There is a controversy at Eastern Maine Community College after a professor reportedly attacked a Christian conservative student for writing an essay about gun control. Katherine Parker accused English instructor Carol Lewandowski of engaging in raw political bias and then receiving no support from the community college.
Parker was asked to complete a persuasive speech paper in response to an editorial. She chose an editorial by columnist Douglas Rooks in the Portland Press Herald entitled, “Maine Legislature derelict in its duty on ‘red flag’,” criticizing Democratic leaders for failing to hold a hearing on a bill for a new “red flag” law.
While agreeing with Rooks that a hearing was a good idea, Parker opposed the red flag law.
After submitting the draft to Lewandowski for feedback, Parker said that she was told to change topics and was ridiculed over her religious and political beliefs. Lewandowski made reference to Parker’s earlier essay in support of her Christian faith in mocking her position on gun rights.
Lewandowski told Parker to “avoid proselytizing with logical fallacies in a college class” — treating her support for the Second Amendment as such a “logical fallacy.” She then added “Wasn’t your former speech a testimony to finding Jesus. Did Jesus pack heat?”
Lewandowski then dismissed her views and told her to pick a different topic because Parker’s views were unacceptable to her:
“I find this 2nd amendment nonsense exhausting and highly recommend you choose a different topic since this one is not one I can easily grade, given my own disdain for the misinterpretations of the second amendment…Hate to tell ya, but guns DO kill….You clearly do not care about people as much as you care about guns. Your argument is a solid representation of that. For fairness to you and to me, please choose another topic.”
The community college professor continued to heap insults on the student: “And think again about Jesus packing heat. Really. You and your ilk drive me nuts with your hypocrisy. Guns kill. Own it.”
When Parker objected to Lewandowski, the professor again told her to change topics and suggested that she take up any complaints with the department chair and the dean (who were cc’ed on the email).
“Please change your topic as I earlier requested as this is a trigger issue for me. No pun intended…I admit I cannot assess the gun issue objectively.”
One would think that such an abusive and politically biased attack on a student would result in the termination of the professor. However, Parker alleges that the community college did not seem inclined to take action against Lewandowski.
Parker says that she spoke to EMCC Dean of Academics Lynn Hunter, who “assured me that discrimination was not tolerated at the community college, but she did not give me a clear answer when I asked her how she felt about what the teacher said to me — she assured me that she would be getting both sides of the story.”
While she says that Hunter “apologized for what I was going through,” there is no evidence of disciplinary action against Lewandowski.
Dr. Lesley Gillis, Chair, English & Co-Chair, Liberal Studies was also cc’ed on the email.
Such abuse of a student over political and religious views should result in the termination of the professor. However, we have seen a high-level of toleration (and even support for) anti-conservative and anti-Republican positions by faculty. That includes teachers in Maine calling for Trump supporters to be “taken out.”
It is now common to hear inflammatory language from professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. One professor who declared that there is “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence as killing conservatives was actually promoted.
At the same time, there is little tolerance for conservatives targeted for controversial statements against the left.
We have not heard directly from Professor Lewandowski, but these communications are shocking. If true, the failure of the community college to take action immediately against Lewandowski is a chilling reminder of how higher education has lost its moorings. By retaining Lewandowski, the college is not just allowing but facilitating such abuse of students.
More importantly, this type of raw political bias and abuse does not occur outside of an enabling culture. Lewandowski not only felt that she had a license to oppose a religious or conservative student, but cc’ed her superiors to show Parker that she had little concern over any disciplinary response.
This is a teacher who has clearly stated that she finds opposing sides “triggering” and cannot grade papers which advance views with which she has “disdain.” A mere shrug and apology is hardly sufficient.
Lewandowski is listed as an instructor, though some publications refer to her as the head of the department. That position appears to be held by Gillis.
Indeed, it is not just Lewandowski’s conduct that should be reviewed but also the alleged conduct (or lack of response) from Gillis and Hunter.
What happened to this student is the very antithesis of the values supporting higher education. Roughly half of citizens in Maine are gun owners. Many are religious. They should feel that they can attend their community college without being ridiculed over their religious and political beliefs. That is why the Maine legislature should look into this controversy if the school fails to do so. The citizens of Maine support this school system and students like Parker often have to make sacrifices to attend these schools. They deserve better than what Parker faced in this course.
