March 5, 2020

Go to H#** Conservatives!

Here ya go with more Democrat Buffoonery.

V. Thomas Mawhinney, 3/5/20

 

 

 

.F. Branco · Mar. 3, 2020

 

 

Sex Robots = Psychological Damage

March 1, 2020

Sex Robots = Psychological Damage

Years ago, I wrote a series of blogs abstracting the findings of my professional research into the damaging effects of the legalization of pornography in America. There was both data-based evidence of coming damage to our population, as well as strong theoretical support for prediction of very bad outcomes of the PORNIFICATION of America’s socioculture.

Today the technological pornification of America (and elsewhere) appears nearing its zenith and, once again, I and other psychologist are warning of even worsened psychological damages.

Uncontrolled human sexuality can be a very powerful force negatively impacting a modern socioculture’s population and its viability to evolve into the future. The pornification of a society is capable of contributing to the destruction of stable family relationships. Including damaged two parent families; increased rates of sexually transmitted disease; increased rates of sexual abuse of children; increased rates of rape and other sex crimes; including murder; decreased birth rates, below population replacement levels; and increases in  bizarre and pathological sexual appetites and behaviors within our population.

The elementary principles of conditioning and learning, especially among our young, can easily contribute to an increase in sexual activities that are classified as the “Paraphilias”. It is important that you know about the Paraphilias because their increase threatens the psychosexual health of America.

Please research the following. See what psychologists are warning us about, as a result of technological and marketing advances relative to the production and mass sales of all manner of Sex Robots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

Now, please consider the following article documenting that robot adult sex dolls have now morphed into robotic child sex dolls, published by “The Daily Beast”. Note that this is not new new’s!

I judge that, from a human conditioning and learning perspective, this technological development and open-market sales poses an unconscionable threat to us all.

________________________________________________________________________

A congressman has introduced legislation to ban child sex dolls and robots, while some pedophilia experts are torn about whether they can help or harm. (Warning: Graphic content.)

Stop Abuse Campaign

Three words (“child” + “sex” + “doll”) that should never appear together are suddenly—and disturbingly—making headlines around the world every week, as is the debate surrounding their implementation or banishment to either curb or reinforce pedophilia. The Stop Abuse Campaign has launched a new campaign designed to grab your attention. “Children play with dolls,” it reads. “Sex abusers should not.”

Most recently: A 33-year-old Essex man was found not guilty of importing a 3-foot-tall child sex doll in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, a case in Canada that began in 2013 with the intercepted “controlled delivery” of one such doll is still being prosecuted five years later. And in the United States, Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY) just introduced legislation to ban the dolls, in a bill named Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots, otherwise known as the CREEPER Act.

Unsurprisingly, heated controversy surrounds the subject, with some advocates suggesting child sex dolls could be used to deter the real-life fulfillment of pedophilic urges. Most notably, Juliet Grayson, chair of the Wales-based organization the Specialist Treatment Organization for the Prevention of Sexual Offending (StopSO), told The Independent that the prescription of child sex dolls might potentially curb assaults against human children.

However, in an email interview with The Daily Beast this week, Donovan shot down the notion that child sex dolls could be used to prevent abuse with a simple analogy.

“You don’t give an alcoholic a bottle of liquor to stop their addiction, so why would you provide a pedophile with a tool that would further normalize harmful actions?” Donovan asked. “Once a child sex abuser tires of practicing on a doll, it’s a small step to move on to an innocent child. This isn’t just speculation. Psychologists and researchers believe that these dolls reinforce, normalize, and encourage pedophilic behavior, potentially putting more children at risk to harm. It is absurd to argue that permitting sexual abuse against a realistic portrayal of a child somehow stops pedophiles from viewing real children as sexual outlets for their sick desires.”

— Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY)

With both the AI revolution and the cultural awakening that’s been coined the post-Weinstein effect, there is an intense focus right now on the best way to protect our most vulnerable populations against sexual abuse. Incidentally, conversations about pedophilia that once were shrouded in darkness are now being brought into the light. For example: Is it possible for pedophiles to get help before offending? How does grooming of children happen? What is the extent of child sexual abuse online? Should there be preemptive imprisonment for pedophiles at risk of molesting a child?

And now the latest debate: what to do about the forthcoming influx of child sex robots (and current reality of child sex dolls)? Writing convincingly of the need to clamp down on the “shadow trade” in child sex dolls and robots, professors Marie-Helen Maras and Lauren Shapiro present a meticulously researched argument for banning them in the December 2017 issue of the Journal of Internet Law.

  • “Sex dolls and robots promote (the acceptance of) non-consensual sex and rape…”
  • “Those who would argue against societal harm from the expression of aggression against life-like dolls and robots need only look at what happened in Austria at a technology expo where Samantha was exhibited. Despite being ‘molested’… when asked politely ‘How are you?’ Samantha responded, ‘Hi, I’m fine.’”

There can’t be a discussion of banning child sex dolls and robots without examining the landmark Supreme Court 2002 decision that struck down two key provisions of the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act as being too chilling on free speech: 1. porn that “appears to be… of a minor,” or 2. porn that “conveys the impression” that it is of a minor.

So could there be a danger of the same issue happening with the CREEPER Act?

“Let’s be clear, these dolls aren’t related to free speech,” Donovan responds to the question. “They are used to act out sick fantasies.”

In the United Kingdom, where a similar ban exists to the one being introduced by the CREEPER Act, authorities seized 128 child sex dolls last year, and 85 percent of the men who imported them were found to also be in possession of child pornography. Child sex dolls are already here, with child sex robots hitting the market soon—causing heated legalethical, and scientific debate around the world.

Still, the topic inspires a merry-go-round of researcher versus researcher. On the one end of the spectrum, legal scholars Maras and Shapiro dismiss the possibility of potential therapeutic use of child sex dolls, writing, “Scientific evidence contradicts these claims as nonsensical and irrational.” On the other end, noted pedophilia researcher and Sexual Abuse Editor in Chief Michael Seto disagrees that such definitive evidence exists yet.

“I don’t understand why the authors can be so confident in their opinions given the lack of research on this topic,” Seto explained in an email to The Daily Beast. “I conduct research on pedophilia and sexual offending against children and I am not aware of any research on the impacts of access to child sex dolls or robots. The study that is cited in the article discusses factors that are important in the treatment of identified sex offenders to reduce offending. I know this research, and it does not address the impact of child sex dolls or robots, which are relatively new inventions.”

