Category: education


OUR ANNUAL YEAR
Year In Review
BEST OF 2015

Chicago Introduces New Citywide Gun-Sharing Stations
January 19, 2015

Chicago’s new QuikShot gun-share system is modeled on a similar program successfully introduced overseas in Caracas, Venezuela.
CHICAGO—Touting the program’s convenience and affordability, Chicago officials unveiled Monday the city’s new gun-sharing service, “QuikShot,” which allows individuals to check out a loaded firearm for short periods of time.

The municipal initiative, through which users can rent semiautomatic pistols, shotguns, rifles, and submachine guns at more than 250 self-service kiosks, has reportedly been designed to make firepower easily available to residents and tourists alike nearly everywhere within the city limits.

“QuikShot lets anyone with a credit card walk up to one of our street-side firearm stations, select a gun, and head out into the Windy City fully armed in just a few seconds,” program director Arvind Reynolds told reporters, noting that borrowers can either rent their weapon for increments of 30 minutes or withdraw it for a full 24 hours if they plan on using it throughout the day. “With QuikShot, you and your friends can each take a Beretta up to Wrigley Field, or you can head to an outdoor concert in Millennium Park with a concealed 9mm revolver, or you can simply take in the great view of the Magnificent Mile from the roof deck of the Hancock tower through a scoped sniper rifle. The possibilities are truly endless with QuikShot.”

“And if the guns at one station are all checked out, users only have to walk a block or two to the next one in order to find a loaded firearm,” he added. “So whether you’ve been planning an outing for a while or simply decided to head out in the spur of the moment, QuikShot has you covered.”

According to sources, after paying a small registration fee, QuikShot users may rent a firearm as often as they wish in neighborhoods ranging from Edgewater in the north, to the downtown Loop business district, to Hyde Park on the South Side, allowing them to brandish and discharge one or more rounds wherever they choose to in the city. Additionally, due to higher demand, Chicago officials said that multiple QuikShot kiosks would be opened around highly trafficked destinations, such as Navy Pier, the Art Institute, the Water Tower Place shopping center, and the Chicago Lakefront running and cycling paths.

Because the firearms are expected to see heavy use, Reynolds confirmed that repair crews would regularly monitor the city’s reholstering docks in order to clean and reload the weapons, as well as to replace guns that have jammed or misfired during operation, ensuring that borrowers aren’t inconvenienced by their gun malfunctioning at a crucial moment.

“It’s a great addition to the city—nothing beats being able to run out of my apartment and have a gun in my hands whenever I want.”
Users, however, are reportedly expected to provide their own protective Kevlar body armor, with program administrators adding that the city of Chicago is not liable for any injuries incurred due to use of its rentals.

“It’s a great addition to the city—nothing beats being able to run out of my apartment and have a gun in my hands whenever I want,” said Lincoln Park resident Keith Madsen, 32, noting that a QuikShot membership is much more economical than purchasing and maintaining his own extended magazine AR-15 assault rifle. “Even if I’m not necessarily planning on firing a gun on any given day, it’s always nice to know that I have the option if something comes up.”

Sources confirmed that the city is planning to expand the service in the months ahead by purchasing more guns, with the goal of increasing its publicly available arsenal to more than 65,000 weapons in anticipation of the hot summer months, when QuikShot usage is expected to reach its peak.

“QuikShot is so easy that I’m actually shooting a handgun way more often than I normally would,” said local resident Danny Taylor, who participated in a pilot trial of the program, as he deposited an empty .357 Magnum with the QuikShot logo imprinted on its grip at a Rogers Park reholstering station. “Whether I’m going to a house party or just to the liquor store, it’s nice to know that I can grab a piece, use it for as long as I want, and then drop it off without a lot of fuss.”

“In fact, I’m thinking about checking out one tomorrow morning before I head into the office,” he continued.

The future costs of politically correct cultism
Posted on July 14, 2015 by Brandon Smith Views: 6,374
I rarely touch on the subject of political correctness as a focus in my writings, partially because the entire issue is so awash in pundits on either side that the scrambling clatter of voices tends to drown out the liberty movement perspective. Also, I don’t really see PC cultism as separate from the problems I am always battling against: collectivism and the erasure of the individual in the name of pleasing society. Political correctness is nothing more than a tool that collectivists and statists exploit in order to better achieve their endgame, which is conning the masses into believing that the group mind is real and that the individual mind is fiction.

Last year, I covered the PC issue in my article “The twisted motives behind political correctness.” I believe I analyzed the bulk of the issue extensively. However, the times are changing at a pace that boggles the mind; and this is by design. So, it may be necessary to square off against this monstrosity once again.

In order to better examine the true insanity of what many people now term “social justice warriors,” I must study a few aspects separately. First, let’s take a brief look at the mindset of your average social justice circus clown so that we might better understand what makes him/her/it tick.

Rebel without a legitimate cause

I spent several years (up until 2004, when I woke up from the false paradigm madness) as a Democrat. And before anyone judges that particular decision, I would suggest they keep in mind the outright fascist brothel for the military-industrial complex the Republican Party had become at that point and remains to this day. Almost every stepping stone that Barack Obama is using today to eradicate the Constitution was set in place by the Bush dynasty, including the Authorization Of Military Force, which was the foundation for the National Defence Authorization Act and the legal precedence for indefinite detention without trial of any person (including an American citizen) accused of terrorism by the president of the U.S., as well as the use of assassination by executive order.

