The Elephant in the Room: Florida School Revokes The Parking Privileges Of Student With Trump Display On Truck

Tyler Maxwell

We recently discussed the case of a Louisiana high school senior who had his parking space mural to President Donald Trump painted over by his school. Now a Florida senior has an equally troubling free speech case involving the Volusia County School District. Tyler Maxwell is suing the District after it barred him from parking his pickup truck with a large elephant in the back featuring Trump’s name.  The District declared that such “political statements” are now banned.The school district’s position is at odds with cases protecting non-disruptive political statements or symbols. Many of us in the free speech community have long complained that the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is often dismissed in cases addressing the free speech rights of students. The famous decision declared that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Yet, school officials routinely try to regulate speech. Indeed, we just saw a Vermont district fire a principal for questioning the BLM movement on Facebook.

The controversy is a classic example of how school officials have become emboldened in acts of censorship and speech regulation. We have been discussing the alarming rise of speech limitations and sanctions imposed by school officials. We have seen a steady erosion of the free speech rights of students in the last decade. The Supreme Court accelerated that trend in its Morse decision. Former JDHS Principal Deb Morse suspended a student in 2002 during the Olympic Torch Relay for holding up a 14-foot banner across from the high school that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The case ultimately led to the Supreme Court which ruled in Morse v. Frederick ruling in 2007 for the Board — a decision that I strongly disagreed with and one that has encouraged over-reaching by school officials into protected areas.  Cheerleaders are expected to conform their free speech to accept positions or risk removal from their teams and even liking images on social media can get students suspended.

We have seen school officials even crackdown on bumper stickers on cars.

Maxwell not only was barred from showing his elephant but he was barred from parking on school grounds.

A judge has imposed a temporary restraining order against the District to allow Maxwell (and his elephant) to return to the parking lot pending consideration of his case.

Nancy Wait of Volusia County Schools declared:

“The school board has an obligation to provide politically neutral campuses for all students,” Wait wrote. “We allow political expression by students in the form of a t-shirt or bumper sticker. But large signage is a different situation. A passerby could interpret a large sign in a school parking lot to be an endorsement by the school district. We don’t allow our parking lot to be used for political statements.”

I do not see why this elephant is disruptive. Indeed, I find it quite impressive. This is an 18-year-old senior who will be voting for the first time this year. He is showing an excitement and engagement that we should be fostering. Why is that a bad thing? Instead, the District is teaching students to live with censorship and speech controls.

It is time we have a discussion of the elephant in the room in education from K-12 to colleges.  We are embracing censorship as a value while increasingly treating free speech as inherently dangerous or destabilizing. That is one lesson we should not be teaching to a new generation of citizens.

207 thoughts on “The Elephant in the Room: Florida School Revokes The Parking Privileges Of Student With Trump Display On Truck”

    1. not only that estovir but the Twitter megaphone AMPLIFIES the crazies, and it silences the critics.

      they have advanced AI routines not only for blatant censorship, but also downgrading and suppressing dissident voices, by the millions

  1. The school board carried out Party doctrine as articulated by Uncle Joe and enforced by the Progressive wing.

    He defines politics as power. ‘And, whether you like it or not, young lady,’ he says, leaning over his desk to shake a finger at me, ‘us cruddy politicians can take away that First Amendment of yours if we want to.’

    Senator Joseph R. Biden, Interview with Kitty Kelley, 1974.

    Abortion isn’t the only reason that the Progressives are so single-mindedly focused on controlling the Supreme Court. Legal scholars are focused on existing precedent like Tinker v. Des Moines. The Dems have their eye on a far bigger, political prize.

  2. Meanwhile, WSJ today:

    “WASHINGTON—President Trump’s trade war against China didn’t achieve the central objective of reversing a U.S. decline in manufacturing, economic data show, despite tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods to discourage imports.

    The tariffs did succeed in reducing the trade deficit with China in 2019, but the overall U.S. trade imbalance was bigger than ever that year and has continued climbing, soaring to a record $84 billion in August as U.S. importers shifted to cheaper sources of goods from Vietnam, Mexico and other countries. The trade deficit with China also has risen amid the pandemic, and is back to where it was at the start of the Trump administration.

    Another goal—reshoring of U.S. factory production—hasn’t happened either. Job growth in manufacturing started to slow in July 2018, and manufacturing production peaked in December 2018….”

    1. I know they told you to try threadjacking when the subject matter was just too embarrassing. Darren ought to tell you no more.

      1. Darren ought to enforce the rules about civility and not feeding trolls. Alas, he does not.

        1. Darren probably has a full time job and can’t sit around playing whack a mole. You ban somebody, they can use diff credentials. If you IP ban, that won’t work long either, as they can come back tomorrow using a VPN. It’s pointless to do very much anyways

    2. Um, did you never figure out Joe that part of the purpose was to reduce economic dependence on China as a source of supply of industrial goods, critical medical components, microprocessors, etc? This was not just a “trade war” about one factor, the deficeit, but a conflict that also related to reducing the economic dependence on the world’s ever more dominant manufacturing hub, the PRC.

      This has been the biggest success

      Oh besides all the tariffs collected on Chinese imports. Those have been a boon for the United States Treasury, too

      Yuuuuuge success for our nation!

      April 16, 2020 Topic: Economics Region: Americas Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: AmericaChinaCOVID-19Supply Chains5gHuawei
      Reducing America’s Dependence on China Is Now a Strategic Necessity
      Can the power of projects like DARPA and NASA be revived?

      by Azeem Ibrahim

      China failed to contain the coronavirus in its early days. In fact, Beijing did not quickly notify and work with international bodies like the World Health Organization and the rest of the international community. Had China acted it could have prevented a local outbreak in Hubei province from becoming a global pandemic. All of this shows that despite its outsize power and influence on the global stage, Beijing is not a responsible player. And now America finds itself with remarkably little power to do anything about it.

      For three decades, Americans have allowed themselves to become increasingly economically dependent on China, first as the latter-day “workshop of the World,” then as the world’s greatest creditor. Over the last couple of years, the United States has also started becoming technologically dependent on China: the main example of this being the roll-out of 5G wireless technology, where the West has lagged significantly behind Chinese companies in the development and deployment of this next-generation tech. In addition, European countries that wished to start deploying the new networks had to look to China to source the necessary equipment, rather than the United States—with all the security issues that entails.

      And this is only the beginning. China is already racing ahead in renewable energy, quantum communications technologies and artificial intelligence. It will soon do the same for bio-sciences, energy storage, material sciences and others. In the future, if America and other democracies want access to all the latest developments in these essential technologies, they will be expected to kowtow to the authoritarian oligarchy at the top of the Chinese Communist Party —just as developing countries who rely on Chinese investment and debt today must do.

      At this moment in time, Beijing is ruled by President-for-Life, Xi Jinping, a hardline nationalist authoritarian. It was not always like this. In fact, the leadership of China in the first decade of the 2000s was pretty endurable and did not rule for life. This shift under Xi will not last indefinitely either. But it will be like this for the foreseeable future, and America’s dependence on a nationalist China is neither necessary nor inevitable. But if the United States does allow itself to become so increasingly dependent on China, the current administration in Beijing will expect Washington to submit to China’s dictates.

      Primis Player Placeholder

      If America’s leaders wish to avoid this humiliation in the years to come, they will need to take a leaf from Beijing’s playbook: Washington must realize that free markets will not auto-magically deliver technological supremacy or even technological autonomy. Those things will only be achieved in the same way Beijing is achieving them and the way America achieved in the past with the Apollo program and the DARPA infrastructure. This is to say, Western governments must today take charge of pushing forward the science and technologies which will underpin their economies tomorrow.