In a passionate piece for The Hill, Donovan made his case for the CREEPER Act, which has 18 congressional co-sponsors, explaining, “During my 20 years as a prosecutor, I put away animals who played out their disgusting fantasies on innocent children. What I saw and heard was enough to make anybody sick. Now, as a legislator in Congress, I’m introducing a bill to ban the newest outlet for pedophiles: child sex dolls. These lifelike, anatomically accurate recreations of young children include ‘accessories’ such as false eyelashes, wigs, warming devices, and cleaning tools.”

Donovan tells The Daily Beast his work as a prosecutor is linked closely to this current legislation: “Every case has stayed with me—there is no situation where a child was hurt or victimized that doesn’t leave your thoughts. As a former DA and current legislator, but more importantly as a father, I will do everything possible to stop crimes against children.”

After moving through the proper committees, Donovan says, “I hope to see [the CREEPER Act] considered quickly on the House floor. We must protect our nation’s children. I know the American public want this done—there is more than 160,000 signatures on a Change.org petition supporting my legislation.”

Maras and Shapiro assert in their recent editorial that the introduction of the CREEPER Act is a “step in the right direction,” but they also advocate for additional prohibitions which would “criminalize the manufacture and possession of both child sex dolls and child sex robots,” such as when criminals “find ways to evade criminal sanction by, for example, creating these child sex dolls and sex robots themselves (for example, using a 3D printer).”

Donovan responds, “Right now, the proliferation of these dolls is being pushed by manufacturers in international markets—not through 3D printers. We, of course, should be forward-looking to ensure that the law continues to keep up with technology—but my focus is stopping the ‘here and now.’ For example, ICE has already confiscated one of these dolls in the U.S. that was imported from abroad.”

So child sex dolls are already being imported into America?

“I have been in touch with ICE and know that a child sex doll was found during a bust,” explains Donovan. “While I can’t speak more on ongoing cases, I can say that this situation shows that these dolls are being shipped here now. The ability to obtain child sex dolls needs to be stopped immediately.”

But can the law even keep up with the technology?

“Writing legislation for technology we don’t yet know will exist in 10, 20-plus years time is a difficult task,” observes Emily C. Collins, a robotics researcher at the University of Liverpool and member of the Foundation for Responsible Robotics. “But it is not fruitless to attempt to do so… When a machine is built, the builders, in my opinion, should be asking, ‘How will this robot impact its users?’”

But how will child sex dolls and robots affect their users? Are pedophiles who have purchased the child sex dolls in fact “virtuous”?

Last year, 72-year-old David Turner, a church warden with local school oversight, was convicted of importing a child sex doll. In a landmark decision for this new form of sex crime against children, the judge ruled the importation of the item “obscene.” Authorities who later searched Turner’s home found two other child sex dolls and more than 34,000 child pornography images.

The pictures showed victims ages 3 to 16.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Finally, to learn more about my own research into the generally harmful effects of the pornification of America please, type “pornography” into the search box on the top right side of my blog page.

Wake-Up America! 

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D., 3/1/20

Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Indiana University South Bend.

Practicing State Certified Psychologist (46 years)

 

Threats To America: Laughing All The Way!

February 27, 2020

Threats To America: Laughing All The Way!

Well, no! Threats to America are not funny.

But, around the world, ridicule and laughter is a historically successful propagandistic technique used by totalitarians, socialists and communists to smear, marginalize, and stigmatize their opposition; namely the advocates of freedom and democracy.

It is right an fitting that I, and other like-minded patriots of America’s Constitutional Republic, would finally give these political vultures among us a dose of their own poisonous medicine.

Medicines, never to be administered to our honorable representatives dedicated to keeping AMERICA ALIVE, FREE and PROSPEROUS!

P.S. Depicting a destructive political force using humor is not real propaganda because it is based upon the truth

V. Thomas Mawhinney, 2/27/20

 

 

To My Dear Readers

February 24, 2020

To My Dear Readers

My Web cite and Bog has been censored by Facebook!

That is odd because I do not post indecent pictures or use profanity. Nor do I sell any products, or in anyway, make money off of my blog site.

My dear father once told me that “a writer has to write”. Long ago, I discovered to my delight that I am a writer and so this is what I do.

I have written and published professional articles in psychology journals, two books (one in second edition) and many blogs. 

I have been posting on my personal blog about Cultural Survival Skills since June of 2009. I now have over 1900 posts with over 1500 comments by readers.

I write because, as a professor of psychology (36 years), I studied the psychological determinants of the health and decline of our society and many others. 

As a practicing psychologist (46 years), I have witnessed the determinants of the psychological health and decline of countless individuals and their families.

I do not write out-of-vanity. Among writers I am a “small potato”, so to speak. 

I write for personal catharsis and to help people and my country, in my own very small way. 

At 78 years of age, I have many loved ones that I hope will have successful and happy lives in America. Many of them have children and their children may have children. I want the best for them and I want the best for you and your children’s children also.

Therefore, I present what I judge Americans need to know, and to do, to help insure that our Constitutional Republic remains viable and able to evolve-well into the future.

I also feel compelled to sound warnings when I judge that our voting public and collective political actions are leading to self-destructive outcomes for my nation. My recommendations for better outcomes are based upon what I have learned as a student and professor of psychology, a psychotherapist, my readings of history, and just living my life as well as I can.

I am still doing the best that I can do, so the rest is up to you.

Please consider sending my blog URL to friends and loved ones, http://www.culturalsurvivalskills.me 

You may wish to “follow” my blog (and suggest that others also do so) by typing an your Email address in my “follow” window at the top-right of my blog page.

Thanks for your readership. Blessings to you and your loved ones.

Tom Mawhinney, 2/23/2020

 

 

Trump’s National Debt? #2

February 22, 2020

Trump’s National Debt? #2

President Trump is being hammered for increasing the national debt and for his crass verbiage.

I have no concerns about Trump’s penchant for crudely insulting his enemies. His enemies are gross leftists, radical liberals (what’s the difference?) and “Rino” republicans; who are traitors to American conservatism. In fact Trump’s enemies are just as rude, crude and asinine as Trump sometimes is.

Worse yet, they are so intent on destroying America’s duly elected President that they are willing to destroy America in the process. In fact, this is so apparent that one must wonder if the destruction of America is not their primary goal!

What is my grave concern, IS NOT the vast number of President Trump’s policies that I judge essential to the prosperity and long-term survival of our great Constitutional Republic: The United States of America. 

