While hysteria and fearmongering over the governance of a Republican president have become standard—George W. Bush was frequently referred to as “Bushitler”—present-day anti-Trumpers have taken the acrimony to another level. Sadly, public schools are on the frontlines.
Just six days after the election, the teachers union in Los Angeles supported students who skipped school to protest the “politics of fear, racism and misogyny.” “As educators, as people spending every day with students and caring about each student’s future, we believe we have a sacred role in times like these,” the union said in a statement. Sacred? Too bad the union didn’t use its newly discovered religious faith to preach to the students that if they are indeed so upset with the president-elect, they should vent their dissatisfaction after the school day or on a weekend.
San Francisco social-studies teacher Fakhra Shah claims she knows “first-hand what it’s like to be on the receiving end of anti-Muslim slurs and stereotyping. The United Educators of San Francisco posted her “Lesson Plan on the 2016 Election” on its website. “DO NOT: Tell [students] that we have LOST and that we have to accept this,” it emphatically advises teachers. “We do not have to accept ANYTHING except that we must and will fight for justice against an unjust system and against unjust people.” The anger and denial here is just the tip of the iceberg:
(I know that [students] might curse and swear, but you would too if you have suffered under the constructs of white supremacy or experienced sexism, or any isms or lack of privilege. You would especially do so if you have not yet developed all of the tools necessary to fight this oppression. It is our job to help them develop these tools, ie the language etc., Let’s not penalize and punish our youth for how they express themselves at this stage.) (Hate mongering people see this as an invitation to use profanity, keep your hate to yourselves, our students are not hateful.)
The rest of this alarming and borderline illiterate “lesson plan”—with links to left-wing magazine Mother Jones and the George Soros-funded website Democracy Now!—continues in a similar vein (and, to be appreciated fully, should be read in its entirety). While teachers are free to accept or reject the lesson plan, the idea that any teacher would use any part of it is truly alarming.
There’s more. Down the peninsula from San Francisco is Google’s home city of Mountain View. At the local high school, “Holocaust scholar” Frank Navarro compared Trump with Hitler in an attempt to show his students “that the 2016 election is a reflection of the past.” Navarro was put on paid leave on November 10, but returned to the classroom a week later. In Texas, under the watchful eye of a teacher, two tenth-grade students staged a skit featuring “The Assassination of Donald Trump.” Parents were outraged by the performance, in which one of the boys made a gunfire sound effect with his cell phone as the other boy, portraying Trump, fell to the ground in mock death. The teacher and his students were “reprimanded.”
Recall that when a second grader nibbled a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun in Maryland a couple of years ago, he was suspended for two days. Maybe had he chewed a second Pop Tart into a replica of George W. Bush, and pointed his “gun” at it, he too could have gotten away with a reprimand.
An eighth-grade student in Alabama was paddled by the assistant principal for writing “Trump” on the blackboard, allegedly because the time for discussing the election had passed. (Alabama is one of 15 states with laws allowing corporal punishment in schools.) Does anyone doubt that if the student had written “IHillary” on the board, he would have received a pat on the back instead of a beating? In Montgomery County, Maryland, anti-Trump students severely beat up a classmate for wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap. Ditching school, the irony-challenged perpetrators brandished signs reading, “Love Trumps Hate.”
To state the obvious, bullying is wrong, but it’s especially galling when bullying is condoned and encouraged by teachers. Educators owe it to their students to tell them that the election is over, and that Trump won fair and square. Marching and screaming won’t change anything. Fanning flames and ratcheting up the indoctrination of our kids is unacceptable. If they must develop post-election lesson plans, why not focus on how the Electoral College works? Or on the great tradition our country has for a peaceful transfer of power? Teachers might suggest to their students that they follow the advice of President Obama, who said that we should give Trump a chance.
President Obama on Tuesday ordered U.S.-owned waters in the Arctic Ocean and certain areas in the Atlantic Ocean placed “indefinitely” off-limits for future oil and gas leases, in a final fossil-fuel crackdown before he leaves office.
The move, intended to protect the area’s ecosystem, is a final push by Obama to seal his environmental legacy, and a possible way to bind the hands of his successor.
“Today, in partnership with our neighbors and allies in Canada, the United States is taking historic steps to build a strong Arctic economy, preserve a healthy Arctic ecosystem and protect our fragile Arctic waters, including designating the bulk of our Arctic water and certain areas in the Atlantic Ocean as indefinitely off limits to future oil and gas leasing,” the White House said in a statement, issued while Obama is on vacation with his family in Hawaii.