But, hell, these are real issues — issues that many of my fellow Democrats at the time claimed they actually cared about. Today, though, liberal concerns about unconstitutional actions by the federal government have all but vanished. Today, the left fights the good fight against flags on the hoods of cars from long-canceled television shows and battles tooth and nail for the “right” of boys wearing wigs and skirts to use the girl’s bathroom. Today, the left even fights to remove the words “boy” and “girl” from our vocabulary. Yes, such noble pursuits as these will surely be remembered as a pinnacle in the annals of societal reform.

Maybe I realize the ideological goals of the social justice machine are meaningless on a surface level; and maybe you realize this, too. But these people live in their own little universe, which doesn’t extend far beyond the borders of their college campuses, the various Web forums they have hijacked and a trendy Marxist wine-and-swinger party here and there in New York or Hollywood. They actually think that they are on some great social crusade on par with the civil rights movements of the mid-1900s. They think they are the next Martin Luther King Jr. or the next Gandhi. The underlying banality and pointlessness of their cause completely escapes them. The PC cult is, in many respects, the antithesis of the liberty movement. We fight legitimate threats against legitimate freedoms; they fight mostly imaginary threats and seek to eradicate freedoms.

Don’t get me wrong; sometimes our concerns do align. For instance, liberty proponents fight back against the militarization of police just as avidly as leftists do, if not more so. But our movements handle the problem in very different ways. Look at Ferguson, Missouri, where anyone with any sense should be able to admit that the government response to protests was absolutely a step toward tyranny, ignoring violent looters while attacking peaceful activists. Leftists and PC cultists decided to follow the Saul Alinsky/communist playbook, busing in provocateurs from Chicago to further loot and burn down businesses even if they belonged to ethnic minorities. In the meantime, the liberty movement and Oath Keepers sent armed and trained men to defend those businesses regardless of who owned them and defied police and federal agents who tried to stop them.

The left gave the police and government a rationale for being draconian, while we removed the need for police and government entirely by providing security for the neighborhood (killing two birds with one stone). Either their methods are purely ignorant and do not work, or their methods are meant to achieve the opposite of their claims. In the end, the PC movement only serves establishment goals toward a fully collectivist and centralized society.

Your average PC drone does not understand the grander plan at work, nor does he want to. All he cares about is that he has found a “purpose” — a fabricated purpose as a useful idiot for power brokers, but a purpose nonetheless.

People must be forced to bake gay cakes

I personally do not care if two people of the same gender want to be in a relationship, but I do find the issue of gay marriage (and marriage in general) a rather odd conflict that misses the whole point. Marriage has been and always will be a religious institution, not federal; and I find government involvement in this institution to be rather despicable. When the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage came down, I felt a little sorry for all the joyfully hopping homosexuals on the marbled steps of the hallowed building, primarily because they essentially were fighting for the state to provide recognition and legitimacy for their relationships. Frankly, who gives a rip what the state has to say in terms of your relationships or mine? The state is an arbitrary edifice, a facade wielding illusory power. If a relationship is based on true and enduring connection, then that is a marriage of sorts, whether the Supreme Court says so or not.

The only advantage to solidifying gay marriage in the eyes of the state is the advantage of being able to then use the state as an attack dog in order to force religious institutions to accept the status of gays in the same way the government does. And unfortunately, this is exactly what the PC cult is doing.

Should an individual, organization or business be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Should the state be allowed to force people into servitude to one group or another even if it is against their core values?

PC champions desperately try to make these questions a matter of “discrimination” alone. But they are more about personal rights and property and less about “hate speech.” Under natural law, as well as under the constitution, an individual has every right to refuse association with any other person for any reason. If I do not like you, the government does not have the authority to force me to be around you or to work for you. But this line has been consistently blurred over the years. As I’m sure most readers are familiar, the issue of gay cakes seems to arise over and over, as in cases in Colorado and Oregon in which religiously oriented business owners were punished for refusing to provide service for gay customers.

Punishments have included crippling fines designed to put store owners out of business and have even included gag orders restricting the freedom of businesses to continue speaking out against the orientation of customers they have refused.

In order to validate such actions, leftists will invariably bring up segregation as a backdrop for the gay cake debate. “What if the customers were black,” they ask. “Is it OK for a business to be whites only?”

My response? First, to be clear, I am talking specifically about private individuals and businesses, not public institutions as in the argument explored during Brown v. Board of Education. Private and public spaces are different issues with different nuances. I personally believe it is ignorant to judge someone solely on the color of his skin, and sexual orientation is not necessarily an issue to me. But it is equally ignorant for someone to think that the state exists to protect his feelings from being hurt. I’m sorry, but discrimination is a fact of life and always will be as long as individualism exists. The PC cultists don’t just want government recognition of their status; they want to homogenize individualism, erase it and force the rest of us to vehemently approve of that status without question. This is unacceptable.

Your feelings do not matter. They are not superior in importance to the fundamental freedom of each individual to choose his associations.