My concern is for America’s ever-increasing National Debt, which at some point in our not-to-distant future, is certain to be ruinous.

Many smart voters, both for and against President Trump share this grave concern.

I am no economist. Therefore both sides of this argument will be presented below from knowledgeable sources. Please consider this information and reach your own conclusions. 

I will first present the argument against President Trump’s fiscal policies.

Following this first article, I present one that explains the “seemingly insoluble” problems that have foiled Trump’s curative attempts, as well as those of his recent predecessors.

Please take the time and energy to carefully evaluate this information. Then vote accordingly.

V. Thomas Mawhinney, 2/22/20 

SPONSORED BY STRAIGHT TALK

Trump and the National Debt

Instead of Eliminating the Debt, Trump Will Add $8.3 Trillion

Donald Trump

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump promised he would eliminate the nation’s debt in eight years.1 Instead, his budgets would add $9.1 trillion during that time. It would increase the U.S. debt to $29 trillion according to Trump’s budget estimates.2

Candidate Trump had two strategies to reduce the U.S. debt. He promised to grow the economy 6% annually to increase tax revenues. But once in office, he lowered his growth estimate to 3.5% to 4%.

Trump’s tax cuts won’t stimulate the economy enough to make up for lost tax revenue. According to the Laffer curve, tax cuts only do that when the rates were above 50%. It worked during the Reagan administration because the highest tax rate was 70%.

Trump’s second strategy is to “eliminate waste and redundancy in federal spending.” He demonstrated cost-consciousness in his campaign. He used his Twitter account and rallies instead of expensive television ads. He outlined his cost-cutting strategies in his book, “The Art of the Deal.”3

Tax Info Given to You Straight

Trump was right that there is waste in federal spending. The problem isn’t finding it. Both Presidents Bush and Obama did that. The problem is in cutting it.

Each program has a constituency that lobbies Congress. Eliminating these benefits loses voters and contributors. Congress will agree to cut spending in someone else’s district, but not in their own.

What’s left after mandatory and military spending? Only $676 billion to pay for everything else. That includes agencies that process the Social Security and other benefits. It also includes the necessary functions performed by the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service. You’d have to eliminate it all to make a dent in the $1.1 trillion deficit. You can’t reduce the deficit or debt without major cuts to defense and mandated benefit programs. Cutting waste isn’t enough.

Trump’s Business Debt Influences His Approach to U.S. Debt

Trump has a cavalier attitude about the nation’s debt load. During the campaign, he said the nation could “borrow knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” He added, “The United States will never default because you can print the money.”

Trump thinks about the national debt as he does personal debt. A 2016 Fortune magazine analysis revealed Trump’s business is $1.11 billion in debt. That includes $846 million owed on five properties. These include Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, and 1290 Avenue of the Americas in New York. It also includes the Trump Hotel in Washington D.C. and 555 California Street in San Francisco. But the income generated by these properties easily pays their annual interest payment. In the business world, Trump’s debt is reasonable.
But sovereign debt is different. The World Bank compares countries based on their total debt-to-gross domestic product ratio. It considers a country to be in trouble if that ratio is greater than 77%. The U.S. ratio is 104%. That’s the $21.516 trillion U.S. debt as of Sep. 28, 2018, divided by the $20.658 trillion nominal GDP.
On Dec. 31, 2019, the U.S. debt was $23.2 trillion. That puts the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio at 107%.

So far, this high ratio hasn’t discouraged investors. America is the safest economy in the world. It has the largest free market economy and its currency is the world’s reserve currency. Even during a U.S. economic crisis, investors purchase U.S. Treasurys in a flight to safety. That’s one reason why interest rates plunged to 200-year lows after the financial crisis. Those falling interest rates meant America’s debt could increase, but interest payments remained stable at around $266 billion.

But that changed in late 2016. Interest rates began rising as the economy improved. As a result, interest on the nation’s debt will double in four years.

The United States also has a massive fixed pension expense and health insurance costs. A business can renege on these benefits, ask for bankruptcy, and weather the resultant lawsuits. A president and Congress can’t cut back those costs without losing their jobs at the next election. As such, Trump’s experience in handling business debt does not transfer to managing the U.S. debt.

Trump is wrong to assume that the United States could simply print money to pay off the debt. It would send the dollar into decline and create hyperinflation. Interest rates would rise as creditors lost faith in U.S. Treasurys. That would create a recession. He’s also wrong in thinking that he could make a deal with our lenders if the U.S. economy crashed. There would be no lenders left. It would send the dollar into a collapse. The entire world would plummet into another Great Depression.

National Debt Since Trump Took Office

At first, it seemed Trump was lowering the debt. It fell $102 billion in the first six months after Trump took office.9 On Jan. 20, the day Trump was inaugurated, the debt was $19.9 trillion. On July 30, it was $19.8 trillion. But it was not because of anything he did. Instead, it was because of the federal debt ceiling.

On Sept. 8, 2017, Trump signed a bill increasing the debt ceiling. Later that day, the debt exceeded $20 trillion for the first time in U.S. history. On Feb. 9, 2018, Trump signed a bill suspending the debt ceiling until March 1, 2019.10 It was $22 trillion. In just two years, Trump has overseen the fastest dollar increase in the debt of any president.
Trump’s Fiscal Year 2020 budget projects the debt would increase $5 trillion during his first term.11 That’s as much as Obama added while fighting a recession. Trump has not fulfilled his campaign promise to cut the debt. Instead, he’s done the opposite.
2019 may be seeing the national deficit exceeding $1 trillion. This could be the result of Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax cuts done in 2017. These cuts are a loss to government revenues. When the national deficit increases, the government needs to borrow more since its income cannot cover its expenditures. Such action increases sovereign debt. 12

How It Affects You

The national debt doesn’t affect you directly until it reaches a tipping point. A study by the World Bank found that if the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 77% for an extended period of time, it slows economic growth.

Every percentage point of debt above this level costs the country 1.7% in economic growth.

The first sign of trouble is when interest rates start to rise significantly. Investors need a higher return to offset the greater perceived risk. They start to doubt that the debt can be paid off.

The second sign is that the U.S. dollar loses value. You will notice that as inflation. Imported goods will cost more. Gas and grocery prices will rise. Travel to other countries will also become much more expensive.

As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work.

