not care. Then it becomes we do not want your kind in our neighborhood and the people stop speaking to those who are the forbidden, the ones who voted wrongly. You can have voted wrongly even if your candidate won which has become excessively evident on social media. Friends break up over politics, marriages end over politics, people lose their jobs over politics though that is always couched differently as we saw recently at Google. Politics has become almost a team sport and if you belong to the wrong team in an area which is predominantly made up by the other side, you can lose everything for which you worked hard. This is the new reality in some places. One wonders if this is the same for both sides. How many people lost their job, friends, marriage or social standing because they voted for Hillary Clinton? How many people lost their job, friends, marriage or social standing because they voted for Donald Trump? From the postings we have witnessed on Facebook, there does appear to be a predominance of losses on one side compared to the other.

 

This is what identity politics is about. One must choose the correct politician or else they can be subjected to scorn and ridicule. The attacks can happen on social media, at work, in the neighborhood and even at home. Some of the most impossible cases are where husband and wife find themselves on opposite sides of the political field. They soon find they are starting to have different social circles and no friends in common. This can be a great strain on the relations and has caused some broken marriages. Those are some of the saddest results of the new politics where being on the wrong side becomes unforgivable. Some claim the reason for this new political fighting is due to the Internet and everybody retreating to reading only those web sites which represent their side. They enter a near universal echo chamber where everything they read, hear, and otherwise come into contact with represents reinforcement of their identity and moral political views. They thus move slowly but inexorably further to the extremes of their favored political views. Eventually, people end up so deeply entrenched that they cannot see the other side and reach the belief that everything depends upon their views being the predominant view represented in the government or else the government is oppressive. Suddenly the other side is not just a different viewpoint but they are the enemy. Now anything is permissible as it is war, not politics.

 

Politics used to be a discourse but now it is simply accusations and acrimony. Civility has left the building, they are putting up boxing rings, and we hear that next it will be laser tag or perhaps paintball wars or is shooting the next step in political debate? There are those who claim that the other side has taken up political assassination and they point to specific shootings to prove their point. The shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords on one side and the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise on the other side are the poster politicians of shooting violence. Never mind what the truth was in either case because these had to be violence committed by the other side. Political violence is a volatile issue, the scars are slow to heal, and the belief that it had to be the other side never goes away. Politics has an initial victim, truth. Lies are what are told on the campaign trail, lies are told on social media, lies are told between people and lies are entrenched as part and parcel of the political atmosphere. The fact that both the shooter of Representative Giffords was Jared Lee Loughner, a sufferer from paranoid schizophrenia and whose reasons for the attempted assassination and murder of six people and the injuring of a dozen more were apolitical as he held little if any political leanings until 2007 when he suffered a personality transformation turning to become left wing, quite liberal and radical according to reports. James Hodgkinson was arrested for the shooting of Representative Scalise, had leftward leanings and asked the players on the field if they were the Republicans before opening fire. But these facts mean little in the political debate.

 

Representative Steve Scalise shooter James Hodgkinson at Protest

Representative Steve Scalise shooter James Hodgkinson at Protest

 

When it comes to politics, the truth is more malleable than Silly Putty and almost as fluid as water. Like Silly Putty, the subjects and positions can be twisted and molded to satisfy anyone from the most ardent supporter to the most neutral watcher of the polls and like water, politics will seemingly always flow to the lowest level. Some probably wonder whether politics can become any more dangerous or deceitful. We think that one we can answer and that answer is unfortunately, yes. We predict it will not only become more dangerous and deceitful but also sink to new lows and break apart many if not all the bonds which have held the United States together. There is a distinct danger that the rifts between the two main parties and the separate sides of the argument will simply continue drifting further and further apart until they can no longer see any middle ground upon which to meet and that will be the sign that the Second Civil War is imminent or the nations will break into separate nations as they will no longer share any common bond. Either result will be the end of the great American experiment but then there will be one bright result, the result if they break into separate nations will reestablish the federalized system where each can attempt to solve difficulties in their own style and whichever works best the others will be able to adopt, if their politics will permit such. There it is again, if their politics will permit such, how sad.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

September 2, 2017

Free Speech Has Real and Legal Limits

 