The White House announced the actions in conjunction with the government of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which also placed a moratorium on new oil and gas leasing in its Arctic waters, subject to periodic review.
The Atlantic waters placed off limits to new oil and gas leasing are 31 canyons stretching off the coast of New England south to Virginia.
Industry groups swiftly protested.
Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) Senior Vice President Dan Naatz said in a statement the group was “extremely disappointed in President Obama’s eleventh hour decision to shut down economic development and lock away America’s true energy potential for communities that need it most.”
Although the move uses executive powers, environmental groups are hoping the ban will be difficult for President-elect Donald Trump to reverse. The billionaire has repeatedly pledged to unleash the nation’s untapped oil and natural gas reserves.
Obama used a 1953 provision that allows the president to ban offshore leases in the outer Continental Shelf permanently. The administration has been considering opening an area of the Atlantic Coast to drill, but has slowly backed away from the idea, culminating in Tuesday’s announcement. Earlier this year, the administration removed potential Atlantic lease sales from its blueprint for offshore drilling. But that ban only applies to a five-year period starting in 2017, and could be more easily reversed by Trump in his own five-year blueprint.
Trump is looking to fill his administration with nominees who opposed Obama’s environmental agenda. He has tapped Environmental Protection Agency opponent Scott Pruitt to head the agency, and has picked former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to head the Department of Energy, which Perry once vowed to eliminate. Trump has called for more offshore drilling and to make the U.S. energy self-sufficient.
Some in the industry have expressed confidence the ban will not stand under the Trump administration, noting he can simply issue a new proclamation after taking office.
“There’s no such thing as a permanent ban,” Erik Milito, a policy director at the American Petroleum Institute, told The Associated Press.
However, Niel Lawrence, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the AP that the result of a Trump proclamation isn’t that simple, as while the statute says a president can withdraw waters from the country’s leasing plans, “it doesn’t say you can put back in.”
If Trump does issue an order reversing Obama’s proclamation, it would be up to environmental groups or others to challenge his actions in court. If he doesn’t, then it would be up to Congress to intervene.
Fourteen senators had signed a letter calling on Obama to ban offshore drilling permanently. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., had said before the announcement that he doesn’t think future administrations can undo the order without congressional approval.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
By Daniel Greenfield
After Trump won and recount efforts failed, the left gambled all it had on trying to sway members of the Electoral College to hijack the election. That plan was obviously doomed, but certain people were interested in pushing it for various reasons. This led to massive harassment of electors. And now to, unprecedentedly, police protection for electors.
The left has taken us back to Tammany Hall elections.
Electors in Pennsylvania will have police protection as they cast their ballots on Monday, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported.
One Pennsylvania elector, Ash Khare, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that he receives thousands of emails a day trying to sway his vote.
“I’m a big boy. But this is stupid,” Khare told the Post-Gazette. “Nobody is standing up and telling these people, ‘Enough, knock it off.’”
The messages have escalated to death threats, and so the 20 electors will have state troopers escorting them to cast their votes Monday.
It goes without saying that this behavior is insane. The electors are not about to make Hillary president in response to death threats. This is just deranged behavior by the left, and much like the pre and post-election riots targeting Trump, no one in a position of authority is calling a halt to it, instead they, and I include the media in that, are pouring more gasoline on the flames.
This is the result.
While the media rants about fake news. It feeds ugly hysteria with its fake news that leads to scenes like this. The left is destroying our system of elections while bleating about the need to censor everyone else’s fake news.
The Daily Signal
Americans could be forgiven for thinking fracking poses an inherent threat to groundwater.
The anti-fossil fuel “Keep It in the Ground” movement has waged a multimillion-dollar campaign to convince the public of that exact claim, even though there has never been any evidence to support the accusation.
Indeed, anti-fracking activists were peddling “fake news” long before the media professed any concern about it.
But a landmark report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, released earlier this month, finally puts that talking point to bed. After more than half a decade of study, the EPA concluded that “the number of identified cases of drinking water contamination is small” compared to the total number of hydraulically fractured wells.
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.
Put differently, activist claims about “inherent risks” to groundwater are simply not true.
