Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/23/2005 10:09:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 10:15:36 AM EDT by lippo]
Higher education making more and more idiots every day!

Looks like Yale's diploma = worthless


www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29953


Published Thursday, September 22, 2005
Putting an end to Constitution worship

This past Saturday was something called "Constitution Day," though, except for some obnoxious fliers around campus put up by the Orwellian-sounding Committee for Freedom, you can be forgiven for not knowing that. Constitution Day is a new quasi-holiday foisted upon us by Congress at the behest of Sen. Robert Byrd to force schools receiving public money -- including Yale -- to set aside time on the anniversary of the document's adoption in 1787 to teach about the Constitution.

This holiday is another ridiculous example of the "sanctimonious reverence," as Thomas Jefferson termed it, in which many Americans hold the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Both documents no doubt played important roles in the American colonies' struggle to free themselves from British rule and establish a new nation. Recognizing them as crucial pieces of American history is one thing, but worshiping them like sacred texts goes too far.

The Constitution in particular needs to be stripped of much of the mystic awe surrounding it, since it continues to shape American political life, yet suffers from serious flaws. Many of these flaws could be corrected by wise legislation, if only legislators, and the public, were not so deeply attached to the Constitution that they cringe before any attempt to substantively alter it.

The Constitution, while laying the foundation for the creation of a great American nation, was also very much a product of its time. Though it has mostly aged well, the Constitution has also given us a rigid 18th-century political system not always well suited to the modern world. Even with its amendments, the document is fraught with problems too rarely acknowledged by politicians or the public.

As Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic. (I guess these to Bozos don't know that we live in a Representative Republic and not a democracy. ) Since Wyoming, with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, has the same clout in the Senate as California, with almost 34 million, each Wyomingite counts 68 times as much as each Californian. The Constitution is also responsible for burdening us with the Electoral College, a body designed to purposely undermine popular sovereignty. The 2000 election, when Al Gore outpolled George Bush but was denied the presidency by the Electoral College (with an assist by the Supreme Court), is the most recent example of 18th-century oligarchy trampling 21st-century democracy. (So there you have it. The truth! This guy is a dyed in the wool liberal, blinded by stupidity and selfishness)

Besides being undemocratic, the Constitution is also, in places, just poorly written. Take the Second Amendment, which mentions the need for a well-regulated militia and conferring the right to bear arms. Because of the Framers' unclear wording, no one has been able to establish definitively whether this right belongs only to the militia or to individuals. The easiest and fairest solution would be to just rewrite the Second Amendment, but because the Constitution has taken on the aura of sanctity in our political culture, there is little likelihood of that happening.

Adhering to the Framers' "original intent," as many conservatives would have us do, is a recipe for oligarchy (which was, after all, what the Framers wanted). Creating the Electoral College and denying the vote to women, blacks and poor people were both part of the Framers' desire to keep power in the hands of people like themselves (and I have a sneaking suspicion many "strict constructionalists" would prefer things that way). The main alternative -- seeing the Constitution as a "living document" subject to constant reinterpretation -- is also anti-democratic, since it allows the judiciary to usurp power from the elected legislative branch. The Constitution needs changing, but it should not be up to the courts to change it.

Some of the Constitution's worst features have, it is true, been corrected by amendment -- though in the case of ending slavery and giving blacks the vote, the price was civil war. The Framers deliberately made changing the Constitution difficult, but at the price of a rigidity that has made the U.S. political system ossified and anachronistic. Jefferson argued that each generation should modify the Constitution to fit its own times, since "each generation has the same right of self-government [as] the past one." Jefferson's modest regard of the Constitution as an edifice in need of constant repair is a much better way of think of our nation's most important document than the sanctimony that has given us "Constitution Day."

Jeff Mankoff is a sixth-year Ph.D. student in the History Department. (Six years means...Jeff = )




Get ready folks, because this is what the Democratic party has become. If they get back into power, kiss your Rights good bye and say hello to becoming a slave to a system.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:12:22 AM EDT
Something tells me that 1) Jeff isn't all that good of a history student; and 2) with his alma mater being Yale, with his attitude he certainly won't be getting tapped to hang out in the Skull & Crossbones crypt.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:17:20 AM EDT

As Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic.


We are a representative republic, not a democracy.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:17:42 AM EDT
I love hearing that the Constitution is a "Living, breathing document"

I admit- occasionally changes (additions, etc) must be made... but none that repeal rights...
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:17:44 AM EDT

Besides being undemocratic, the Constitution is also...