The professor should instead engage with the student and unpack and analyze all positions.
That said, religion is absolute garbage, especially of the Christian kind.
I certainly defend the right of every individual to practice whatever excremental piety they desire or have been indoctrinated into, but only as long as they keep their ignorant and stupid beliefs to themselves, while also defending my right to abstain.
I’m sure Christian Dominionist wackos will honor my rights as well, and certainly don’t expect me to subsidize any religion through forced taxation.
Whoa, Nelly—for a minute there, you almost sounded reasonable. Your special brand of virtue, requesting the “honoring of rights” to abstain, does not sound progressive, not does it hide the passive-aggressive hatred you harbor. Your preemptive attack, here, where no one is specifically talking about Jesus (not nearly enough), is the REAL wacko. Christians are called to share the Good News, but no one forces you to receive it. Get real, not-everyone.
You’re right, they will.
@Everyone: “That said, religion is absolute garbage.”
Why would you say that?
Maybe your own conscience keeps you from straying, but that’s not true for everyone. Where do you think much of our law and culture came from? Cavemen? The Nazis had no trouble sleeping at night, yet their consciences didn’t stop them from mass murder, so clearly, conscience alone isn’t a reliable guide.
No one is asking for religion to be subsidized by force. But there’s no reason to declare that “religion is absolute garbage” unless your goal is to provoke, not discuss.
*. Yep, your forced taxes will go to the prison system instead of churches. Not to worry, Everyone.
That said, religion is absolute garbage, especially of the Christian kind.
The excremental piety and self appointed intelligensia of the acolytes of the Rock Fairy Religion Of Atheism is both gross and deeply annoying.
Particularly to agnostics who watch their sophomoric attempts to cover their inability to provide proofs for their faith – by resorting to their only article of faith: insulting Christians from the Abrahomic religions.
They should be groveling on their knees for forgiveness after the 100+ million butchered over the last century by their fellow atheists Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.
A group of chanting Hare Krishna beggers are far less annoying.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR.
College professors, like judges, adamantly and repeatedly oppose the Constitution and must be prosecuted as enemies of such.
Students are compelled to recite a pledge of allegiance while professors and judges swear opposition to the essence of America.
What’s wrong with this picture?
There oughta be a law—a sort of treason sub rosa.
Enough anti-Constitution, anti-American treachery!
More reasons to homeschool and to look at various other technologies to increase your knowledge. May I say that in this day and age, professorship, sorry Mr. Turley, may be a casualty of Ai.
“The pen is mightier than the sword!”
– Edward Bulwer-Lytton
___________________________
The New Testament, if not the entirety of the Bible, might be a form of “packing heat.”
Did Jesus pack heat?
A better question would be: what would Jesus think about citizens packing heat? In fact Jesus, the prince of peace, answered that question: A well armed man guardeth his goods in peace (Luke 11:21).
Jesus also told the parable of the good shepherd who actively guards his sheep against wolves and used violence if necessary, even to the point of laying down his own life for the sheep, meaning Jesus endorsed the idea of people using violence if necessary to protect the innocent from violent “wolves” – i.e., violent criminals. See John chapter 10:11-15.
The popular image of “Baby Jesus, meek and mild” is incomplete, being based on selected portions of the Gospels.
👌
Enemies were known in the Old Testament; Jesus must have known that arms were wielded against enemies—that “heat” was “packed” when necessary.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Psalm 23:5 KJV
“Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:….”
______________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
enemy
noun
1: one that is antagonistic to another
especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2: something harmful or deadly
“alcohol was his greatest enemy”
3a: a military adversary
3b: a hostile unit or force
There was a day when being liberal meant being open to a broader range of ideas and willing to advance knowledge. Now it seems just the opposite. Today Liberals are the most closed minded people in our country. Combine that with the fact that they only seem capable of comprehending one to one solutions for problems (e.g. solve poverty by giving people more money), and it makes them the most closed minded and least likely people to come up with new, real solutions to problems.
Another good example is the growing scientific evidence for “intelligent design” being behind the creation of our universe and how that supports the existence of God. They are too closed-minded (not liberal) too even consider the science behind that theory. My guess is, it’s because they are overly sensitive and not mature enough to admit when they might be wrong.