      Meanwhile, it is the same ideas around free trade, that have allowed Western companies to move industrial capacity out of their countries and into China—all while failing to deliver on the promise of a more peaceful world underpinned by economic inter-dependence. As the land-grabs in the South China Sea and the ports of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Djibouti and other places show, Beijing did not get that memo. In international free markets, America has built a system of competition in which Washington is failing, because the United States started believing its own propaganda, while level-headed players like Beijing and Moscow, never lost sight of the real meaning of power on the global stage. They understand how this game is meant to be played.

      It is not yet too late. There is no area of science or technology where China has a categorical or insurmountable lead. And America still, just about, leads in most areas. But if the West wishes to maintain its power, and indeed its autonomy and independence, policymakers must understand that this cannot be taken for granted. Washington cannot just liberalize markets, defund all government science and research initiatives and hope for the best as has been done for decades now. These things must be done with intent and foresight. And they require serious funding—like Washington used to do during and after World War II. And if Washington waits for these things to develop themselves, they will not. China will develop them. And the West will have to go begging to Beijing for permission to use them if democracies want their economies to remain competitive for the remainder of this century.

      1. Kurtz, I guess that independence from China on medical supplies explains our leadership in combatting the pandemic. Meanwhile

        A September 2019 study by Moody’s Analytics found that the trade war had already cost the U.S. economy nearly 300,000 jobs and an estimated 0.3% of real GDP. Other studies put the cost to U.S. GDP at about 0.7%. A 2019 report from Bloomberg Economics estimated that the trade war would cost the U.S. economy $316 billion by the end of 2020, while more recent research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Columbia University found that U.S. companies lost at least $1.7 trillion in the price of their stocks as a result of U.S. tariffs imposed on imports from China.,stocks%20as%20a%20result%20of

        1. Yes the shortage of PPEs is largely because China makes most of them in the first place and then malevolently hoarded supplies.

          Precisely demonstrating why this trade war was needed among other reasons.

          Guys like you just don’t get it. Keep on complaining Joe. But if Biden wins he will probably steer the boat in exactly the same direction. Whether he wants to or not.
          It’s obvious this has come down to a matter of national security.

          1. Kurtz, the shortage was because we didn’t order any PPE’s and when the pandemic became real, we no longer had the WH pandemic team Obama had set up and your cult leader pretended it was no problem – and still is – while going down on Xi until he needed a scapegoat. His chumps bought it.

            Remember, this is the guy who begged Xi for help in the next election and gave his blessing to his persecuting Muslims in China.

            1. “Kurtz, the shortage was because we didn’t order any PPE’s”

              Wrong! (One can’t order what isn’t available)

              “and when the pandemic became real, we no longer had the WH pandemic team”

              Wrong! (we no longer use horses for most transportation…replaced with cars)

              It is amazing how wrong btb JF is about everything.

            2. And the U.S. sold PPE equipment to other countries right in the midst of the first spike in the spring.

              1. One potential reason: Our CIA was concentrating on ‘getting’ Trump rather than focusing on our enemies. China was the one buying up all the PPE which was just one of the things the CIA should have noticed.

                1. Or, more likely, the trump administration was profiteering in the midst of a pandemic.

                  1. Looks like Joe Friday might be entering anonymous territory.

                    Joe is pining for Sanpete.

        2. PS from the same report

          “Numerous studies have found that U.S. companies primarily paid for U.S. tariffs, with the cost estimated at nearly $46 billion. The tariffs forced American companies to accept lower profit margins, cut wages and jobs for U.S. workers, defer potential wage hikes or expansions, and raise prices for American consumers or companies. A spokesperson for the American Farm Bureau stated that “farmers have lost the vast majority of what was once a $24 billion market in China” as a result of Chinese retaliatory actions.”

          1. Yes the billionaire importers like Amazon are really pissed they have to pay some tariffs on all that cheap Chinese junk. Too bad. Of course they pass costs on to customers and workers. And yet they feel incredible and palpable resentment at Trump for daring to do to their business models dependent on Chinese slave labor what many other leaders of American history have dared to do before: tax imports.

            No wonder the billionaires hate Trump. And yet we have all benefitted from Trump’s far seeing strategic vision.

          2. Joe Friday says…..Kurtz, I guess that independence from China on medical supplies explains our leadership in combatting the pandemic. Meanwhile…..

            Please keep embracing China till Election day. The Bidens have conducted business with China secretly for their own greedy financial gain and at their own peril. Americans associate the Bidens and Democrats with China. Thats on them. Good luck Nov 3rd. Trump was on the right side of history re: China. Biden was not.


            Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries

            OCTOBER 6, 2020

            Majorities say China has handled COVID-19 outbreak poorly

            Views of China have grown more negative in recent years across many advanced economies, and unfavorable opinion has soared over the past year, a new 14-country Pew Research Center survey shows. Today, a majority in each of the surveyed countries has an unfavorable opinion of China. And in Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United States, South Korea, Spain and Canada, negative views have reached their highest points since the Center began polling on this topic more than a decade ago.

            Negative views of China increased most in Australia, where 81% now say they see the country unfavorably, up 24 percentage points since last year. In the UK, around three-quarters now see the country in a negative light – up 19 points. And, in the U.S., negative views of China have increased nearly 20 percentage points since President Donald Trump took office, rising 13 points since just last year.


          3. When correcting a bad and dangerous trade policy eroding US security, jobs and paychecks one can assume that both sides are going to pay for it one way or the other. A substantial amount of the tariffs were absorbed by the Chinese sellers. I think China was hurt by this and this caused a drop in their GDP and I think they devalued their currency. Some of the prices had to be paid by American companies and Americans with slightly higher prices. I like Kurtz don’t care about Amazon and Americans will reduce the amount they buy from China reducing the amount of cr-p that ends up in landfills. Other countries will be incentivized to sell to the US which is good for them and the world. We might even see a small drop in carbon emissions from China.

            All in all the average American consumer will be minimally hit which will likely not cause significant discomfort. Of course if Biden gets elected the price of gas and energy will markedly rise to the average American and though not catastrophic will significantly hurt their budget while their salaries (if they don’t lose their job) falls.

            There are trade offs in everything we do. Trump’s tradeoffs have on the whole been fantastic for the working family. Biden’s tradeoffs will in the short term perhaps be good for billionaire companies until they find that they sold themselves to the devil. The biggest winner will be the Biden family who can expect a big payoff.

        3. BTB, If the China virus never occurred there would have been a small negative effect from the trade war on our economy but because the economy was doing well It was relatively insignificant with huge potential benefits in the future. We now know why we needed to adjust our relations with China and trade long ago, but I realize you don’t recognize that.

          Brookings is quite tied up with China so I wouldn’t trust them and their connections are dangerous for America. I know you will respond with garbage that I have little interest in so forgive me if I don’t respond back. I think your lack of credibility will suffice as my answer.

        4. Do we remember a democrat named Jim Carvale from Louisiana? Back around 1992 when he was working for Bill Clinton he coined a phrase, ” Its the economy stupid”! The first 3 years of Trump my economy was working just fine. More than once I pulled money out of my 401k/IRA and a couple of months later it had a higher value than before I pulled the money out. Before Covid my economy was doing great.

      2. After Trump’s tariff war re grains sales, the only thing keeping farmers afloat is tax payer bailout money.

    3. China has lost credibility in the eyes of global medical researchers. While some medical journals continue to publish research studies published in China, they do so for the same reason Biden engaged China: financial kickbacks. Those of us who weekly or monthly read these medical journals are not swayed by Chinese data.

      As late as 2016, China was already held in suspicion.

      Chinese Clinical Trials Data 80 Percent Fabricated: Government

      COVID-19 has nailed their coffin, not that China cares.

      China’s theory of influence, combining one-party authoritarian rule and a state-run growth model, seeks traction by operating through a transactional foreign policy—one that prioritizes bilateral relationships and undertakes to develop an integrated Eurasian industrial zone in which China, as the linchpin, can limit other countries’ choices. Its economic model enables it to provide large subsidies to domestic investments in frontier technologies and gives it a major advantage over the United States in building infrastructure and connectivity across the developing world.