The Bottom Line

Contrary to President Trump’s campaign promise to eliminate national debt in eight years, his strategies for tackling it have actually added to U.S. debt and deficit, considerably. These strategies, which have proven unsuccessful, include:

  • Tax cuts – These substantially decreased government income.
  • Federal spending cuts – There was a failure to significantly cut expenses in mandatory and military programs, where such would actually make a difference in lowering the national debt.
The considerable addition to U.S. debt may also be attributed to Trump’s perception of the national debt in which he:
  • Likens sovereign debt to business debt.
  • Assumes that the United States can just print money.
The Trump administration maintains that economic growth will pay for the added obligations. So far, the gains in GDP have not caught up with the added burdens to U.S. debt and deficit.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now please see the “other side” of America’s politically intractable fiscal problems.

Trump’s National Debt? #1

See the real reason that America’s National Debt has increased under Trumps first term!

V.Thomas Mawhinney, 2/21/20

Fb-Button

By Jon Dougherty

(TNS) On Wednesday, CNS News’ Terrence Jeffrey reported that the national debt has surpassed $23 trillion and shows no sign of stopping.

In fact, Jeffrey said, the debt rocketed skyward by $1.3 trillion since last Thanksgiving Day:



That is the largest Thanksgiving-to-Thanksgiving increase in the debt in nine years. The last time the debt increased more from Thanksgiving to Thanksgiving was in 2010, when it increased by $1,785,995,360,978.10.

It also equals approximately $10,137.48 per household in the United States.

There will be a knee-jerk reaction from whatever Garbage Party media covers this figure to blame President Trump because it’s “his economy” so it has to be “his debt” too — right?

Wrong.

Trump has made lowering the national debt a priority since before he took office. It was one of his many campaign promises.



And while presidents do sign budgets into law, the Executive Branch doesn’t write the spending bills.

Trump early on proposed budget reductions that would eliminate worthless federal programs that contribute nothing to the country (except debt).

That budget was rejected out of hand. In fact, more than a few lawmakers at the time simply said it was “dead on arrival.”

No discussion. No debate. No deal. Just dead.

That included Republicans, by the way, who held a congressional majority for the president’s first two years in office.

Even that stellar economist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the bartender-turned-global warming expert, refused to back House “pay-as-you-go” rules.

In August, the Congressional Budget Office projected trillion-dollar budgets with no end in site.

More recently, Democrats have tried to blame tax cuts passed by President Trump and Republicans in December 2017 as responsible for the rising debt.

Wrong.

As Fox News’ chief political analyst Brit Hume explained in a tweet earlier this month, it wasn’t the president’s tax cuts that deepened the federal debt load over the past couple of years because as is always the case when taxes are cut, revenues go up because the economy is stimulated and it grows.

Federal tax revenues rose during the 2019 fiscal year as the economy grew, but spending increased by over $200 billion more, which is why the country ended up running a deficit approaching $1 trillion, according to Congressional Budget Office data released Thursday.

As debt has accumulated during President Trump’s first term, the focus has turned to tax cuts as the culprit. And while it’s simple math to point out that if the government was collecting more tax revenue than it is currently, the deficit would have been narrower, the truth is that revenues did go up modestly — but that revenue growth was just outpaced by an increase in federal spending.

Easy fix then, right? All Trump has to do is refuse to sign budgets and let the government shut down…right?

Of course, he gets pilloried for that, too — by the worthless “mainstream” media, by the Garbage Party, and by Republicans too frightened of being called a name to do the right thing.

Hume is right: We don’t have a revenue problem, we’ve got a spending problem and it’s a one that’s been around for decades.

Our kids and their kids and, possibly, their kids, will remember the current generation of Americans as the least greatest for saddling them with trillions in debt that will take half a century to pay off.

 

Trump’s National Debt?

February 21, 2020

Trump’s National Debt?

See the real reason that America’s National Debt has increased under Trumps first term!

V.Thomas Mawhinney, 2/21/20

Fb-Button

By Jon Dougherty

(TNS) On Wednesday, CNS News’ Terrence Jeffrey reported that the national debt has surpassed $23 trillion and shows no sign of stopping.

In fact, Jeffrey said, the debt rocketed skyward by $1.3 trillion since last Thanksgiving Day:



That is the largest Thanksgiving-to-Thanksgiving increase in the debt in nine years. The last time the debt increased more from Thanksgiving to Thanksgiving was in 2010, when it increased by $1,785,995,360,978.10.

It also equals approximately $10,137.48 per household in the United States.

There will be a knee-jerk reaction from whatever Garbage Party media covers this figure to blame President Trump because it’s “his economy” so it has to be “his debt” too — right?

Wrong.

Trump has made lowering the national debt a priority since before he took office. It was one of his many campaign promises.



And while presidents do sign budgets into law, the Executive Branch doesn’t write the spending bills.

Trump early on proposed budget reductions that would eliminate worthless federal programs that contribute nothing to the country (except debt).

That budget was rejected out of hand. In fact, more than a few lawmakers at the time simply said it was “dead on arrival.”

No discussion. No debate. No deal. Just dead.

That included Republicans, by the way, who held a congressional majority for the president’s first two years in office.

Even that stellar economist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the bartender-turned-global warming expert, refused to back House “pay-as-you-go” rules.

In August, the Congressional Budget Office projected trillion-dollar budgets with no end in site.

More recently, Democrats have tried to blame tax cuts passed by President Trump and Republicans in December 2017 as responsible for the rising debt.

Wrong.

As Fox News’ chief political analyst Brit Hume explained in a tweet earlier this month, it wasn’t the president’s tax cuts that deepened the federal debt load over the past couple of years because as is always the case when taxes are cut, revenues go up because the economy is stimulated and it grows.

Federal tax revenues rose during the 2019 fiscal year as the economy grew, but spending increased by over $200 billion more, which is why the country ended up running a deficit approaching $1 trillion, according to Congressional Budget Office data released Thursday.

As debt has accumulated during President Trump’s first term, the focus has turned to tax cuts as the culprit. And while it’s simple math to point out that if the government was collecting more tax revenue than it is currently, the deficit would have been narrower, the truth is that revenues did go up modestly — but that revenue growth was just outpaced by an increase in federal spending.

Easy fix then, right? All Trump has to do is refuse to sign budgets and let the government shut down…right?

Of course, he gets pilloried for that, too — by the worthless “mainstream” media, by the Garbage Party, and by Republicans too frightened of being called a name to do the right thing.

Hume is right: We don’t have a revenue problem, we’ve got a spending problem and it’s a one that’s been around for decades.

Our kids and their kids and, possibly, their kids, will remember the current generation of Americans as the least greatest for saddling them with trillions in debt that will take half a century to pay off.

