As many on this blog are aware, I have long been an advocate of public education and we feel deeply fortunate to have sent all four of our kids to public schools in Alexandria and McLean in Fairfax County. I still have one child in the Fairfax system. I was therefore shocked like many Fairfax parents to see the videotape of Michelle Leete, Vice President of Training at the Virginia PTA, Vice President of Communications for the Fairfax County PTA and First Vice President of the Fairfax County NAACP as she lashed out against those who oppose critical race theory and identity divisional lessons in school. What was even more unnerving is the applause from other parents to her “let them die” declaration.
The video was taken by a Fairfax parent, Asra Nomani, whose son recently graduated from Fairfax County Public Schools and helps run the watchdog group Parents Defending Education. The speech was reportedly held at a counter-protest a meeting billed as “STOP CRT RALLY.” Nomani included the video in her posting below.
Leete railed against those objecting to the identity-based lesson plans. Notably, Leete fell back on the same shaming of parents with opposing views — accusing them of hating everything and everyone because they do not want this material to be taught to their children. Keep in mind that this would encompass the majority of parents according to recent polls.
“So let’s meet and remain steadfast in speaking truth, tearing down double standards, and refuting double talk. Let’s not allow any double downing on lies. Let’s prepare our children for a world they deserve. Let’s deny this off-key band of people that are anti-education, anti-teacher, anti-equity, anti-history, anti-racial reckoning, anti-opportunities, anti-help people, anti-diversity, anti-platform, anti-science, anti-change agent, anti-social justice, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-children, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-admissions policy change, anti-inclusion, anti-live-and-let live people. Let them die. Don’t let these uncomfortable people, don’t let these uncomfortable people deter us from our bold march forward.”
In some ways, Fairfax is still better than many jurisdictions that are eliminating elite schools and advanced courses because of the race of the students in those programs.
It is incredibly sad to see this type of reckless rhetoric in our school district. Many of us came to Fairfax because it has always been viewed as a district that put academic excellence as the highest priority. We have found the schools in McLean to be terrific and the teachers to be incredibly supportive. I hate to see that long-successful approach swamped by the unrestrained rage and divisions of our contemporary politics.
Update: The PTA has announced that it has accepted Leete’s resignation. The Virginia Parent-Teacher Association declared that
“Today, the Virginia PTA executive committee requested and received the resignation of Michelle Leete, who served as Vice President of Training. The actions & rhetoric of Ms. Leete & all of the like-minded partisan supporters of the SB are deeply disappointing. It evinces a deep lack of concern for children & parents, particularly where the wellbeing of children & families clash with political considerations.”
Off Topic Question: The NFL announced they will play the black national anthem prior to playing the National Anthem of the United States of America, the one and only anthem of Americans. I understand that it’s customary to play the anthem of visiting teams of other nations, so I ask where is the nation of black?
on topic follow up question 1: whats the nfl
on topic follow up question 2: which would you rather have…your citys nfl team win the super bowl…or five dollars…based on ratings most people would choose the latter
Just goes to show who the unhinged really are. They hate us, they want us dead and they prove it everyday. THEY are the bigots they have been looking for. They need a giant mirror.
“I was therefore shocked like many Fairfax parents to see the videotape of Michelle Leete, Vice President of Training at the Virginia PTA, Vice President of Communications for the Fairfax County PTA and First Vice President of the Fairfax County NAACP as she called for those who oppose critical race theory and identity divisions in school to “die.” What was even more unnerving is the applause from other parents to her “let them die” declaration.
**************************************************
We’d best understand that they hate us and are willing to usher in our demise. Like I’ve said since the summer, get to the firing range now. You are your best — and quickest –defense.
Mespo, it’s not actually clear if Leete was actually referring to the parents. Turley mentions a video, but doesn’t provide a link to it.
He is only focused on three words without context. “Let them die”.
Leete is quoting a list of double standards and the phrase “let them die” is at the very end. It’s much more likely that she was talking about the double standards than the parents. Without the full transcript of what she says it is very easy to twist that phrase into meaning she meant the parents.
You then suggest people go the firing range to “go be your best”. As in promoting violence over an unclear intent. This is why these parents are on a rage binge over ideas that are not part of what what is CRT.
No. Your denial of the effects of CRT is appalling. You call it a right-wing conspiracy theory even though complaints arise from both the right and the left. To date, you have been unable to define CRT as used in the schools and workplace, nor have you stated its effects on society.
Your actual knowledge about CRT ends up being less than nothing.
Whether the ideas are or are not technically “part of what what is CRT” matters little, when no Wokesters say boo, against any of the ideas from such proponents as the NYT, Kendi or Di Angelo.
Until any of these types refer to any of their pals as being on a “rage binge”, I’ll bet ranch that the point of everything they do is, to provoke normal folks into a “rage binge”, then being able to style themselves to be thereby Oppressed.
They’ll keep on using the Alinsky playbook, ’til they drop.
Do not pretend you don’t know the meaning. Spin and soin
Mespo, sure seems like the 1930’s all over again.
based on that history the construction of the first death camps in america will begin in about 8 years
if the 2022 midterm elections dont stop the democrats dead in their tracks
Would Leslie consider running for school board? She’d be great, I’m sure!
Can you imagine the outrage if a White, Asian or Hispanic teacher spoke this way about Blacks who want to teach the lies of CRT? The communists currently in power and their propagandist would be flooding the airways screaming foul.
Of course, I abhor this rhetoric by that parent and she is rightly denounced and all those who applauded her statement. But I can’t let Turley’s hypocrisy go unnoticed. He says:
The unhinged attack on parents opposing these lessons is all-too-familiar in our age of rage.”
Turley is all too aware of his Fox News colleague Mark Levin’s new book, “American Marxism,” which will only serve to fuel the rage which Turley correctly condemns. Liberals resent being smeared as Marxists just as Republicans loathe being accused of white supremacy. Yet will Turley denounce “American Marxism”?
Not on your life. Why? Because he is an abject hypocrite. That is why.
Except that liberals actually are Marxists (or worse), conservatives are not white supremacists, and Turley is not a hypocrite.
Levin isn’t talking about classic Liberals (people who believe in Liberty for everyone), he’s referring to the Leftists who’ve taken over the Democratic Party. Not every Liberal is a Marxist or Leftist, but every Marxist and Leftists calls themselves Liberal. There’s a difference.
Ok. If you say so. I take it all back.
