Destroying the First Amendment to Save It?

I love Trump’s  1776 Project and I love his EO prohibiting Critical Race Theory in federal agency training, and now, in any institutions that get fed grants.  Like colleges and universities.   And I hope they hold up.

But in connection with academe : will they?

These institutions, without any mandate, have become saturated with this racist anti-white crap. This is what they want  to talk about.
If this President can say they must not, can the next President say they must teach this ?

This is a purely content-based regulation of speech, subject to the most severe scrutiny.

I think Trump’s bold and pro-American actions will have a beneficial effect, no matter what.  I read that already The NY Times has retracted some of the 1619 libels.  We have to try,  instead of what the GOP traditionally does, which is anticipate  severe retaliation and scare itself into acquiescence in the hope of some kinda reciprocal mercy (which will never be forthcoming.)

So whaddya  think?
Either way: Thank you, President Trump!

6+
avataravataravataravataravataravatar

11 thoughts on “Destroying the First Amendment to Save It?”

  1. And here’s another thing: defunding “anarchist cities”.  Again: RIGHT ON!  But, is this any different than defunding sanctuary cities, which it turned out the Admin can’t do, because only Congress can set conditions on receipt of fed funds?

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  2. I think the First Amd. argument is misplaced. For one many of the institutions are government entities as the curriculum is mainly being filtered through public schools. There might be something with regard to private institutions but I like the approach used recently against Princeton where if these schools start harping on how racist they are then the DOEd can say “oh really”.

    Furthermore, I thought conservatives were interested in local control of curriculum and wanted DC to stay the hell away? In that respect who cares if a bunch of public schools in NYC learn a BS 1619 curriculum? They are going to get that anyway. We should be focusing on our local school boards where we can actually have a hand in affecting what our children learn. Think locally and act locally.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  3. Soviet of California Apparatchik Rabid Noisome has declared voicing vote by mail “misinformation” is now a misdemeanor.

    New California Law Makes It A Misdemeanor To Spread Misinformation About Voting By Mail


    … False news is now sanctioned by law, and empirical truth banned plus heinous penalties.

    … Soviet Judge, “You are sentenced to 10 years in the Gulag.”
    … Defendent, “Your Honor! There are no charges, there is no evidence, there has been no trial. I AM INNOCENT!”
    … Soviet Judge, “‘Innocent’ is 20 years in the Gulag.”

    2+
    avataravatar
  4. Hypatia:
    This is a purely content-based regulation of speech, subject to the most severe scrutiny.

    If we are not going to disband the Department of Education, it seems appropriate to use federal Big Education programs in a way that see that opinions are not taught as if they were facts.  The ideas in the 1619 Project Curriculum are just opinions mostly, and someone at DOEd should go through the entire thing with a red pen.  Not one nickel for falsehoods, and those who promulgate opinions as if they were facts ought to be called out for ridicule and censure.

    2+
    avataravatar
  5. Hypatia:
    And here’s another thing: defunding “anarchist cities”.  Again: RIGHT ON!  But, is this any different than defunding sanctuary cities, which it turned out the Admin can’t do, because only Congress can set conditions on receipt of fed funds?

    Then why haven’t Republicans passed legislation revising the conditions for receipt of federal funds to punish Sanctuary Cities and cities that refuse to enforce their own laws that protect the safety and property of their citizens ?

    While writing the legislation, they could cut the associated amounts also.

    Even if their bill gets spiked in the House, pass it in the Senate and make a campaign issue out of it.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  6. MJBubba:

    Hypatia:
    This is a purely content-based regulation of speech, subject to the most severe scrutiny.

    If we are not going to disband the Department of Education, it seems appropriate to use federal Big Education programs in a way that see that opinions are not taught as if they were facts.  The ideas in the 1619 Project Curriculum are just opinions mostly, and someone at DOEd should go through the entire thing with a red pen.  Not one nickel for falsehoods, and those who promulgate opinions as if they were facts ought to be called out for ridicule and censure.

    So how do you plan to staff DOEd with Conservative/libertarian people in perpetuity? You are going to have much better luck focusing on your local school district than DOEd.

    1+
    avatar
  7. MJBubba:

    Hypatia:
    This is a purely content-based regulation of speech, subject to the most severe scrutiny.

    If we are not going to disband the Department of Education, it seems appropriate to use federal Big Education programs in a way that see that opinions are not taught as if they were facts.  The ideas in the 1619 Project Curriculum are just opinions mostly, and someone at DOEd should go through the entire thing with a red pen.  Not one nickel for falsehoods, and those who promulgate opinions as if they were facts ought to be called out for ridicule and censure.

    That’s interesting.  I looked up the whole Creationism kerfluffle, and my impression is the Court finally said it could not be taught “as science”.  (Of course they can’t prevent people from “preaching” it cuz of the whole religious freedom thing, but Public schools are the very laboratory of the interplay between the rebellious and sometimes mutually hostile liberties of the First Amendment.)
    But my point is, when it comes to the past, whether human history or the origins of the Universe: isn’t it ALL “opinion”?  Or interpretation, at best?
    I don’t include the 1619 Project, which is,  demonstrably, a pack of lies.  Like those long “scholarly” articles now being written which attack the very idea of any mathematical certainty.  I don’t know if you heard, but 2 + 2 no longer = 4.

    2+
    avataravatar
  8. Hypatia:

    MJBubba:

    Hypatia:
    This is a purely content-based regulation of speech, subject to the most severe scrutiny.

