Teaching Your Children Hate and Calling It Equity

The distinguished jurist John Wilson (ret.) wrote this article for the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” ~From the “I have a dream” speech, Martin Luther King, Jr., August 28, 1963, Washington, DC

In discussing the legacy of Dr King in February of 2018, the Atlantic made a very important notation; “In 1947, as an undergraduate at Morehouse College, King published in the campus newspaper a short treatise on the purpose of education. He argued that to benefit society, high-quality education should focus on developing students’ critical thinking and moral compass.”

Yet, in today’s education system, the only “critical thinking” being encouraged is “critical race theory.”

Take, for example, a new initiative which has been proposed in California Public Schools; “The Board of Education in California recently voted unanimously to approve an Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum for use in all of the state’s public schools…this curriculum is ‘probably the most radical, polemical, and ideologically loaded educational document ever offered up for public consideration in the free world.’” But, as described by the National Review, the change is more drastic than could be imagined;

“Students are to be taught that white Christian settlers committed ‘theocide’ against indigenous tribes when they arrived in the New World by murdering Native American gods and replacing them with the Christian God…students will learn that they have the power and the responsibility to build a social order…which will eventually supplant the last vestiges of colonial Christianity and pave the way for the ‘regeneration of indigenous epistemic and cultural futurity.’”

The most prevalent facet impact is itching and dandruff by drying generic sildenafil india out the scalp. To get information on the check out possibilities and payment options available to you, it is strongly recommended that you ditch cialis professional for sale the contacts for awhile, and just wear your glasses. These diseases are potential risk factors of sexual impotence. 50mg generic viagra The study did not include patients with migraine headaches and maintain muscle http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Approved-Minutes-1-12-16.doc viagra from usa and nerve function.

As described by Christopher Rufo, the Director of the Center on Wealth and Poverty at Discovery Institute, the proposed California Public School curriculum is engaged in teaching students the practice of an ancient religion; “The curriculum recommends that teachers lead their students in a series of indigenous songs, chants, and affirmations, including the ‘In Lak Ech Affirmation,’ which appeals directly to the Aztec gods. Students first clap and chant to the god Tezkatlipoka—whom the Aztecs traditionally worshipped with human sacrifice and cannibalism—asking him for the power to be ‘warriors’ for ‘social justice.’ Next, the students chant to the gods Quetzalcoatl, Huitzilopochtli, and Xipe Totek, seeking ‘healing epistemologies’ and ‘a revolutionary spirit.’ Huitzilopochtli, in particular, is the Aztec deity of war and inspired hundreds of thousands of human sacrifices during Aztec rule…The chants have a clear implication: the displacement of the Christian god, which is said to be an extension of white supremacist oppression, and the restoration of the indigenous gods to their rightful place in the social justice cosmology.”

As Rufo further notes, “(t)he religious element of the ethnic studies curriculum, with direct appeals to Aztec gods, is almost certainly a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Public schools are prohibited from leading state-sanctioned Christian prayers; they would presumably be similarly prohibited from leading state-sanctioned chants to the Aztec god of human sacrifice.”

Much can be said against the Spanish conquistadors for their brutal destruction of the Aztec civilization. However, let us not shed a tear for the displacement of the Atzec gods by Christianity; “The priests of Huitzilopochtli would appease their patron deity by laying out a sacrificial victim on a stone at the apex of the god’s pyramid, carving out said victim’s heart (while he or she was still alive), and then rolling the body down the side of the pyramid, at the base of which it was then dismembered and either disposed of or eaten…The priests of Tlaloc believed the tears of innocent children to be particularly pleasing to the god, and they took great care to ensure that their little victims were crying before and throughout the ceremony so that the smoke of the sacrificial fire would carry their tears up to the god above at the moment of death. The ritual began with the bones of the children being broken, their hands or their feet burned, and carvings etched into their flesh. They were then paraded before the celebrants of the ritual while crying. Insufficient tears from the children were believed to result in insufficient rains for the crops that year, so no brutality was spared. At the end of it all, the mutilated victims were burned alive.”

The study concludes tomorrow.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/