JS:
“Turley is all too aware of his Fox News colleague Mark Levin’s new book, “American Marxism,” which will only serve to fuel the rage which Turley correctly condemns.”
***************************
Levin doesn’t call for any violence (in fact he denounces it) but he sure exposes the Left for doing just that. I know you don’t know that because you haven’t read it as you freely admit despite my generous offer to get you one.
Hypocrisy is bad but impugning a man’s work which you haven’t read is worse. That’s lying.
Mespo,
Of course, Levin has to denounce violence. Not unlike Trump who called for peacefully walking to the Capitol. How is it that his followers got the wrong impression? Tell me, honestly, do you really believe that just one disclaimer of violence is sufficient to offset a litany of rhetoric designed to inflame a mob’s passions to resort to violence? When you tell people as Trump did that the election was stolen from them, isn’t that a good enough reason to take matters into your own hands and fight? Is it really necessary to give the command, “Attack”? Even Turley said Trump’s speech was “reckless.”
Likewise, when Levin claims that the country is being overtaken by Marxists and the country will no longer be the home of the brave and the land of the free, I would take up arms if I thought the threat were genuine. But I’m guessing that just maybe he is exaggerating the threat in order to sensationalize his book to stimulate sales. You may not believe that Levin could be so devious, but you can’t rule it out. After all, money makes the world go around.
It’s true that I will not buy his book because I don’t want him to profit at my expense. I’m not a sucker. Believe it or not, I do listen to his radio show daily because I realize that he is an opinion maker in Trumpism and Fox News. If you listen to him, you will know that I do as well because I can’t recall Levin ever mentioning Turley’s name. Is it not odd that neither one mentions the other since they are both on the same team Fox? I think that proves that Turley does not buy what Levin is selling, and Levin knows it. My chief complaint against Turley is his hypocrisy in condemning the “age of rage” while consciously working for an outfit which promotes the loudest and most vociferous voice of rage in the media.
“I can’t recall Levin ever mentioning Turley’s name. Is it not odd that neither one mentions the other since they are both on the same team Fox?”
Why should Levin talk about Turley? Why should Turley talk about Levin? Jeff makes no sense. Turley identifies and is on the center-left while Levin is on the right.
Then again, what has Jeff said? Nothing. He still hasn’t listed the top lies he says Trump committed while performing his presidential duties. Jeff can’t create the list because such a trite list would make Jeff look foolish. He already has proven himself ignorant.
SM
Jeffsilberman,
She’s not talking about the people. Think about it. It doesn’t make any sense to suggest to these people to let them die, die of what? Are they dying of something?
She said it so casually and she was indeed stating a long list of words that she saw as double standards and against many things. Conservative media is focusing on just those words and just by emphasizing those three words they can easily be manipulated into making people believe she means the parents.
She was talking about that list of words, it makes much more sense to state that those words should die, not the parents opposing CRT.
We should keep in mind the fact that this is a highly charged issue already, thanks to right wing think tanks deliberately twisting CRT’s intent. When it’s obvious that many parents are already stating claims that have not been part of CRT and claims that CRT is being taught at schools (which it is not), clearly shows this is being used for political gain.
All I ask is take a step back and really think about the whole idea of Leete, advocating for parents to die. Does it make sense to you that’s credible or that she actually meant the words she was rattling off. It makes much more sense that she meant the rhetoric rather than the people opposing CRT.
Sve @ 10:35
The subject of the “sentence” was “Let’s deny this off-key band of people that are (anti, anti, anti, etc)”. The list of antis was describing the people, not itself the topic. There is every reason to believe that she was referring to the people not the adjectives describing them. Either that or she has no business as a PTA leader, and generally NAACP leaders have higher literacy standards. Murderous rage, as Turley notes, seems a more likely explanation.
Lefty665,
“ The subject of the “sentence” was “Let’s deny this off-key band of people that are (anti, anti, anti, etc)”.
I don’t believe so, because she didn’t start her speech with that. She started with, “ So let’s meet and remain steadfast in speaking truth, tearing down double standards, and refuting double talk. Let’s not allow any double downing on lies. Let’s prepare our children for a world they deserve.”
Her initial focus was on the double standards, double talk, double downing on lies. She states that double standards and double talk be teared down and refuting double talk.
Her description of the parents being anti- this, anti-that was not what she meant to “let them die”.
She was talking about the very first things she mentioned.
The way the transcript is made cannot reflect exactly what she means because it was already a charged situation.
She could have inserted the list of anti’s to refer to the parents and used the phrase to mean her first claim about the double standards and the lying.
It makes no sense to state “let the die” after the list of anti’s. What would be the rationale about “letting them die”?
It makes much more sense that she meant the double standards and the lying. Her emphasis was on that at the beginning.
The rage is being stoked by those who are deliberately using the ease of manipulating that phrase on her speech into something that only makes sense to those who already have the perverted view that all liberals are violent racist thugs who make just such statements.
Her speech is being deliberately used as a means to enrage the right without any clarification from Leete herself.
I will admit she is exacerbating the situation by not immediately clarifying what she meant. That is a mistake.
Svelaz,
I don’t disagree with your interpretation because I have not listened carefully to what she said, and I don’t intend to. I trust your opinion since I have come to trust you. There is no question in my mind that the Republicans are acting in bad faith. They have to because they are defending a chronic and habitual liar who has pushed them into a corner to defend his Big Lie (like it or not) because they have to save face. They can NEVER concede that Trump has been a liar since they went along with his lies. They are forever stuck to defend the indefensible. The best defense is a good offense which explains their calling Democrats and MSM “liars” so- at the very least- they can claim that we are no better than them. Of course, they are lying about CRT. That is unmistakable. And even with Covid, they impugn the motives of Biden and his Health authorities because they will never give credit to Democrats because it comes at their expense in this zero sum game of politics. We are at war over the truth. The stakes could not be higher.
Jeff can’t seem to stay on the subject. Today he wants professor Turley to write a negative review of Levin’s new book. If Silberman were honest with himself and everyone reading his junk, he would provide a review with quotes and page numbers to prove his sincerity. He doesn’t because he doesn’t know what he is talking about, likely because he hasn’t read Levin’s book.
Such comments by Silberman are defamatory, reflecting Silberman’s dishonesty and inability to discuss things rationally. He has a thing for Turley that isn’t rational, yet it consumes Silberman to such an extent that he cannot think and repeats an underlying theme over and over again.