      China’s approach is deeply hierarchical and increasingly coercive. The more dependent it can make other countries’ economies on its own, the more it can constrain them to its own advantage.

      Nor does China’s theory of influence appear to be grounded in any values apart from the notion of economic development.

      To the contrary, its repression of Hong Kong, its mass internment of Uighurs, its development of the world’s most sophisticated surveillance state, and its intensifying crackdown on political dissidents and foreign non-governmental organizations have sown growing alarm.

      The only reason Joe and Hunter Biden secretly did business with China is because of the impressive financial incentives China offered them unlike Russia.

      China is bad news on various levels not least of which is veracity. No wonder Democrats like Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, et al bend over for CCP. No integrity attracts them. Americans largely equate China as evil. Trump (not Obama) was right about China. Biden and the DNC will pay dearly on Nov 3

      1. We love the good Chinese people, the lao baijia xing, the one hundred old names, but we despise the corrupt government

        Our corrupt politicians who are in bed with the CCP like Big Guy Joe Biden have got to go and stay gone!

        1. Kurtz, ask the people of Hong Kong about your tough guy Trump. Doesn’t take much to impress you.

    4. So manufacturing begon to slow in 2018 but peaked in December 2018. It must have begin to slow on December 29th.

  3. I agree with our host that Morse v Frederick goes too far, but the case is textbook conservative jurisprudence. If you want principals to have wide latitude to suppress “disruptive” speech, don’t be surprised when they suppress speech you agree with. I’d love to see students’ 1st amendment rights strengthened as much as anyone but then you’re going to have to accept BLM and Never Again: MSD alongside MAGA stuff. It’s not a simple call- there’s pluses and minuses either way you go.

    1. If you want principals to have wide latitude to suppress “disruptive” speech, don’t be surprised when they suppress speech you agree with.

      The salient problem here is the abuse of a public employee by the school board and the superintendent, consequent to her remarks off-site on a subject irrelevant to her daily work.

      1. Sorry but I’m not sure I understand your response. This blog post is about a student’s right to display his Trump sign in a school parking lot in Louisiana. Are you referring to the previous post that’s about a principal in Vermont?

  4. Schools have “become emboldened in acts of censorship and speech regulation” because K-grad school has fallen under control of the Left. And the Left does not appear capable of leaving personal politics at home.

    The trend on the Left is to view one’s job or position of authority as a tool to promote the goals of Leftist politics, while conservatives must remain silent.

    Once you brainwash people into thinking conservatives are Nazis, there is nothing they won’t do to fight the Nazis. The only hard work was convincing them at an early age.

    Already, they have divided us. Women against men. Blacks against white. LGBT against straight. Transgender against lesbians and straight.

    If anyone on the Left stops and says, wait, we were all getting along so much better before, they are punished severely. JK Rowling learned that to claim that women are anything more than a state of mine courts the harshest possible punishment. I doubt she’s made the connection to the totalitarian mindset of the Left.

    1. ‘The trend on the Left is to view one’s job or position of authority as a tool to promote the goals of Leftist politics, while conservatives must remain silent.’

      Respectfully, it’s while everyone else whomsoever must remain silent.

  5. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” ~ Voltaire

    1. It’s not BLM that rules us. The people who rule us are the plutocrats who use BLM as one of their instruments.


    Here Turley adopts the often whiny tone of our blog troll to assert this high school is squashing a student’s enthusiasm for voting. Yet all around the country, Republican state governments are doing everything humanly possible to discourage people from voting. How many columns has Turley written on that subject?? ..’None’, that I recall..!

    1. Yet all around the country, Republican state governments are doing everything humanly possible to discourage people from voting.

      No, they’re doing what they can to prevent you people from stuffing the ballot boxes. You can’t stop lying.

      1. Wrong Art Deco!

        Texas, is just one Red State that arrogantly tried to limit voting as evidenced in the Reuter’s piece from October 20:

        A Texas judge on Thursday lifted an order by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott that limited counties to a single drop-off location for absentee ballots in the Nov. 3 presidential election, siding with Democrats who have denounced the limit as voter suppression.

        “The limitation to a single drop-off location for mail ballots would likely needlessly and unreasonably increase risks of exposure to COVID-19 infections, and needlessly and unreasonably substantially burden voters’ constitutionally protected rights to vote,” said state court judge Tim Sulak, who sits in Austin, in a short written order.

        Abbott’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment but he was expected to appeal.

        Texas is a longtime Republican stronghold but this year President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden are fighting a tight race for the state’s electoral votes.

        Abbott’s order increases travel time for some voters who want to return absentee ballots in person rather than by mail. The governor has said the limit is needed to prevent voter fraud.

        The fight between Republicans and Democrats over absentee ballots has become a defining issue of the 2020 election.

        Absentee voting is expected to surge due to the coronavirus pandemic. Texas is one of a few U.S. states that limits who can request absentee ballots: Only voters who are over the age of 65, have a disability, are confined to a jail or will be out of town on Election Day can vote by mail.

        Trump and his fellow Republicans have sought to limit drop boxes in many states, arguing without evidence that they could enable voting fraud.

        Democrats have promoted drop boxes as a reasonable and reliable option for voters who do not want to risk voting in person during the COVID-19 pandemic, saying it also reduces the possibility of U.S. Postal Service delivery problems.

        Full Article from: “Judge Lifts Texas Governor’s Order Limiting Ballot Drop Boxes To One Per County”

        Reuters, 10/20/20

        There was no logical justification for Governor Abbott to limit Drop Boxes to one per county. It was simply a scheme to discourage poorer voters who may not have transportation or gas money to drive to the county Drop Box.

        1. Art Deco, here’s another example: Republicans try limiting drop boxes in Pennsylvania

          A federal judge in Pennsylvania has thrown out a lawsuit by the Trump campaign that tried to limit the swing state’s use of drop boxes in the current presidential election.

          The lawsuit also challenged the Pennsylvania secretary of state’s guidance that mail-in ballots shouldn’t be rejected if the voter’s signature doesn’t match the one on file, and a state restriction that poll watchers be residents of the county where they are assigned.

          All of these claims turned on a common theme: the idea that without sufficient security measures, people might commit voter fraud. The campaign argued that that fraud would then “dilute” lawfully cast votes, in violation of the state and U.S. constitutions.

          In reality, voter fraud is extremely rare, though President Trump has repeated baseless claims about it being widespread.

          U.S. District Court Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan, who wrote the opinion, was reluctant to second-guess the judgment of the state legislature and election officials.

          “Perhaps Plaintiffs are right that guards should be placed near drop boxes, signature-analysis experts should examine every mail-in ballot, poll watchers should be able to man any poll regardless of location, and other security improvements should be made,” Ranjan wrote. “But the job of an unelected federal judge isn’t to suggest election improvements, especially when those improvements contradict the reasoned judgment of democratically elected officials.”

          Ultimately the court found that the election regulations furthered important state interests without significantly burdening any right to vote, and were therefore constitutional.

          Edited from: “Judge Blocks Trump Campaign Attempt To Limit Use Of Drop Boxes In Pennsylvania”

          NPR, 10/10/20

          1. They don’t want scads of insecure drop boxes all over the place. Democratic activists in robes do.

            1. Tabby, they don’t want poor people voting. That’s the only idea behind it.

              1. Tabby, they don’t want poor people voting. That’s the only idea behind it.

                There is reality, and there is the sh!tlib imagination. You haven’t learned the difference.

                Aside from the application in this specific instance, controlling for other factors, the relationship between income levels and voter preferences is inconsquential.

              2. Anonymous — old partner in dialogue Peter? Hao jiu bu jian

                I would be pleased if a modest user fee would be reimposed on voting. It would be entirely wise and just to do so.

                  1. It’s because of my patriotism that I do. I would reinstate literacy tests too.

                    I rely on Plato’s Republic for my criticisms of a promiscuous franchise.