He's a Ph.D student and he still doesn't realize that we live in a Republic and not a Democracy. Obviously, he needs to study the Constitution more himself before he goes bashing it.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:18:56 AM EDT
This is at the top of the list for Stupidest Thing I've Read Today.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:20:03 AM EDT
What a dumb fuck!
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:20:14 AM EDT
Apparently Jeff never noticed in his six years of PhD work that Thomas Jefferson had exactly ZERO involvement with the drafting of the Constitution. Yet he quotes or paraphrases Jefferson three times as though he were the sole authority on the document.

James Madison spent the last 39 years of Jefferson's life trying to straighten out Jefferson's distorted views of what the Constitution did and did not do.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:22:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
This is at the top of the list for Stupidest Thing I've Read Today.



This DEFINANTLY takes the cake
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:22:31 AM EDT
Hey give the guy a break- he's still a student!

"Layne, I have been here seven years... I am no dummy"
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:24:25 AM EDT
Hey, well at least they are admitting it now. Admitting that they are enemies of the Constitution. They have gotten so used to merely paying it lip-service while completely disregarding it that they figure 'what the fuck, why even pretend because no one obviously cares.'


As mad as this makes me, I am glad this article was written, and I hope that more of these cocksuckers will follow this lead and 'come out of the closet.' No more excuses of why we can't protect the Constitution from these people based on the fact that they pretend to be incapable of reading the english language. They are our enemies. Plain and simple.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:25:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 10:26:16 AM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:31:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EternalVigilance:
Hey, well at least they are admitting it now. Admitting that they are enemies of the Constitution. They have gotten so used to merely paying it lip-service while completely disregarding it that they figure 'what the fuck, why even pretend because no one obviously cares.'


As mad as this makes me, I am glad this article was written, and I hope that more of these cocksuckers will follow this lead and 'come out of the closet.' No more excuses of why we can't protect the Constitution from these people based on the fact that they pretend to be incapable of reading the english language. They are our enemies. Plain and simple.



Yes indeed. Our enemies are making themselves known.

I wonder what this asshat's response would be when reminded that the full power and force of the entire US Military is sworn to defend that piece of paper that he hates so badly.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:36:42 AM EDT
An even better question for our illustrious scribe: If the Constitution is not worth abiding by, why cannot the government throw his useless rear in prison for printing such a screed? And Mr. Mankoff you are not allowed to claim a First Amendment right. That would be mere Constitution worship, and a bad thing. We would not want you to be a hypocrite.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:40:17 AM EDT


I am shocked - shocked that an Ivy League historian is denigrating the US Constitution.

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:44:10 AM EDT
When the Supreme Court handed down it's Roe vs Wade ruling the libs all cried "it's the Constitution" all hail the almighty constitution. If it's a right in the Constitution you must bow down and worship...after all SCOTUS never, ever makes a mistake."!

Now faced with the real prospect that SCOTUS might overturn Roe or that their pet projects can't be passed via amendment... they suddenly have nothing to do with the Constitution and it's not THAT important! ah, the irony.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:44:21 AM EDT

Many of these flaws could be corrected by wise legislation,


Not that we were short on ways to discredit the author here but does has he even read the Constitution?
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:47:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:50:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Many of these flaws could be corrected by wise legislation,


Not that we were short on ways to discredit the author here but does has he even read the Constitution?



And then there is the obvious question, "Wise according to whom?"

The moron who wrote this piece of flatulent bilge?
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:50:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By EternalVigilance:
Hey, well at least they are admitting it now. Admitting that they are enemies of the Constitution. They have gotten so used to merely paying it lip-service while completely disregarding it that they figure 'what the fuck, why even pretend because no one obviously cares.'


As mad as this makes me, I am glad this article was written, and I hope that more of these cocksuckers will follow this lead and 'come out of the closet.' No more excuses of why we can't protect the Constitution from these people based on the fact that they pretend to be incapable of reading the english language. They are our enemies. Plain and simple.



Yes indeed. Our enemies are making themselves known.

I wonder what this asshat's response would be when reminded that the full power and force of the entire US Military is sworn to defend that piece of paper that he hates so badly.




He must know the "I hate the soldiers" moron.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:51:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By illigb:

As Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic.


We are a representative republic, not a democracy.



Yes, let's just rub out those nasty little state boundaries and in time we'll rub out the national boundaries too. Same logic.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:56:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

I am shocked - shocked that an Ivy League historian is denigrating the US Constitution.