If a business refuses to serve blacks, or gays, or Tibetans, then, hey, it probably just lost a lot of potential profit. But that should absolutely be the business’s choice and not up to government to dictate. And in the case of “gay discrimination,” I think it is clear that the PC crowd is using the newfound legal victim group status of gays as a weapon to attack religiously based organizations. Make no mistake, this will not end with gay cakes. It is only a matter of time before pressure is brought to bear against churches as well for “discrimination.” And at the very least, I foresee many churches abandoning their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status.

If a group wants fair treatment in this world, that is one thing. I believe a gay person has every right to open his own bakery and bake gay marriage cakes to his little heart’s content. I believe a black person has every right to dislike white people, as some do, and refuse to associate with them or serve them if that’s what he/she wants. I also believe that under natural and constitutional law, a religious business owner is an independent and free individual with the right to choose who he will work for or accept money from. If he finds a customer’s behavior to be against his principles, he should not be forced to serve that person, their feelings be damned.

This is fair.

What is not fair is the use of government by some to gain an advantage over others based on the legal illusion of victim group status. PC cultists want us to think that choice of association is immoral and damaging to the group. I have to say I find them to be far more intolerant and dangerous than the people they claim to be fighting against, and this attitude is quickly devolving into full bore tyranny under the guise of “humanitarianism.”

Gender bending does not make you special

A man shaves his head and eyebrows, straps a plastic bottle to his face, and has his feet surgically modified to resemble flippers: Does this make him a dolphin, and should he be given victim group status as trans-species? I’m going to be brief here because I covered this issue in a previous article, but let’s lay everything on the table, as it were.

PC cultists are clamoring to redefine the fact of gender as an “undefinable” and even discriminatory social perception. No one, no matter how dedicated, will ever be able to redefine gender, unless they have the ability to change their very chromosomes. Nature defines gender, not man; and a man who undergoes numerous surgeries and body-changing steroid treatments will always have the genetics of a man even if he gives the appearance of a woman. Take away the drugs, and no amount of make-up will hide the chest hair growth and deepening voice.

This might be deemed a “narrow” view of gender, and I don’t care. Nature’s view of gender is the only one that counts. Psychological orientations are irrelevant to biological definitions. Are you a man trapped in a woman’s body? Irrelevant. A woman trapped in a man’s body? Doesn’t matter. If we are talking about legal bearings, then biological definitions are the only scale that makes sense. I realize that gender bending is very trendy right now, and Hollywood sure seems to want everyone to jump on that freaky disco bandwagon, but there is no such thing as gender-neutral people. They are not a group, let alone a victim group. There are men, and there are women; these are the only gender groups that count. Whether they would like to be the opposite does not change the inherent genetic definition. Period. To make such foolishness into an ideology is to attempt to bewilder man’s relationship to nature, and this will only lead to disaster.

There is no such thing as ‘white privilege’

A person determines his success in life by his character and his choices. Color does not define success, as there are many people of every color who are indeed successful. Do you have to work harder to gain success because you are brown, or black, or neon green? I’ve seen no concrete evidence that this is the case. I know that people who identify as “white” are still around 70 of the American population, thus there are more white people in successful positions due to sheer numbers.

I know that I personally grew up in a low-wage household and had little to no financial help as I entered the working world. Everything I have accomplished in my life to this point was done alongside people of color, some of whom had far more advantages than I did. I cannot speak for other people’s experiences, but I can say that being white was never more important in my life than being stubborn and dedicated.

I also find it a little absurd that most PC cultists who harp about so-called white privilege are often white themselves and haven’t the slightest experience or insight on what it is to be a person of color anyway. White privilege seems to be the PC cult’s answer to the argument that racism is a universal construct. Only whites can be racist, they claim, because only whites benefit from racism. I defy these jokers to show any tangible proof that an individual white person has more of a chance at success than a person of color due to predominant racism. Or are we just supposed to have blind faith in the high priests of PC academia and their morally relative roots?

The cost of social Marxism

Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer. Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, we have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that the whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.

–Brandon Smith

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/36294
Daily Digest

Jul. 9, 2015

THE FOUNDATION

“No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” —James Madison, Federalist No. 47, 1788

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Political Winds Shift Against Obama’s Immigration Policies1

The death of Kathryn Steinle2 has galvanized the political opposition to Barack Obama’s non-enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. Congressional Republicans are heavily criticizing the Obama administration’s tolerance of sanctuary cities that protect illegal aliens from deportation. In going after these “safe” havens, GOP lawmakers are going after the culture in the upper levels of the administration. In March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Sarah Saldana was asked in congressional testimony if she would support a law requiring local governments to cooperate with ICE. “Thank you — amen,” was her reply. But she must have received a call from the White House, because the next day ICE released a statement3 “clarifying” her remarks to say she supported sanctuary cities.

Meanwhile, in the suit against the federal government over Obama’s executive actions on immigration, Judge Andrew Hanen ordered4 Obama’s bureaucrats to court Aug. 19. He wrote, “Each individual Defendant must attend and be prepared to show why he or she should not be held in contempt of Court. … The Government has conceded that it has directly violated this Court’s Order in its May 7, 2015 Advisory, yet, as of today, two months have passed since the Advisory and it has not remediated its own violative behavior.” Say, here’s a novel idea: What if there were sanctuary cities from the federal government?