Of course, the EPA did its best to soften the blow to the “Keep It in the Ground” crowd. The agency stressed that oil and gas development as a whole “can” have impacts “under some circumstances,” a fact that was already known before the EPA began spending nearly $30 million in taxpayer money to assess the risk.
The EPA also claimed “data gaps and uncertainties” prevented it from making broad-scale conclusions, which is odd considering how Congress appropriated the EPA the money in order to derive a conclusion about the overall risk.
In the agency’s draft report, released in the summer of 2015, the EPA explicitly said it “did not find evidence that these mechanisms [fracking] have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.” The data did not change, but the EPA removed that line from the final report.
The EPA is now defensively claiming that political pressure played no role in how it characterized its results.
Regardless of the EPA’s press strategy, one thing is abundantly clear. The lack of evidence of water contamination from fracking is now the data.
Multiple officials at the EPA, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Geological Survey have either said there is no evidence of widespread contamination or have released reports showing no such evidence exists.
Peer-reviewed studies have consistently found little if anything to substantiate the idea that fracking can contaminate groundwater.
At a certain point, you have to accept that the lack of evidence actually means something, especially considering the extensive studies that have taken place.
But if you’re waiting for environmental groups to acknowledge the scientific realities of fracking, don’t hold your breath.
The Sierra Club still claims on its website that “fracking has contaminated the drinking water of hundreds of thousands of Americans.” Food & Water Watch responded to the EPA’s report by claiming it shows “the inherent harms and hazards of fracking.”
It’s odd how members of “Keep It in the Ground” love to call their opponents science deniers, considering they are willfully denying what the scientific community has said and continues to say about fracking.
Anti-fracking groups have done a masterful job of scaring the public about oil and gas development. Thankfully, we now have proof that their central claim is without merit.
The Daily Signal
Democrats have lied about Obamacare from the beginning, but outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., apparently intends to tell the biggest lie of all as he exits the Washington scene.
In an interview about whether Republicans in Congress would make good on their promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Reid said, “You get rid of Obamacare, people are going to die.”
President Barack Obama’s promise that if we liked our doctor we could keep our doctor turned out not to be true, and so did his pledge that health care premium costs would go down. As millions of Americans eventually found out, they went up.
But a politician failing to keep his promises, as egregious as those two were, pales in comparison to Reid’s outrageous and baseless comments that “people are going to die” if the failing law is repealed and replaced.
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.
Perhaps what Reid should consider are the real-life stories of people who have lost their lives because of Obamacare.
People like Frank Alfisi, who was refused dialysis in the emergency room because of a new Medicare regulation put in place via Obamacare. Or Julie, a mother of four, who delayed seeking medical attention waiting for her new government-approved insurance to kick in because her family’s private health care had been canceled. Or Linda, a Nevada woman who was delayed in getting treatment for a brain tumor because of enrollment snafus in her state’s Obamacare exchange.
Though Reid offered no proof for his comments, he seemed to suggest that repealing the unaffordable Affordable Care Act would cause the health care insurance marketplace to collapse—and that this was the GOP’s plan, stating, “Can you think of … something more cold and calculated than that.”
Yet, it is because of Obamacare that next year, 33 states will have fewer insurers offering individual coverage on the exchanges than they did this year.
The country’s largest health care provider, UnitedHealthcare, announced last April that it was pulling out of the majority of the exchanges due to high costs. Humana also says it is cutting back, and Blue Cross Blue Shield has already moved to reduce its offerings in several states.
If Reid is so concerned about the collapse of the health care marketplace, perhaps he and his pal House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., should have read the Obamacare bill before they, without one Republican vote, passed it.
And let’s be clear about one other matter.
The majority of new health care enrollments via Obamacare came by putting people on Medicaid. And as studies show, not only do patients with Medicaid receive poorer care than those who have private insurance, but because of low reimbursement rates, more and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicaid patients, meaning individuals on Medicaid are having a harder time finding primary care doctors and specialists to treat them.
So just because someone has been given a Medicaid card with their name on it doesn’t mean they are able to get the health care they need. All Obamacare has done is added millions more people to a program that was already failing the people it is supposed to serve.
Democrats’ refusal to see the truth about Obamacare and how it is hurting the American people is one of the main reasons Republicans won the presidency and retained control of both the House and Senate.
Somebody needs to tell Harry.
Here’s an eye-opening post by historian and financial expert Martin Armstrong on the REAL history of climate change and its effects…