 

Democrat Moral Character

February 15, 2020

Democrat Moral Character

“A good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.” —George Washington (1790)

V. Thomas Mawhinney, 2/15/20

 

 

“Common Core” Problems

February 14, 2020

“Common Core” Problems

Amanda, a reader of my blog, sent this article to me in a comment about the declining state of America’s culture and educational system. Amanda said that the state of our classrooms is terrifying.

The following are her remarks:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

About my blog, she said: “Everything here is true.”

“In addition, I would add:”

By the 1980’s, mental health institutions patient populations, that at one time were around 600,000 patients, began declining. Additionally, funds for community mental health agencies were cut (unlike 1963 – Kennedy’s $150 million in the CMH Centers Act). In 1999, we had the Olmstead Case, followed by Obama enforcing this and “loosening requirements for having a disability.” By 2012, prisons were seeing an increase in the number of inmates having a mental illness. To note, between 1880 and 1985 we had 7 school massacres (not all with guns, even though there were semi-automatic rifles available to civilians during this time period, we also had more mental health resources/funding). From 1985 to present, we have had 34+ school massacres (and less resources/funding for mental health).

I am not sure if you have been in a public school lately, but it has gotten significantly worse in just the last 4 years. There are many more topics of discussion regarding schools and why society is the way it is. The path we have started down is terrifying. Those who do not work in education have no clue what’s really going on.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My answer is as follows:

Bless your heart Amanda! I thank you for your response. You have obviously done your research.

Yes, I do know what is going on in America’s classrooms as I have teachers in my extended family and I was a professor of psychology for 36 years. I saw the dramatic decline in the quality of many of our students in the closing years of my time at the university. Moreover, I have maintained a private practice in psychology for 46 years, this partially concurrent with my professorship. I have provided psychotherapy for many burned-out teachers as well as a couple of school principals. I agree that the specter of education in America is terrifying and I am fearful for the welfare of my grandchildren and their children.

Sadly, a near majority of Americans cannot see the “forest for the trees”, so to speak. They believe our destructive ultra-liberal-leftist cultural evolutions (starting in the 1960’s) were and are normal; even beneficial. If that were not enough of a threat, America’s school-propagandized-youth are increasingly in favor of democratic socialism. A form of government that has failed through history, around the world. All of the trends that I have seen (and so many more not identified here) will certainly destroy America…if not reversed very soon. Warm Regards.   Tom Mawhinney

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Amanda sent me the following article about the governmentally imposed curricula in America’s schools, called “Common Core”

She noted that the Common Core curricula would certainly have pleased Bernhard Rust.

I had no idea who Bernhard was. Upon looking-him-up on the internet, I learned that he was Minister of Science, Education and National Culture in Nazi Germany. He was instrumental in teaching Hitler’s youth the philosophy of National Democratic Socialism in Nazi Germany. It is clear that Bernhard Rust and the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, teamed-up to shaped the thoughts, beliefs and actions of the German youths and also the adult population in grotesquely destructive directions.

The following article is a long one. But it is very much worth your reading.

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D., 2/14/20

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A 2013, Frank A. Fusco Washington-Hillsdale Lecture

“Common Core Common Sense: Why It’s Illiberal and Unconstitutional”

Dr. Daniel B. Coupland, Associate Professor of Education, Hillsdale College
June 4, 2013

On May 29th, 2009, Arne Duncan, the new Secretary of Education for the Obama
Administration, gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. In the speech, he
said,
   We want to raise the bar dramatically in terms of high standards. What we have had as
a country, I’m convinced, is what we call a race to the bottom. We have 50 different
standards, 50 different goal posts. And due to political pressure, those have been
dumbed down. We want to fundamentally reverse that. We want common, careerready internationally benchmarked standards.
   In this short paragraph, the Secretary of Education identified the problems of the past and set a
new vision for education in this country. He correctly assessed the damage created by the Bush
Administration’s Education policy from 2002 known as No Child Left Behind (or NCLB). While
supporters of NCLB can point to limited success in a few areas, the Bush Administration’s
education policy left the nation’s schools in a bureaucratic mess. In the National Press Club
speech, the new Secretary of Education was arguing that the mess was created by—what he
and others have called—a “patchwork of state standards” that left states to compete in a
fundamentally flawed and unfair process for limited federal funds. Secretary Duncan’s
argument—presented at the National Press Club and elsewhere—was very persuasive to those
in the education community who had suffered under the separate and very unequal policies of
the era know as No Child Left Behind. Four years after Arne Duncan’s 2009 speech, all but a
handful of states have signed on to a common set of curricular standards known as Common
Core.
   Common Core will now provide the framework for what students learn in math and English
language arts, but it will also establish two federally funded and approved tests that will replace
what states currently use to measure students’ academic success. Afraid to be left out of the
new national education marketplace, private companies are quickly trying to align themselves
with the Common Core standards. In order to survive in the Common Core era, textbook
publishers and other education-related industries must show how their materials meet these
national standards. SAT and ACT are now aligned to Common Core. Those who think they can
avoid the Common Core by sending their children to private schools or by homeschooling
should think again. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the Stanford 10—two popular tests of
private schools and homeschool parents—will also be aligned to Common Core. Within a few short years, Common Core has gone from virtual unknown to national educational
powerhouse that may influence the formal education of some 50 million K-12 students in
America. In the next few minutes, I’ll try to give you some insight on what Common Core is,
what the major arguments are both for and against Common Core, and I will also try to show
how these arguments are missing the most important ideas about education altogether. But
first, I will start with a brief history.