Most of us past the eighth grade understand that one cannot legally scream “Fire” in a crowded dark movie theater as doing so causes a threat to human life. Another example of restricted speech is one would be advised not to scream or even whisper in an audible voice “Kill the President,” even if it be the current President. Speech calling for the overthrow of the government or the Constitutional form of government would also get you placed before a judge rather quickly. One is not permitted speech which threatens to do physical bodily harm, cause irreparable harm to one’s personal property, to incite other forms of harm including financial, to make false accusations, make false crime report, make slanderous accusations or commentary, and a number of other forms of speech which have been specifically named as illegal due to damages or threats they relate. These are obvious forms of speech which are not permissible. But these are all spelled out in criminal and other codes and are not what all the screaming, yelling and protesting is all about now, is it. So, what idiocy can we add to these discussions? Well, let us see what we can come up with. Freedom of Speech is easily defined that universally, all sides and views will have equal access to the media and to all forms of communication with the same identical application of law prohibiting talk of revolution, violence, harm to any group, public safety and protection of the governing entities. That is the easy definition and it only gets complicated when a society passes from total free speech to limited free speech where they now disallow hate speech.

 

Our look into this phenomenon will use the United States as the basis for the attempt to use speech codes as a weapon. This has already been going on for quite some time but we will try and be brief. The attempt to use speech as a weapon has long been a known manner of taking over the political system. This type of takeover has been covered in science fiction with books such as 1984, where history and language were redefined in order to support the state and Fahrenheit 451 where all knowledge of books was banned and the title is the flash-point for paper where it will spontaneously combust. In both of these literary masterpieces, the governance was fascist though they would never admit it but were very happy to define their enemies as such. The limitations for the good of the people as to what speech is approved is a common thread in the imposition of a dictatorial fascist state upon the people and it almost always starts either with a military styled coup and the assassination or execution of all the political leadership which stood in opposition or with the takeover of the language and the history rewriting both to favor the new leadership and to exclude any and all other groups placing them beyond the protection of the language enforcers.

 

1984 and Fahrenheit 451

 

First, we will examine the wordsmith limitations where the dictatorial fascists start by defining terminology in order to limit and frame permissible debate. This is initially done once the elementary education has been placed in the control of the group initiating a political takeover. At this phase, the limitations on language are framed as making conversation polite and the removal of hate-filled words and terms. The teachers are taught a new and “better” teaching method which will make students learning ability improved and their education more productive. This new and better system replaces phonics where students are taught the sounds made by individual letters and then sound out the worlds using such sounds. The exceptions such as “enough” pronounced “ih-nuhf” are then taught by use of whole word recognition. This method the student learns to recognize certain exceptions and adds others as they are encountered and otherwise has a means to learn any word they see through the application of phonics. The new method is called Whole Word Recognition where every word is taught as a set of meaningless symbols randomly chosen to represent the word. Spelling is considered less important as it is only important that you have you own representation with which to identify each word taught. This method will limit the majority of students vocabularies to a large percentage of the words they are taught and they will have little if any ability to learn new words with any ease as they will be unable to sound out new words thus their spelling will have no real meaning or purpose other than to differentiate the word from other words. This limitation on vocabulary is the first and largest step to control of language as if certain words are not taught, they cease to be within the lexicon of the language and become unusable and, when used by more learned people, they are meaningless as either the spoken or written word.

 

A corollary to whole word recognition is that these words approved for teaching also will only have the definitions that are taught when the word is introduced. The use of these two simple steps accomplishes two of the goals of the language fascists, the debate can only be made with the terms taught if it is to make sense, and certain thoughts become obsolete if their terms are not introduced. How can one defend what many consider a simple and basic idea in governance, “liberty” if the word itself is never taught and no definition is given outside reference material? With the word not taught, as an example, then it will not find much use on social media, the place where the debates now are engaged. Once excluded from there the word “liberty” becomes a high word used only by the most erudite and educated amongst the population. When they use the word, they must then define the term if their readers are to understand what the term, a strange and foreign term, means for its use to make sense. Such a restriction on that one word will lead to even the educated avoiding its use because of the clumsiness its use entails. Thus, Whole Word Recognition has established a limitation on debate and a limit on knowledge. Now the rest of the debate and language modification can proceed.

 

Once the vocabulary has been modified and restricted comes the next step, a direct challenge to the definition of free speech. Now freedom of speech will be transformed into freedom from offence. This is where defining “hate speech” becomes the central field of battle in the war over language. With the usable words now limited, this debate will favor the leftist or fascist dumbing down of language, whichever group is committing this, in our minds, crime against the society. The initial entry into hate speech is usually initiated by those attempting to limit debate and redefine concepts making those they disapprove of forbidden or even made illegal for use. Initially they target obvious hate speech often going after supremacist groups, Nazis and known hate groups. They restrict terminology often defining terms using a single letter such as the n- word or the l-word. These words become unacceptable in society and with little fuss. Now that the easy to disallow words are ostracized and cut from acceptable use, they will go after other words and make them unacceptable until they reach a point where they have entire concepts refuted from use. Such terms today would include “Islamic terrorism” which must be removed, as it is Islamophobic and hateful to peaceful Muslims.