Insane attacks = insane responses. Not any more complicated than that, Turley.
eb
Eb,
It just takes a moment to put it into context what Leete was referring to when she said, “let them die”
Her main point was about the rhetoric, the double standards. By listing all of them and mentioning these “people” in the middle of it was not a reference to what should happen to those people. It’s the rhetoric she was talking about the most.
Think about it for a minute. How does it make sense to call for these people to die? It’s already very easy to jump into the conclusion that she meant the parents, especially by conservative media which is only focusing on the phrase “let them die” without thought. The narrative was immediately made by the right that she meant the parents rather than the rhetoric which makes much more sense.
It benefits more to conservatives media to portray this as meaning she suggested letting parents die. It makes no sense whatsoever. This is exactly what Turley obliviously cited as the culture of rage and he’s directly naively contributing to it because he is reacting to the idea of what the conservative media already established what she meant instead of actually analyzing the entire situation for himself.
He’s doing what he often criticizes journalist of doing, engaging in the very type of advocacy journalism he claims is becoming the norm.
“He’s doing what he often criticizes journalist of doing, engaging in the very type of advocacy journalism he claims is becoming the norm.“
Turley is not a journalist. He is a prominent attorney who provides his opinion. I keep saying this Svelaz, but you refuse to use a dictionary.
Learn the difference between fact and opinion, the difference between news and opinion. Words have accepted meanings. In our present society when one is so willing to twist words, that is a sign the person doing so has Marxist leanings.
S. Meyer,
“ Turley is not a journalist.”
He is.
Journalism; the activity OR profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast.
Turley posts a lot of columns on the Hill and a few other publications, he goes on Fox News (a broadcast).
Writing his columns for the Hill IS an activity for a newspaper. The dictionary backs up my assertions.
You are right. Technically, Turley can be considered a journalist. Still, he does so as a legal scholar who opines about what other journalists are writing. Those advocacy journalists are pushing an ideology contrary to our history and laws.
Turley advocates for law and order, while the left MSM frequently advocates against the law. I guess one could call his writing advocacy journalism even though, for the most part, he is acting as a legal scholar trying to correct the misconceptions of advocacy journalists that have little regard for the truth.
I know our flawed legal system is adversarial with terms not defined logically but by legislation and declaration by the SCOTUS. Our legal focus is not the truth, it is based on resolving disputes. Philosophy and Science focus on searching for the true facts about reality. Education used to be teaching what is known by rote and also how a student could independently increase personal knowledge by research and experimentation. Dr Dewy’s Assertion That No Absolute Moral Truth was and is irrelevant. Our Constitution makes the (ABSOLUTE) declaration that “all men are created equal”. We hung Educators in Germany for teaching all men are not created equal. Why isn’t using Dr Dewey’s conclusions or methods banned in schools because they unconstitutionally teach all men are not created equal. CRT is even more of an abomination under the constitution
Turley as usual is picking on one, one phrase and twists it into a whole other narrative without the requisite context of the situation.
1. Parents are being misled about what CRT is about. Many cite curriculum that is not being implemented as reason to oppose CRT.
2. Those claiming CRT is about declaring all white people are racist or that they should admit they are are LYING to these parents.
3. The huge majority of CRT critics have never read CRT.
4. Right wing think tanks are deliberately stoking these outrages Turley speaks of by misleading parents on what CRT does and conflates equity with some sort of sinister Marxist indoctrination ploy or even as a religious one.
Turley should know better, but clearly he can’t be bothered with real researching of the issue. If he did he would understand that even trying to to teach the concept of CRT in k-12 schools is too complex for this level of education. That’s why it is not being taught.
Teachers are being trained in cultural equity, not CRT. The two concepts are not related to each other, but right wing pundits, think tanks, and blow hards are conflating the two as the same.
This is why you have angry parents who know nothing about CRT demanding their children not be taught something was never going to be taught in schools.
It’s these gullible frightened parents who are being taken for a ride and sadly deceived by right wing wackos who are exploiting this issue for political reasons.
Turley, the free speech advocate who laments the erosion of free speech is mum on legislatures banning CRT because it’s an unpopular idea.
If you truly believe CRT isn’t about teaching white kids to hate their own heritage and training them to feel guilty for things they’ve never done (because they’re still kids), then you’re not paying attention.
Mark,
“ If you truly believe CRT isn’t about teaching white kids to hate their own heritage and training them to feel guilty for things they’ve never done (because they’re still kids), then you’re not paying attention.”
CRT does no such thing. The only reason why so many people are making those claims is because they are just parroting what critics of CRT who have not read CRT are claiming it says.
I’ve read it and it clearly makes no such claims. It doesn’t train kids to feel guilty or that they are racist simply because they are white. Notice that nobody, nobody cites relevant passages from CRT papers making such claims.
Have you seen links?, direct quotes? References? Don’t you find that strange?
Nobody can show which schools are teaching this or curricula being used? School is not even in session. How can they be teaching this of school is out? The “curriculum” parents are seeing isn’t what schools are contemplating of even including.
Too many right wing think tanks are deliberately conflating teacher training in equity with CRT training. They are both not the same thing. Parents being naive and gullible themselves are only making arguments from ignorance about CRT. That’s the source of all the rage and opposition. It’s parents upset about something that is not happening and don’t understand.
“nobody, nobody cites relevant passages from CRT papers “
Tell us what CRT is and how it affects schools and businesses. Then you can provide a link to a paper you stand behind. We can all read it together. You don’t because you can’t stand behind any significant writing on CRT that includes its effect on schools and businesses.
You are throwing BS rather than information.
“I’ve read it and it clearly makes no such claims.”
Too bad you didn’t *comprehend* it.
CRT (e.g., your darling, Kendi) openly demands “reverse discrimination” — i.e., racial discrimination.
“Capitalism is essentially racist; racism is essentially capitalist.” (Kendi, expressing a key element of CRT)
So on their view, to be an “anti-racist” means to reject and overthrow the American system of capitalism. I wonder what type of political system they want to replace capitalism with — and to impose on Americans?
Free speech absolutism is like catnip to Leftists. Conservatives will defend it on the front and back end, Leftists will exploit it on the front end and attack it on the back end.
CRT is a Marxist tool to divide and collapse our culture and eventually our nation. Better known as Critical Racist Training.
“1. Parents are being misled about what CRT is about.”
Since you make this statement you should be able to tell us what CRT is and what effect it is having in the school system, but you don’t.