Shocked even more that anyone is getting their tits in a wringer over anything said Ivy League Historian has to expound upon.


Fuck em. He's stupid.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 10:57:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 10:58:56 AM EDT by elkmontarms]
Another College Prof that has no idea how the real world works. When I went to college I was amazed at how many so called Prof's and Teachers had no clue how the real world works. I always thought it was funny we were told to learn business from a Professor that has never owned a business or worked out side the institution in his life. Go Figure. Look at the Forbes top 400 rich folks and notice how many have finished college. Some of them will suprise you.

The most sucessful folks I know personally have never had 1 semster of college.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:01:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By elkmontarms:
Another College Prof that has no idea how the real world works. When I went to college I was amazed at how many so called Prof's and Teachers had no clue how the real world works. I always thought it was funny we were told to learn business from a Professor that has never owned a business or worked out side the institution in his life. Go Figure. Look at the Forbes top 400 rich folks and notice how many have finished college. Some of them will suprise you.

The most sucessful folks I know personally have never had 1 semster of college.




Those who can't do, teach.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:04:34 AM EDT
wow, cant believe i read something that dumb. he needs a kick in the mouth.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:07:01 AM EDT
An article like that should have a warning up front:


WARNING: READING THIS TRIPE KILLS BRAIN CELLS. YOU MAY END UP AS STUPID AS THE AUTHOR.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:07:15 AM EDT



Jeff Mankoff is a sixth-year Ph.D. student in the History Department. (Six years means...Jeff = )



The only thing I'll take issue with...six years is not unreasonable for a Ph.D.. Many Ph.D.s take the better part of a decade from start to finish.

Look at the average time-in-program for a handful of doctorates and you'll vomit.

Jim
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:10:06 AM EDT

Besides being undemocratic, the Constitution is also, in places, just poorly written. Take the Second Amendment, which mentions the need for a well-regulated militia and conferring the right to bear arms. Because of the Framers' unclear wording, no one has been able to establish definitively whether this right belongs only to the militia or to individuals. The easiest and fairest solution would be to just rewrite the Second Amendment, which would allow leftists such as myself and my cronies to disarm America with one fell swoop of our pen and destroy right-wing gun culture because it scares the piss out of me, but because the Constitution has taken on the aura of sanctity in our political culture, there is little likelihood of that happening.




Easiest and fairest, huh? Easy and fair to whom, exactly? I don't think I'd trust our current crop of asshats to rewrite a bedrock principle of our way of life in a way that would be easy or fair to any of us.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:10:39 AM EDT

At no point in your rambling, did you even come close to an intelligent thought. I award you no points, may God have mercy on your soul.


A little Billy Madison seems appropriate.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:11:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KS_Physicist:



Jeff Mankoff is a sixth-year Ph.D. student in the History Department. (Six years means...Jeff = )



The only thing I'll take issue with...six years is not unreasonable for a Ph.D.. Many Ph.D.s take the better part of a decade from start to finish.

Look at the average time-in-program for a handful of doctorates and you'll vomit.

Jim


I finished my Masters and PhD work (in Constitutional History, imagine that) in a total of four years.

A PhD in History should not take 6 years. It's not like the hard sciences. Finish the courses, pass your comps, write your thesis. With the internet availablity of many archives today, you can do a lot of the thesis research without leaving your home.

<--- shrugs.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:14:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
I've never opened a thread before which actually sucked my IQ out through my eyeballs before. Where shall we start?

As Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic.
We're NOT a democracy.

Since Wyoming, with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, has the same clout in the Senate as California, with almost 34 million, each Wyomingite counts 68 times as much as each Californian.
However, California has the same clout as Wyoming in the house of Representatives. The Honorable Gentleman should know that the Founding Fathers actually did understand and struggle with the inherent problems in each form of legislature, so they stole a page from ARFCOM: they got both. It is called a bicameral legislature. The inequalities are intended to cancel each other out. The Honorable Gentleman does not say whether they do or not, in his opinion.

Besides being undemocratic, the Constitution is also, in places, just poorly written. Take the Second Amendment, which mentions the need for a well-regulated militia and conferring the right to bear arms. Because of the Framers' unclear wording, no one has been able to establish definitively whether this right belongs only to the militia or to individuals.
I fail to understand how it is so unclear. Because there is a need for a militia which can respond properly, the right of each person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Creating the Electoral College and denying the vote to women, blacks and poor people were both part of the Framers' desire to keep power in the hands of people like themselves
The writers of the Constitution desired to end slavery, but the States said they wouldn't ratify if an emancipation was written in. The Founders compromised with the 3/5s rule. Surely the Honorable Gentleman is aware of this also.
I'm sure an email to him would result in "It's just my opinion! Let's agree to disagree." response from him.