Hillary: Check Your Subpoena Folder5

In her first interview on national television news since she announced her candidacy, Hillary Clinton told CNN6 Tuesday, “I think it’s kind of fun” that she’s releasing 50,000 pages of her emails. When interviewer Brianna Keilar pressed Clinton about Congress’ subpoena of her emails, Clinton responded by attacking the reporter and catching herself before she gave us a really juicy quote: “You’re starting with so many assumptions that are — I’ve never had a subpoena. There is no — Again, let’s take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation” There are two lies right there. In response to the interview, Benghazi Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy wrote7, “[S]he was personally subpoenaed the moment the Benghazi Committee became aware of her exclusive use of personal email and a server, and that the State department was not the custodian of her official record. For more than two years, Clinton never availed herself of the opportunity, even in response to a direct congressional inquiry, to inform the public of her unusual email arrangement designed to evade public transparency.” Either Clinton doesn’t care when she’s caught in a lie, or her web of lies have become so complex that she can’t keep her story straight anymore.

Racist Republicans Hate Children8

“GOP has knives out for school lunch rules,” headlines The Hill9. “First lady Michelle Obama’s signature school lunch regulations are … a pillar of the first lady’s initiative to curb childhood obesity in the United States,” The Hill informs us. And who could be against healthy kids? Or the first lady? Evil Republicans, that’s who. Never mind that top-down regulation virtually never works, or that kids universally hate the new lunches10 to the point that schools are dropping them and/or demanding changes. The bottom line is that the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) expires on Sept. 30, and Republicans are holding hearings to determine if it’s worth more than the $3 billion already spent to dump unwanted food in the trash. In 2014, Michelle lectured, “The last thing that we can afford to do right now is play politics with our kids’ health.” But playing politics is the name of the game. The first lady — an honorary and not official position, by the way — can’t federalize school lunches and then insist it’s not political.

 

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS     By Allyne Caan

Having spent years perfecting the art of inciting race warfare, Barack Obama and his administration released new housing rules that will define, qualify and categorize every community across the country by race, with the aim of forcing every neighborhood to comply with government race quotas.

It sounds ominous because it is. But it’s hardly surprising from the narcissist who pledged to “fundamentally transform” America.

Under the new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule14 (AFFH), announced by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julian Castro this week, the federal government will amass and centralize nationwide public data on communities, including “patterns of integration and segregation, racially and ethically concentrated areas of poverty, disproportionate housing needs, and disparities in access to opportunity.” Big Brother doesn’t just want to look over your shoulder; he wants to move into your home.

HUD claims the rule will “equip communities that receive HUD funding with the data and tools that will help them to meet long-standing fair housing obligations.” In truth, however, AFFH is a stealth move to socially engineer every street in America and to force compliance with what Obama thinks communities should look like — namely, more “affordable” housing in affluent neighborhoods.

But as political analyst Marc Thiessen noted, “[W]e believe in diversifying communities, too, as conservatives. The way you do that is through economic opportunity. … It’s not by building more affordable housing in the affluent communities. It’s by helping more Americans afford housing in affluent communities. And right now the problem is that people at the bottom of the Obama economy can’t get ahead.”

Still, Washington wants to take over local zoning authority to impose racial quotas on communities. And as Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow Stanley Kurtz warns15, “Once HUD gets its hooks into a municipality, no policy area is safe. Zoning, transportation, education, all of it risks slipping into the control of the federal government and the new, unelected regional bodies the feds will empower.”

Nevertheless, Liberty aside, The Washington Post’s Emily Badger heralded16 the new rules as a way to “repair the [Fair Housing Act’s] unfulfilled promise and promote the kind of racially integrated neighborhoods that have long eluded deeply segregated cities like Chicago and Baltimore.” Funny she mentions those particular cities. While she points to Chicago’s “decades” of segregation as evidence that AFFH is needed, Badger fails to note those same decades were spent under solely Democrat leadership. Similarly, Baltimore has been led by the Left since Lyndon Johnson was president. Coincidence? We think not.

Also not coincidental is the way the government and media have remained largely mum on what the administration’s real plan is. Kurtz notes, “Obama has downplayed his policy goals in this area and delayed the finalization of AFFH for years, because he understands how politically explosive this rule is. Once the true implications of AFFH are understood, Americans will rebel.”

And rebel they should. As if Washington putting on a lab coat and stethoscope weren’t bad enough, now Obama wants to become zoning authority, landlord, realtor and public transportation chief combined. He’s is leaving no racist rock unturned in his quest to undermine Liberty.

Making matters worse, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling17 in the Texas Fair Housing case — in which a liberal majority said groups claiming housing discrimination no longer need to prove their case on the merits but only to claim “intent” to discriminate — means the real implications of AFFH will be a racially charged free-for all, with no gray areas and everything defined in black and white (pun intended).