“3. The huge majority of CRT critics have never read CRT.“
That means you have read a good source so you can provide a link to your best source and be prepared to defend it. Make sure it is able to include the effect it has in the school system and at the workplace.
S. Meyer,
“ Since you make this statement you should be able to tell us what CRT is and what effect it is having in the school system, but you don’t.”
I have pointed out to you multiple times what is CRT. CRT is not one monolithic set of ideas. It’s multiple ideas that support a basic premise. There are 5 tenets of what constitutes CRT.
“ There are five major components or tenets of CRT: (1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational; (2) the idea of an interest convergence; (3) the social construction of race; (4) the idea of storytelling and counter-storytelling; and (5) the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights legislation.”
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506735.pdf
“ That means you have read a good source so you can provide a link to your best source and be prepared to defend it. Make sure it is able to include the effect it has in the school system and at the workplace.”
See link above.
Svelez,
The definition of CRT is not as important as it’s implementation. Constitutionalism is a theory. How it’s implemented in this country is far more important. Teaching anyone, let alone children, that they are defined by the color of their skin is a racist pedagogy. Period.
Olly,
“ The definition of CRT is not as important as it’s implementation.”
It’s definition IS important. It’s what allows anyone to understand what it is about. It is NOT being implemented in schools at all.
Conservative think tanks are the only ones claiming it is being implemented in schools. Often with deliberately misleading claims about what it does.
CRT is not something that is supposed to be taught in K-12 schools. CRT is a complex academic theory that’s been around for decades. In all that time it has never been applied to K-12 schools.
What CRT does do is challenges the status quo of what we are taught about our history. Many of CRT’s theories are valid and are backed up by historical records.
It doesn’t seek to reverse or change the basic premise of our history. It ADDS to it. For example, it is often taught and widely believed that the first President George Washington had wooden teeth. It’s a common refrain. The reality of that is Washington did not have wijden teeth. He had teeth that either were pulled from dead people or slaves.
K-12 students have been taught for years that George Washington had wooden teeth. His real teeth the ones in question ARE prominently displayed at Monticello museum describing it as an appliance consisting of other people’s teeth. If schools or history books made that fact we wouldn’t be having this myth about Washington having wooden teeth.
CRT basically does the same thing. It challenges common perceptions of what we consider the truth about the nature of our nations founding and its laws.
People, parents are freaking out because right wing think tanks and others who are just plain ignorant are telling these parents that CRT is being taught in schools and that their kids are being labeled racist because they are white. It is simply not true at all.
I’ve not seen anyone cite relevant quotes FROM CRT papers specifically asserting the claims being made. There are never links or actual excerpts directly from the source itself.
“I’ve not seen anyone cite relevant quotes FROM CRT papers specifically asserting the claims being made. There are never links or actual excerpts directly from the source itself.”
I just did in two separate posts. I used your article, one that likely you never read. I only took a few points and hope you decided to respond comprehensively. In essence CRT is telling MLK (character over color) he is wrong. Do you agree with that? CRT is teaching young minds color is more important than character. See tenant #1.
It’s definition IS important. It’s what allows anyone to understand what it is about. It is NOT being implemented in schools at all.
BS. It doesn’t matter how it is defined. All anyone needs to understand is what is being implemented in schools. What is being implemented in schools at all levels is a racist indoctrination forcing students to view each other on the basis of race. The premises don’t matter. I don’t care what you call it, how you define it, I care what it’s doing.
Olly, nothing is being implemented. That’s the whole issue. People are being misled that CRT is being implemented in schools yet nobody can point out any examples of its implementation.
Are you daft? They are pointing out what is being implemented. It doesn’t matter if they call it CRT or Oreos, it’s pure racist indoctrination.
Olly, What they are pointing out is NOT CRT. They are conflating teachers training on equity issues that involve cultural differences, not racial ones. People are not able to differentiate between the two issues and that is what these critics are doing. They are deliberately conflating two different issues and falsely claiming CRT is about teaching kids they are to be ashamed or feel guilty because they are white and possibly racist. CRT does not such thing, I’ve yet to see anyone post direct quotes and links to the specific paper/s making such claims. If you have accessed one post it. All you are doing is making an observation based on pure hearsay.
What they are pointing out is NOT CRT.
Again, I don’t care. What they are pointing out however is racist indoctrination. Are you purposely avoiding that by fixating on definitions?
“. . . forcing students to view each other on the basis of race.”
That is true.
Marxism promotes a materialist view of history — a constant battle among *economic* classes. CRT also promotes a materialist view of history — with this, even more irrational, twist: History is a constant battle among *racial* classes.
CRT, along with Marxism, is an anti-conceptual view of history. It is an attempt to wipe out the truth: That America was founded on an *idea* — the concept of individual rights. The concept of “individualism” is what CRT (and Marxism) detests. To erase that concept from American history, CRT replaces it with collectivism of a racial type.
The proper view is: To be an American means to be an individualist.
CRT’s (wicked) view is: To be an American means to be a member of a racial tribe.
Anyone who claims to understand CRT, yet does not grasp those fundamental points, is either ignorant or a poser.
“CRT is not something that is supposed to be taught in K-12 schools.”
Svelaz, that is entirely correct and that is what all the complaints are about. Parents don’t want CRT taught in the schools. Colorblindness is good (character over color). Merit is good.
Parents don’t want CRT taught in the schools.
Seth,
It’s obvious that the only defense these Marxists have is to keep the debate over definitions.
Colorblindness is good (character over color). Merit is good.
That’s correct. And what they’re actually teaching (indoctrinating) these students to believe is that some of their classmates are oppressors, and some are oppressed, based on nothing more than the color of their skin. They can try to move the goalposts with whatever definition they want, but what’s playing out on the education field is pure racist indoctrination.
Olly,
“That’s correct. And what they’re actually teaching (indoctrinating) these students to believe is that some of their classmates are oppressors, and some are oppressed, based on nothing more than the color of their skin. They can try to move the goalposts with whatever definition they want, but what’s playing out on the education field is pure racist indoctrination.”
That is NOT what CRT does and it is not what is being implemented in schools. That’s the whole point. This is not marxist or socialist or communist or whatever boogey man philosophy of the day you fancy. Parent’s are losing their minds over something that is not being implemented or even discussed in schools. School has not even started yet.
