U.S. Customs and Border Protection released video over the weekend showing the “escalation of tactics” used to smuggle illegal immigrants into the country, which now apparently involves heavily armed security.
Friedman is WRONG. Donald Trump did lay compromise on the table — the Dems rejected it. ALSO, the “hard-liners” Friedman mentions (Stephen Miler) are saying NOTHING DIFFERENT that Democrats a decade ago. Nothing. But at least the HARD-LEFT is admitting Trump is right. To Wit:
(DAILY CALLER) New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman explained on Wednesday on CNN how he thinks the U.S. government can solve the situation at the border, following his trip there.
Friedman’s appearance on the network corresponded with his op-ed from the day before, in which he described the port of entry at San Diego a “troubling scene.”….
…Cuomo apparently didn’t know the attorney general of the United States had the authority to decide whether charges should be filed, or he was being supremely disingenuous. “[W]hat your friend did is not just by the book. He took it on himself to decide this rule. He didn’t have to do that,” he bitterly declared.
Continuing his crusade against Attorney General William Barr, Cuomo wrongly stated that the special counsel was “separate from the DOJ” and insisted Congress had the power to indict.
Mukasey had to undo the damage Cuomo was doing to his audience and called his host out for misleading people:
MUKASEY:Of course he had to do it.
CUOMO: Why?
MUKASEY:Who was going to decide if we were going to indict or not?
CUOMO:Congress, as a political matter. Leave it to them.
MUKASEY: They decide whether to impeach or not. They don’t decide–
CUOMO:And Mike, you’re skipping the big point, which you taught me about very early on.
MUKASEY: That is the big point.
CUOMO: They can’t indict him. That is the opinion from the OLC so there’s nothing to decide on that level. It’s purely political. It always would be.
MUKASEY: Congress doesn’t indict. Congress can impeach.
CUOMO:I’m using it as just a metaphor here.
MUKASEY:But you’re misleading a lot of people.
After Mukasey had to explain all the other ways Special Counsel Robert Mueller could have taken action against the President if he had the goods, Cuomo put on his rhetorical tin foil hat and accused Barr of being part of a cover-up:
CUOMO:AD Barr didn’t need to do it for that reason. He needed to do it to protect the President. That’s why he did it.
MUKASEY: Protect the President from what? When he can’t be indicted?
CUOMO:From criticism in the open question and giving Congress that kind of momentum. That’s why he did it.
MUKASEY: Oh, come on.
CUOMO:That’s why he did it. That’s why he wrote the letter the way he did. That’s why he gave the press conference the way he did. That’s why he misled us to what the report would look like the way he did…..
Before concluding these necessarily very sketchy suggestions, I ought to say why I think it necessary, in these days, to go back to a discipline which we had discarded. The truth is that for the last 300 years or so we have been living upon our educational capital. The post-Renaissance world, bewildered and excited by the profusion of new “subjects” offered to it, broke away from the old discipline (which had, indeed, become sadly dull and stereotyped in its practical application) and imagined that henceforward it could, as it were, disport itself happily in its new and extended Quadrivium without passing through the Trivium.
[….]
But one cannot live on capital forever. A tradition, however firmly rooted, if it is never watered, though it dies hard, yet in the end it dies. And to-day a great number—perhaps the majority—of the men and women who handle our affairs, write our books and our newspapers, carry out research, present our plays and our films, speak from our platforms and pulpits—yes, and who educate our young people, have never, even in a lingering traditional memory, undergone the scholastic discipline. Less and less do the children who come to be educated bring any of that tradition with them. We have lost the tools of learning—the axe and the wedge, the hammer and the saw, the chisel and the plane—that were so adaptable to all tasks. Instead of them, we have merely a set of complicated jigs, each of which will do but one task and no more, and in using which eye and hand receive no training, so that no man ever sees the work as a whole or “looks to the end of the work.” What use is it to pile task on task and prolong the days of labour, if at the close the chief object is left unattained? It is not the fault of the teachers—they work only too hard already. The combined folly of a civilisation that has forgotten its own roots is forcing them to shore up the tottering weight of an educational structure that is built upon sand. They are doing for their pupils the work which the pupils themselves ought to do. For the sole true end of education is simply this: to teach men how to learn for themselves; and whatever instruction fails to do this is effort spent in vain.