                    For me, Plato is a deeper source of wisdom than article III blackrobes and their overbroad proclamations

                    1. What tests would you instate for 1st Amendment rights?
                      What about 2nd Amendment rights?
                      What about 4th Amendment rights?
                      What about 14th Amendment rights?

    2. Joe Biden brags about voter fraud. Really! listen, it’s all over the internet. not fake video. now they will say it was a slip of tongue but more like a Freudian slip!



  7. Students there should wear black arm bands with different words etched in them. “Don’t ness with a Tinker.”. “Beth for Trump.”. “Sprec Frei.”. “Talk on campus.”

    1. Y’all recall the Beth Tinker vs. Des Moines Board if Education case that was decided in the Supreme Court. Beth and her mom Lorenna Jean Tinker lived in Saint Louis and were on The Committee To Defend J B. Johnson back in 1972 or so. I knew them then.

  8. Somehow, someway these anti free speech sorry excuses for an American must be held personally and financially responsible for their lawless dictates.

  9. Someone should park a pickup truck with a Trump elephant on the right and a Biden donkey on the left. Each animal facing forward. When the school kicks that truck off the lot then have the driver sue the commies who don’t like either party.

  10. Would like to see this site replace the WordPress, google, apple sign in crap that enables commenters to leave a “like” for a particular comment. Talk about censorship! These people (love saying that; it never gets old…) will censor you at the drop of a hat.

  11. Public school officials are a “government-entity” and those officials have no authority whatsoever to censor legal First Amendment activity. The only way around this constitutionally is if a school that requires everyone wear the same uniforms (to ban tee-shirts altogether) or if the school officials start supplying students with cars or free transportation – at no expense to the student. Even these strict unAmerican but legal measures can’t ban students other First Amendment activities like jewelry [religious symbols] and tattoos. We forget that public school officials also take a constitutional oath of office pledge as a condition of employment. I wonder if the teachers educate students that only a “constitutional amendment” can change these laws, not teachers or administrators?

    Indoctrinating students in unAmerican style government is the greatest constitutional crisis of all. Instead of fighting this type of unconstitutional authoritarianism, students are taught to accept this type of illegal behavior by teachers and school administration. As adults they are likely to view this behavior as proper conduct by constitutionally oath sworn officials, when it is not only improper but illegal. These should be the top lawsuits by constitutional plaintiffs since it affects the next generation of adults.

  12. Let’s give credit where credit is due. Joe Biden has long been at the intellectual vanguard of the Democratic party:

    He defines politics as power. ‘And, whether you like it or not, young lady,’ he says, leaning over his desk to shake a finger at me, ‘us cruddy politicians can take away that First Amendment of yours if we want to.’

    Senator Joseph R. Biden, Interview with Kitty Kelley, 1974.

    1. More from that interview:

      Kelley notes in passing that while riding an elevator with fellow senator Tom Eagleton, “Biden tells him a joke with an antisemitic punchline and asks that it be off the record.”

      One more thing: the profile was written the year after Roe v. Wade. Biden: “I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

    2. A bit more: This is who Biden satisfied as the Senator from Delaware, not the people, the credit card companies and their right to charge rates considered to be usury along with the banks. So much for the little guy.

      2008 New York Times story that explained how a man living on a public servant’s salary was able to live like a Bourbon king: “Biden has been able to dip into his campaign treasury to spend thousands of dollars on home landscaping,” the Times explained, and also rich businessmen filtered their support of Biden through other means: “the acquisition of his waterfront property a decade ago involved wealthy businessmen and campaign supporters, some of them bankers with an interest in legislation before the Senate, who bought his old house for top dollar, sold him four acres at cost and lent him $500,000 to build his new home.” He sold the house he had bought in 1975 for top dollar to — get this — the vice-chairman of MBNA, who gave Biden $1.2 million for it. MBNA has showed its gratitude to Biden’s support in a number of ways: by giving over $200,000 to his various campaigns, by hiring Hunter Biden, by flying Biden and his wife to a retreat in Maine, etc. Mother Jones dubbed Biden “the senator from MBNA.”

      1. Doesn’t explain why people vote for him though. I’ve had the impression that half of politics in Delaware is showing up, and the Republicans have just never managed to recruit anyone who would run hard against him.

        1. If I am correct 50 years ago Delaware was a Republican state based on laws sympathetic to corporate needs. DuPont’s sponsorship and money (among others) led to Republican control. It was at about that time that DuPont was strong but around that time DuPont declined and fragmented. I think a vacuum was created bringing in Democrats and Biden went with the tide. He developed his own source among credit card companies and banks that I believe helped keep him in office. Its population is small so I would think not expensive to keep in the Democrat camp by the national Democrat national leadership.

          1. No a competitive state, though with a lot of squishes like Michael Castle among the Republicans. Given it’s settlement patterns, I’m at a loss as to why it is a blue state. Around about 53% of the population lives in a component of greater Philadelphia. About 6% is in the densely settled area around Dover. The rest of the population is exurban, small town, and rural. It should be competitive. It does have a large black population, but it had that a generation ago when it had competitive politics.

            1. You have far more interest in this type of thing but now I am curious. The population of Delaware is below 1million and it is diverse. I was that way when Republicans held power with corporate support. ( perhaps more voters worked for those corporations, I don’t know.) That seemingly made the Republicans have only one leg to support them. When that became wobbly and there was massive change in the 60’sI can see a diverse population moving to the other party. I can also see how where less than 1 million people live that firm support of credit card companies surviving off of Delaware’ laws would permit Biden and those companies to form a symbiotic relationship. Though not smart his appearance and patter were appealing.

              1. John J. Williams was a Republican senator from Delaware from 1947 to 1970. He was a big enemy of corruption. His hearings were about to destroy LBJ when JFK was assassinated.

                1. Lysias, I didn’t know that. How did the power switch from Republican to Democrat?

                2. One wonders if LBJ who benefitted so greatly from JFK’s untimely death, did not play a part in approving of it in advance.

                  Madeleine Brown, LBJ’s girlfriend, said that LBJ told her shortly before “the event” that: “”After tomorrow those godd-mn Kennedys will never embarrass me again – that’s no threat – that’s a promise.”

            2. Republicans are incompetent party operatives, that’s why. This is an easy answer. They don’t work hard like Democrats.

              An old mentor of mine, now dead, a Chicago law legend, who one might call a conservative Democrat, said in private: “Republicans act like politics is a hobby and Democrats act like it’s a job. Because for them it usually is”

              Do you get it? The silkstockings have run the Republican party in to the ground and Donald J Trump gave us a short reprieve to get the act together.

              Has it happened? Was there an effort to build a strong, popular, party infrastructure? Nah

              \Was there a welcoming of the populist elements and a cooperating with them to energize the party? Uh a little going back to the “tea party” but not much

              Was there a purge of the negative plutocratic elements? Well no except they sort of purged themselves and are all now connected to that “Lincoln” thing that is basically a list of backstabbers who should all get a vigorous correction!

              I have seen some local Republican organizations that are little more than old ladies coffee klatches. This is unacceptable. They need to get way more serious fast

              1. In the four years since Trump was President, the only contact I have had from the Republican party was mailers asking for money.

                In that time I was personally approached by numerous Democrats, mostly people i knew, asking about my ideas and inviting me to party events.

                here, do the Republicans even have events? I don’t know. but apparently not!

                I have met Democrat politicians from local to national levels. Almost always they are very sociable and likable people.

                The few times I met a Republican I walked away thinking, this jerk seems annoyed he can’t be golfing right now.

                The Republican party of the pre-Trump era was totally incompetent. The good news was Trump, the bad news, Trump people have barely been integrated into what pathetically weak party infrastructure there is. Mostly Trump spoke directly to his fans who responded of their own initiative and the Republican party was left behind in the dust.

                but this is not good because one day, sooner or later, Trump will retire from this and then what? The silkstockings will resume their cherished role as permanent minority party whiners, content to fail and take in their rewards for acting as the fake resistance.