Doublefeed for President!
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:18:11 AM EDT
He is just spreading propaganda.

He knows how the system works he just doesn't like it.

That whole WY has the same clout as CA is just killing him.

Too bad pal, we like it the way it was designed to be


GM

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:23:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 11:27:07 AM EDT by TimJ]
Jeff Wankoff can kiss my Constitution revering fat American ass (if he can slip in under my grazing fire).

6th year PhD (Pile it Higher and Deeper) student? That's like being a 8th year BA student. Of course, he'll be just what we need. The last of a dying breed-a socialist with a PhD in political science. Jeff, practice saying "Do you to super size?" you worthless fuck.

My 1st grader knows more about America than you do. "...and to the Republic, for which it stands....". Yeah, he knows we're not a democracy (or mobocracy, as it really is). We've had that talk. My 4th grader probably knows more about the entire Constitution than you do.


Christ, Yale used to trun out great minds, not imbeciles who trash the greatest political document ever concieved by man (flawed as it is-damned Federalists).

And he admits to having a psychological aversion to firearms. "A fear of firearms is a sign of retarded emotional and sexual development" Freud

Hey Jeff, when you ban guns, don't be like Bush and send the poor and downtrodden off to fght your war, come yourself, to my doorstep, and try to take them, you pussy.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:28:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By illigb:

As Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic.


We are a representative republic, not a democracy.



But we are a independent democracy. Its the same thing as representative republic. Right??

cuz i just wrote a paper on our Constitution of civics class.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:35:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:44:59 AM EDT
I never liked the term "representative republic" because a republic is by it's very nature representative. The United States of America should be more correctly referred to as a federal republic. I can only imagine how this guy and the rest of his "doctor" buddies would "rewrite" and "clarify" the Second Amendment...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The State Militia, as embodied by the State National Guard, shall have the right to bear arms.

No thanks, college boy.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:48:27 AM EDT
There is nothing worng with changing the Constitution. Its been done many times.

They're called Amendments.


This asshole just wants the legislature to ignore the constitution simply because he doesn't agree with it.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:49:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:52:09 AM EDT
I'm taking American History II down at our community college this semester and we had to devote our class time Monday because of this requirment. The instructor actually said this: "It has been mandated by the government we spend an entire class meeting discussing the Constitution (displeased smirk), I could think of better things we need to address but this is mandatory." Of course better things to her are how evil white people have been throughout history, FDR is the best president the US ever had, labor unions and socialism were unfairly repressed, and she must say the word progressive in at least every other sentence.

She went around the room and asked what everyone thought was the most important amendment. I was the only one that said the second, most of the little teenagers in there had to crack open the book to look at a list to find out what exactly each one was

We spent the rest of the time on the Patriot Act, she said how it was wrong for the government to pay extra attention to Muslims and mosques in the war on terror and that was profiling. She asked what we thought about it and I said : "I guess it all depends on who's side your own"

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:09:43 PM EDT
I am taking an online sociology class for my degree requirement and it is agonizing - I have simply stopped reading the text. It may as well be "Victimhood 101". I do not need to hear all of the drivel about how everyone is a victim except the white man because I've heard it all already.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:41:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
I'm taking American History II down at our community college this semester and we had to devote our class time Monday because of this requirment. The instructor actually said this: "It has been mandated by the government we spend an entire class meeting discussing the Constitution (displeased smirk), I could think of better things we need to address but this is mandatory." Of course better things to her are how evil white people have been throughout history, FDR is the best president the US ever had, labor unions and socialism were unfairly repressed, and she must say the word progressive in at least every other sentence.

She went around the room and asked what everyone thought was the most important amendment. I was the only one that said the second, most of the little teenagers in there had to crack open the book to look at a list to find out what exactly each one was

We spent the rest of the time on the Patriot Act, she said how it was wrong for the government to pay extra attention to Muslims and mosques in the war on terror and that was profiling. She asked what we thought about it and I said : "I guess it all depends on who's side your own"




I would have said the 9th or 10th amendment.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:45:00 PM EDT
Send him to.....Detroit.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:59:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 1:01:17 PM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
I'm taking American History II down at our community college this semester and we had to devote our class time Monday because of this requirment. The instructor actually said this: "It has been mandated by the government we spend an entire class meeting discussing the Constitution (displeased smirk), I could think of better things we need to address but this is mandatory." Of course better things to her are how evil white people have been throughout history, FDR is the best president the US ever had, labor unions and socialism were unfairly repressed, and she must say the word progressive in at least every other sentence.