“That is NOT what CRT does and it is not what is being implemented in schools. “
Svelaz, read the paper you referred to and what he said about oppressors and the oppressed. What do you think it means?
“ That is NOT what CRT does and it is not what is being implemented in schools. “
Svelaz, read the paper you referred to and what he said about oppressors and the oppressed. What do you think it means?”
The paper says nothing about implementing it in schools. Plus it’s one of many papers that encompass CRT. One doesn’t define the entirety of CRT.
“The paper says nothing about implementing it in schools. Plus it’s one of many papers that encompass CRT. One doesn’t define the entirety of CRT.”
Svelaz, the entire paper is littered with references to education. Your statement meant you never read what you linked to. Because of your lack of truthfulness, you have lost all credibility.
You lean heavily on links rather than your own words because you are light on knowledge and, therefore, cannot paraphrase the little you have read. I think this represents your lack of ability to deal with complex thoughts rather than deception. Either way, you haven’t shown yourself in a good light.
I have been telling you that different people have written various things about CRT, which initially you likened to not knowing what CRT was. Suddenly when faced with your chosen article, you are starting to run away from your unitary theory of CRT.
I randomly picked a portion of the paper to quote a few examples tying the ideas behind CRT to implementing its theories into the educational system. There are loads more, and both separately and together, they place the ideas behind CRT into the education of students.
“CRT’s counter-storytelling is a necessary tool given the curricula inequity in the U.S. educational system.”
“I am expected to tell forty kids in a crowded inner city classroom that if they work hard, they can each be among the chosen twenty-five. ”
“The children in our schools nationwide need to be able to strive earnestly to become whoever they wish to become, and not to worry about operating in a system that disadvantages them because of their complexion and socially-constructed race.”
So far, you have responded to only 2 out of 7 of my replies. Those replies demonstrated your inability to promote your narrative or included corrections of bad mistakes you have made.
I await a reply including your corrections from the other 5.
CRT “is not marxist or socialist or communist or whatever boogey man philosophy of the day you fancy.”
What, then, is CRT’s political philosophy??
S. Meyer, CRT is NOT being taught in schools and is NOT being implemented. Period.
Can you show how many schools are actually implementing CRT?
“Colorblindness is good (character over color). Merit is good.” This is exactly what that paper I linked to in a response to you disputes. I
Based on the videos you can review for yourself proove CRT is not being addressed in the public schools.
You are wrong about almost everything and you are wrong about this as well. I posted two videos in the past that were objecting to CRT in the schools system.
S. Meyers,
“ Based on the videos you can review for yourself proove CRT is not being addressed in the public schools.”
I didn’t ask you to show if schools are addressing CRT. I asked you for examples of CRT being IMPLEMENTED in schools. You referred to videos of parents complaining about CRT being implemented in schools when it’s not.
Objecting to CRT is not proof that CRT is being implemented in schools.
Give us examples of CRT being implemented in K-12 schools. Provide links to curriculum and guide lessons showing CRT is part of school curriculum.
“Give us examples of CRT being implemented in K-12 schools. ”
Svelaz, NYC, Stuyvesant and Bronx Science are proof.
Add that to the numbers of parents that have gone before school boards objecting to CRT being involved in the education of their children.
You failed to respond to my corrections in about 5 other emails. Is that an admission that you were wrong? I hope so.
SM
Svelaz, so that you know, this paper is not peer-reviewed. Secondly, it is from 2009, so it cannot possibly address what we see today. Did you forget the question? “Since you make this statement, you should be able to tell us … what effect it is having in the school system”, but you don’t. Third, the author is still a student. Fourth, you copied the five tenants, including none of your own words or ideas, nor did you include any comments on the controversial statements made. You have adequately demonstrated that you had a link but did not know what was inside that link. I doubt you even read the paper. You certainly don’t know what it says.
Your BS is showing through loud and clear. Therefore I will take a few points from the paper and discuss them. You can chime in and tell me what I am saying that is wrong, but you would have to read the paper, understand it and adopt a lot of its ignorant thought.
See follow-up post.
S. Meyer, I have defined CRT to you using my own words multiple times only for you do demand that I cite an independent definition which I just provided to you you.
“ Svelaz, so that you know, this paper is not peer-reviewed. ”
It’s a research paper citing multiple sources pertaining to CRT. Whether it’s peer reviewed or not is irrelevant. It discusses exactly what you’re asking for. It correlates to what I have been saying in my own words, exactly what you have been demanding.
“ Secondly, it is from 2009, so it cannot possibly address what we see today.”
It actually directly addresses what is happening today. It being from 2009 doesn’t make it irrelevant because it is the same thing that is being debated today.
“ Third, the author is still a student.”
Not just a student, it’s a PhD who is also a student. Meaning he’s already graduated from university with a PhD. He’s continuing his education
“ Before becoming an Advanced Opportunity Program (AOP) Fellow, Hartlep was a teacher in the Milwaukee Public Schools, the largest school district in the state of Wisconsin.”
“ You have adequately demonstrated that you had a link but did not know what was inside that link. I doubt you even read the paper. You certainly don’t know what it says.”
Oh I read the paper S. Meyer. I know all you did was just read the cover page and stopped there.
Otherwise you would know how Dr Hartlep described why CRT explains certain categorizations in K-12 education. Which part did you find objectionable?
Cite the relevant passage so I know you read it.
“S. Meyer, I have defined CRT to you using my own words”
Svelaz, your words must have been muddled and said very little. It saves space if instead of complaining (victimhood) you repeated your words.
“It’s a research paper”
I did a research paper in 6th grade. Should I use that to promote social change?
“Whether it’s peer reviewed or not is irrelevant.”
It’s not irrelevant though the paper was good enough to discuss on your level even though it was juvenile. I provided a few thoughts and am willing to go through that paper with you sentence by sentence.
“It correlates to what I have been saying in my own words,”
OK. That means you believe color is more important than character.
“it is the same thing that is being debated today.”
The debate has changed since 2009. Parents today are fighting school boards to stop CRT from being taught. Are you ignorant of what is happening in 2021?
“Not just a student, it’s a PhD who is also a student.”
You are mistaken. It clearly states he wasn’t a PhD. If you paid attention to the paper you would know that. You are proving you didn’t analyze what you were reading.
“Oh I read the paper S. Meyer. I know all you did was just read the cover page and stopped there.”
That is why I know he wasn’t a PhD and that is why I discussed some of the things he said. You are wrong again. You either didn’t read the paper or didn’t understand what you read.
