THE PUSHBACK AGAINST INDOCTRINATION IN SCHOOLS….CHECK OUT THIS SITE

http://getinsight.pro/schools/intro_video.htm

My way of coping with this situation was to create an online curriculum to teach my children to question the propaganda that they learn in school and to expose them to information that is being left out by schools.  This online curriculum is free for everyone.  The lessons have condensed video clips by some of the best experts on the different topics and added explanatory texts.  I unexpectedly have learned a lot by doing this.  The lessons are full of history that I didn’t know.  Although the original intent was to counter propaganda a side benefit is that my children are learning a lot of science and history and most importantly they are learning to think critically about what they are being taught in school.

I asked my son what he thought would motivate children to learn the online lessons.   He suggested that I make a quiz for them to take on each page.  Once they take the quiz the computer will display a certificate that shows that they took the quiz and how they scored which they can show their parents.  Then their parents can reward them for it.  Of course he wants rewards every time he takes a lesson and I give one to him.  Usually it’s a dollar or a treat.  It’s cheaper than private school and a lot of private schools indoctrinate as much as the public schools do anyway. 

Regarding quizzes. There are two kinds of questions those with circles in front of the answers and those with squares in front of the answers.  The ones with circles have only one answer.  The ones with squares can have more than one answer but might only have one answer.  Lets say a question has 2 right answers and your child checks the correct boxes but also checks two boxes that are the wrong answer.  In that case your child will get a score of zero on the question even though 2 of the answers were correct.

The Lesson List of the web site lists all the pages on the site so children can make sure they didn’t miss a lesson.  If children learned a lesson the color of the link to that lesson in the Lesson List changes.  This only works if the child took the lesson on the same computer with the same browser.  Children can print the Lesson List and check off what quizzes they took to help them keep track.  If a child wants to look up a topic they learned in school, they can do a search on the Lesson List page for a keyword by typing CTRL F and entering the keyword.

The site is arranged by topic.  These topics were chosen to counter what my children are being taught in school.  For example my daughter was taught that voter ID wasn’t fair.  That falls under the topic of discrimination.  So there will be the topic Discrimination on the home page of the web site.  Clicking on it will take your child to a web page on some aspect of discrimination.  That page will in turn have a link on the bottom to another page about another aspect of discrimination which in turn leads to another until your child gets to the voter ID.  The fastest way to get to it is from the Lesson List page.  There is a link to that at the bottom of most pages.

Some of the words on the lesson pages are highlighted in yellow.  If your child places the cursor over those words the page will show the definition of the word.

This website is continually being improved and extended.

One of the challenges of a site like this is that children come in all ages.  Some of the material may be too difficult or advanced for some children.  I’ve tried to make it as easy as possible but some of the videos were made by adults for adults.  Sometimes I have put definitions of difficult words before the video to help the child understand what is being said.  My children often surprise me with how well they understand what they are reading but they are 9 and 12. 

Stopping K–12 Indoctrination Is Right By Stanley Kurtz

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/stopping-k-12-indoctrination-is-right/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=third

A July 5 New York Times Op-Ed by Kmele Foster, David French, Jason Stanley, and Thomas Chatterton Williams argues that it is “un-American” for state laws to keep indoctrination in the tenets of critical race theory (CRT) out of the K–12 curriculum. While conceding that such laws may be permissible in the “narrow context of public primary and secondary education,” they argue that said laws are “antithetical to educating students in the culture of American free expression.” While the authors raise some legitimate concerns about specific provisions in bills that have passed to date, their conclusions do not follow. Many of the specific problems they point to can and should be fixed. The overall effort to prevent CRT indoctrination, however, is both necessary and justified. It is CRT that is un-American, not efforts to prevent the imposition of this pernicious orthodoxy on schoolchildren.

Let us begin with specific legislative language, then move to broader principles. I focus here on Texas House Bill 3979, inspired in significant part — but by no means entirely — by my model legislation published with the National Association of Scholars. That Texas bill has some technical flaws, which were well on their way to being fixed as the legislative session wound down. The flaws of which the op-ed complains can and should be addressed when House Bill 3979 is taken up soon in a special legislative session.

Texas House Bill 3979 initially passed the House. After it reached the Senate, a key fix was made. The original House version held that the various illiberal concepts listed (e.g., collective guilt by race or sex) should not be made “part of a course.” This phrasing could potentially prevent even discussion of the various concepts, which would indeed run afoul of our culture of free expression, despite being legally permissible. In contrast, my model legislation merely says that teachers should not teach the various illiberal concepts in such a way as to inculcate them. Anything can be discussed. The core concepts of critical race theory, however, should not be presented as worthy of assent and belief. In other words, students should not be indoctrinated with CRT.