    If we are not going to disband the Department of Education, it seems appropriate to use federal Big Education programs in a way that see that opinions are not taught as if they were facts.  The ideas in the 1619 Project Curriculum are just opinions mostly, and someone at DOEd should go through the entire thing with a red pen.  Not one nickel for falsehoods, and those who promulgate opinions as if they were facts ought to be called out for ridicule and censure.

    That’s interesting.  I looked up the whole Creationism kerfluffle, and my impression is the Court finally said it could not be taught “as science”.  (Of course they can’t prevent people from “preaching” it cuz of the whole religious freedom thing, but Public schools are the very laboratory of the interplay between the rebellious and sometimes mutually hostile liberties of the First Amendment.)

    I am puzzled as to how “the whole Creationism kerfluffle” is pulled into this particular post ?

    I can see it as sorta tangentially related, but it still seems an unhelpful stretch.

    To the point about ‘the Court said Creationism cannot be taught as science,’ I am guessing you are speaking of the Dover case?  That was a terrible decision by a hostile judge that took advantage of a defense in disarray, due to a dispute between the Thomas More Center and the Discovery Institute, complicated by a couple of City Councilmen who had shot off their mouths saying stuff that made the City’s position more difficult.

    “Bad cases….”

    But my point is, when it comes to the past, whether human history or the origins of the Universe: isn’t it ALL “opinion”?  Or interpretation, at best?

    Oh, yes.  Absolutely.  All of “Evolutionary Biology” and “Evolutionary Anthropology” and “Evolutionary Geology” and “Evolutionary Cosmology” is a house of cards, with guess built upon guesses upon guesses.  And, of course, they are all good guesses, but guesses predicated on an assumed narrative that gets taught as if it were “science.”

    I don’t include the 1619 Project, which is,  demonstrably, a pack of lies.  Like those long “scholarly” articles now being written which attack the very idea of any mathematical certainty.  I don’t know if you heard, but 2 + 2 no longer = 4.

    Yeah, I saw that.  “Math is white” is what the Smithsonian said, as if math education is discredited because all the advances of higher mathematics were shaped by white men.  It is exactly this ridiculous race-baiting hostility to western civilization that President Trump seeks to counter.

    2+
    avataravatar
  9. MJBubba:

    Hypatia:

    MJBubba:

    Hypatia:
    This is a purely content-based regulation of speech, subject to the most severe scrutiny.

    If we are not going to disband the Department of Education, it seems appropriate to use federal Big Education programs in a way that see that opinions are not taught as if they were facts.  The ideas in the 1619 Project Curriculum are just opinions mostly, and someone at DOEd should go through the entire thing with a red pen.  Not one nickel for falsehoods, and those who promulgate opinions as if they were facts ought to be called out for ridicule and censure.

    That’s interesting.  I looked up the whole Creationism kerfluffle, and my impression is the Court finally said it could not be taught “as science”.  (Of course they can’t prevent people from “preaching” it cuz of the whole religious freedom thing, but Public schools are the very laboratory of the interplay between the rebellious and sometimes mutually hostile liberties of the First Amendment.)

    I am puzzled as to how “the whole Creationism kerfluffle” is pulled into this particular post ?

    I can see it as sorta tangentially related, but it still seems an unhelpful stretch.

    A particular religious view of the origin of the universe, like critical race theory, is an ideology.   The 1619 project is factually wrong, that’s easy to disprove, but we can’t prove or disprove creation narratives nor can we prove or disprove the idea that whiteness is toxic. That’s all!i meant, dear MJB.  I have never understood why it suddenly became so vitally important to teach any  theory of origins in K-6. As I recall we learned certain useful facts about nature, like the temperatures at which water freezes and boils, why Monarch butterflies taste bad, y’know, stuff like that.  That was plenty to be going on with.

    To the point about ‘the Court said Creationism cannot be taught as science,’ I am guessing you are speaking of the Dover case?  That was a terrible decision by a hostile judge that took advantage of a defense in disarray, due to a dispute between the Thomas More Center and the Discovery Institute, complicated by a couple of City Councilmen who had shot off their mouths saying stuff that made the City’s position more difficult.

    Cant say I extensively researched It.  I thought there was a SCOTUS case to this effect.

    “Bad cases….”

    But my point is, when it comes to the past, whether human history or the origins of the Universe: isn’t it ALL “opinion”?  Or interpretation, at best?

    Oh, yes.  Absolutely.  All of “Evolutionary Biology” and “Evolutionary Anthropology” and “Evolutionary Geology” and “Evolutionary Cosmology” is a house of cards, with guess built upon guesses upon guesses.  And, of course, they are all good guesses, but guesses predicated on an assumed narrative that gets taught as if it were “science.”

    that’s another thing: I never saw any conflict between any physical theories of Creation and the poetic Biblical,accounts.  If you believe in a Creator God, you could just believe  that, say, the Big Bang was how  He did it.

    I don’t include the 1619 Project, which is,  demonstrably, a pack of lies.  Like those long “scholarly” articles now being written which attack the very idea of any mathematical certainty.  I don’t know if you heard, but 2 + 2 no longer = 4.

    Yeah, I saw that.  “Math is white” is what the Smithsonian said, as if math education is discredited because all the advances of higher mathematics were shaped by white men.  It is exactly this ridiculous race-baiting hostility to western civilization that President Trump seeks to counter.

    …and God prosper him!  If he loses, the dark is rising: the old, old superstitions and irrational beliefs about human utopia and the bloody sacrifices that ensue to manipulate it into being.

    3+
    avataravataravatar

Leave a Reply