 

Why it is offensive to people ,as it is obviously not being applied, is never explained; the thought police simply make the claim and scream from the highest heights making any use of the term unacceptable even when it actually applies. This removes entire thoughts from acceptable debate. How does one debate even “radical and extremist Islamic terrorism” if the entire thought of Islamic terrorism is disallowed. If there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, then there actually cannot be radical or extremist Islamic terrorism as that would be a form of Islamic terrorism. Now it must be considered to be radical extremist terrorism and no singular group is responsible, just radical extremists. The next step is to define those groups who are opposing the leftist ideas as radical and extremist such as has been done to religious Christians and evangelical Christians. Now when there is an act of terror, those making excuses for Islamic terrorism can shift the debate to which group is likely to have committed each individual act of terrorism? By the time an actual group has been identified, if it is not to the likings of the leftists, meaning it was committed by one of their protected groups, then that act of terror is old news and no longer needs to be discussed. If the terror was committed by one of their target groups then it remains news of the day for as long as humanly possible and is brought up then every time there is any reference to their protected group as proof that there exists other groups amongst the unprotected who do the same thing.

 

This type of debate framing and representative exacting is a form of deception that has long been used against Israel. There are, and we are not going to give them the dignity of reference, a relative few number of Israeli Jewish terror attacks which have been perpetrated over the years. Unlike the heroes martyrdom welcome that the Arab Islamic terrorists (we are anything but PC here at BTC) receive after their murder sprees, we do not name youth camps, streets, parks or soccer tournaments after these criminal elements, we try them and place them in prisons for extensive lengths of time. We disapprove of such acts and they are known to be an anathema to our society. Still, in any discussion with the protectors of the Arab murderers of Israelis, and not all their victims are Jews despite their care to make it such, these few exceptions are almost always waved as evidence that the Israelis, often simply referred to as the Jews, commit terror as well. These exceptions get so much play that they become well known acts while the terrorism against Israel becomes so common that it stops being news and is accepted by the left wing media as normal. That is how this part of one debate has been stretched into absurdity.

 

The next step is to control the media such that reporting is limited to the useable word list. What many do not know is that there is an actual word list of approved terminology for use by print media and is also applied often to spoken media. This list is compiled by our good friends at the New York Times and is utilized almost industry wide. With the media now toting the new speech codes which disallow hate speech, reporting becomes political. Now no terror attack can be considered to have been perpetrated by a Muslim but must be attributed to every other extremist group until proven to have been committed by a Muslim. So what if the assailant is seen on YouTube screaming “Allah Akbar” while stabbing people in a mall, this is not proof of anything as the perpetrator could be a fanatical Christian trying to make Islam appear violent. After all, we all know that Islam is the religion of peace and presumably, Christianity is the religion of violence, Crusades being the proof we hear incessantly. Once the media and entertainment have been brought on board with the new language, it is time for the final battle for speech regulation, forbidding hate speech.

 

Should hate speech be illegal? Well, actually it already is but the definition is to narrow for our friends on the left. It is against the law to threaten other groups with violence, damage to property or other extreme harms. Basically, one may not threaten an illegal act. There is your objective and straightforward definition of hate speech. But we can do better say the purveyors of approved language, we can make language so benign that it will never offend anyone, and there you have the switch from “Freedom of Speech” to “Freedom from Offense.” This is where things get tricky as now we need to define what exactly hate speech is. We soon learn that Islamic terrorism is hate speech and Jewish terrorism along with Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and virtually every other religious terrorism is not hate speech. That is an extreme example and of course should it be proven that an act of terror was committed by a Muslim, then the person will be described as mentally unstable and not representative of Islam. President Obama often explained that the Islamic State was not Islam. President George W. Bush initiated the widespread use of defining Islam as the religion of peace. Both of these instances were examples of how to frame speech to control thought. It is also an example that leftists come from both major political parties in the United States. One needs remember the political lines which can be used to represent political thought, the falsified “left vs. right” against the more honest “statist vs. individualist” as shown below. The formal name used by many Republicans is “Compassionate Conservative” which means Progressive individual or leftist.