Good News, Criminals: Manhattan’s Next D.A. Has Your Back By Kyle Smith

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/good-news-criminals-manhattans-next-d-a-has-your-back/

Promoting social decay in the name of social justice, Alvin Bragg threatens to be a disaster for New York City.

R eeling psychologically and economically from the pandemic, New York City could use a boost. Unfortunately its central borough’s choice for district attorney is a guy whose big selling point is telling us about all of the criminals he won’t be prosecuting.

Alvin Bragg has won the Democratic primary for D.A. of New York County (Manhattan) by promising not to prosecute minor crimes such as trespassing, resisting arrest, turnstile jumping, and traffic offenses. In a debate, Bragg (who previously prosecuted state crimes in the attorney general’s office and federal ones in the Southern District of New York) boasted that he had only ever prosecuted one misdemeanor, when he charged some men for blocking access to a Planned Parenthood office.

“Non-incarcerations are the outcome,” read his campaign materials, “for every case except those with charges of homicide or the death of a victim, a class B violent felony in which a deadly weapon causes serious physical injury, or felony sex offenses.” In an overwhelmingly Democratic city, Bragg is almost certain to win the general election against a Republican opponent in the fall. His proposals threaten to be yet another catastrophe for Manhattan — the economic heart of the region — by bringing San Francisco’s laissez-faire prosecution philosophy to New York City and promoting social decay in the name of social justice.

The DNC’s Dishonest Voting Case Against Arizona The justices upheld our common-sense election laws against baseless charges of racism. By Mark Brnovich

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dncs-dishonest-voting-case-against-arizona-11625608666?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

Protecting the right to vote while maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the results is every public servant’s sacred duty. With that in mind, I defended Arizona’s election safeguards before the Supreme Court in March. Last week, in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the justices ruled 6-3 in our favor, reaffirming the ability of states to administer secure elections with outcomes every voter can trust.

The Democratic National Committee asked the court in 2016 to strike down Arizona’s statutes on in-precinct voting and ballot harvesting as violations of the Voting Rights Act. The DNC didn’t have a sound or compelling argument, so it lapsed into calling Arizona “racist” for passing the law. I am thankful the justices saw through this partisan attack and upheld our common-sense measures. The court’s ruling is a win for election integrity at a time when the far left conducts propaganda campaigns to trick people into believing any election law that protects against voter fraud is “Jim Crow 2.0.”

The irony is that the DNC chose to attack Arizona, a state that offers some of the most convenient ways to vote. You can vote early in-person, vote on Election Day, or request a no-excuse absentee ballot. Don’t want to get out of the car? We also have drive-through ballot drop-off sites. Contrast that with other jurisdictions such as Delaware, Connecticut and New York, which require bureaucrats to approve your reason for absentee voting. Why are those requirements not being challenged? It’s clear that the DNC prefers to pursue its partisan power plays in what it deems to be battleground states.

The Culture War Must Go On The woke are angry, humorless, and—worst of all—vindictive. Surrender is not an option. By Joseph Epstein

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-culture-war-must-go-on-11625608694?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

I happened to mention the phrase “culture war” in a 1996 conversation with Irving Kristol, who was a contributor to these pages and always a penetrating observer of contemporary American life. “The culture war is over,” Irving said, then paused and added: “We lost.” Alive today, Irving would have been sadly reaffirmed in his declaration, surprised perhaps only at the extent of the loss and the cost it has entailed.

His “we” would include those people who believe in the rewards owed to effort and merit, the value of tradition, and the crucial significance of liberty. “We” would distinctly not include those who believe in the importance of spreading “diversity,” “inclusion” and “equity” as conceived by present-day universities. Nor would it include those whose sense of virtue derives from their putative hunger for social justice and their willingness to make severe judgments of others based on lapses from political correctness. These people are “they,” the woke, who have, as Kristol had it, won the culture war.

The extent of the woke victory is perhaps best demonstrated by the long list of cultural institutions they have captured and now control. Two of the country’s important newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, are unashamedly woke. The New Yorker and the Atlantic have ceased to be general-interest magazines and are now specific-interest publications—that interest being the spread of woke ideas. The major television networks early fell in line without a fight.

Universities, in their humanities and social-sciences divisions, are not merely devoted to the propagation of woke ideas but initiate most of them. In turning away from the ideals of authority and objectivity in favor of clearly partisan views, these institutions have lost their former prestige yet are apparently sustained by the confidence that preaching woke doctrine is a higher calling.

OPEC, Biden and Gas Prices The President wants the cartel to pump more oil, but the U.S. to pump less.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/opec-biden-and-gas-prices-11625611235?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

As cognitive dissonance goes, this is a classic. President Biden’s explicit policy goal is to reduce U.S. oil and gas production, limiting the global supply of fossil fuels in the name of fighting climate change. Yet his Administration is now imploring the OPEC oil cartel to pump more oil so U.S. gasoline prices don’t rise more than they already have on Mr. Biden’s watch.