Amazing just how weak the liberal mind is these day. The poor professor is scared to talk guns or religion.
The professor was excersising their 1A freedom of speech.
There’s no law against what the professor said, in the sense that she cannot be criminally prosecuted for her speech, but she is employed by a public school and acting as an agent of that school in her function as a teacher, so her speech is government speech. There are consequences when public employees harass people based on their religion. Disciplinary consequences for that kind of official persecution of a student would not violate 1A.
👍
So, the professor’s 1-A “trumps” the student’s—Shallow-Anon, your reasoning reflects the DEPTH of a puddle in the gutter. Higher-learning’s use of argument is for teaching dialogue, compromise (reconciliation or diplomacy), and greater knowledge. Such exercise is not for the proverbial leftist-dictatorship in the classroom.
You all have gone so sick, so far beyond the true meaning of “academic freedom,” that you’ve twisted it into an echo chamber with safe rooms for all the leftist retards. The worst part of this academic monocracy is that it is fully dumbing-down our so-called professional class. SHAME.
*. You’ve brought up a serious consequence and the inevitable dumbing down, DB. It’s been on my mind. Imagine all of the innovators and geniuses suddenly disappeared. The brightest would become the ordinary. Do it again and the brightest become the slow dumb ones. The true destruction of a civilization is such. Hide. Be a patent clerk.
“Monocracy” I am so stealing that; and BTW, well stated.
-g
Judges, Professors, Governors and all the self-professed others that think they and they alone possess all the answers need to be cast aside for the betterment of this great nation: The United States of America. We can all see the flocking of the illiterate lemmings headed too Perdition Hill and all the failings of: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, painted below in the hell hole that Communism offers.
I pray on this 249 Anniversary a majority of American’s will see the Path to the Utopia is false and full of many perils to a free society.
George W
Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest, Coney Island, Brooklyn, New York NY U.S.A.
When: Friday, July 4, 10:45 a.m. ET (Women’s contest), noon ET (Men’s contest)
Where: Coney Island, New York
TV: ESPN2 (Men’s contest), ESPN3 (Women’s contest)
Live Stream:
These gluttony “contests” are beyond disgusting in a world where people are literally starving to death–e.g., Gaza and in Africa. Even if people were not starving to death in the world right now, how simpleminded does someone have to be to find it entertaining to watch someone stuff food into their mouths as fast as possible in order to win a prize? Why is being the fastest at shoving food into one’s mouth something to celebrate? Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins, but even more so in a world where there are starving people. The cost of that food and the money made on publicizing the gluttony contest should be donated to charities that help feed starving people.
apparently more mature to use your mouth for spitting out venom and bile, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks against Trump and Turley, (pretending -as a lawyer who works a shift job) she knows how to “attribute” and “cite,” and summarizing all the MULtiple persons who correct her as “Tom.”
What’s does your rant have to do with the disgusting Nathan’s hot dog gluttony contest in a world where people are starving to death? And what pleasure is there in watching someone stuff food into their mouth?
And what is blatantly obvious is that YOU are the one who spews bile and hatred.
Somehow this discussion took a far left turn away from the subject of the article, about the abuse of a student tasked with writing a persuasive paper, on a topic of her choice; and more into a Trump attack.
The student followed the directions of the assignment given to her. It should not matter what the instructor likes about it or dislikes about the paper, what she’s “triggered” by personally. Her job has a to grade the paper on the merits of the assignment the student was given, not by her agreement or disagreement. Did the student provide a good strong argument for the position she took? Apparently so, if it personally “triggered” the professor. But the instructor wasn’t in the classroom in a personal capacity, she was supposed to be teaching, in this instance; persuasive argument. I would say the instructor failed in her own assignment for the classroom.
ncrandal,
What you describe is what should be common practice in education. This professor displays a clear lack of ability to separate personal feelings from professional conduct. This is the kind of bias we have seen in MSM. It is also what happens when people reject objectivity for activism, as we have also seen in MSM and now in academia. In this case, the abuse of the student should be grounds for the professor losing her job.
Maybe a reprimand. Job loss for a twist of phrase – did Jesus pack heat- ?
An instructor should be able to defend any position or perhaps a sabbatical is in order.
I agree, a permanent sabbatical.