                If Trump wins and I think he will eke out a narrow win– so better get out and vote– but one of my hopes is that there will be a purge of the silk-stocking footdraggers who have done little or nothing and mostly just held things back. Purge them hard, get the dead wood out of the way, and everything will go better

                Now this has a generational dynamic to it. gen X gets short shrift as the boomers linger on with its hand on the wheel indefinitely. this is shortsighted

      2. @Allan. It is plain to see how ‘public servants’ like Joe Biden end up as multi-millionaires gorging at the public trough. When that’s not enough, Biden and his accomplices know all too well that they can devour our free speech rights for dessert. Lessons passed down through generations of ‘public service,’ and in Biden’s case, compounded with interest over 47 years.

        Biden’s view, stated all too clearly, bears repeating.

        He defines politics as power. ‘And, whether you like it or not, young lady,’ he says, leaning over his desk to shake a finger at me, ‘us cruddy politicians can take away that First Amendment of yours if we want to.’

        Senator Joseph R. Biden, Interview with Kitty Kelley, 1974.

        1. Epstein, Power and politics go hand in hand. Most people lust for both but there are a few notables that only lusted for power and din’t look for personal financial advancement to accumulate wealth.

          1. @Allen – That’s exactly right. Some, like Biden, learn the lessons at an early age and hone their skills over the course of a long career. In Biden’s case, that career could be just a little too long now that he’s been caught red handed with his hand in the cookie jar. Or will the politics of power, abetted by his accomplices in the MSM, carry the day? We’ll soon see.

          2. @Allan – Or to channel Biden and his politician friends- better be careful young man, or that precious little First Amendment right of your could be a distant memory.

  13. “Instead, the District is teaching students to live with censorship and speech controls.”

    Zero tolerance policies have been in play far longer and essentially have the same outcome since they discourage thought and debate. Now it’s moving into more concrete controls.

    The zero tolerance policies have been in the water long enough to affect the philosophy of a fair number of teachers and administrators (and, sadly, adults in general).

    1. Prairie, if I correctly understand what you are saying then you are providing another reason for Charter Schools to exist.

      1. Allan,
        Thomas Sowell gave the example of the child who went to school with the wrong socks and was not allowed to enter so as to learn that the rules are to be followed. That black armband upheld as free speech in Tinker vs Des Moines would not be allowed because it is not part of the allowed uniform.

        Also, being a private business, the “government shall not abridge” does not apply the same way. If tax dollars support them, however, then the same rules ought to apply.

        The policy is the problem, not the system.

        1. “black armband”

          Prairie the first question you have to ask yourself is whether or not the school had in place a uniform dress requirement. If they didn’t or it didn’t adequately cover political speech then your citation is meaningless to our discussion.

          “If tax dollars support them, however, then the same rules ought to apply.”

          If it doesn’t have to do with the purpose for the tax why would the same rules have to apply?

          “The policy is the problem, not the system.”

          Systems create policies. When policies are randomly created and applied that can lead to a system breakdown that needs to be replaced.

          1. Allan,
            “If they didn’t or it didn’t adequately cover political speech then your citation is meaningless to our discussion.”

            I do not think it is meaningless. Private institutions do not have to take the same considerations as public ones. They do not have to respect the First Amendment:

            “The United States Constitution applies to the government, not to corporations. A private business, large or small, can legally ignore your freedom of speech.”

            Charter schools are technically private businesses. They use tax dollars, but as far as I know, they can operate privately. Thus, they do not have to respect the First Amendment.

            At least students have some recourse for freedom of speech at public schools via Tinker vs Des Moines. Yes, it is a pain in the rear to go through a bunch of litigation, but that’s better than nothing.

            People will end up violating the First Amendment. People are flawed. That’s why we are a nation of laws.

            1. “I do not think it is meaningless. Private institutions do not have to take the same considerations as public ones. They do not have to respect the First Amendment:”

              Maybe I am wrong. I thought Tinker had to do with a public institution. Did it? If it is a private institution then as you say they have more flexibility but if the institution were public then a different standard applies and I think the citation becomes meaningless to the discussion.

              There is nothing wrong with Charter Schools obtaining taxpayer funds based on the way we have been using taxpayer funds for other private educational institutions. Additionally this is forced taxation for a purpose which is to educate our youth. In the NYC school system where the study was performed the Charter Schools fulfilled the mission of the school tax. The public schools did not.

          2. “Systems create policies. When policies are randomly created and applied that can lead to a system breakdown that needs to be replaced.”

            No, the policies need to be reformed. Policies can be deep-sixed. Policies are not randomly created anyway; they typically happen after inadequate discussion–maybe there isn’t enough discussion, the discussion isn’t great because there wasn’t sufficient wrestling with pros/cons, or perhaps people didn’t debate because there was too much deference to an authority or the loudest person in the room or they thought it would cause less disruption if they just let it go through. Prohibition was an unwise policy; it got overturned rather than the whole system getting junked.

            1. “No, the policies need to be reformed. Policies can be deep-sixed. Policies are not randomly created anyway; ”

              When one talks about systems a system is not necessarily one gargantuan thing. Systems can be broken down into smaller parts. If the system is broken then broken policies will follow.

              You are equating the system to Charter Schools vs Public Schools. The public school where the study was performed failed the students and had been failing the students for decades. The same policy failures reappeared over and over again. Charter Schools provided an alternate form of education and succeeded beyond anything I would have believed. They must be doing something right. To compete public schools will have to change some of their systems and policies to better educate the young especially the minority young from a challenged socio economic environment.

              What is wrong with offering that group a chance to get out of the ghetto?

  14. How much of the teaching profession is ignorant of our civil rights? Why do the rest of the teachers seem to remain mute?

    1. You realize that the people behaving this way are (1) elected officials and (2) the superintendent of schools. This isn’t local culture, precisely, but it is the culture of (1) people motivated to run for school board and (2) people who go into school administration as a career. People with salaried jobs in the philanthropic or public sector and people in licensed occupations tend to have a quite different worldview than the rest of us. Half the teachers are (one might wager) on board, the others mindful of what the going line is among their peers. Also, the teachers over 40 have reached the point in their lives when they’re in it for the pension.

      1. Yes, what you say is true. We need national organizations to fight back so that those that are unable to do nothing are empowered. There is one group perhaps run by Campus Watch or a different independent organization which releases the name of professors that intellectually abuse their students, but for the most part the powers existing are not caused pain.

        I suggested to Squeeky that what is needed is a group with money and lawyers to start suing with the intention of placing fear into those in education that are causing the loss of civil liberties. One doesn’t have to target the entire group. One only has to deal with a few, on a non stop basis, to get the point across.

  15. Free speech has been eroded even with Conservatives (I don’t call them Republicans) in the WH and Senate. It will vanish under a Harris administration. All the dictators of the 20th century knew that to win, they had to win the battle to “educate” the young. I pray this is not 1932 Germany or Italy.

    1. Trump’s the one who is trying to control the social studies curriculum, not Biden.

      1. I wish people of your obviously low mental capacity were not allowed to vote!

          1. It would be nice if this site would show who the commenter is replying to instead of playing the guessing game. Surprising that they don’t have that, as most sites do…..Also, an edit feature should be added, also (Not that many in this day and age give a crap about it).

          2. Ha.

            People learn as they age. If they stop learning early in life it doesn’t make a difference what the IQ is because whether high or low the individual will still be Stupid.

            1. How does someone with a high IQ respond when someone else says they have an obviously low mental capacity?

              1. They stop posting stupid responses and use their imagination. If you had an IQ in the 130+ range then on the blog your demonstrated variable rate has been between 60-110.

                1. LMAO at that comment, Allan, when you consistently confuse different anonymous commenters.

                  1. Yes, but you are by far the predominant leftist anonymous poster when one includes all your pretend anonymous friends. I credit the few leftist anonymous posters that are not you for pushing your perceived IQ to the 110 level. Without them it would be significantly lower.