“Cite the relevant passage so I know you read it.”
Those citations exist in part 2 written right after part one. I also said we could start our discussion there and then continue, but I am not going to analyze the entire paper with my perspective for you. First you have to be willing to deal with parts of tenet 1that I discussed and then we can finish tenet 1 and work onward, sentence by sentence.
S. Meyer,
“You are mistaken. It clearly states he wasn’t a PhD. If you paid attention to the paper you would know that. You are proving you didn’t analyze what you were reading.”
READ the FOOTNOTE on the cover page. It reads:
” Critical Race Theory 1 Running head: CRITICAL RACE THEORY Critical Race Theory: An Examination of its Past, Present, and Future Implications Nicholas Daniel Hartlep1, M.S.Ed. University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee ERIC Date of Publication: October 11, 2009 1Nicholas Daniel Hartlep is a Ph.D. student at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, where he is pursuing a degree in Urban Education & Social Foundations of Education.”
He HAS a PhD. Meyer. Obviously you are not paying attention to the paper. He’s pursuing an additional degree.
I wrote: “You are mistaken. It clearly states he wasn’t a PhD. If you paid attention to the paper you would know that.”
Svelaz, you objected to my stating he wasn’t a student and you copied the bio. You need to read better and understand what you are reading You said “He HAS a PhD”, but the bio says differently.
From the bio: “is a Ph.D. student”
If you go to your medical doctor and are greeted by a medical student pursuing a medical degree, is he an M.D. or an M.D. student?
Svelaz, sid you finally get the idea that the writer of your article was a student after I pointed out that is what his bio called him?
Yes or no?
Are you too embarrassed to respond?
SM
From the paper, “It is accurate and justified to declare that the educational milieu for black and brown faces needs to be radically improved.”
True. Why is the left trying to stop charter schools in NYC that have improved the education of those black and brown faces?
Tenet 1: Martin Luther King didn’t know what he was talking about. His statement on character over color is wrong if you trust this author.
On the issue of merit, this author believes a gold medal winner in basketball permits tall people to have all the gold medals in basketball, leaving none for short people.
The paper suggests that society consists of two identifiable segments: the oppressors and the oppressed. As a reminder, Marxism failed in its mission of separating people by class, so Tenet 1 seems to be a continuation of a failed ideology.
Let’s deal with these points before going further. This article is fine for a basis of discussion, but you should recognize that it is juvenile and leans heavily on the idea of victimhood. Victimhood leads to complaints but not to solutions. I provided a solution above, but the left isn’t interested in solutions, and likely you aren’t either.
S. Meyer,
“True. Why is the left trying to stop charter schools in NYC that have improved the education of those black and brown faces?”
The left has not been trying to stop charter schools in NYC because they have improved education of black and brown faces. Black kids are not admitted to NYC charter schools by lottery, not academic merit.
This article explains what Hartlep was talking about.
“Success Academy Official Quits Over ‘Racist and Abusive’ Practices at NYC Charter School Network”
https://www.thecity.nyc/education/2020/6/23/21301130/success-academy-official-quits-over-racism-nyc-charter-school-network
“Tenet 1: Martin Luther King didn’t know what he was talking about. His statement on character over color is wrong if you trust this author.”
The first tenet is stated as “(1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational;”
“Firstly, racism is ordinary: the overall ethos of majority culture promotes and promulgates a notion of “color-blindness” and “meritocracy.” These two notions are mutually intertwined and serve to marginalize certain enclaves of people—predominately people of color. Color-blindness and meritocratic rhetoric serve two primary functions: first, they allow whites to feel consciously irresponsible for the hardships people of color face and encounter daily and, secondly, they also maintain whites’ power and strongholds within society. First, color-blindness legitimizes racism’s need for an “other” in order to flourish and maintain its influence within the fabric of society.”
Dr. King always emphasized this.
Yes the paper makes a distinction about the oppressors and the oppressed, But this is related to race, not class. Marxism was about a classless society. CRT is not in any way related to Marxism.
” I provided a solution above, but the left isn’t interested in solutions, and likely you aren’t either.”
What solution? You didn’t provide any solution. State what was the solution if I missed it.
“they allow whites to feel consciously irresponsible for the hardships people of color face and encounter daily”
How? Please explain. You have made an assertion without anything to undergird it. Color-blibdness means you interact with people as people, fellow human beings made in God’s image.
“they also maintain whites’ power and strongholds within society.”
How? Again, you have made an assertion without anything to support it. Meritocracy means people rise based on their merit–their character, work ethic, diligence, studiousness, business savvy, people skills. You cannot possibly mean that people of color cannot embody these things. That would be nonsensensical and insulting.
“color-blindness legitimizes racism’s need for an “other””
Again, how? If people try to treat others as unique individuals, without sticking them in a stereotyped race bucket, then there is no other.
Svelaz, it was challenging to respond to you because you cannot put what you are saying in your own words. A lot of gibberish was used by both you and the author. The author is tediously trying to explain away reasons for excluding MLK’s ‘character over color’ and merit. Both you and the author have failed in that effort.
“The left has not been trying to stop charter schools in NYC because they have improved education of black and brown faces.”
Wrong.
You don’t know what you are talking about. The left limits charter school numbers and the left is a threat to the elimination of charter schools in NYC. Not only that, but the left is ending merit-based entrance into magnet schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science.
“Black kids are not admitted to NYC charter schools by lottery, not academic merit. ”
One can’t be sure what you are saying in the above poorly worded sentence.
All children are admitted to NYC charter schools by lottery.
“This article explains” (the resignation)
“I am resigning because I can no longer continue working for an organization that allows and rewards the systemic abuse of students, parents, and employees,”
There is nothing in her reason for resigning about race.
It is a meaningless anecdote. Many teachers are not happy that NYC charter schools have made the children more important than the teachers. That is a good thing. Svelaz, you link to something, but I don’t think you understand what you are reading.
The charter schools in NYC have done fabulously. The black students were predominantly significantly below proficiency or below proficiency in Math and English. The charter schools have brought most to the proficiency level, with many above proficient and some going to college.
You have to deal with the academic scholarship achieved by NYC’s charter schools. They base success on merit, not on color or race. Your author probably despises these schools because he finds color-blindness and merit unfair due to victimhood.
S. Meyer,
“Your author probably despises these schools because he finds color-blindness and merit unfair due to victimhood.”