I am posting this because I wanted in one place some information on the classroom size, or, teacher-to-pupil-ration throughout some of our recent history. As well as compared to the world. Also, part of the reasoning for this post other than I have debated/discussed this matter over the years is a recent article I have seen on a couple friends Facebook walls, entitled: “Betsy DeVos Wants Larger Class Sizes and Fewer Teachers.” So I wanted to have the reasoning and history of the other side… BUT FIRST…
Let me say… that classrooms in our history were filled with children — even in the public schools — that came from deeply religious backgrounds. So that the student was acting in the sight of God. Not only that, but ost families remained intact, either through devotion to faith or the impracticality of divorce. There are other reasons as well, but this list of teacher complaints from the 1940’s has been for years in my history bank of memory (via NATIONAL PARENTS ORGANIZATION):
So often I write about the effects of fatherlessness. Being who I am, I tend to express myself from the standpoint of the social science on the matter. I’ll point out that children raised without both parents tend more to commit crimes, abuse drugs and alcohol, drop out of school, be unemployed, etc. than their peers raised in intact families. I say that because it’s true. I know it’s true because decades of social science establish the facts. Fine.
But occasionally, something comes along that hits the nail harder than I do (Meridian Star, 4/21/16).
I read that in a survey of public school teachers in 1940, the top disciplinary problems listed included talking out of turn, chewing gum, running in the halls, dress-code violations, and littering. More than a half century later, the problems teachers contend with are drug and alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery, and assault. Teachers and administrators say that things are worse for students now than ever before. One junior high school teacher commented, “I can’t believe the things they do to themselves and to each other.” A kindergarten teacher recently told me that her five and six year old students are restless, angry, and some even have the addictive habit of cutting themselves. A grandmother told me that her grandson, whom she is raising, has admitted to having suicidal thoughts. He is ten years old.
What a comparison. What teacher today wouldn’t fall on her knees and shout Hosannas to have the problems teachers did in 1940? “Andy, is that gum in your mouth?” “Yes, teacher.” “Go to the principal’s office!” Can anyone even imagine?
Of course, many things have changed since FDR was in office, so there’s no single trend we can point to that’s caused the drastic change in our children and the world they face every day. But one of the main things that’s changed for kids is that so many of them have either no father in their lives or one who’s so remote as to be ineffective at being the father they need. Fatherlessness produces exactly the type of dysfunctional behavior in children that we see every day to our dismay and that the Meridian Star writer so aptly describes……
So, really, teachers can never have a classroom small enough to fix students from backgrounds like these, or our culture. Which is a great spot for Larry Elder, who quotes Barack Obama:
Okay, the above reasons (there are more obviously [sex-ed has played a big roll as well, so has quick divorce laws, etc], but those are biggies: religion, discipline, family intact) notes some of the acting out by our culture which is becoming more secular as I type. Even in secular countries we see discipline as holding together the fabric of the classroom, more on this later.
Here is an article from the ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER that introduces us to some of the issues of classroom size (I will add a graphic from another article to help the point):
Under the leadership of its combative President Alex Caputo-Pearl, the United Teachers of Los Angeles is planning to strike, very possibly in January. The union has a laundry list of demands, some of which the Los Angeles Unified School District has agreed to, in part. But unlike the union, LAUSD is constrained by fiscal realities, and has county and state auditors waiting to pounce if it missteps.
UTLA’s main order of business — not surprisingly — is a salary increase for its teachers. But a close second is the class-size issue. The union is calling for an across-the-board cut, while the district is offering to reduce class size in 90 “high-need” schools. According to the latest data, the pupil-to-teacher ratio in Los Angeles is 19.7, not exactly an unreasonable number. While that is above the national average of 14.5 to one, it is far below the 1955 level when the ratio of teachers to students in public schools was 26.9 to one.