                  2. Allan, the very fact that you refer to them as “pretend” only underscores that you consistently confuse different people. You’re a troll. I don’t know what your IQ is, but you use your brain to ill effect.

                    1. “Allan, the very fact that you refer to them as “pretend” only underscores that you consistently confuse different people.”

                      Rubbish, and it is very simple to understand for anyone with an IQ between 60-110. Cat and mouse games have benefits especially when the mouse is intellectually challenged. You even used pretend Anonymous voices to agree with you and pat you on your back trying to make other people believe that they were different people complementing your “vast wisdom” (Sarc) when they were only pretend people. You have a vested interest in having pretend friends to hide the fact you are on this blog posting up a storm for 10-15 hours a day.

                      At least you make me laugh. It’s funny watching a mouse trip over his own feet.

              2. “How does someone with a high IQ respond when someone else says they have an obviously low mental capacity?”

                Keep the focus on the actual problem: the use of ad hominem.

          3. “To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
            Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
            To the last syllable of recorded time;
            And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
            The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
            Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
            That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
            And then is heard no more. It is a tale
            Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
            Signifying nothing.” ———————–
            Shakespeare “Macbeth”

    2. The commies/marxists have been winning that battle for 6 decades…Read the 1963 American Communist Manifesto and you’ll see that their aim was to take over academia and media amongst other things and they’ve succeeded. We on the Right have been guilty of the sin of omission; we allowed this to happen. We have to eliminate the fascist left in this country; take it back from those who are turning the United States into another Venezuela.

  16. If you haven’t voted yet, remember that it is our passage to swing the pendulum more to the center and give balance in legislation and rights back to those living under oppression from runaway liberal censorship of conservatives.

    1. And that’s another issue, Phyllis…………Voting should be restricted to ONE (1) day! Being allowed to vote for a month or so before the actual election date is B.S. Those that are handicapped or otherwise shut in should be allowed to mail in their votes; otherwise show up at the voting booth on election DAY, not month!!!

      1. I heard this morning that PA will allow ballots until the 12th. This is going to be a strange year. We have always had absentee ballots, but they have always been required to be in before election day. This year has been crazy.
        I also read a post on Parler that Biden’s campaign workers walked out on him after the revelation of corruption.

        1. Correction, Phyllis, the ballots still have to be postmarked by Election Day. If Trump hadn’t appointed an unqualified partisan Postmaster General who worked to slow down mail delivery, maybe people wouldn’t have to worry as much about their ballots arriving promptly. A judge had to order the USPS to ignore DeJoy’s directives that affected delivery of ballots.

          It’s been a crazy 4 years because of our unfit President.

            1. Phyllis, take note that our Anonymous troll that has many pretend anonymous friends just had one of them give him a +10. He’s a pretty sick guy.

                1. Phyllis, lots of people post anonymously. Odds are that it’s a mix of men and women. Certainly it’s a mix of liberals and conservatives.

                  Strange that you and Allan prefer to believe that someone has multiple personalities than accept that it’s multiple people.

                2. You could be right Phyllis. I have often thought that Anonymous and his pretend anonymous friends like to play dress up.

                  1. What tipped me off was a comment about my eyeliner. Only a girl would think that was an insult to another. I knew then I was dealing with a child.

  17. One Time Schools encouraged and taught freedom of speech, constitution, freedoms and etc. Now they are the Brown Shirts, telling what is the right speech and how you should behave, political correctness and etc. Its time for teachers and schools teach reading, writing, math, real US history and let students form their own opinions and be free to enjoy school.

    If teachers and principals refuse to go back to teaching vs being political correctness then FIRE them.

    1. Ha ha ha. The teachers at the high school I attended were concerned above all with getting through the day, and I had fairly conscientious teachers. ‘Free speech’ wasn’t on the agenda. ‘Getting through the lesson plan’ was on the agenda. One of my teachers landed a job at Kodak. His wife stopped by our house for a social call (she and my sister were friends) and she tells me, “my husband won’t be back next year. He got a job that pays money instead of grief”. The administrators were…school administrators.

      In truth, ‘free speech’ shouldn’t be a priority for schools. They need to keep order. The problem here is that the administrator in question cannot make sensible rules and draw sensible distinctions, and insists on officiously regulating people when it serves no purpose but managing her emotions.

      1. Art,
        “‘Free speech’ wasn’t on the agenda.”

        It was was, to a certain degree, at my high school. However, overall, the school was fairly ordered–not too many disciplinary problems. I don’t know whether civics and civil liberties are still included as they were then, but they were definitely included in discussions as well as in practice. But, I’m from Iowa–Tinker vs Des Moines was certainly discussed.

    2. Röhm would be proud of Antifa and BLM, Goebbels would be lauding Bezos et al in the corporate media complex. Make so mistake, corporate censorship that is killing free speech and every other freedom under the First Amendment, except their own, will then become even more powerful with the strength of the government behind it should the Harris-Biden ticket win. How soon before they come for all of us who have freely expressed our opposition to them in social media?

      1. In that kind of America, a prison camp might be the freeest place to be. Have you read Solzhenitsyn?

    3. 234currency: We have to change what is taught in our schools; just as you say. Back to teaching what is important and necessary…the 3 R’s, CIVICS, History. Teaching History as it should be taught; not denigrating our historical figures and damning them for their character flaws but emphasizing their great accomplishments. Maybe teaching that slavery was PREVALENT in many areas of the world back in those days and while wrong we didn’t have a monopoly on it….and WE GOT RID OF IT! These are some of the things we need to have taught, emphasized, in our schools instead of the absolute crap that’s being taught today. We need to instill in our young people a genuine LOVE for this country by showing how bad socialism/communism/marxism is; how it ruins lives…how dictators in these regimes have killed MILLIONS in the last century. Teach the young people that people from all over the world yearn to come to this country for a better life and explain as to why that is. It isn’t difficult to teach these things; the difficulty is eliminating the NEA but I think we can do it because I think that the majority of Americans have had it up to their eyeballs with the fascist left’s CRAP!

      1. I see that you talk about how bad socialism/communism/marxism is on the left, but you are silent about how bad fascism/neoNazism/white supremacy is on the right.

        Students need to understand the character flaws of historic figures. They need to know the good that Jefferson did and the also need to know that Jefferson raped his slave, Sally Hemmings, and enslaved his children through her.

        1. and the also need to know that Jefferson raped his slave, Sally Hemmings, and enslaved his children through her.

          They don’t need to know that because it isn’t true.

            1. 1. There’s no evidence he ever raped her or that she or any of her children harbored hostility to him.

              2. The actual evidence is that a Jefferson-line male is in the pedigree of some of her descendants. The evidence does not identify which Jefferson-line male it is.

              1. LMAO that you refer to “actual evidence” that you don’t identify and suggest that you know better than the research committee appointed by the Jefferson Foundation to study it.

                Sally Hemings was Thomas Jefferson’s property. Her children were his property until they were freed. Are you seriously suggesting that enslaved people don’t harbor hostility to those who enslave them? Would you not harbor hostility to an enslaver?

                1. Once again you didn’t read the citation you quoted or you didn’t comprehend it. Start with your comment “Jefferson raped his slave”. Where does it show that in your cited article. This is typical of you. This does not demonstrate a 130+ IQ. This is closer to the 100 range.

                2. LMAO that you refer to “actual evidence” that you don’t identify and suggest that you know better than the research committee appointed by the Jefferson Foundation to study it.

                  The evidence with regard to this has been available for 20 years and the conclusions to be drawn from it known and explained at the time it appeared. I have no interest in why the Jefferson Foundation has elected to engage in political messaging, other than to please people like you. You are a person of no value and people should not be lying to please you.

                    1. I’ve already discussed the proof, which has been available for decades. You responded with gamesmanship. That’s what you do.