I agree 💯
Is it biased to point out that guns serve one purpose only—to kill people? And, then, there’s the secondary purposes–to compensate for lack of intelligence, some need to feel brave, powerful and to intimidate others. Pointing out these things is not biased–it is objectively true that guns exist for these purposes, none of which is cause for celebration. Trying to bully someone into NOT calling out these things is itself abusive.
“Is it biased to point out that guns serve one purpose only—to kill people?”
Yes! It is biased and wrong.
Then tell me, please, what the purpose of a gun is, if not to kill people, attempt to intimidate people, compensate for low intelligence, give in to the need to feel brave and powerful?
You are a victim of your own ignorance. Aside from many other possible thoughts, think about the American revolution. Think about the time it takes for the police to get to your home when a lunatic is trying to kill you. Think of it as a deterrence to criminality promoted by the left.
“You don’t respond with cogent argument.”
Of course, we do. And we are fully at liberty to insult those who hide behind anonymity, shifting names, and faceless icons. That’s not disrespect. It’s calling out dishonesty.
Your real problem is that you don’t know the statistics. Guns save lives as well as take them. Most gun deaths come from illegal possession, suicides, or police use, not law-abiding citizens. How many shootings will Chicago rack up this weekend despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country?
Then you have the nerve to say we “attack the person,” while tossing out terms like “MAGAts”? Take a hard look at your hypocrisy. Maybe deal with the facts before you comment again.
. . . guns serve one purpose only . . .
A gun can either wound or kill people, or its presence can be a threat that makes a criminal think twice before attacking someone. Sometimes killing or wounding is necessary, as when a bad guy tries to massacre churchgoers, which happens from time to time, and happened very recently in Michigan. It helps if a good guy with a gun is present to stop him. On the other hand, in gun-free zones, like at the Virginia Tech massacre, there was no good guy with a gun. So dozens of innocent people got killed.
Focusing on the uses of a gun is quite limited, and it avoids the real issue, which is, who should have that power? Should only the government have that power? If so, there would be more crime,* and there would be little to stop tyranny. With a well-armed citizenry, crime is suppressed and governmental tyranny is more difficult.
* See, e.g., John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998). The additional crime would either be from bad guys illegally possessing guns, or from bad guys possessing knives, as in England, which is a real problem over there. There would be more crime because the bad guys would still be just as bad, and they would not be deterred by the possibility that the good guy was packing.
compensate for low intelligence
The only person suffering from low intelligence while you attempt to claim the intellect to define what gun owners use their firearms for is you – you would not be the communist pathetically attempting those definitions if you weren’t a moron stupid enough to believe Marxist lies.
Wrong.
I use guns for hunting, pest/varmint control, putting down livestock when necessary, and for competition in target shooting.
Is it biased to point out that guns serve one purpose only—to kill people?
More than bias: that falsehood is a revealing confession of deeply abject personal ignorance and Soviet style sophomoric propaganda by Marxist Useless Idiots feebly Lying Their Truths.
You can try to force your police state fascist BS on normal Americans, but you can’t force them to believe your pathetic lies.
Much like our newly self-“executive-IZED” judiciary, the flake-professor is not only out of her league if a student’s paper is so well-written, and so well argued, that the FLAKE is overcome with hysteria.
Clearly, the ability, the commission (and need) to be objective in a forum like “college” has been utterly lost. There can be no such thing as academic freedom or substantive “higher learning” in the environment of an invasive species, i.e., extreme-leftism!
Criminals don’t stop to think about anything.
If it were me, I would have written an alternative paper that supported abolition of all knives, even kitchen knives, because knives can kill people.
Knives, machetes, scalpels, and serrated edges. Blades, while eco-friendly, are the weapon of Choice for people who entertain abortive ideation to relieve “burdens”, sometimes in mass.
Knives don’t exist solely to kill people–guns do.
“Knives don’t exist solely to kill people–guns do.”
Next time a bear is attacking you; use a knife.
I don’t go around bears, and neither do most sensible people.
Our founders didn’t write the Second Amendment for ‘sensible people who avoid bears.’ They wrote it for free people who refuse to be victims.
If you could reason with a liberal, there wouldn’t be any.
Focusing on the limited use of a gun is itself limited. It avoids the important question, namely, who should have that use available to protect life, liberty, and property? See my comment above at 6:00.