As a former teacher, I know that a small class makes life easier — fewer papers to grade and parents to deal with, for example. That said, there is no evidence that it makes any difference in student learning. In fact, a massive meta-analysis — results from multiple studies – was released in October that shows that small class size is a red herring. The report, produced by the Danish Centre of Applied Social Science examined 127 studies, eliminating many that did not meet strict research requirements. The researchers found that there may be tiny benefits to small classes for some students when it comes to reading. But in math, it found no benefits at all, and the researchers “cannot rule out the possibility that small classes may be counterproductive for some students.”
So 127 studies later, it’s basically a wash. The Danish analysis did nothing more than underscore Hoover Institution economist Eric Hanushek’s results of his class-size research in 1998. Examining 277 separate studies on the effect of teacher-pupil ratios and class-size averages on student achievement, he reported that 15 percent of the studies found an improvement in achievement, while 72 percent found no effect at all and 13 percent found that reducing class size had a negative effect on achievement. While Hanushek admits that in some cases, children might benefit from a small-class environment, there is no way “to describe a priori situations where reduced class size will be beneficial.”
In his 2018 book “World Class,” Andreas Schleicher, director of the education and skills unit at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, debunks the myth that smaller classes yield better results. He points out that top-performing nations, such as Japan, South Korea and China tend to have much larger classes than we do, yet manage to produce more successful students.
Additionally, EdChoice researcher and economics professor Benjamin Scafidi found that between 1950 and 2015, the number of teachers increased about 2.5 times as fast as the uptick in students. He adds that despite the staffing surge, students’ academic achievement has stagnated or even fallen over the past several decades……
The above graphic comparing historical class sizes comes from an article at THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, to wit is a section I wish to highlight:
Growth in Staffing Far Outpacing Student Population. In addition to increases in non-teaching staff positions, more teachers are also now teaching fewer students. From the nine years spanning the 1997–98 school year to the 2006–07 school year, student enrollment in public schools increased 6.8 percent. Over the same time period, the number of teachers in the classroom increased 15.8 percent.[7]
Student-teacher ratios have been on the decline since the mid-20th century. In 1950 for example, there were 27.5 students for every one teacher; by 2006 that number had declined to 15.5 students for every public school teacher.[8] For high school students during the 2006-07 school year, the average student-teacher ratio was just 12:1.[9]
While public schools and districts throughout the country continue to reduce class size, there is little evidence that such reductions have improved student learning. For instance, Florida began implementing sweeping education reforms in 1998, including strong state standards, the transition to an “A–F” system for grading schools, ending “social promotion,” and alternative teacher certification.[10] These systemic education reforms appear to have had a positive impact on student achievement, particularly minority students. However, a 2002 reform to reduce class size found “no detectable benefit” of the class-size mandate and found that “monies restricted for the purpose of funding class-size reduction mandates are not a productive use of limited educational resources.”[11]
* Dr. Wilda V. Heard, or “Dr. Wilda,” has a J.D. from Yale Law School and a doctorate in education leadership from Seattle University. She has been a volunteer at Legal Voice, formerly the Northwest Women’s Law Center.
…quotes Bob Nave saying: “It’s fairly common sense that smaller classes should result in improved student performance…. The problem is the research just doesn’t back that up.”
Here are some graphs to help visualize this topic. The first is noting that classroom sizes are pretty close to a historical low:
Here are primary averages compared to the world:
Of course China has the the largest classrooms (students to teacher ratio)… BUT… #2 is…
SINGAPORE – 35.5 PER CLASS Singapore is a lot smaller than China with a population of 5.399 million (2013), but it’s class sizes are not far behind them. However, despite the larger class sizes, it was stated by the OECD in 2015, that Singapore actually has one of the best education systems in the world.
Fun fact: Singapore schools are all taught in English as well as their native tongue. This means that Singapore has one of the highest fluency rates of English in South-East Asia.
In other words… class size is not the issue. It is what you are teaching and the culture of learning. Instead, the public schools are centered not around teaching classical education, but making sure that what is taught is separating us as a body-politic. A good example of this comes from theST. PAUL STAR TRIBUNE:
…Students from several groups at South St. Paul Secondary— including the Black Pride Organization, Comunidad de Latinos Unidos, the Women’s Society and the Sexuality and Gender Alliance (SAGA), a group for LGBT students — want to wear sashes, also called stoles, to celebrate their identities.