While those elements could be the reasons for ideologically-pissessed super-woke people, there are other reasons to be concerned about charter schools: the erosion of self-governance. Charter schools are not at all like bidding out for a roadwork company. People do not really have any oversight capacity of charter schools (particularly cyber ones) like they do with public schools. Their money disappears into a black box. It is used wastefully in many cases, and the people have no way to rein them in because it isn’t even widely known how many charter schools operate in a district.
People can go to school board meetings and talk with board members and administrators about quality and expenditures (etc). People can do this at city council meetings, too. This does not happen with charter schools.
People of a community should be able to elect who makes decisions with their money. Politicians have off-loaded a crucial oversight responsibility, as far as I can tell.
“the erosion of self-governance. ”
Not true, Prairie, for the overwhelming mass of people.
“People do not really have any oversight capacity of charter schools (particularly cyber ones) like they do with public schools.”
Not true.
“Their money disappears into a black box. It is used wastefully in many cases, and the people have no way to rein them in because it isn’t even widely known how many charter schools operate in a district.”
Not true.
I talk specifically of NYC because that is where the best data is from, but it need be no different from other localities.
The money doesn’t disappear. It is put into the charter schools that are meeting the educational needs of the students rather than graduating students that are failing.
The way to measure whether or not the money is put to good use is to look at the education the student receives. The charter schools (proven in NYC) succeed where the public schools have been failing for years.
Educating our young is a win-win for everyone except the teachers union and the politicians that depend on votes from the teachers union.
“People can go to school board meetings”
For most of the country, that is not what is happening. In many areas, the school boards do not represent the children being educated. If parents know their children will get a better education at the charter school, they will vote with their feet. If the school doesn’t provide better education, the parents will not go, and the charter school will go out of business. Tell us what public school went out of business because the students weren’t learning anything?
“People of a community should be able to elect who makes decisions with their money. Politicians have off-loaded a crucial oversight responsibility, as far as I can tell.”
Charter schools have to be licensed by the state. They must meet state teaching criteria. They need to function on a per capita student budget less than the public schools (I think 1/4 less). They need active enrollment by parents. They are given the same testing as those in public schools, so how well the students performed can easily be compared. The system is voluntary (choice,) and a lottery determines who gets the limited seats.
Prairie Rose,
Self-governance means the people have a voice in how the institutions they fund operate. If a charter school does not meet their expectations, they have the choice to not use them and instead use the public school option. As far as wasteful spending goes, no entity wastes funds like public education and they don’t even attempt to hide it. Here in California, billions upon billions in bond measures are passed to improve education infrastructure, teacher’s salaries, benefits, and so on, yet infrastructure goes unimproved and student achievement continues to decline. I’ve attended school board meetings at both public and private schools and they both have one thing in common, they are a dog and pony show that gives parents the illusion their voices are being heard.
Dog and pony shows have one big problem, you have to pay to attend them. One can attend most school board meetings for free and get nothing out of them. That proves one doesn’t get something for nothing. 🙂
Good point.
Olly and S. Meyer,
New York and California are a mess when it comes to about anything governance-related. Fly-over country (thankfully!!!) looks quite a bit different than those two states.
““the erosion of self-governance. ”
“Not true, Prairie, for the overwhelming mass of people.”
In what way? The number of students in charter schools is far smaller than the numbers of people paying into them. How has self-governance not been eroded?
“People do not really have any oversight capacity of charter schools (particularly cyber ones) like they do with public schools.”
“Not true.”
In what way is my statement inaccurate? The citizenry does not really have any oversight capacity of charter schools, as far as I can tell.
“Their money disappears into a black box. It is used wastefully in many cases, and the people have no way to rein them in because it isn’t even widely known how many charter schools operate in a district.”
“Not true. I talk specifically of NYC because that is where the best data is from, but it need be no different from other localities.”
Well, it is different from NYC. It is not widely known at all how many (particularly cyber) charter schools operate using a given district’s money. There are about 10 getting funds from my own district. There is no newspaper coverage of these schools (like there is of the public school districts). They are not included in newspaper articles about school test scores.
Further, there is waste. I know someone in a cyber charter school. She has quite a few children. Each time a child moves up into the next grade, that child gets new materials. So, if a person has 4 children, you as a family will eventually have 4 sets of sports equipment, 4 sets of science books, etc–for each grade. I have not checked in recently, however, with the person I know to see if that is still happening. I am not aware of any changes in the law that have addressed this, though, either. Sure sounds rather wasteful to me. My local district barely has enough classroom sets of textbooks, let alone enough books to go home with students.
PR,
The big takeaway for me from this never ending discussion is that parents need to be strong advocates for a sound education for their children. They need to have choices that their tax dollars will follow.
Olly,
“The big takeaway for me from this never ending discussion is that parents need to be strong advocates for a sound education for their children.”
I absolutely agree with this.
I would add that our fellow citizens need to be strong advocates for a sound education for their community’s children.
Yes
A good source of information are the parents, as long as one knows how to dig beneath the surface.
“In what way is my statement inaccurate? “
You said: ““People do not really have any oversight capacity of charter schools (particularly cyber ones) like they do with public schools.”
People have oversight in many ways. People vote with their feet. People voted for their legislators. People don’t care about a lot of things you seem to care about. They care about their money being well used. NYC proved that their charter schools were a better use of taxpayer money than the public schools. I don’t know how much clearer one can get.
You are providing a lot of anecdotal material. Tell us the criteria under which those schools operate, and let’s compare those criteria to NYC criteria. You haven’t shown that those charter schools do a better or worse job. You should be advocating for equal transparency regarding student achievement skipping any snooping into their business model. When you compare the educational criteria, then there is something to discuss.
Svelaz providing a quote with a lot of gibberish attached doesn’t deal with the basic questions.
I will extract the meaningful statements from this part of the paper.
“First, color-blindness legitimizes racism’s”
“Second, meritocracy allows the empowered”
He demonstrates no approval of either meritocracy or color-blindness but harps on these ideas since he believes the fault lies in others, not the minority subset.
However, as we have seen, Asians who are also minorities with quite noticeable features are excluded from consideration. It appears the author and many woke persons want victimhood repeatedly played for specific groups, rather than addressing solutions.
You and the author are enhancing racism. I am not playing down racism as a problem, but all people with differences face bias or racism. That includes Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Catholics, Asians, Irish, Italians etc. It is one of the prices people pay when moving to areas that are different from themselves.