They are self defense. If someone is shooting at you they come in handy I’m told.
It’s delusional not to understand there are bad people who only seek harm and they are without impulse control.
Knives don’t exist solely to kill people–guns do.
If that were actually true, why have the vast majority of guns failed to do that? Like tens of millions of Americans, not a single one of my well used firearms has ever fired a shot at even one of your fellow evil.Police state fascist Democrats.
So if your lying definition of the purpose of firearms were actually true instead of a lie… imagine the massive class action lawsuit against firearms manufacturers for making and selling a clearly defective product!
Harmeet Dhillon needs to investigate this matter further, and bring an appropriate response against this discrimination.
Want to bet the professor is pro-abortion.
Did Jesus pack heat? Stupid question, guns weren’t invented for another 1000 years.
But, did he bear arms?
“He [Jesus] said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” Luke 22:36
What does that have to do with anything other than a dumb comment?
HAHAHAH. Got me Upstate.
The mark of the ideologue is they cannot stand anyone who disagrees. It literally causes them mental anguish to the point where they will abandon the conversation, cut you off, ghost your communications, or, as here, refuse to even do their jobs.
Why does this happen? It’s because their beliefs are unreasoned. They aren’t held because they have thought them through, they’re held as a blind GROUP faith: everybody believes it, so it must be true. To admit of even a single doubter is to step outside the protective cocoon of the group. That stepping outside of the group is what causes the emotional pain.
Personally, I believe one has to address the group dynamic before being allowed to move to anything else. I’ve had some small success by pointing out to people that they are completely unwilling to listen to an opposing viewpoint, and asking is that true? Can you put up with someone who disagrees? Most of the time, people have said no, they cannot. We then part our ways, but it can be on friendly terms of mutual understanding. In other times, they have said yes, and one can gently probe the edges and be patient to wait for them to control their emotions and respond with thoughtfulness.
Point in fact: the ideologue cannot dialogue.
Your analysis and suggestion for remedy are spot-on, Sensible-Anon!
Sad, how the UNreasoned stance, so common now, comes from the very institution that was established to produce the reasoned stance.
Question.
Why did Jesus lash out at the thieves in the Temple?
Shotguns had not been invented yet.
Noone
Some people would be better off spending time in the company of a bipolar Mafioso.
It. Is. Impressive.
And brings a whole new, clear perspective on things…
Noone
Bingo!
*. Turning the tables? It’s the buying and selling of souls. It’s prophecy isn’t it?
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to break from a leader who governs with cruelty, contempt, and corruption, a decent respect to the opinions of humankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all people are created equal, endowed with inherent dignity and unalienable rights—among these are life, liberty, equality, and the pursuit of justice.
That to secure these rights, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When a leader becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right and duty of the people to refuse allegiance and to stand united in the defense of their freedoms.
The current holder of high office has shown himself to be unfit to lead a free and just society.
* He disrespects women, mocking survivors of violence and stripping away their rights.
* He fuels racism and white supremacy, scapegoating communities of color and denying their equality.
* He assaults free speech, attacking the press, punishing dissent, and spreading disinformation.
* He exploits public office for private gain, enriching himself and the billionaire class while abandoning the poor and working people.
* He undermines justice, ignores the rule of law, and places himself above accountability.
* He disregards science, endangering lives in times of crisis and sacrificing the planet for profit.
* He fans division and incites violence to maintain power, wielding fear as a weapon against the people.
Time and again, we have protested peacefully, spoken truthfully, and appealed to our shared humanity. We have been met with indifference, hostility, and violence. A leader who governs through hatred and greed is unfit to govern at all.
Therefore, we, the people of conscience and conviction, do solemnly declare our independence from this tyrant and all he represents.
We withdraw our consent.
We refuse to be complicit in cruelty.
We reject the abuse of power for personal gain.
We stand for dignity, truth, equality, and justice for all people.
With firm reliance on each other and unwavering hope in our collective strength,
We pledge to resist oppression in all its forms,
To uphold the rights of the vulnerable,
And to build a future grounded in compassion, courage, and shared humanity.
Social progressives, DEIsts, handmade tale brayers, Democrazis, injudicious discrimination, twilight fringe, liberal insurrection. #HateLovesAbortion
Abortionists, Albinophobes, Dreams of Herr Mengele.