Immigrants, gay students and students of color face extra obstacles during their education, said Jenaye Vergin, a junior and one of four students who addressed the board.
Allowing students to wear the special sashes would “give energy to a collective voice,” Vergin said. “I’m able to repurpose what was once an obstacle into a source of energy and pride.”…
CAUSING RACISM, NOT DEALING WITH IT
California high school English teacher Kali Fontanilla was curious when she noticed many of her students were failing one of their other classes: ethnic studies.
Then she took a look at the ethnic studies class lesson plan and learning materials. What Kali saw shocked her.
“We hear about Critical Race Theory in our schools, well here it is right in front of you, and almost every single lesson had some sort of element of Critical Race Theory,” Kali says. “There was even a slide on Marxism, and these are like interactive slide presentations that were given to the students.”
Kali dedicated years of her life to teaching children in California, often censoring herself so that she wouldn’t run afoul of her school district’s liberal agenda. But now, she’s finally had enough.
“My views and what I believe is now considered white supremacist,” she says. Kali left California and moved to Florida to continue her career as a teacher.
Critical race theory says racism permeates every American institution and exists to uphold white supremacy.
“Is it your assumption that I supported or believe in authoritarian communism that existed in the Soviet Union? I don’t. I never have. And I opposed it.”
(JUMP TO UPDATE) The headlines are in stark contrast to how the corporate media zealously covered the Christchurch terrorist attack by a white supremacist that killed 49 last month, which highlighted not only the attacker’s identity, but his white supremacist motives. But how they and politicians do not report on more than 400% more murders on Easter.
EASTERWORSHIPERS
One of my son’s pointed this out, and so I wish to UPDATE the post with the noting of this odd phenomenon. In all my religious studies I never came across this denomination.
Over at LIBERTY NATION, Leesa Donner writes about Obama and Hillary (in their Tweets) coming up with a new sect of Christians: “Easter Worshippers“
…Those pitching their tent on the left of the American political spectrum can’t seem to make themselves utter the “C” word. Many do verbal somersaults to avoid addressing, writing about, or publicly recognizing those who laud Easter. Are we on some sort of right-wing paranoid rant here? Well, let’s take a moment and see where the facts lead us.
Liberty Nation was first alerted to this odd assault on Christians by PATRICK HAUF, who seems to be a rather savvy college student. Perhaps he isn’t the progenitor of this phenomenon, but that’s where we spotted it. Hauf astutely noticed Hillary Clinton’s tweet that referred to Christians as “Easter worshippers.”
Then he did a taste-test, comparing HRC and former President Obama’s tweets about Easter and how they referred to people in the aftermath of the synagogue terrorist attack in Pittsburgh and the horrific killing of Christians in Sri Lanka.
This naturally led to tongue-in-cheek tweets like this one from LN’s Jeff Charles, “Can anyone actually tell me what an ‘Easter Worshipper’ is? Do these people worship the holiday Easter? Are they going to start calling us ‘Christmas Worshippers’ in December?” Then Charles doubled down with: “What happens if a terrorist targets Jews during the same time period as Easter? Are we supposed to call them ‘Passover Worshippers’?”
[….]
Here we might take a moment to hearken back to a salient proverb of George Orwell. “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Orwell could have added another rubric to language distortion that works just as well: Never write or say the word you despise – just put it on extinction. Then in a generation or so people will ask one another: “Christian? What is a Christian?”
…Woodward reiterated in an interview with Fox News’s Chris Wallace his past statements that the dossier “has got a lot of garbage in it.”
Woodward said that he recently learned that the CIA included outtakes from the dossier in a draft of the January 2017 intelligence community assessment that laid out Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“What I found out recently, which was really quite surprising, the dossier, which really has got a lot of garbage in it and Mueller found that to be the case, early in building the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference, in an early draft, they actually put the dossier on page two in kind of a breakout box.” (RELATED: Mueller Report Undercuts Several Steele Dossier Claims)
“I think it was the CIA pushing this. Real intelligence experts looked at this and said no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage and they took it out,” said Woodward.