Oil prices climbed to a six-year high on Tuesday after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and Russia failed to agree on increasing production quotas. Last spring OPEC slashed production quotas after crude prices plunged to $20 per barrel amid economic lockdowns and a price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia.

But energy demand has snapped back in much of the world as Covid-19 vaccines roll out, governments ease lockdowns, and freight shipments surge. U.S. petroleum consumption is now roughly where it was at this time in 2019. OPEC estimates that oil demand in industrialized countries will increase by 2.7 million barrels a day this year.

In early June OPEC modestly raised production quotas, but demand is still rebounding faster than supply. The upshot is that crude prices are averaging around $74 a barrel, up 45% or so this year. OPEC countries naturally want to take advantage of the pandemic recovery to boost production and generate more petrodollars to fund their governments.

But a squabble between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates over quotas is blocking an agreement, sending U.S. gasoline prices to a near seven-year high. Enter the Biden Administration. A White House spokesperson on Monday said it is urging OPEC and its allies to quickly come up with a compromise “that will allow proposed production increases to move forward.”

The Administration is worried that higher gas prices could undermine Mr. Biden’s climate agenda and spending plans. Republicans have been linking his veto of the Keystone XL pipeline with higher gas prices. The two aren’t directly related. But no Keystone does mean that more crude from Canada and the northern Bakken Shale will have to move by rail to U.S. refiners.

April Powers Condemned Jew-Hate. Then She Lost Her Job. The inclusion officer’s identity as a black Jew should have made her unassailable. Instead, it was used to discredit her. Kat Rosenfield

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/april-powers-condemned-jew-hate-then?token=e

I don’t remember when I first came across Kat Rosenfield’s byline, but I can tell you that for years now I’ve read everything she writes. Her bailiwick is our culture, particularly the strange corners of it that tend to go overlooked by everyone else.

Exhibit A is her ongoing, insightful coverage of the mad world of Young Adult fiction and the moral panics that regularly tend to convulse that industry.

Last week that beat converged with the urgent story of rising Jew-hate in America when a black, Jewish diversity chief named April Powers lost her job in children’s publishing for condemning antisemitism. (You read that right.)

When I came across the story, I immediately reached out to Kat to ask her what it said about the state of the publishing world and, more, what it revealed about how high-minded ideals like intersectionality actually operate in practice.

— BW

On first viewing, it looked like a Tik-Tok riff on The Purge: a caravan of cars rolls down La Cienega Boulevard in Los Angeles. The passengers — young men in keffiyehs, some draped to mask their faces — stand and shout through sunroofs and windows. The cars honk incessantly. In the back of a slow-moving Jeep, one man waves a billboard-sized Palestinian flag while another shouts through a megaphone: “Israel kills women and children every day!” His companions jeer: “Yeah! Fuck you!”

The next video shows the same men on the sidewalk, shouting and advancing on another man in a grey shirt who’s trying to fend them off with a metal pedestal. In the next: The man in grey is lying on the ground, curled in the fetal position. They punch him, kick him, claw at him.

The last video clip of the evening’s events shows the same sidewalk, now crowded with police. “They’re apparently going around the city, asking who’s Jewish, and beating them up,” says the unseen videographer. “This is America, guys.”

These clips were shot in late May, during the recent war between Israel and Hamas, a month in which there were dozens of similar attacks on Jews and Jewish spaces across America. It was also a moment when corporations and politicians —  many of whom had eagerly released statements unequivocally condemning the rise in anti-Asian hate crimes the previous month, or supporting Black Lives Matter the previous year — suddenly lost their nerve when it came to denouncing violence against minorities.

Those that did speak out against Jew-hate, including high-profile progressives like Bernie Sanders and Ayanna Pressley, tended to speak out against “antisemitism and” — as in, antisemitism and Islamophobia, or antisemitism and all other forms of bigotry. (Tablet’s Noam Blum documented the trend here.)

Eric Adams wins New York City mayoral primary By Jordan Williams and Tal Axelrod

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/559574-eric-adams-wins-new-york-city-mayoral-primary

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams has won the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, setting himself up as the overwhelming favorite to win the general election in November.

The Associated Press called the race for Adams shortly after the latest batch of results in the ranked-choice primary were released on Tuesday afternoon. 

Adams, a former police captain who entered primary voting as the front-runner, bested a crowded field of Democrats, including former New York City Sanitation Commissioner Kathryn Garcia, former presidential candidate Andrew Yang and civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley.