                  1. Arty, you gave your opinion about evidence from 20 years ago without ever once presenting that evidence, and you made no attempt to compare the 20 year old evidence with the evidence in the study. That’s what you do: pretend to present proof.

                    1. There aren’t going to be any updates. There is a very limited pool of people you can study – people who descend from one of Sally Hemings’ sons strictly through a male line son-son-son-son every generation.

                    2. If you’d bothered to read the study, Arty, you’d see that that’s not the only relevant evidence.

                3. On her way to join Jefferson in Paris, Sally Hemings stopped in London in 1786. Under the 1772 English Somerset decision, there was no slavery in England. If Hemings had just stepped onto the street in London, she would have been a free woman.

                  Instead, she went on to Paris to join Jefferson, and she stayed there, with Jefferson and her brother, until 1789. While there, both she and her brother studied French. It is unlikely that both of them would have been unaware that slavery was always illegal in continental France and that the revolutionary French National Assembly abolished slavery throughout the French Empire in 1789. So, again, just by walking away, she could have become a free woman.

                  Instead, she chose to return to Virginia with Jefferson.

                  1. You omit other relevant factors, such as her family in the US. She would not have been able to see them if she remained in Europe. If you had to decide between remaining a slave, but negotiating some privileges for your enslaved family, and perhaps never seeing most of your family again, what would you choose?

                    1. In her place, I probably would have made the same choice she did, but the point is, she had a choice, and she chose to remain a slave.

                    2. How is that relevant to whether Jefferson raped her and enslaved his own children?

                    3. 1.There is no evidence he raped her.

                      2. Under Virginia law, her children had slave status at birth. Manumission was not a simple procedure and required posting bonds. an option Jefferson did not have as he was in debt.

                    4. If it was Jefferson himself who impregnated her, it was not rape under Virginia law. Slaveowners had the legal right to do that, whatever we think now.

                      As to whether it was rape morally, that would depend on whether the sex with whoever was consensual. And that we do not know.

                    5. She was pregnant at age 16. What do you call it when a man in his 40s has sex with a 16 year old who cannot refuse? I call that rape. If you don’t, then maybe you should rethink your morals.

                      Jefferson inherited debt, but he also lived beyond his means. If you could free your enslaved children by giving up drinking or decorating less, wouldn’t you do it? I would.

                    6. Edgar Allen Poe married a bride aged 13. Anyone who doubts that he loved her needs only to read his poetry.

                      It was a different age.

                    7. You’re moving the goalposts from whether Jefferson raped Sally Hemings to whether he loved her.

                      If you think men are incapable of raping women they love, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of rape, which is a question of whether both parties consent and whether both are capable of consent or refusal.

                    8. “You’re moving the goalposts ”

                      Anonymous says to another they are moving the goal posts but let us listen to what Anonymous actually said:

                      “They need to know the good that Jefferson did and the also need to know that Jefferson raped his slave”

                      Then he provided a citation to prove that what he said was correct. He either didn’t read the citation, didn’t understand it or lied for the citation said nothing about rape. Everything he says in suspect. He doesn’t understand how to read history (date and place must be understood to understand the social norms). He is loaded with erroneous statements which is bad in itself but he doesn’t stop at error. He also lies a lot.

                      Now I assume he will call me more names. Anonymous is not suited for normal human interactions.

                    9. One of the pretenses of our contemporary times is the notion that slavery was rather more awful than it was. Now hold on here, bear with me a minute.
                      Surely for many it was awful, no doubt. But perhaps for some not so bad. And perhaps– just maybe– perhaps for most, it was better than starvation. In fact throughout most of the world, slavery was precisely the social convention that allowed the poor to escape literal starvation. It played this role in China right up until the middle of the 20th century. Now slavery was bad but is it not legit to ask, was starvation perhaps, worse?

                      Perhaps we fancy that we are so much better off because we are “free” and can go and do as we please. Ok, but let’s take a closer look at that.

                      Except can we really? do as we please? No of course not. Everything has a cost. Freedom is limited by material factors.

                      Likewise, we should take a look at our precious “Freedom of speech” today and see that it is not jack squat of value when nobody can hear your voice anyways. The Silicon Valley billionaires have fantastic megaphones the likes of which have never been seen, in their control of social media. They are even more powerful than the big newspapers which still linger on spewing fake news. And yet it is their “property” so First amendment does not apply.

                      The Framers were very cunning men and generally rich men. They got rid of a visible social hierarchy in the form of the aristocracy and established church, and replaced it with an invisible hierarchy of wealth and more subtle influence. We should be smart enough to see how different social institutions with different names often work in similar ways from age to age.

                4. I am the son of Irish Catholic immigrants. I grew up with relatives who did hate all the English. But I always regarded that hatred as unchristian. My mother was a true believer in Sinn Fein nationalism, whereas my father had supported the Irish Parliamentary Party and its less radical idea of Irish Home Rule.

                  In 1972-4, I had a scholarship to study at Oxford, and my parents joined me in England and Ireland in both summers I was there, 1973 and 1974. My father had to admit that independence had been good for Ireland, but my mother had to admit that it is wrong to hate all the English. The British government may be bad (as is the U.S. government), but ordinary Brits, like ordinary Americans, are just ordinary people. To the extent they support evil actions of their governments, it’s because they’re deceived by their media.

                  Jesus tells us to love our enemies.

        2. What makes fascism or Nazism on the right as opposed to the left? The left desires more state control like fascism and nazism provide. The right wants less state control. You are confused.

          White supremacists come from both sides of the aisle. Look at the white supremacist Richard Spencer. He is on the left philosophically. You are confused again.

          1. A more precise question is why Nazis and Fascists are lumped in with old whigs and chuch-and-country conservatives. Part of the answer is that old whigs prefer Nazis and Fascists to Communists because Nazis and Fascists tend to have more circumscribed objects, objects which do not include mass seizures of people’s property. The other part of the answer is that the left is conventional and parrots nonsense they’ve heard from ‘authorities’. A third part is political messaging, an attempt to taint ordinary people with the Fascists disagreeable aspects and taint the Fascists with Nazi signatures to which the Fascists never subscribed.

            Note, in the immediate post-war period, supposed social-democratic parties collaborated with communist parties in preventing the re-emergence of parliamentary government and electoral politics in East Germany, Poland, and Hungary. Ditto the prevailing faction of the social democratic party in Czechoslovakia. The socialists supported the communists during the Greek civil war (1946-49). The principal socialist party in Italy remained allied with the communists in national politics until 1963 and in local politics until 1983. Social democratic parties remain completely untainted by this sorry history.

        3. Anon: Jefferson with respect to “Sally Hemmings, and enslaved his children through her.”

          Please tell the entire story. He allowed two of her children to escape to freedom. He freed the other two in his will. After Jefferson’s death, she lived in freedom in Charlottesville.

          Some commenters need to heed the saying: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” For Jefferson’s full view of slavery’s evil, see the “Ordinance of 1784.” It contained a provision, penned by Jefferson, that would have abolished slavery. The Ordinance, with that provision, failed in Congress by 1 vote. Of that failure, Jefferson later wrote: “The voice of a single individual of the state which was divided, or of one of those which were of the negative, would have prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country. Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, & heaven was silent in that awful moment!”

          1. Jefferson was wise but clever. His sycophants ever lionize him.

            See his memorial. A partial quote is included, yet the full quote of Jefferson is omitted on his memorial

            what is on the memorial?

            “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” [blacks and whites in America]

            what is omitted?

            “Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”
            – Jefferson’s Autobiography


            see, panel three

        1. The Right in America permits it because they rejected the philosophical work of Martin Heidegger perhaps because he was a NSDAP member as Sanpete was wagging her finger at me friday about.

          And yet he was perhaps the foremost philosopher of the 20th century and very worthy of study. He has had tremendous attention inside philosophy departments around the world and for good reason.