Forget Martin Luther King’s noble notion of judging people by the content of their character. Obama wants to judge entire neighborhoods by the speciously calculated color of their skin. This is not the way of Liberty or of opportunity; it’s another giant leap down the road to statism, and it has no place in a nation that promises equal opportunity, not equal results, for all.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Victor Davis Hanson: “Barbarians at the gate usually don’t bring down once-successful civilizations. Nor does climate change. Even mass epidemics like the plague that decimated sixth-century Byzantium do not necessarily destroy a culture. Far more dangerous are institutionalized corruption, a lack of transparency and creeping neglect of existing laws. … Mexico is a much naturally richer country than Greece. It is blessed with oil, precious minerals, fertile soils, long coastlines and warm weather. Hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens should not be voting with their feet to reject their homeland for the U.S. But Mexico also continues to be a mess because police expect bribes, property rights are iffy, and government works only for those who pay kickbacks. The result is that only north, not south, of the U.S.-Mexico border can people expect upward mobility, clean water, adequate public safety and reliable power. In much of the Middle East and Africa, tribalism and bribery, not meritocracy, determine who gets hired and fired, wins or loses a contract, or receives or goes without public services. Americans, too, should worry about these age-old symptoms of internal decay. … Ultimately, no nation can continue to thrive if its government refuses to enforce its own laws.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” —Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Politically correct national security: “Here in the United States we have seen all kinds of homegrown terrorism, and tragically, recent history reminds us how even a single individual motivated by a hateful ideology with access to dangerous weapons can inflict horrendous harm on Americans. So our efforts to counter violent extremism must not target any one community because of their faith or background.” —Barack Obama on the Islamic State (So he’ll just target Christians who oppose same-sex marriage.)

Braying Jenny: “When people diss the government, we’re really dissing ourselves and dissing our democracy.” —Hillary Clinton

The BIG Lie: “I didn’t have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system. And now I think it’s kind of fun. People get a real-time behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about, and what I was communicating about.” —Hillary Clinton

Race bait: “As a nation — I don’t think as a president — but as a nation, we have got to apologize for slavery.” —Bernie Sanders

And last… “A Mexican national shot a 32-year-old woman in San Francisco. It’s a gun free zone and a sanctuary city. I know — let’s focus on banning the Mexican flag.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

Links

http://patriotpost.us/posts/36285
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36235
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/statement-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-ice-director-saldana
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/08/federal-judge-orders-administration-to-court-to-explain-why-it-has-ignored-his-injunction/
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36289

http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/gowdy-statement-in-response-to-clinton-comments-on-the-benghazi-committee
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36263
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/247011-gop-has-knives-out-for-school-lunch-rules
http://patriotpost.us/tags/school%20lunch
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/36268
http://patriotpost.us/manage/
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36284
http://www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt2.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420896/massive-government-overreach-obamas-affh-rule-out-stanley-kurtz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/08/obama-administration-to-unveil-major-new-rules-targeting-segregation-across-u-s/
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36035
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36287
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36269
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36270
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36277
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36264
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36271
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36280
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36276
http://patriotpost.us/opinion

Peanut Butter & Jelly Sandwiches Are Now…. RACIST?
By TPIWriter

With so many sensitive “politically correct” problems now, we’re now living in a society where even FOOD can be deemed racist. I’m not kidding!

Principal Verenice Guiterrez, who certainly voted for Obama, runs the Harvey Scott School (K-8) in Portland, Oregon. And she has made an announcement that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist!

Why? Because, as Principal Guiterrez explained, this effort was made to, “improve education for students of color.” She noted that some students – such as those from Mexico or Somalia – haven’t eaten bread in their culture. Instead, they eat pitas, tortas, and other bread substitutes.

Therefore, the serving of delicious PB&Js is a brazen display of white privilege. The Principal wants to cancel out this supposed racial privilege and “change their teaching practices to boost minority students’ performance.”

How is this possible? Food can’t make racial comments… And a sandwich can’t even watch The Dukes of Hazzard. It is two slices of bread, with your favorite jelly and crunchy or creamy peanut butter. Most children think they are delicious, and I bet you probably still eat them.

They are nutritious, full of energy, and are cheap. That’s why millions of people eat PB&Js every day!

I wonder if I should rush to the store and buy whole grain wheat bread. Perhaps that would boost my kitchen’s racial diversity?

This has gone too far. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are not racist and children should be allowed to eat them.
Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/peanut-butter-jelly-sandwiches-are-now-racist/#ixzz3fKOiFpSr

Ex-Transgender Warns Caitlyn Jenner ‘Suicide Is Always a Risk’ When Changing Gender Identity: ‘I Felt Like I Had Been Duped, Tricked … I Wasn’t Really a Woman’

(Photo: Reuters/Annie Leibovitz/Vanity Fair)
Caitlyn Jenner, formerly known as reality television star and former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner, poses in an exclusive photograph made by Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair magazine and released by Vanity Fair on June 1, 2015.
By Michael Gryboski
June 4, 2015|2:25 pm
A man who identifies as ex-transgender has expressed “caution” regarding former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner’s decision to change his gender identity to become “Caitlyn.”

Walt Heyer, author and blogger with The Federalist, stated in an interview Tuesday with CNN that while Caitlyn Jenner may feel great at present “this doesn’t always last.”

“The surgeons can make it look like you changed genders but the fact of the matter is it’s all cosmetic surgery. There’s really no actual gender change,” Heyer asserted during an interview with CNN’s Carol Costello.