Adams will face off against GOP candidate Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels.

Just before the race was called, Adams said in a statement that “while there are still some very small amounts of votes to be counted, the results are clear: an historic, diverse, five-borough coalition led by working-class New Yorkers has led us to victory in the Democratic primary for Mayor of New York City.” 

Why Trump Haters Have Set Their Sights on J. D. Vance  Vance will continue to be an object of scorn for liberals who feel betrayed by him.  By Chris Buskirk

https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/05/why-trump-haters-have-set-their-sights-on-j-d-vance/

The Progressive Left has a bullseye on J. D. Vance. Ever since he announced his run for the U.S. Senate in Middletown, Ohio last week to replace retiring Republican Rob Portman, the media has been bashing him. The Daily Beast claims he’s “an avatar of GOP corruption” and is upset that he mentioned Jeffrey Epstein and John Weaver as sex predators (the author says that’s a QAnon conspiracy!), while New York magazine says Vance’s campaign “feels doomed” less than 24 hours after he made his announcement speech in front of a pumped-up crowd of around 500.  

The liberal press is joined in its opposition to Vance by the anti-Trump ex-Republicans at the Lincoln Project, which spent close to $100 million against Trump last year. Bill Kristol and a list of other D.C.-based Trump haters have spent the days since his announcement calling Vance a “dirtbag” and a racist for using horrible terms like “nation-state.”

These same people have said almost nothing about Vance’s opponents in the Republican primary. Josh Mandel doesn’t seem to interest them, despite some warning signs about his candidacy—including the fact that much of his fundraising team resigned—or questions about his electability since he was trounced in his 2012 Senate race against far-left Sherrod Brown. 

Likewise, they haven’t had much to say about his other competitor Jane Timken, the former chairman of the state GOP. She, too, has some serious political problems, including defending her protégé, Ohio Representative Anthony Gonzalez’s vote to impeach Donald Trump and the fact that her family’s steel company outsources Ohio jobs to China.

So why are they so focused on J. D. Vance? Fox News host Tucker Carlson seems to like him, which probably only adds fuel to the fire. He said last week, “I’m really glad you’re doing it. J. D. Vance, I admire you and I wish you luck.”

Still, there’s a political angle that probably makes the anti-Trump contingent’s silence strategic: they realize the other candidates’ flaws make them weaker in the general election against Representative Tim Ryan, the likely Democratic nominee, and they would like to see the Democrats pick up what should be a safe Republican seat in the Senate.

What is China Buying in the Biden Administration? by Peter Schweizer

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17518/china-biden-administration

The simple fact is that there are large, powerful donors to the Biden campaign that have big financial stakes in these green energy companies. It is a wealth transfer to Biden’s biggest bundlers, and that is a huge and massive problem.

For those companies with inside connections to the Biden campaign, it is American taxpayer money that is truly “shovel-ready.”

Former congressmen and senators, and former US ambassadors are being paid large sums of money by governments such as China, or by firms directly linked to those governments, which do not have America’s best interest at heart. They are lobbying in Washington to get their paymasters’ voices heard.

If you invest a couple of million dollars, let us say, in lobbying, or you invest a couple of million dollars in campaign contributions, often you can get benefits that are worth ten times that.

For Wall Street and Silicon Valley, the prospect of doing deals in China is mesmerizing. To do those deals in China, as they have learned, you must play nice with the regime, speak well of them, feather their nests…. It is no less tempting for American politicians….Of greatest concern are the deals that actually advance Chinese state interests.

There is no other way to state this. The only way we can correct this situation is by exposing these people and showing U.S. citizens exactly what they are doing in our society.

[J]ust before the 2020 election, the [New York Times ran a piece by its “media reporter” bragging about their role as gatekeepers that would not pursue the Hunter Biden story.

What is China buying in the Biden Administration? A look to the recent past may provide some answers.

If you go back to 2009-10 and look at the “shovel-ready” stimulus package that President Barack Obama pushed through, as most people now know, there were huge amounts of money in the form of direct grants and loan guarantees that went to Solyndra and other “green energy” companies that failed. Yet, the question remained: Where did all that taxpayer money go for green energy?

If you trace it, you will find that 80 percent of that money went to green energy companies that were owned by individuals who sat on Barack Obama’s Finance Committee for his 2008 campaign.

Now that Obama’s former VP is president, another infrastructure package will include plenty of expenditures for more green schemes. Whether they work or whether they will simply raise our energy prices, the simple fact is that there are large, powerful donors to the Biden campaign that have big financial stakes in these green energy companies. It is a wealth transfer to Biden’s biggest bundlers, and that is a huge and massive problem. For those companies with inside connections to the Biden campaign, it is American taxpayer money that is truly “shovel-ready.”