A Brief History of Educational Standards in America
The idea of a rich educational experience finds its roots deep in American history. The
Founders of this country believed an “informed citizenry” was necessary for good government.
In the early 1800s, Horace Mann continued this legacy by arguing for widespread public
education. Today, Horace Mann is known as the “Father of the Common School Movement.”
In the late 1800s, politicians and social leaders looked to the schools to solve pressing social
needs brought on by industrialization, urbanization, and immigration. Many leading education
theorists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century —including John Dewey, William H.
Kilpatrick, G. Stanley Hall, and others—developed or promoted progressive solutions to these
pressing social needs. For the first half of the 20th Century, progressive theories—such as childcentered pedagogy and practical/work-related curricula—dominated much of the education
landscape.
   In October of 1957, the United States was awakened from its educational malaise when the
Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik, the first space satellite, into orbit. This one event
signaled America’s educational decline and brought attention to the need for a return to rich
content—at least in the fields of math, science, and foreign languages. But these reforms were
quickly lost in the cultural turmoil of the 1960s and early 1970s, and schools once again offered
a smorgasbord of academically weak classes. Students were earning academic credit in
courses titled “personal relationships,” “what’s happening,” and “girl talk,” and they were
receiving academic credit for extra-curricular activities such as “student government,” “mass
media,” and “cheerleading.”
   In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education published a landmark study on
American education titled A Nation at Risk, which warned that the country’s economic,
political, and cultural future was threatened by our weak education system. The report stated
the now famous lines,
Our nation is at risk, the educational foundations of our society are presently being
eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a
people…If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the
mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an
act of war.
   A Nation at Risk signaled a turning point in American Education and brought about a renewed
focus on what Americans should know and be able to do. E.D. Hirsch’s 1987 book, Cultural
Literacy, argued that schools should focus on the basics and pass along “core knowledge” that
every educated American should know. But many in the education establishment resisted
these content-based reforms and continued to push a progressive agenda for America’s
schools.
   With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and the end of the Cold War,
international trade boomed, and many countries had greater opportunities to participate in the
global marketplace. Globalization led to international comparisons across a variety of social
indicators—including education. Many of the Asian countries—with whom we were now
competing—seemed to move further and further ahead of the United States. One of the
obvious features of the education in these countries was the existence of clear national
education standards. Many reformers pushed the idea that if the United States was going to
compete in the international marketplace, the quality of education in the entire country would
have to improve. They also concluded that such improvement would only occur if students
were held to high academic standards.
   In 1989, President George Bush Sr. hosted an education summit for the nation’s governors on
academic standards and assessment. A charismatic governor from Arkansas named Bill Clinton
took the lead in crafting a set of goals for increasing academic achievement in America. And
when Clinton defeated Bush for the presidency three years later, the new president used these
goals to craft his signature education policy know as Goals 2000. Goals 2000 provided money
for each state to develop its own standards based on a national template. Critics of this
initiative claimed that this effort violated the longstanding principle established by the 10th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that education is the responsibility of the states. But the
Clinton administration countered that the national standards were meant to be only a template
for the states to follow and that each state was ultimately responsible for its own standards.
Interestingly, Goals 2000 also authorized the creation of an approval board which would certify
that states standards had indeed matched the national template. This approval board,
however, never materialized because in the 1994 midterm election, Republicans gained the
majority in Congress and quickly abolished it.
   Even without the federal board, the effort to create state standards based on a national
template continued, and in the mid-1990s professional subject-specific organizations released
national standards for history, English, and math. The general public assumed that these
standards would represent the basic knowledge and skills that students would need to know in
a particular subject, but they soon discovered that these professional organizations had used
this federally funded project to push unproven and, in a few cases, radical ideas within
academic fields. Public opposition to these national standards spread quickly. Most states
avoided the controversy of the national standards by creating their own unique standards. If
there was one thing in common across state standards it was their emphasis on less
controversial skills—such as “critical thinking,” “cooperative learning,” and “shared
understanding”—rather than more concrete statements about specific ideas, people, and
books that students should read.
   In 2001, President George W. Bush pushed his education policy—known as No Child Left Behind
(or NCLB)—which—like those before it—promised to increase student achievement by
encouraging states to set high standards and to develop assessments based on those standards.
But unlike the initiatives before it, NCLB required states to test all students in particular
subjects and at particular grade levels in order to receive federal funding.
Looking back, most education experts—on both right and left—concluded that NCLB had failed
to deliver real and lasting success. NCLB created an environment where “teaching to the test”
became status quo. And what made matter worse is that from state-to-state, the tests were all
different. Under NCLB, each state had its own academic standards that it was expected to
meet. And because federal money was based on each state meeting its own standards, there
was little incentive for states to keep the academic bar high. In an effort to show higher
proficiency in student achievement, states began lowering proficiency levels in what Secretary
Duncan referred to as a “race to the bottom.” By the end of the decade, many in the education
community were looking for an alternative to the “separate-and-unequal” approach to
standards of NCLB.

Common Core
In 2007, two national trade organizations—the National Governors Association and the Council
of Chief State School Officers—started work on a common set of curriculum standards in
English language arts and mathematics. In December of 2008, these two groups produced a
document on national education standards that would guide the Obama Administration during
its transition into office. Two months later, the Secretary of Education announced a federal
education grant program known as “Race to the Top” (the name is an obvious nod to the
failures of No Child Left Behind). This program included money from the 2009 “Stimulus Bill,”
which was to be used by states to improve academic standards and assessments. In order to
receive Race to the Top grants, state had to commit to “a set of content standards that define
what students must know and be able to do and that are substantially identical across all states
in a consortium.” In 2011, the Obama administration made the decision to adopt common
standards even easier. Most states were still obligated to meet onerous NCLB requirements.
The U.S. Department of Education promised NCLB waivers to states that adopted a common set
of college- and career- ready standards and assessments. And while the U.S. Department of
Education did not require states to adopt the Common Core specifically, these standards
were—and still are—the only standards that met the Education Department’s criteria.
Forty-five states and the District of Columbia adopted the Common Core standards. Minnesota
adopted the English language arts standards, but it rejected the math. Initially, only Alaska and
Texas rejected Common Core, but in the end, Virginia and Nebraska did too.

Arguments FOR Common Core
The idea of common academic standards across all states is quite appealing to many in the field
of education because it seems to cure some obvious and longstanding problems. Allow me to
highlight two of the most important.
First, our mobile society makes it easy for families to pick up and move. As E.D. Hirsch points
out in his book The Knowledge Deficit (2006),
In a typical American school district, the average rate at which students transfer in and
out of schools during the academic year is about one third. In a typical inner-city school,
only about half of the students who start in September are still there in May—a mobility
rate of 50 percent. 
   When students move from school to school—especially when these moves are across state
lines, they often experience a fractured education filled with huge gaps or boring repetitions.
However, if all schools are meeting the same academic standards, the students have a greater
chance of finding a relatively consistent education experience regardless of where they move
within the country. In theory a student should be able to move from Maine to California with
little disruption in his education.
   Second, for years, the United States has lagged behind many industrialized nations in key
academic areas such as math and science. Since Sputnik, policymakers have tried to craft a
coherent plan to improve our country’s standing in these subjects areas, but they have
struggled to do so in light of the “patchwork of state standards.” Pointing to the failures of
NCLB, proponents of Common Core argue that having a common set of academically rigorous
standards for the entire country would allow policymakers to craft a coherent plan for
improving American education. Many corporate leaders and politicians argue that we are
unable to compete as a nation in a global society if every state is doing its own thing.