“I felt like I had been duped, tricked, and it wasn’t really real. I wasn’t really a woman. I looked like one.”

In an interview with The Christian Post, Heyer emphasized that he “never declared Jenner was wrong to change his gender.”

“I did suggest caution because I have received hundreds of emails from transgenders over the years who regret making the transition. The long-term outcomes are not always the best and suicide is always a risk,” Heyer emphasized.

Heyer was born a man and underwent gender reassignment surgery to become a woman only to eventually become a man once more.

An author of multiple books, Heyer has become a critic of gender reassignment surgery and believes that transgendered identity carries with it emotional wounds.

“Transgenders undergo hormone injections and irreversible surgeries in a desperate effort to feel better, yet they attempt and commit suicide at an alarming rate, even after treatment,” reads the description of one of his books.

According to a 2003 study conducted in Sweden, transsexuals who change their gender through body mutilation or hormone therapy have a higher suicide rate than the general population.

The study, which followed 191 male-to-female gender reassignments and 133 female-to-male gender reassignments from 1973-2003, found that suicide attempts and in-patient psychiatric treatment actually increased in Sweden among those who had a sex change.

Heyer’s comments come as the July issue of Vanity Fair magazine has Caitlyn Jenner on its front cover.

Jenner has received much support and admiration from social media, major media outlets, and fellow high profile celebrities and public figures.

“Bruce always had to tell a lie, he was always living that lie. Every day he always had a secret. From morning until night. Caitlyn doesn’t have any secrets. As soon as the Vanity Fair cover comes out, I’m free,” Jenner said in a promo video for the magazine.

Many social conservatives have taken issue with the gender identity change and assumption that Jenner has improved by now being Caitlyn, including the Rev. Franklin Graham.

“I have news for them — changing the outside doesn’t change the inside. No man-made modification can fix what’s wrong with the heart,” posted Rev. Graham on Facebook.

“Only God can fix the human heart. If we ask for His forgiveness and accept by faith His Son, Jesus Christ, He will wipe the slate clean.”

When asked by CP about Americans’ acceptance of transgender identity, Heyer said he believed “it is important to have compassion for anyone struggling with their gender identity.”

“After living eight years in a different gender, I do not think the long-term solution to resolving gender confusion is hormones, surgery and a change of clothing. It is a deeper issue,” Heyer explained.

DailyCaller

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOOA’s new study.

NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.
“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014″ of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago — that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid,” the study claims.

But that’s not all NOAA did to increase the warming trend in recent decades. Climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.”

“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

NEXT PAGE: ‘Adjusting Good Data Upwards To Match Bad Data Seems Questionable’

Tags: Anthony Watts, Barack Obama, Bob Tisdale, Cato Institute, Chip Knappenberger, Georgia Tech, Judith Curry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/#ixzz3c9QZWftW

Complaint says crosses at Catholic school offensive, prevent Muslim prayers
posted by
image: http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/files/2011/10/John-Garvey.jpg

Catholic Unversity President John Garvey standing in front of one of the many campus crosses (Photo by Rafael Crisostomo)
Crosses in every room at Washingon D.C.’s Catholic University of America are a human rights violation that prevent Muslim students from praying.
That’s the complaint to the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights filed by a professor from rival George Washington University across town.
GWU Law School Professor John Banzhaf takes the Catholic institution to task for acting “probably with malice” against Muslim students in a 60-page complaint that cites “offensive” Catholic imagery all over the Catholic school, which he says hinder Muslims from praying.
Baffled Catholic University officials say they have never received a complaint from any of the schools Muslim students.
Banzhaf, who already has a pending lawsuit against the university over ending its policy of allowing mixed-gender dormitories and has a history of filing civil rights suits on such topics as childhood obesity and smoking, filed the complaint alleging that Muslim students are not given their own prayer rooms.
He alleges that the university, “does not provide space – as other universities do – for the many daily prayers Muslim students must make, forcing them instead to find temporarily empty classrooms where they are often surrounded by Catholic symbols which are incongruous to their religion,” according to the Tower, Catholic University’s student newspaper.
The complaint further objects that Muslims must pray at the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.”
A spokesperson for the human rights office said they are investigating Banzhaf’s complaint — and the inquiry could take as long as six months.
“This attorney is really turning civil rights on its head,” observed Patrick Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Socity. “He’s using the law for his own discrimination against the Catholic institution and essentially saying Catholic University cannot operate according to Catholic principles.”
The complaint is absurd, writes Thomas Peters on the website CatholicVote.
“Can you imagine a law professor helping Catholic students to sue a Jewish or Muslim school to demand that the schools install crosses, remove their religious symbols, and allow the Catholics to construct a chapel on their property?” wrote Peters. “Can you imagine the argument being that Jewish and Muslims schools using their religious symbols and following their faith traditions would be described in the legal brief as “offensive”?!
“Normally I would have confidence that this lawsuit will be deemed without merit, but the way things are going these days, I just can’t be sure anymore. Simply incredible.”
Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/10/lawsuit-says-crosses-at-catholic-university-offensive-prevent-muslim-prayers.php#ixzz3aq5UXMjD
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/10/lawsuit-says-crosses-at-catholic-university-offensive-prevent-muslim-prayers.php#FJKUGpFbKI4ZeFeB.99

Choose to refuse: Say ‘no’ to PARCC/SBAC testing Michelle Malkin – Guest Columnist
http://michellemalkin.com/

Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Michelle MalkinParents, you need to know that Common Core-aligned testing racketeers in your children’s schools are doing everything they can to marginalize you. You also need to know you CAN do something about it.