 

Political Spectrum Taught Versus Actual

 

The problem with banning hate speech is, who gets to define what is and is not hate speech. The leftists tend to reserve that right to themselves and will suggest a panel of academics from respected English Studies departments. This is a fraud as these departments are almost without exception leftists themselves and has been proven in study after study that college and university professors contribute almost exclusively to the Democrat Party and not the Republican Party. The only exception is often in the hard sciences where occasionally balance can be found, if such actually does exist. The controversy in the United States only recently was brought to a head and by the person at the center of all the controversy, President Trump. The new President unlike anyone before him has torn the lid off of the partisan media and academia and thrown open the debate on whether or not these leanings are healthy for the United States in specific and the Western World as a whole. President Trump revealed how the news was massaged and often completely turned upon its head to support a leftist worldview and how the media would go so far as to invent stories to support their leftist politics. The problem is after President Trump this tear in the disguise will be sewn closed and made to appear that what occurred was but a hiccup, a blip in the reporting and the world will be lulled back to sleep. Well, that is what these leftist controlled groups are praying will happen, we will need wait to see.

 

In the end, once one side controls the media, entertainment, academia and social media then they have the youth and thus the future. There is a flaw in their plans and it hits every protected and coddled youth eventually, it is called life out in the real world. The initial shock to these coddled youths come when they find out their college degree will often only earn them a starting salary of $35,000 per year. Many were expecting a much larger payout as their professors painted for them a world where their special nature and specific wonderfulness would be treasured and their special nature would be seen by all and they would be lauded with money receiving a six or even seven figure income. What a shock, and then there is always that first paycheck where there are all these terms such as FICA and other taxes and healthcare deduction and the paycheck has a net salary which is quite distressing. This shock comes to those who did not hold summer jobs or need to work after school as many did from my not so exclusive neighborhood. We had seen our pay eaten up by government asides and taxes. These muggings can make one think that maybe there are other things the professors lied about. Life is a great wake-up call which eventually gets to most of us and makes some of us think, often for the first time.

 

Still, if the leftists can force making their definitions of hate speech stick and be illegal, which they are very close to succeeding, then the war will be almost lost. With limits on permissible speech placed by law, then conservative talking points will be defined as hate speech. This has already begun as we see every holiday season where it is not Christmas but the winter holiday and similarly it is not Easter but the spring holiday. St. Patrick’s Day has been made into a fun study of Irish history, and a pleasant glossing over of the reality behind the holiday which celebrates the bringing of Christianity (Catholicism) to Ireland and the presumed taming of the land and bringing forth from barbarism and paganism. Again, the presumed advancement of civilization by Christianity in Europe and Islam across the Middle East, North Africa and into Europe and Asia were both conducted by the definition of language to depict all who were not of the faith as evil, uncivilized and requiring saving by bringing them into the religion unquestioningly. From those times to the present both religions have attempted to frame the debate in their favor and with the current adoption of the Islamic line by the leftists, they are feeding their own destruction in this war of the words for eventually the words are dropped and the sword deployed.

 

St Patrick’s Day Montage

 

There is one final point which need be made. That is the definition of Fascist and Fascism. The first definition given in a dictionary was, Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. The one addition we would add is that such a system can also have elections as long as the fascists control the vote counting, which they would in almost every case where they have gained power. Often the appearance of choice is required to enslave, North Korea or Venezuela are two prime examples. These leftist we have been referring to in the article claim they are fighting fascism and against fascists. This was why pegging their opposition at Charlottesville as Nazi fascists was necessary before this assault on language and the society of the United States could be executed. They are now in a frenzied approach because they know there is a limit to the time that the hate in Charlottesville can be used as a bludgeon to silence their opposition. Once they succeed, and they will, as they will continue to try until they win, one of the tools of Progressive Fascism is determination never quitting, as complete power is the only acceptable result. This is why the loss by Hillary Clinton has been such a detrimental blow, as they cannot permit power to slip from their grasp, so for now they must do whatever is required to disembowel Trump and prevent him fulfilling his campaign promises as that would set them back a decade or more. Fascist target language as a means of control and hate speech is the most convenient of terms as all they need do is hold protests against any phrase or idea until it becomes classified as hate speech as why else would people take to the streets over a phrase? This is the secret behind the enormous efforts against President Trump and to paint all conservatives as Nazis or white supremacists despite knowing that this is a lie, a fabrication to silence the right. The rioting on campuses to prevent right leaning speakers from presenting ideas to their minions attending college, and that is how the left sees these college age kids, as mere minions to serve their cause. Immediately as any student shows signs of thinking freely they are ridiculed and derided hoping to intimidate them back into the fold. It is all about power and control, nothing more, nothing less. So, our suggestion is learn phonics and watch your word lists and vocabulary grow and along with it, your mind and your understanding of life and everything it will throw your way.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.