Arguments AGAINST Common Core
   As you can probably guess, Common Core has its critics, who typically focus one or more of the
following concerns.

1. Cost
Critics claim that Common Core will be very expensive to implement and maintain. The only
study on the cost of implementing Common Core standards and assessment nationwide
estimated a price tag of about $16 billion over seven years. But the truth of the matter is that
no one really knows what the final price tag for Common Core will be. For this reason—and
others—critics have already labeled this initiative ObamaCore. Critics of Common Core charge
that most states acted irresponsibly when they adopted the standards because they did not
first have a firm understanding of its price tag. Many states saw the Race to the Top funds as a
way to pay for immediate education expenses and failed to see that they were signing on to
something that would be far more expensive.

2. Quality
Critics argue that rather than pushing all states toward high standards, Common Core is
encouraging a coalescence in the mediocre middle—so, for example, while Mississippi’s
standards appear to get stronger by adopting Common Core, the standards in Massachusetts
get weaker. Several curriculum experts—including Ze’ev Wurman, Sandra Stotsky, and James
Milgram—have examined the math and English language arts standards very carefully, and they
have discovered some alarming concerns. In fact, because of these concerns and others, both
Stotsky and Milgram—who served on the Common Core’s validation committee—refused to
sign the final validation report.

3. Privacy
The 2009 “Stimulus Bill” required states to begin tracking students in a database—starting in
their preschool years to their entry into the workforce. This database will link students’ results
on Common Core-related assessments to other private personal information. This database
will be available to a wide variety of departments within the federal government. While
supporters of Common Core claim that the system employs measures to protect the anonymity
of students, critics have pointed to studies that demonstrate how these measure might not be
as secure as supporters assume. But the larger issue remains about whether collecting such
private information is consistent with the role of government expressed by the Founders.

4. Constitutionality
The biggest concern of Common Core critics to date has been the federal government’s ever increasing role in education. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution established the
principle that the “power” to oversee education belongs to the states. This longstanding
principle of local control of education is reiterated throughout our laws and government codes.
For generations, Americans have understood that the constitutional authority for education
rests with the states, not the federal government. Critics of Common Core see these standards
as federal overreach and a violation of both the letter and spirit of federal education law and
the U.S. Constitution.
   Supporters of Common Core like to portray these critics as far-right extremists who are
paranoid about a government takeover. But this is not true. Diane Ravitch, a respected
historian of American education, is hardly a darling of the far right—especially in recent years.
On Feb. 26th of this year, Ravitch wrote the following in a piece titled “Why I Oppose Common
Core Standards.” Her comments below summarize many of the central concerns that most
critics have.
   I have long advocated for voluntary national standards, believing that it would be
helpful to states and districts to have general guidelines about what students should
know and be able to do as they progress through school.
   Such standards, I believe, should be voluntary, not imposed by the federal government…
For the past two years, I have steadfastly insisted that I was neither for nor against the
Common Core standards. I was agnostic. I wanted to see how they worked in practice…
After much deliberation,…I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core
standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been
foisted upon the nation.
   Ravitch then goes on to explain her opposition to Common Core:
Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states. In fact, it was
well understood by states that they would not be eligible for Race to the Top funding
($4.35 billion) unless they adopted the Common Core standards. Federal law prohibits
the U.S. Department of Education from prescribing any curriculum, but in this case the
Department figured out a clever way to evade the letter of the law. Forty-six states and
the District of Columbia signed on, not because the Common Core standards were
better than their own, but because they wanted a share of the federal cash.
   The response from Common Core supporters regarding federal overreach has been surprising
weak. Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of the D.C. public schools and a well-known
education reformer, is a strong supporter of Common Core. In a speech last Thursday to
political and business leaders in my home state, she said, The vast majority of states have adopted the standards. I’ve heard some rumblings
from folks who say we don’t like it when the federal government is telling us what to do.
We don’t like that. You know what you should not like? The fact that China is kicking
our butts right now. Get over feeling bad about the federal government and feel bad
that our kids are not competing.
   I certainly hope that this country’s commitment to the Constitution does not simply hang on
something as fragile as a “feeling” that we need to “get over.”

Rhee’s cavalier critique of those
who are concerned about federal overreach is troubling, but I—for one—appreciate her
honesty. Most supporters of Common Core try to hide behind words like “state-led” and
“voluntary.” But anyone willing take an honest look at what transpired between 2009 and 2011
would conclude that many of these cash-strapped states already under the burden of budget
shortfalls and expensive NCLB requirements were seduced by a high pressured, time sensitive
sales pitch for adopting the standards that included relief in the form of money and waivers.
Yes, the states are ultimately responsible for selling their constitutional birthright for a bowl of
porridge, and given more time, perhaps many more states might have rejected such a poor
bargain. But perhaps, it’s not too late.

The Retreat
Initially, Common Core experienced widespread bi-partisan support. Even some prominent
Republican politicians—such as Jeb Bush of Florida, Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Mitch
Daniels of Indiana—were strong supporters of Common Core. But support for Common Core
seems to be weakening, and some states that originally adopted the standards are starting to
take a second look.
   This spring, the Michigan House of Representatives voted essentially to defund the
implementation of Common Core standards and their related tests. In Indiana, the State
Senate voted to delay implementation of Common Core so that the State Board of Education
could get a better understanding of the quality, cost, and loss of local control associated with
implementation of the standards and related assessments. In April, Indiana’s new governor,
Mike Pence, agreed to take “a long, hard look” at Common Core and quickly added that he was
one of a only few politicians initially to oppose No Child Left Behind.
Other states are considering legislative action to delay or defund Common Core standards and
assessments. Within the last nine months, the following states have held public forums or
formal legislative hearings to discuss delaying or defunding Common Core: South Carolina,
North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Idaho,
South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
   In April, The Republican National Committee passed an anti-Common Core resolution stating
that the RNC “rejects the [Common Core] plan which creates and fits the country with a
nationwide straitjacket on academic freedom and achievement.”
Never to be outdone, Texas boldly reiterated its opposition to the Common Core standards. In
early May, the Texas House of Representatives formally rejected the standards by a margin of
140-2.
   Last month, a poll of “education insiders,” which included national and state education leaders,
found that support for Common Core is beginning to fade. The poll showed that 63% of those
polled believe that states will implement some sort of moratorium on Common Core.
And it would be wrong to assume that opposition to Common Core is coming only from the
right. Recently, Randi Weingarten, president of the nation’s second largest teachers union with
about 1 million members, called for a moratorium on the use of standardized tests based on
Common Core standards. Ms. Weingarten, initially a strong supporter of the Common Core
standards, is concerned that aspects of Common Core have been poorly implemented and that
without a “mid-course correction,” the entire effort will fall apart. She said recently that “The
Common Core is in trouble. There is a serious backlash in lots of different ways, on the right
and on the left.”