This is National School Choice Week, but I want to talk about parents’ school testing choice. Moms and dads, you have the inherent right and responsibility to protect your children. You can choose to refuse the top-down Common Core racket of costly standardized tests of dubious academic value, reliability and validity.

Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

I’m reminding you of your right to choose because the spring season of testing tyranny is about to hit the fan. Do you object to the time being taken away from your kids’ classroom learning? Are you alarmed by the intrusive data-sharing and data-mining enabled by assessment-driven special interests? Are you opposed to the usurpation of local control by corporate testing giants and federal lobbyists?

You are not alone, although the testing racketeers are doing everything they can to marginalize you. In Maryland, a mom of a 9-year-old special needs student is suing her Frederick County school district to assert her parental prerogative. Cindy Rose writes that her school district “says the law requires our children be tested, but could not point to a specific law or regulation” forcing her child to take Common Core-tied tests. Rose’s pre-trial conference is scheduled for Feb. 4.

The vigilant mom warns parents nationwide: “While we are being treated like serfs of the State, Pearson publishing is raking in billions off our children.” And she is not just going to lie down and surrender because some bloviating suits told her “it’s the law.”

Pearson, as I’ve reported extensively, is the multibillion-dollar educational publishing and testing conglomerate — not to mention a chief corporate sponsor of Jeb Bush’s Fed Ed ventures — that snagged $23 million in contracts to design the first wave of so-called “PARCC” tests.

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers raked in $186 million through the federal Race to the Top program to develop the nationalized tests “aligned” to the Common Core standards developed in Beltway backrooms.

As more families, administrators and teachers realized the classroom and cost burdens the guinea-pig field-testing scheme would impose, they pressured their states to withdraw. Between 2011 and 2014, the number of states actively signed up for PARCC dropped from 24 (plus the District of Columbia) to 10 (plus DC). Education researcher Mercedes Schneider reports that the remaining 10 are Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio and Rhode Island.

State legislators and state education boards in Utah, Kansas, Alaska, Iowa, South Carolina and Alabama have withdrawn from the other federally funded testing consortium, the $180-million tax-subsidized Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, which administered field tests last spring to three million students in 23 states. In New Jersey, the parental opt-out movement is “exploding,” according to activist Jean McTavish. Many superintendents have conceded that “they can’t force a student to take a test,” NJ.com reports.

Last week, Missouri withdrew from PARCC, while parents, administrators and the school board of the Chicago Public Schools spurned PARCC in the majority of their 600 schools.

In California, the Pacific Justice Institute offers a privacy protection opt-out form for parents to submit to school districts. PJI head Brad Dacus advises families to send the notices as certified letters if they get ignored. Then, be prepared to go to court. PJI will help. The Thomas More Law Center in Michigan also offers a student privacy opt-out form.

Don’t let the bureaucratic smokescreens fool you. A federal No Child Left Behind mandate on states to administer assessments is not a mandate on you and your kids to submit to the testing diktats. And the absence of an opt-out law or regulation is not a prohibition on your choice to refuse.

Here in Colorado, the State Board of Education voted this month to allow districts to opt out of PARCC testing. Parents and activists continue to pressure a state task force — packed with Gates Foundation and edu-tech special interest-conflicted members — to reduce the testing burden statewide. For those who don’t live in PARCC-waivered districts, it’s important to know your rights and know the spin.

In Colorado Springs, where I have a high-schooler whose district will sacrifice a total of six full academic days for PARCC testing this spring, parents are calling the testing drones’ bluff about losing their accreditation and funding.

“The Colorado Department of Education is threatening schools to ensure that 95 percent of students take these tests,” an El Paso County parent watch group reports. “Be assured that MANY parents across Colorado — FAR ABOVE 5 percent in many schools — are refusing the tests, and not one school yet is facing the loss of accreditation, funding, etc. As long as schools can show that they gave a ‘good faith attempt to get 95 percent to test, they can appeal a loss of accreditation’ due to parental refusals to test.”

You also have the power to exercise a parental nuclear option: If edu-bullies play hardball and oppose your right to refuse, tell them you’ll have your kid take the test and intentionally answer every question wrong — and that you’ll advise every parent you know to tell their kids to do the same. How’s that for accountability?

Be prepared to push back against threats and ostracism. Find strength in numbers. And always remember: You are your kids’ primary educational providers.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malknblog@gmail.com.