It is the “pursuit of HAPPINESS ” not “justice”… as you changed the actual words and intent in your ” quote”. You truly do have Trump Derangment Syndrome and are mentally ill from your hate. I hope you can get mental health treatment soon.
Anon @10.24: Sign your name. Or are you too stupid to figure out how to do so?
TDS is lethal! Seek help, Blue Anon. You are one mentally disturbed “useful” idiot….one sick puppy.
Yep, that be Biden.
What a handy list! Let’s take them in order:
* He disrespects women, mocking survivors of violence and stripping away their rights.
It seems odd that someone who disrespects women would appoint them to his own Cabinet, so I don’t think that one lands. I have no idea what is being referred to by “mocking survivors of violence”, so no comment. As to “stripping away their rights”, this is of course a reference to abortion. No one has a “right” to kill an innocent person, whether they are in the womb or anywhere else, so I reject this framing. But he is, indeed, a foe of abortion, so this one is a legitimate complaint.
* He fuels racism and white supremacy, scapegoating communities of color and denying their equality.
This is a ridiculous claim. It also reveals more about the racist mindset of his accuser than of himself. Trump has, indeed, complained about people who commit crimes, but never even once have I heard him denigrate “communities of color”, just the opposite.
* He assaults free speech, attacking the press, punishing dissent, and spreading disinformation.
This also fails. He does not “assault” free speech, he replies upon it. He is not gentle in using the power of speech to say what he wants to. The press aren’t “attacked” by him, they are held to account. The press is terrible in this country, little more than public relations organs for the Democratic Party.
* He exploits public office for private gain, enriching himself and the billionaire class while abandoning the poor and working people.
I refuse to entertain this charge from a Democrat. I would put up with it from another source. The Biden Family was NOTORIOUS for exploiting public office for private gain — tens of MILLIONS of dollars, all sealed off with a “proactive” pardon. Disgusting and completely disqualifying.
As to “abandoning the poor and working people” those are precisely the people who support him the most! Why? Because he doesn’t believe in silly handouts, he believes in letting people get richer the old fashioned way, with hard work and taking risk.
* He undermines justice, ignores the rule of law, and places himself above accountability.
This one is partly true, in the sense that he definitely pushes the envelope of the law. He does NOT however “ignore” the rule of law. His legal team has responded to every suit in court, just like they’re supposed to. To make this claim stick, you will have to point to even a single example.
* He disregards science, endangering lives in times of crisis and sacrificing the planet for profit.
This isn’t even a charge, it’s a political philosophical statement. And a rather ridiculous one, at that. “Sacrificing the planet” for heaven’s sake. What you mean to say is that he doesn’t believe that the climate change we are observing is a crisis. There is an absolutely solid scientific basis for thinking that.
* He fans division and incites violence to maintain power, wielding fear as a weapon against the people.
Are Trump supporters burning cars? Throwing bricks and firebombs? Destroying properties? Looting. No. But your side is. And then blaming Trump for “inciting” your own inability to control yourselves and act like responsible adults.
If I had to grade all these charges, I would be forced to give you an F.
I see why you are “Anonymous.” Perhaps it would be best if you were back on your meds.
Anon 10:24 – In an effort to comprehend your raging leftist psycho-babble, It has been decided that there is a need for more thorough analysis. Please fill out the following form to initiate your formal review (providing that you’re over the age of 12) – https://x.com/RealPunkJob/status/1937263160932860182/photo/1
The mindset is impossible to understand. I was in a history museum recently where there was an artwork that declared that the use of the horse, introduced by the Spanish, should be rejected because it was a tool used to colonize the native tribes. According to such logic the wheel and the plow should also be rejected. A volunteer at the museum thought that this work of art was such a powerful metaphor. All you can do is just shake your head.
@Thinkittrough
I experienced that at the dang Getty a number of years ago. They had all these incredible illuminations from the middle ages, and instead of focusing on the art, they used the opportunity to focus on ‘patriarchy’. I read a couple of descriptions and left the museum altogether. These people are just sick and sad.
*. I don’t read Sotomayor’s, Jackson’s dissents because they cause some indescribable combination of anger , disbelief, shock and sweat. I avoid such feewings because they hewt.