Something Much More Fundamental
The idea of common, nationwide standards is appealing, and as I mentioned above, the
benefits of such standards should not be ignored. But the concerns over Common Core—and
especially its implementation—are real and troubling. Any of these concerns—cost, mediocrity,
and federal overreach—are serious enough that states should consider pausing and, perhaps,
ultimately repealing their adoption of these standards. But a much more fundamental concern
exists about Common Core that goes to the heart of any educational experience.
Recall Secretary Duncan’s comments from the beginning of my talk. He said, “We want
common, career ready…standards.” The phrase “career-ready” or “college- and career-ready”
appear throughout the Common Core standards. The opening page of the Common Core
document includes eight references to “college- and career-“ readiness. If any other goal is
mentioned, such as literacy, it is subservient to this overarching goal. The catchphrase for the
Common Core—printed below its logo—is “Preparing America’s Students for College & Career.”
Common Core’s mission statement reflects this notion as well. Here is the entire mission
statement:
   The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what
students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to
help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world,
reflecting the knowledge and skills that young people need for success in college and
careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be
best positioned to compete successfully in a global economy.
With such a mission, it is easy to see why so many politicians and business leaders support
Common Core. Even critics of Common Core have adopted the “college- and career-ready”
mantra and now spend much of their time arguing how Common Core will not prepare
students for the working world. I understand that this line of attack is necessary if they have
any hope of stopping Common Core. But what I would like for us to consider here today is
whether or not career preparation for a “global economy” should be the ultimate educational
goal in America.
   In the 1920s and 30s, progressive educators tried to devalue an impractical liberal arts
education and saw schools as mechanisms for preparing students for particular roles within the
social structure. During this era, schooling became job preparation.
But in the ancient world, job preparation was known as “servile education” because it prepared
the student to “serve” a master in a particular kind of work. Modern theorists would say that I
am being ridiculous to associate the ancient notion of “servile education” to “skills for the 21st
century” which will allow students to adapt to an ever-changing society. But as long as
students are told that the end of education is a job or career, they will forever be servants of
some master.
   Joy Pullmann, an education policy analyst for the Heartland Institute (and a Hillsdale graduate),
recently won the Robert Novak award to study and write about Common Core. Pullman is
quickly becoming one of the nation’s experts on Common Core. At a recent hearing in
Wisconsin on Common Core Standards, Ms. Pullman addressed Common Core’s misguided
focus.
   In a self-governing nation we need citizens who can govern themselves. The ability to
support oneself with meaningful work is an important part, but only a part, of self-government. When a nation expands workforce training so that it crowds out the other
things that rightly belong in education, we end up turning out neither good workers nor
good citizens.
   The ancients knew that in order for men to be truly free, they must have a liberal education
that includes study of literature and history, mathematics and science, music and art. Yes, man
is made for work, but he is also made for so much more. Education should be about the highest
things. We should study these things—stars, plant cells, square roots, Shakespeare’s Hamlet,
Mozart’s Requiem, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address—not simply because they will get us into the
right college or a particular line of work; rather, we study these noble things because they can
tell us who we are, why we are here, and what our relationship is to each other as human
beings and to the physical world that surrounds us.

Commenting on the Common Core standards, Anthony Esolen, English professor at Providence
College, said,
   [W]hat appalls me most about the standards…is the cavalier contempt for great works
of human art and thought, in literary form. It is sheer ignorance of the life of the
imagination. We are not programming machines. We are teaching children…We are to
be forming the minds, and hearts of men and women…[and we should] raise them to be
human beings, honoring what is good and right, cherishing what is beautiful.
If education in America has become—as Common Core openly declares—preparation for work
in a global economy, then the situation is far worse than Common Core critics anticipated, and
the concerns about the cost, the quality, and, yes, even the constitutionality of Common Core
pale in comparison to the concern for the hearts, minds, and souls of America’s children.

American Gun Control!

February 13, 2020

American Gun Control!

I will not say a word about gun control in this blog.

Former Governor of Kentucky Matt Bevin says it better than I ever have. He tells this truth it with more clarity and depth than I have ever heard it from anyone. 

The truth about American gun control is in this video.

Thanks to Gordon E. Jones for sending me this video.

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D., 2/13/20

 

 

Complete State of Union: 2020!

February 7, 2020

Complete State of Union: 2020!

No one should criticize President Trump until they take the time to see his entire Presidential State of The Union address.

Furthermore, no one should defend his Presidency without seeing this full State of The Union Address.

Similarly, no one should criticize or praise President Trump on the basis of watching only their favorite media outlets. In any scientific pursuit those who do this would be censured for malpractice and their reputations among colleagues would be ruined. In any context, such a style of information analysis would rightfully be labeled as biased, shallow, negligent, and even an ignorant in nature. 

Responsible voters compare and contrast both conservative and Liberal political philosophies, and they attempt to understand the long term outcomes of such philosophies on the basis of local, regional, as well as world histories. In this way they attempt to accumulate as much wisdom as they can muster in order to inform what they teach their children and adolescents…as well as their own voting judgments.   

It is my studied opinion, in review of some of America’s greatest leaders ( Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, war-time FDR and Truman; as well as Kennedy and Reagan; to name a few of my favorites)…that President Trump’s accomplishments in one-term are among the best of them. 

I judge that his accomplishments represent one of America’s greatest triumphs against a pervasive back-drop of pure political hatred for him and what is is trying to achieve. I believe that all of this has been focused upon President Trump as a defense against the political and financial corruption that exists among both republicans and democrats.

Of course, there has been corruption in both parties, as there is in all human endeavors.  But, the current democrat party has taken a distant lead in this category.

I challenge my readers to watch all of President Trump’s SOTU address.

There should be no doubt that President Trump is in an epic battle against unrelenting corrupt, self-serving and leftist political forces; all bent upon their own personal power gains, if not the actual destruction of America’s Constitutional Republic.

See what you think!

V. Thomas Mawhinney, 2/7/20

 


%d bloggers like this: