Totally Predictable, as in Mentally Mechanical

Right on Cue, the switch is thrown and the mechanical response is made by the bot brained Leftists, reported and highly lauded.

Dem Sen Blumenthal: Trump’s Suggestion to Arm Teachers ‘Absolutely Abhorrent’

For the Left, Free Fire Zones are a protected "Right" given to the children.

The Racial Tragedies Caused For Blacks by the Left

Excerpted from Left Behind.

The failures of education are especially vivid among the children of the so-called inner city — polite code for black. The school troubles of this group may be attributed to an array of other problems, starting with a social services system that pays teenage girls to have babies without a father present in the house, and the inept parenting that follows in chaotic homes. You could argue that children produced in those conditions are so damaged by the time they get to first grade that they can’t recover.

Under Barack Obama’s Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, a policy called “racial equity” was devised to mitigate the embarrassing problem of black students being suspended or disciplined disproportionately for atrocious behavior in the classroom. The “solution” to that was to just stop enforcing behavioral standards. The policy placed the blame for students’ disruptive behavior on the “cultural insensitivity” of the teachers and staff, and more generally on “white privilege.” The result, naturally, is greater chaos and dysfunction in the classroom. It is worth reading the piece by Katherine Kersten in City Journal on how this worked out in the St. Paul, Minnesota, district.

Arne Duncan was also responsible for mis-applying federal “Title Nine” law on college campuses (originally drawn up to balance funding of men’s and women’s sports), where it was used to promote the extra-legal prosecution of rape allegations in what amounted to campus kangaroo courts run by ideologues unconstrained by due process. This has produced a star chamber climate of persecution across the country, nicely in-step with the officially sanctioned coercions of the cultural Maoists who are destroying the intellectual life of American higher ed.

American schooling from kindergarten to post-doc has entered a phase of epic failure under the watch of several generations of federal policy “experts.” It suffers from several other illnesses than the ones I’ve already mentioned, namely the tragic over-centralization of school districts into giant schools; and the odious racketeering in loans that drives college education. Betsy DeVos has a lot of damage to undo engineered by her exquisitely qualified predecessors.

The Abortion Slippery Slope Is Real: Time to Abort Ethicists

Killing one's progeny is now so common that it is just another thread in the social fabric, which is a shroud.

Declaring War on Newborns

The authors point out that each of these conditions​—​the baby is sick or suffering, the baby will be a financial hardship, the baby will be personally troublesome​​—​​is now “largely accepted” as a good reason for a mother to abort her baby before he’s born. So why not after?

Yes. People who are personally troublesome should be aborted... at any age. That is the ethic of the totalitarian elitist, the one who is able to decide life/death for others, all for the common good of, well, that doesn't matter: "Common Good" is enough, and it is non-specific, a benefit to any rhetoric.

“When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” (Their italics.) Western societies approve abortion because they have reached a consensus that a fetus is not a person; they should acknowledge that by the same definition a newborn isn’t a person either.

And of course we need to tell everyone exactly how "person" should be defined:

Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it. The kid will never know the difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung around a bit too long.

And an ethicist is just an arrogant elitist who has "hung around too long". Not a real person; a parasite. What parasite is defined as a person?

As the authors acknowledge, this makes an “after-birth abortion” a tricky business. You have to get to the infant before he develops “those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” It’s a race against time.

The article doesn’t go on for more than 1,500 words, but for non-ethicists it has a high surprise-per-word ratio. The information that newborn babies aren’t people is just the beginning. A reader learns that “many non-human animals … are persons” and therefore enjoy a “right to life.” (Such ruminative ruminants, unlike babies, are self-aware enough to know that getting killed will entail a “loss of value.”) The authors don’t tell us which species these “non-human persons” belong to, but it’s safe to say that you don’t want to take a medical ethicist to dinner at Outback.

But what about adoption, you ask. The authors ask that question too, noting that some people​—​you and me, for example​—​might think that adoption could buy enough time for the unwanted newborn to technically become a person and “possibly increase the happiness of the people involved.” But this is not a viable option, if you’ll forgive the expression. A mother who kills her newborn baby, the authors report, is forced to “accept the irreversibility of the loss.” By contrast, a mother who gives her baby up for adoption “might suffer psychological distress.” And for a very simple reason: These mothers “often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible.” It’s simpler for all concerned just to make sure the loss can’t be reversed. It’ll spare Mom a lot of heartbreak.

Now, it’s at this point in the Journal of Medical Ethics that many readers will begin to suspect, as I did, that their legs are being not very subtly pulled. The inversion that the argument entails is Swiftian​—​a twenty-first-century Modest Proposal without the cannibalism (for now). Jonathan Swift’s original Modest Proposal called for killing Irish children to prevent them “from being a burden to their parents.” It was death by compassion, the killing of innocents based on a surfeit of fellow-feeling. The authors agree that compassion itself demands the death of newborns. Unlike Swift, though, they aren’t kidding.

Because "progress" requires more change away from norms, it will never stop. Every change, such as abortion, becomes a norm, and therefore in order to have progress the culture must change even further from that norm. Constant change evermore toward the darkness is required in order to pursue progress. And that's why darkness is rationalized as "good", and the darkness is redefined as "light".

Tolerance Of Absolutely Everything, Except Dissent

UnAmerican ESPN

What a joy it must be to be a leftist knucklehead. There's your opinion — and then there's hate. There's free speech for all — except those who disagree with you. There's tolerance for everyone — except the opposition. There's every kind of diversity — except diversity of thought.

It's a terrific system. You never have to prove your point, you only have to bask in the glow of your own unassailable virtue. You never have to explain how it is that, after decades of pure left-wing governance, Detroit is in ruins and Chicago is following after. You never have to try to understand why, after living under your wonderful non-racist left-wing policies, black people are deserting your cities in droves. You never have to confront the fact that after years of Feminism Triumphant, women are killing themselves in record numbers. Every time reality proves you wrong, all you have to do is point your finger at a conservative and make that noise Donald Sutherland makes at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Then you all congratulate each other on a job well done and go back to laying ruin to the world.

The Intersection Between the Leftist Control of Science Fiction and Pedophilia

The continued Leftist SF cabal's glorification of certain science fiction authors who were child rapists is elaborated in this series:

Safe Space as Rape Room: Science Fiction Culture and Childhood’s End

For the Left, morality is an evanescent concept which never rests on absolute grounding. Thus there is a spectrum of behaviors, all of which are "normal", if done by the favored class. There exists no such thing as a conscience, because that would require a grounded morality which could be violated. A flexible morality cannot be violated; it is changeable at a moment's notice because it is made up by the AtheoLeftist to fit his own desires, lifestyle and proclivities of the moment. That's the advantage to declaring yourself to be the sole moral authority in your own personal universe.

When Real Men Had Principles

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

Napier, William. (1851) History Of General Sir Charles Napier's Administration Of Scinde. (P. 35). London: Chapman and Hall [1] at books.google.com. Retrieved 11 October 2013"

This quote (found in Wikipedia) was referenced by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, regarding the cowardly military administration of posts in Afghanistan:

U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies
"KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.

The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militias to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children."

Because: diversity, tolerance, Islam. Obama replaced all commanders who had actual principles. This is what we have now.

Addendum:
Vox Day makes a point: People who ascribe to this culture should not be allowed into western cultures. A significant number of refugees are Afghani, and even more are Muslim. Apparently the prophet did not address pedophilia... the oppression of women, yes. But the oppression of children, no?

Planned Parenthood, Caught Selling Body Parts on the Black Market

Planned Parenthood's Fetal Flaw

"We may never know the full extent of evil that goes on behind Planned Parenthood's closed doors. But we know enough. In a world where killing is currency and empires are built on the backs of innocent children, maybe nothing should surprise us. And yet, it does -- with every new story of the abortion industry's inhumanity.

This morning, pro-lifers awoke to another scandal: the news that Planned Parenthood -- the same organization President Obama routinely praises, speaks to, and fundraises for -- is involved in a black market of body parts. The ghoulish details are the subject of an undercover video just released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), featuring a woman extremely high up in Planned Parenthood's chain of command: Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola.

In a nonchalant conversation over lunch, when most people would have lost their appetite, Nucatola tamely describes how she orchestrates abortions to produce the "intact parts" clients want. Posing as buyers from a human biologics company, CMP carefully pulls back the curtain on the dark world of human harvesting. Like something out of a science fiction novel, Nucatola casually explains that the organization charges anywhere from $30 to $100 per piece, depending on the demand for the specific organ or tissue.

"There is not [an abortion] provider out there," she says enthusiastically, "who doesn't want this. Everybody just sees this as a way to add another layer of good on top of what they're already doing." With shocking clarity, Nucatola sips her wine and talks about how she personally coaches clinics to perform abortions that minimize the damage on the baby's profitable parts. "If you maintain enough of a dialogue with the person who's actually doing the procedure, so they understand what the end-game is, there are little things, changes they can make in their technique to increase your success."

So then, she explains, "you're just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers. You try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm going to basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact." Sometimes, Nucatola shares, she studies the abortion schedule of the day on the lookout for marketable organs. "I'll actually collect what you want sometimes, and put it aside." So you do that, CMP asks? "If I see it. Why not? I'm right there. Oh, for sure, I mean to me, I don't know, it makes the procedure that much better..."

Of course, Nucatola cautions over and over again, Planned Parenthood is extremely careful not to look like they're cashing in on the arrangement -- despite the bodies of evidence to the contrary. For obvious reasons, the organization doesn't openly admit to scavenging unborn children for their parts. Like most of its business model, this wouldn't exactly help Planned Parenthood's struggling PR image.

But public opinion should be the least of the group's concerns. Trafficking in human body parts is a serious crime (not that the law has ever stopped Planned Parenthood before). Violating the partial-birth abortion ban alone is punishable by $250,000 and/or up to 2 years in prison. Add selling human fetal tissue, and Cecile Richards's group is looking at a federal felony with a half-million dollar fine and 10-year jail term. Yet when CMP explained in a separate video what help Nucatola had been with their harvesting efforts, Richards replied, "Oh, good. Great. She's amazing." Meaning that the knowledge of this fetal farming goes all the way to the top.

For an organization whose hands are already dirtied by sex trafficking, gender targeting, unsanitary clinic conditions, multi-million dollar fraud, and sexual abuse cover-ups -- dismembering babies for sale is hardly the kind of retail business you want to hang a shingle over. And yet Americans continue to be unwilling investors in this taxpayer-funded Frankenstein. If this doesn't persuade the government to act, I don't know what will. It's time for Congress to launch an immediate investigation into Planned Parenthood's grisly side business. Pick up the phone and call your congressman (some of whom are already speaking out) and demand a full-scale inquiry on the President's favorite "nonprofit.""

If you can stand it, watch the cavalier attitude of the Planned Parenthood representative when discussing the design of the dismemeberment procedure for preserving fetal organs for sale on the black market. The video below might disappear soon; Planned Parenthood is the darling of the Left.




The Left has maintained that Planned Parenthood (and all abortion providers) should have zero oversight, zero health code requirements, zero visibility into what goes on inside their abattoirs. This outrage is the thoroughly predictable result, given the total lack of morality involved in the entire concept of abortion. This should be clear to everyone who knows that Planned Parenthood does not want their victims to see sonograms of the human they are carrying, nor do they want their victims to have a wait time to think it over before killing their progeny, nor do they want a physician on staff who is registered at the local hospital. Planned Parenthood gets paid for the killing, not for NOT killing.

And now they get paid even more by engaging in the black market for body parts.

They likely will suffer no consequences for this; the Left is about power and not about justice on an individual scale, as is the case with individual defenseless humans at that particular stage of their lives. To speak for such defenseless humans is now almost a crime, because it is twisted to seem as if it is an attack on the mother of the infant by denying her the right to kill. The right of a mother to kill surpasses the right of the infant to life. That's the world we live in.

Another Candidate For Stupidest Article Ever

If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person
A manifesto.

Allison Benedikt

"You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.

I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)

So, how would this work exactly? It’s simple! Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment. Your local school stinks but you don’t send your child there? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better."

Yes. Sacrifice your child for the Common Good, as Leftists define it... or you are bad. Probably an Oppressor Class identity.

This article inspired an all new category: Stupidest Articles Ever.

Feminist Aborts Baby Because It Was Male

Feminist: I Stand By My Decision To Abort My Baby Because It Was Male

"This woman’s story and her morally-twisted rationalizations for her abortion is a very revealing insight into the perversion that constitutes “pro-choice.” Lana justifies her decision to abort her preborn child after an “incident” on an airplane- clarifying her position that men can’t be depended on for the “cause” of feminism.