“But in this process, the idea that they would include something like that in one of the great stellar intelligence assessments, as Mueller also found out, is highly questionable.”
Larry Elder goes over the media’s portrayal of Trump saying he is fucked: “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.” AS IF Trump was meaning connections between he and Russia were about to be found out were the reason driving his exclamation.
Larry reads through some headlines and then dives into the full quote.
Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked. Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me. (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
He then plays some Lawrence “socialist” O’Donnell to continue the point. The Sage finishes with an analogy to Trump being accused of saying “there are good Nazis and bad Nazis,” so-to-speak.
Here are the areas (plus a little more) that Larry was reading from, via GLENN GREENWALD:
THE TWO-PRONGED CONSPIRACY THEORY that has dominated U.S. political discourse for almost three years – that (1) Trump, his family and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, and (2) Trump is beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin — was not merely rejected today by the final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It was obliterated: in an undeniable and definitive manner.
The key fact is this: Mueller – contrary to weeks of false media claims – did not merely issue a narrow, cramped, legalistic finding that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump associates for conspiring with Russia and then proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would have been devastating enough to those who spent the last two years or more misleading people to believe that conspiracy convictions of Trump’s closest aides and family members were inevitable. But his mandate was much broader than that: to state what did or did not happen.
That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”
[….]
All criminal investigations require a determination of a person’s intent, what they are thinking and what their goal is. When the question is whether a President sought to kill an Executive Branch investigation – as Trump clearly wanted to do here – the determinative issue is whether he did so because he genuinely believed the investigation to be an unfair persecution and scam, or whether he did it to corruptly conceal evidence of criminality.
That Mueller could not and did not establish any underlying crimes strongly suggests that Trump acted with the former rather than the latter motive, making it virtually impossible to find that he criminally obstructed the investigation.
THE NATURE OF OUR POLITICAL DISCOURSE is that nobody ever needs to admit error because it is easy to confine oneself to strictly partisan precincts where people are far more interested in hearing what advances their agenda or affirms their beliefs than they are hearing the truth. For that reason, I doubt that anyone who spent the last three years pushing utterly concocted conspiracy theories will own up to it, let alone confront any accountability or consequences for it.
But certain facts will never go away no matter how much denial they embrace. The sweeping Mueller investigation ended with zero indictments of zero Americans for conspiring with Russia over the 2016 election. Both Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner – the key participants in the Trump Tower meeting – testified for hours and hours yet were never charged for perjury, lying or obstruction, even though Mueller proved how easily he would indict anyone who lied as part of the investigation. And this massive investigation simply did not establish any of the conspiracy theories that huge parts of the Democratic Party, the intelligence community and the U.S. media spent years encouraging the public to believe.
Those responsible for this can refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing. They can even claim vindication if they want and will likely be cheered for doing so.
But the contempt in which the media and political class is held by so much of the U.S. population – undoubtedly a leading factor that led to Trump’s election in the first place – will only continue to grow as a result, and deservedly so. People know they were scammed, that their politics was drowned for years by a hoax. And none of that will go away no matter how insulated media and political elites in Washington, northern Virginia, Brooklyn, and large West Coast cities keep themselves, and thus hear only in-group affirmation while blocking out all of that well-earned scorn.
Jay Sekulow, President Trump’s personal attorney, tells Ari Melber and Nicolle Wallace that he received an early version of the Mueller report on Tuesday, confirming that AG Barr provided a version of the report to both the White House and The President’s defense attorney days before providing anything to Congress.
“My first question, I’m afraid, is going to verge on plain English,” Williams began. “Where did the attorney general get off with that characterization this morning, including four mentions that there was no collusion? What document was he reading, compared to the one we’re left with?”
Sekulow responded, “Well, page two of the document says, ‘The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election of interference activities.’ So it’s right from the document itself.”
“Have you read part one?” Williams retorted.
“I have read part one and part two,” Sekulow added.
Williams shot back, “Do you find good news in here for the president and the administration?”