Top 7 Credit Card Offers For Those With Excellent Credit
by Tasha Lockyer November 6, 2013
UPDATED: January 27, 2015

Do you have excellent credit? If so, banks are actively looking to win you as a new credit card customer by offering some unprecedented deals. Although banks have been more careful about acquiring customers with questionable credit since the 2008 Financial Crisis, they are now fighting harder than ever to win coveted customers with great credit. If you are in the excellent credit sweet spot, they are effectively giving you money (and a lot of it) to use their credit cards. These are the top 7 deals you can take advantage of today:

Citi Double Cash Card: The recently-launched Citi Double Cash Card features an effective 2% cash back on ALL purchases, the best we’ve seen for a card that offers a single cash back percentage on everything you buy. There are two steps two getting the full 2% cash back. Use your card to purchase the item(s) for the first 1% cash back. You’ll receive the second 1% cash back after you’ve paid for your purchase(s), for a total of 2% effective cash back. As long as you’re paying the minimum due each month you can take as long as you want to pay off your balance and get the additional 1% cash back (aka, 2% total effective cash back). In addition to this high cash back percentage, you’ll also enjoy 15 months of a 0% APR on both purchases and balance transfers, giving you a little bit of a cushion to help pay items off. And to top it all off there’s no annual fee and no caps on the amount cash back rewards you can earn.

Chase Slate: This card was designed with credit card balance consolidation in mind. It’s the only card we’ve found with both a lengthy 0% introductory APR and no balance transfer fee. Its 15-month, 0% introductory APR on both balance transfers and purchases translates to interest-free payments until 2016. Plus, there are no balance transfer fees during the first 60 days of card membership. This is a big deal, as depending upon how much you plan to transfer, balance transfer fees can really add up. In fact, a $0 intro balance transfer fee can save you hundreds of dollars in fees, and the $0 annual fee is also a money-saver. So if you have excellent credit, you absolutely should not be paying any credit card interest. Get this card and transfer your balances.

Citi Simplicity: Shopping for a special item for yourself or someone else? This card will let you make big purchases then carry that balance into 2016 without paying a dime of interest. Citi Simplicity (a NextAdvisor advertiser) features an incredibly lengthy 18-month 0% introductory APR for purchases and balance transfers. And there are no late fees, convenient if you sometimes forget to pay your bill on time, as well as no annual fee. The combination makes this card perfect for anyone looking to make a large purchase (or several purchases) or who is interested in transferring balances from other high-interest credit cards to this one. Either way it’s a smart choice.

Barclay Arrival Plus World Elite Mastercard: Like to travel? This is the card for you. You’ll earn 2 miles per dollar for every purchase, and a bonus 40,000 miles – equal to $400 in travel – after spending $3,000 in the first 90 days of card membership. To use your miles, just book your travel and redeem your miles for a statement credit. You can make your travel arrangements however you’d like (by phone, online, using an agent, etc), fly any airline to any destination, and enjoy no blackout dates.

An added perk of this card is that if you use your miles to pay for travel you’ll receive 10% of those miles back. So redeeming 10,000 miles will actually earn you a 1,000 mile bonus that will be deposited into your awards bank! That means if you take the 40,000 bonus miles and redeem them for travel they’ll actually be worth 44,000 miles or $440. That’s a pretty nice bonus just for signing up and using the card. Plus there are no foreign transaction fees, so you’ll save money when you travel outside the US. There is a $89 annual fee, but it’s waived the first year. Overall this is a fabulous travel card and we highly recommend it.

BankAmericard Cash Rewards Credit Card: If you’re in the market for a great cash back rewards cards that also has a 12-month 0% APR, this is a smart pick. Not only can you transfer over balances from your high-interest cards to the BankAmericard Cash Rewards card and pay zero interest for a full year, but you’ll get the same 0% intro APR on new card purchases. Plus you’ll earn 3% cash back on gas and 2% cash back on grocery stores (for the first $1,500 in combined grocery and gas purchases each quarter) and 1% cash back on everything else. And the cherry on top is you’ll earn an additional $100 cash back after spending $500 in the first 3 months. This card really does have it all – cash back, an extra cash back bonus, a lengthy 0% intro APR on purchases and balance transfers AND no annual fee.

Capital One Quicksilver Cash Rewards Card: This card starts of with a $100 bonus after spending $500 in the first 3 months – an effective 20% cash back reward on the first $500 you spend. Everyday spending is rewarded too, earning an unlimited 1.5% cash back on every single purchase you make. Your cash back rewards won’t expire and there is no limit to the amount of cash back you can earn. The fact that you don’t need to jump through any hoops or worry about maximum earning thresholds makes this card an easy way to earn serious cash back on the purchases you’re already making. Plus there’s a 0% intro APR period on purchases and balance transfers, no annual fee and no foreign transaction fees.

Chase Sapphire Preferred: This is a rewards cards with lots of flexibility. It starts off by earning you 2 points for each dollar spent on travel and dining out, and 1 point per dollar on all other purchases. That’s followed up by a 40,000 point bonus after spending $4,000 in the 3 months – equal to $500 in travel rewards. Redeeming your earned points via Chase’s Ultimate Rewards saves 20% off travel costs, enabling you to stretch 40,000 worth of points to $500 in travel. You can also redeem your points for cash back, gift cards and merchandise.

The best part is that you can transfer your points 1:1 to many frequent travel programs with no transfer fees, including United MileagePlus, Southwest Rapid Rewards, Hyatt Gold Passport and Marriot Rewards. That means 1,000 points are equal to 1,000 partner miles/points, straightforward and simple. This feature is likely to appeal to road warriors who are members of various partner programs, as users aren’t limited to spending their points via Chase’s rewards program. There is a $95 annual fee, but it is waived the first year