Seriously, I don’t read them and this instructor was polite and forthright about her feewings. It happens. I also find oral arguments leave my brain and feewings hewted like a stick in my eye.
Did Jesus pack heat? Yes, nuclear.
While it’s no surprise that these Far Left Democrats don’t mind being outed anymore as hating our Constitution, especially 1A and 2A, it is very surprising that none of them have had to pay the price for abusing students, whether it be Christians or Jewish students as we all have seen recently with the Hamas supporters who gleefully chant “river to the sea” during their administrator-sanctioned campus shutdowns.
And, by “pay the price”, I don’t mean in our legal system, or by losing their jobs. We’ve already seen that the administrators are unwilling to protect students against those awful instructors.
I mean “pay the price” as in, pissing off the wrong parent of the wrong student.
Once those parents start “taking matters into their own hands”, those threats to which you provided links will look like children beating their chests in the playground.
“I really do. I hate them,” Trump repeated. “I cannot stand them, because I really believe they hate our country, if you want to know the truth.”
Yea, happy 4th to you, you fricken A hole trump.
But it’s OK for them to hate Prez Trump and even try to murder him. Buzzz off loser
Trump is not wrong. Leftist Democrats hate America.
Want to see a real A hole? Go look in the mirror.
Leftists of authoritarian… monarchist, dictatorial, Marxist, Hamasidol, Sanger, DEIst vintage.
Still maskurbating in mommy’s dark, dank basement…..with CNN flickering in the shadows? I have an idea. Get a frickin’ life and lay off of the Blue Kool Aid. It is only accelerating your ongoing mental demise.
Anon 10:10 – Yes, hate-filled leftists just don’t seem to command the respect that they think they deserve ………… Being revealed for what they really are, the democrat party can no longer hide their destructive, divisive, and unpatriotic nature. The 4th of July is particularly difficult for them, as they resent America for its Constitutional freedoms and liberties, and seek to undermine and destroy them. May our Republic stand tall, despite our biggest threat – the democrat party.
On this July 4 it’s important to remember how the Declaration of Independence evolved.
In 1215, the Magna Carta established a rule of law. Then an English Bill of Rights were enacted to restrain the authority of the monarchs.
Centuries after the Magna Carta was enacted, there was a lawless monarch – King Charles I – that violated this contract between the monarchy and the people. The result was the English people executed their king. Then several centuries of monarchs abiding by the rule of law, until King George III in the 1700’s.
King George (like Charles I) violated the Magna Carta and violated the English Bill of Rights. This lawlessness by a monarch led to the creation of the Declaration of Independence – addressed to King George.
In over 200 years of American history, the closest model to King Charles I and King George III is Donald J. Trump. Trump could be a great president if he could simply operate his politics with the constitutional rule of law!
Happy 4th of July!
Why do you pathetic libs lie SO much.
Is it some weird Gene in your head?
PS.. Prez Trump has broken NO laws.
King huh? You are a mentally deranged. Get help. Opps, sorry USAID was shutdown. Move to Gaza then.
USAID was a redistributive scheme with terrorist affiliation.
What Constitutional law did Trump break? Otherwise, you are just making things up.
Trump has deferred to legislative judges of injudicious character, respected the authority of separate branches, upheld the Republican form of government where citizens were deprecated, deprived, assaulted, even aborted in sanctuary states.
“Trump could be a great president if he could simply operate his politics with the constitutional rule of law!” And he is and he does. MAGA!
Then several centuries of monarchs abiding by the rule of law, until King George III in the 1700’s.
This Democrat BS brought to us by a Soviet Democrat still trying to make their ‘No Kings’ BS about Trump – while demanding rule by their Curcuit Court Monarchy in black robes.
King George, like every monarch after The Glorious Revolution, was merely the English elected parliament’s figurehead of state, signing whatever the elected parliament put in front of him.
The colonists were oppressed by a freely elected government from their fellow citizens. Just as Americans were again the previous four years.
Do all of the nation’s sewage treatment plants pump effluent to Maine?
It must be a direct trunk-line, 20ft in diameter. Once over the state line, it breaks down into many smaller distribution lines that supply their schools, media outlets, and political hubs. The supply of leftist lies and filth runs nonstop 24/7/365. It’s modeled after the MASSIVE networks of California and New York.