“The investigation—page 181—the investigation did not establish the Contacts described in volume one—that’s the Russian contacts—amounted to an agreement to commit any violation of federal criminal law, including foreign influence and campaign finance laws,” Sekulow followed up. “Yes, I think it’s very good win.”……
This is part of a paper I did for a friend’s class — ENJOY (it is suppose to be a 500-word essay and was for a “multi-cultural children’s literature” class at a secular university):
Jewish poetry is about mankind’s nature, its attempts to reach the heavens and its failure to do just that. This poetry has a rich history and can be found in the religious books of the Old Testament, which give plenty of examples making the connection between selfish and selfless attempts to reach either God or the people. “There is nothing new under the sun” (NIV, 1996, Ecclesiastes 1:9) is such a great insight into man’s surroundings and his* boundaries to act due to his natural surroundings.
“We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events” (Gerda et al, 1998, p. 117).
This is what much of Jewish poetry contributes to man, except a caveat is introduced, forgiveness. Whenever either Israel or a specific person made a detrimental choice, repentance and forgiveness was close behind. Children need forgiveness, and Psalms is an exemplary example for the educator to use. When they make choices that once are irreversible or harmful, it is important to show these choices can be made into learning experiences as well as a time to allow those who love them, well, to love them. The above is a mixture of classifications – e.g., hymns, laments songs of trust, and the like (Norton et al, 2001, p. 258) – that show the reader that the truly horrible consequence isn’t falling down, it failing to get up!
Another aspect that has Ancient Jewish poetry in the throes of modern culture is that of the Genesis debate… is it historical narrative or poetry. In other words, is the creation story merely Jewish poetry, or is it considered to be a narrative. Dr. Boyd, professor of Hebrew at Masters College, has put together a statistical model that shows by the use of finite verbs in a particular text if it is or isn’t poetry. There are four finite verb forms in Hebrew: preterite, imperfect, perfect, and waw-perfect (DeYoung et al, 2005, p.160). Compiling these verbs and comparing them to Jewish scripture one can see (see fig. 2 [ed. Vardiman, Snelling, Chaffin, et. al. 2005, p. 653]) which of the verbs are used in classic examples of both poetry and narrative traditions.
While this discussion has no immediate bearing on the scientific community, it does add a tool that can now be tweaked and refined to give a graphic view of what constitutes poetry and narrative in both scripture and ancient Yiddish traditions. Genesis stands out with the above model as more narrative than poetic, the literal interpretation of Genesis is an in house debate within the Jewish and Christian communities (see fig. 9 [ed. Vardiman, Snelling, Chaffin 2005, p.667]).
Another view of this poetic versus narrative tradition imbedded within Jewish culture is viewed side-by-side (see fig. 8 [ed. Vardiman, Snelling, Chaffin 2005, p.662]).
The above graphs are a great way to connect ancient Jewish culture and traditions with today’s youth. It is modern man and his tools looking at ancient man, both history and poetry walking hand-in-hand.
REFERENCES
DeYoung, Don (2005). Thousands… Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution. Green Forest, AZ: Master Books.
Gerda, Lerner 1998. Why History Matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (Reprint edition).
NIV (1996). The Holy Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Norton, Donna E. (2001). Multicultural Children’s Literature: Through the Eyes of many Children. Upper Sadle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Vardiman, Larry; Snelling, Andrew; Chaffin, Eugene (2005), editors. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. Volumn II. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation research; Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.
Andrew McCarhty was on Dennis Prager’s show today to discuss the investigations still going on regarding FBI/DOJ misuse of power. After these reports come in we will most likely see a Grand Jury conveigned and criminal cases started. But Andrew and Prager walk through the machinations that got us to this point as described in Andrew McCarthy’s peice in the NEW YORK POST: “Behind The Obama Administration’s Shady Plan To Spy On The Trump Campaign” (https://tinyurl.com/y6ms7h6r). Enjoy the conversation:
“He.” “She.” “They.” Have you ever given a moment’s thought to your everyday use of these pronouns? It has probably never occurred to you that those words could be misused. Or that doing so could cost you your business or your job – or even your freedom. Journalist Abigail Shrier explains how this happened and why it’s become a major free speech issue.