Contrary to what the author believes and you seem to believe, MLK was not full of contempt for color-blindness or merit. He was in favor of both. A reason behind a problem doesn’t mean ridding oneself of the basic forms of advancement. CRT is a hateful extension of tribalism and moves society backward.
“Yes the paper makes a distinction about the oppressors and the oppressed, But this is related to race, not class. Marxism was about a classless society. CRT is not in any way related to Marxism. ”
You know very little about Marxism, but you talk a lot. Marxism was a revolutionary ideology that has two parts. In the first part, it pits two groups against one another. Marx wasn’t very concerned with how one got to the second stage. That is why today, there are so many subsets of ideologies that are referred to as Marxist. Nations referred to as Marxist evolved in different ways.
One thinks of Marxism (whether pure or Marxist-like) as oppressors vs. the oppressed. That is the basis of the Marxist revolution. That can be based on class or race.
Many of the people on the left pushing race hatred today are Marxist revolutionary types. Some are old enough to recognize their earlier class struggle that failed. Today they are utilizing race with the same objectives.
“What solution? ”
Part of the solution is education and the provision of choice that can include charter schools.
Svelaz, show us where in tenet #1, the author expressed a positive attitude towards meritocracy or character over color.
Let us know what you believe. NYC charter school students are picked by lottery or some other method.
Prove to us the teachers union in NYC (leftists tied to the leftist politicians) want charter schools to thrive. They don’t and have been fighting against charter schools for years.
Tell us how you feel students should be accepted into the top magnet schools in NYC. Should it be by merit or something else.
Svelez,
You stated that CRT is based on a fundamental premise. If that premise is false then CRT is garbage. I entered the society of school children at the bottom. The rulers of that society ,my teachers, did not oppress me, they helped uplift me. Grade school was mostly rote memorization. In high school the emphasis was more on comprehension of the material and how to do independent research. In college the (expensive) required texts were a tiny fraction of my studies, in class cogent discussions of the subject matter was required. Rote answers were insufficient, you had to understand and be able reason with the material to go beyond and reach conclusions. A successful student should be capable adding to the sum of human knowledgebase. We had deaf students,,we had foreign students with little English,some teachers were racists, students with different religions and bigots, some students were shy and froze when asked questions or studdered. I had friends, competitors, enemies. The losers felt oppressed whether they got an A or F. The winners saw problems and challenges as obstacles to be overcome. Bigots and racists could challenge but never oppress. Like Hate, Fear or Love or joy, Feeling Oppressed or a Victim is internal. Oppression by a Bully, Bigot, Racist or anybody is wrong and should be dealt with. Only you can choose to feel like a victim.
“. . . misleading parents on what CRT does and conflates equity . . .”
You either don’t know what CRT types mean by “equity,” or you are being intentionally dishonest.
“Equity,” to them, means equality of results between blacks and whites. Outcomes must be equal for both races. If there is an unequal racial outcome, e.g., in housing, salaries, arrests, admissions, grades — then there is, by that fact alone, “racism.”
That is a nonsense, irrational, tribalistic view of “racism.”
Young,
Svelaz would like nothing more than to keep the attention focused on definitions and not actual actions. This way CRT can be endless argued as a theory about race and equity, all the while it pervades all levels of education as racist indoctrination.
Check out this book review in The Federalist.
Knowles argues that language is an assertion of standards, which is why leftists fight over it. They know if they win the game of semantics, they can set the terms and premises of any debate and thereby win every time. This is the idea behind political correctness, which “contorts language in an attempt to remake reality along leftist lines.”
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/16/the-answer-to-political-correctness-isnt-more-free-speech-but-better-speech/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_federalist_daily_briefing_2021_07_17&utm_term=2021-07-17
Michelle Leete, a successful black woman, is supposedly outraged at whites and the “racist system” she has been successful in. The pattern is clear: those blacks feigning outrage and screaming racism are precisely those — like congresspeople, millionaire activists, celebrities and professionals — who have made it in the very system they now attack. Perhaps they think that if they divert attention towards whites, no one will realize that they aren’t lifting a finger to help the disadvantaged members of their own race.
Let ’em keep talking trash. As the Japanese proved in 1941, the American people are slow to awaken. When the next war comes, it will be terrible. But one thing I’d bet money on with no risk: Ms. Leete and other similar cowardly inciters to violence will definitely not be on the front lines, more’s the pity.
It is no longer enough for parents to just attend parent-teacher conferences to ascertain how their child is doing in school, they now have to become involved in school board elections and the curriculum that is being established. Parents have assumed that teachers were teaching the three Rs plus science and technology. They are just waking up to the fact that the educational system is devolving, that it no longer wants children to be the best, they want all children to be equally mediocre.
She is the perfect candidate to run Sleepy Joe’s Death Camps……………….oops, I meant Reeducation Camps.
Trump has called for the execution of many including his own VP. This faux outrage is such hypocrisy. Trump has the ears of people who have shown their willingness to kill. See January 6.
Hey Holmes, any comment on the story or can you only make up things about Trump?
Guys like Holmes add zero to this site.
Totally agree, hullbobby. So tired of the “whataboutism” where Trump is concerned. Biden is the president now (or at least in name) and he supports these people. What one has done before does not negate the seriousness of what is happening now.
None of Trumps supporters killed anyone on Jan 6 so what are you yapping about? On the other hand the blacks democrats pander to kill on a daily basis.
Called for the execution?
Until you give an *exact* quote, in (total) context, I’ll bet this to be just one more Woke lie, in which they gleefully specialize.
Sounds like Leete is the original “anti-live-and-let live people” type of person.
Sounds like Leete is very much the original “anti-live-and-let live people” type of person.
This is what the radical Left, Pelosi, AOC, Biden Admin are driving people to, they are dividing America for their own Political and Economic Benefit Its going to get worse. But, the special elections, so far, are showing people are voting against CRT, radical policies, Biden Admin. Dem and Elite Policies. 2021 and 2022 elections are going to be telling and the DEM’s know they are in trouble and yet they go down this Radical road
Words escape me after reading this person’s diatribe.
You can read?
We have seen (even on this blog) that some Lefties are unhinged.
Not mistaken (all of us are at some point), not just emotional (again), but truly loony and looney in an evil way.
All of us need to call out the crazies in our midst or they will tear down our civilization.
Call them out and shun them.
Let em die their hair white. Or is the right word “dye”?