She went around the room and asked what everyone thought was the most important amendment. I was the only one that said the second, most of the little teenagers in there had to crack open the book to look at a list to find out what exactly each one was

We spent the rest of the time on the Patriot Act, she said how it was wrong for the government to pay extra attention to Muslims and mosques in the war on terror and that was profiling. She asked what we thought about it and I said : "I guess it all depends on who's side your own"




I would have said the 9th or 10th amendment.



I was going to say you were wrong, but you might be right. Because the 2nd Amendment is just "recognizing" an INALIENABLE Right of self defense and self determination. One, not to be transfered or Surrendered at any point. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you that Right, like the 3rd Amendment doesn't allow soldiers to be quartered in your home...God gives you, your 2nd Amendment Rights. The Bill of Rights just states that fact and the fact that under invasion, it's our Right to defend our Homes, our States, and our Nation.

But on the other hand, you could still be wrong, because...without the 2nd Amendment, you are not guaranteed any of the others. How are you going to defend your Rights if you don't have the INALIENABLE (not to be surrendered) Right of weaponry for the defense or yourself or your other Rights?
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 1:03:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Send him to.....Detroit.



+1 for a fine reference!
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 1:15:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
I'm taking American History II down at our community college this semester and we had to devote our class time Monday because of this requirment. The instructor actually said this: "It has been mandated by the government we spend an entire class meeting discussing the Constitution (displeased smirk), I could think of better things we need to address but this is mandatory." Of course better things to her are how evil white people have been throughout history, FDR is the best president the US ever had, labor unions and socialism were unfairly repressed, and she must say the word progressive in at least every other sentence.

She went around the room and asked what everyone thought was the most important amendment. I was the only one that said the second, most of the little teenagers in there had to crack open the book to look at a list to find out what exactly each one was

We spent the rest of the time on the Patriot Act, she said how it was wrong for the government to pay extra attention to Muslims and mosques in the war on terror and that was profiling. She asked what we thought about it and I said : "I guess it all depends on who's side your own"




I would have said the 9th or 10th amendment.




The 10th sounds nice but haven't the SCOTUS rulings about interstate commerce made it meaningless ? I'm asking because I'm not really sure but that is the way I have understood it. Seems like they think everything is interstate commerce and that makes it the Feds business.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 1:27:24 PM EDT

Besides being undemocratic, the Constitution is also, in places, just poorly written. Take the Second Amendment, which mentions the need for a well-regulated militia and conferring the right to bear arms. Because of the Framers' unclear wording, no one has been able to establish definitively whether this right belongs only to the militia or to individuals.


It's only unclear when you have an irrational fear of guns, and want to ban them.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 1:39:22 PM EDT
...............against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

OK I think we can add this guy to the "domestic" list.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 2:23:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

I am shocked - shocked that an Ivy League historian is denigrating the US Constitution.





Shocked even more that anyone is getting their tits in a wringer over anything said Ivy League Historian has to expound upon.


Fuck em. He's stupid.



But you miss the point. If this is what is taught in schools (it was in my case), this is what people will think. It doesn't matter if they're stupid or not, they're influencing minds.
Link Posted: 9/24/2005 8:00:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2005 8:01:22 AM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By lu380:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

I am shocked - shocked that an Ivy League historian is denigrating the US Constitution.





Shocked even more that anyone is getting their tits in a wringer over anything said Ivy League Historian has to expound upon.


Fuck em. He's stupid.



But you miss the point. If this is what is taught in schools (it was in my case), this is what people will think. It doesn't matter if they're stupid or not, they're influencing minds.



+1

We need more gun loving shooters teaching, in the medical professions, in the broadcast arts and as lawyers. If we all took control of these professions, we wouldn't have the problems that we face today. Liberals have infected and taken the majority of control of every job position that educates the public and our children. We need to take that from them. Cut off the ability to control the blatant lies the mass media puts out there and the blatant disinformation the teachers plant into the children and their "agenda" would fail and their control would fall to the wayside. Truth would come back to the minds of our children and maybe to the public at large. The "average" joe, believes what they hear on the TV. Just like reading a book, if it's in a book or on the TV, it must be true...so the average joe replies.
Top Top