          The postmodernist Left builds as much on Heidegger and his precursor Nietzsche as they do on Marxist existentialist Jean Paul Sartre. Derrida is one who comes to mind. here is an article that explores this among other things:

          Now let me again share this quote from Heigegger:

          “Language is the house of being. In its home human beings dwell. Those who think and those who create with words are the guardians of this home. Their guardianship accomplishes the manifestation of being insofar as they bring this manifestation to language and preserve it in language through their saying.”

          Now if you let the Left hold the keys to the house of language, then all existence is held captive to them. You can quote Kurtz on that.

          Don’t worry about whether Heidegger was a nazi or not. Fact is that he was. The nazis are long dead, nearly all of them. Quit worrying about them and worry about the enemies that are in our face today. Get past the labels and look at what is useful. Consider this: his membership in that party no more invalidates his philosophical work than the fact that Werner Von Braun was a nazi invalidated his physics used at developing the rocketry for Germany and then America which put the man on the moon.

          And while you’re busy dusting off his work, dust off the work of Carl Schmitt too, another NS party member, who increasingly has the attention of political thinkers as well. He was a little forgotten but not by Leo Strauss.

          This is a great work to start with

          1. Mr. Kurtz,
            I am not Sanpete. I have grave concerns about Schmitt’s perspective, particularly in regards to his support for dictators and authoritarianism.

            I did apologize for throwing the baby out with the bathwater without having sufficiently read him. I am reading The Theory of the Partisan (I have not had time to sit down to give it as much attention as I’d like).

            I am rather Jeffersonian as I highly dislike partisanship.

            “men of sound heads and honest views needed nothing more than explanation and mutual understanding to enable them to unite in some measures which might enable us to get along” -Thomas Jefferson

            Jon Meacham notes that Jefferson “proposed a covenant: Let us meet the political challenges of the country together and try to restrain the passions that led to the extremist, apocalyptic rhetoric…and perhaps politics could become a means of progress, not simply a source of conflict” (373). Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power.

            That said, I have been thinking about what you said and have been trying to think of what merits there might be to partisans. I see the dangers clearly in the intractable conflicts that can arise. However, when passions are not running high, I see that it can act like the antagonists in the body that keep homeostasis functioning properly.

            1. sorry Prarie my memory is as poor as Joe Biden’s some days!

              Schmitt’s writing about partisans did not really mean parliamentary-democratic partisans, rather, guerilla war partisans

              however it formed part of a continuum of his thinking about the failings and shortcomings of liberal democratic systems

              the big merit of parliamentary-democratic systems is that they have low levels of corruption compared to some authoritarian systems

              some, but not all. arguably, corruption went down in Italy under the fascists, who “made the trains run on time”

              at times parliamentary democratic systems can degenerate into chaos. often, though, the chaos gives rise to a new sovereign power that resolves the conflicts by dictatorial means. this has been seen countless times in history. Napoleon is one such example.
              Napleon stopped the chaos and murder of the crazed French Directorate and restored law and order.
              His recodification of the Justinian Code was a true gift to humanity and forms the basis for government in most places outside the English speaking nations.
              But yes Schmitt is correctly seen as valorizing, to a degree, executive power
              We can’t let the horrors of the failed Hitler regime obscure the value of Schmitt, though he was associated with it
              Napoleon provides a more virtuous example perhaps. Though, many dislike Napoleon too. the value of his example is to see how the executive can restore law and order and domestic peace and tranquility. Even with an increased measure of freedoms, as we might fairly claim Napoleon accomplished by comparison to the ancien regime.

              we should remember that the critic of the shortcomings of democracy is as old as that great foundational work of politics, Plato’s Republic. You could just as well turn to Plato for evergreen critiques of democracy as Schmitt


              in my thinking, America will never tame its plutocratic element without a thorough comprehension of this Platonic critique and executive power which acts on it.

              1. Mr. Kurtz,
                No worries about the name mix-up. I did it the other day between Ron P. and Allan.

                “at times parliamentary democratic systems can degenerate into chaos. often, though, the chaos gives rise to a new sovereign power that resolves the conflicts by dictatorial means.”

                In the current situation, it has been induced artificially to cause us to descend into dictatorial power. The chaos is a manipulation to steer people.

                Let us not lose our self-governance.

                Jefferson, too, feared dictators. Few men can behave as a Cincinnatus.

                1. Prairie, I do not think we have dictatorial power, but I agree there has been contrived chaos and conflict to nurse the growth of the administrative state and particularly the “intelligence community”

                  We are more into something like late-Imperial Praetorianism than dictatorship. If we ever had a dictator we only had one, Lincoln

                  we are way past that now and the CIA and FBI appear to be awful foot draggers and saboteurs of genuine civilian political leadership of our nation

                  word is Trump will FIRE Wray and Haskel and Esper if he gets re-elected. Long overdue!


                  these are our modern day Praetorian guard

                  1. Mr. Kurtz,
                    “word is Trump will FIRE Wray and Haskel and Esper if he gets re-elected. Long overdue!”

                    If true, it’s a foolish thing to project prior to Jan. 12.

                    1. Yes Prarie I thought so too but it’s already out there

                      Im sure they realize they’re going to get cut one way or another, whomever wins.

                      they will use their short time left in office sanitizing the files rather than planning more mischief, I suspect

                  2. Mr. Kurtz,
                    “I do not think we have dictatorial power”

                    I agree. I am concerned that many of these events are intended to try to make us “descend into dictatorial power”. What can follow internal chaos? Some kind of dictator. Egad.

                    “there has been contrived chaos and conflict to nurse the growth of the administrative state and particularly the “intelligence community”

                    With the manipulation of information for the purpose of steering the populace unwittingly towards the State’s desired ends, how does that fit into a properly functioning republic of free individuals? A Praetorian Guard steers the governance rather than the leader or the people. Either way, it seems a usurpation of the authority and self-governance of the individual and against the right functioning of a constitutional republic, as well as antithetical to liberty.

              2. Mr. Kurtz,
                “the value of [Napolean’s] example is to see how the executive can restore law and order and domestic peace and tranquility.”

                Or, that it is another example of what follows infighting–the rise of a dictator. Peace and tranquility did not exactly follow him, considering his adventures in Egypt, his attempt to invade England, his fights with a good share of Europe. And liberty most definitely did not follow.

                “A Republic? What a notion!…[T]he French are infatuated [with the idea of liberty] but it will pass away in time…What they want is glory and the gratification of their vanity; as for liberty, of that they have no conception.”

            2. “I am rather Jeffersonian as I highly dislike partisanship.”

              In real life Jefferson didn’t always follow what he espoused.

              1. Allan,
                No one is perfect.

                I do think he tried, considering he wrote ‘Nothing shall be spared on my part to obliterate the traces of party and consolidate the nation, if it can be done without abandonment of principle.” He did eventually decide that political divisions were intrinsic to politics and were best managed as civilly as possible (even with that acquiescence, he can still dislike partisanship).

                Jefferson also wrote: “I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of ay party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself.” “I am not of the party of federalists. But I am much farther from that of the Antifederalists.”

                1. Jefferson had strong underlying principles which was good, but as President he acted in ways that were contrary to all his principles. Thank goodness he abandoned some principles as President.

                  1. He was about as clever as they came.

                    Say ever read the Declaration of Independence? So9mething interesting in there I missed when i was younger:

                    one of the complaints against King George who was trying to keep the colonists East of the Allegheny mountains:

                    “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions”


                    MERCILESS SAVAGES!

                    why he could have been talking about ANTIFA

  18. “It is time we have a discussion of the elephant in the room in education from K-12 to colleges. We are embracing censorship as a value while increasingly treating free speech as inherently dangerous or destabilizing. That is one lesson we should not be teaching to a new generation of citizens.”

    Well said

  19. Another prize for the witless karenwaffe employed in school administration. Education in this country’s in the best of hands.

    1. Does anyone know the last year that the US had the best education system in the world?

      1. A “Karen” is a middle aged annoying white women with one of those goofy bob hairdos who complains a lot to management.

Comments are closed.