From Injustice Stories (which is ironic considering the injustice of this woman’s decision and actions)-

One of the more alarming incidents happened while I was on my way to San Francisco to participate in an Occupy Wall Street rally. I sat down in my seat on the plane, which happened to be extra full for that day, and a particularly well dressed man happened to be sitting in the seat beside me, in the aisle. After takeoff, he asked me what I was going to San Francisco for, while I generally wouldn’t talk to a man sitting next to me on an airplane, I told him I was going to the OWS rally.

The man literally scoffed when I spoke those words and leaned in and quietly said to me “B****** like you need to learn their place”. Stunned, I screamed “ASSAULT!” while other passengers looked at us, the woman across the aisle from him immediately told him to get away from me, but not 5 seconds passed before a flight attendant had rushed over to intervene….

*Trigger warning* – Extreme patriarchy

…The woman-hater just laughed as the flight attendant continued to press me on if he made any physical contact with me. For a moment, I contemplated bending the truth in order to get the woman-hater away from me. His words had violated both my feelings, and my trust, perhaps as much of a violation as actual physical touch. In the end, I confirmed that no physical contact was made, to which both flight attendants told me they couldn’t make him move.

Aside from Lana’s petulance (screaming assault? Really?), she was tempted to lie about what happened because she felt entitled to be in a “safe space” away from a “woman-hater” because her feelings were hurt violated. Lana goes on to describe the incident as making her feel that she had been verbally and emotionally raped.

What a way to trivialize rape.

After five months of pregnancy Lana goes to her doctor for a check-up and discovers that her baby is a boy. Lana’s reaction-

“What?” I managed to sputter. Sandy then showed me on the ultrasound how exactly my body had betrayed me even worse than the misogynistic suit jockey on the airplane so many months before. I was in shock, I started crying, weeping at the thought of what I was about to curse the world with.

In Lana’s perverted mind, her body “betrayed” her. Sweetheart the fact that you’re pregnant by definition means that the baby isn’t your body. For Lana, bringing a healthy baby boy into the world is a “curse” that has to be mitigated. So Lana makes- in her twisted mind- the “logical” decision to murder her baby.

[I] started regaining some of my mental strength and knew what I had to do. I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is. It didn’t matter that I would be raising a son, he would still come into contact with boys, men, perhaps even the suit jockey who would inevitably twist his carefully constructed upbringing with their kindness.

…

A few days later, I went in for the procedure, as it was fairly later in my pregnancy, I was aware there were certain risks, but it went off without a hitch. My body’s betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good, even though as I would find out, many others wouldn’t see it that way."

American Humanists Lose a Big One

New Jersey student wins court case to keep 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

"A New Jersey high school senior has won her case to keep "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, defeating atheist attacks that sought to strike the language from the pledge.

Samantha Jones, a senior at Highland Regional High School, declared victory Friday in protecting what she has described as the right of her fellow students to continue reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety. After hearing the teen and her family's case, a state judge dismiss the latest efforts by the American Humanist Association to remove "under God" from the Pledge.

The legal battle first began when an unnamed New Jersey family from Monmouth County, identified in court papers as John and Jane Doe and their child, sued the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District in February 2014, alleging the phrase "under God" in the pledge is discriminatory. The case was filed by the American Humanist Association, which claimed the recitation of the pledge violates Article 1 of the state's constitution.

Jones, who was attending another school, fought back, telling Fox News last November that the phrase "acknowledges that our rights don’t come from the government but from a higher power, so they can’t take away the rights."

She described America as a country of many beliefs and claimed all of those beliefs – including those of atheists – are protected by "one nation under God.""

Here is Samantha Jones:

"When I heard about a group of atheists suing to silence every New Jersey school kid who wished to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, including the words “under God,” I knew I had to do something.

That’s why my family and I decided to defend the Pledge in court. We believe in doing so we are not only standing for the Pledge but also protecting our freedoms as Americans, and our ability to celebrate those freedoms everywhere including in school. And the judge just agreed with us. He dismissed the American Humanist Association’s lawsuit because our legal system doesn’t force kids into silence just because some others take offense at timeless American values."

Finally. Someone read the founding documents and actually understood them.

The Messiahs' War On Humans, In Scientific American

Even if there is no discernable Victimhood Class for a particular Messianic war, the self-righteous Messiahs still war on their designated Oppressor Class. A major case in point is identified in Scientific American, where the cost to the real-life victims of the Messiahs is quantified in "life-years":

"Their study, published in the journal Environment and Development Economics, estimates that the delayed application of Golden Rice in India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002. That odd sounding metric – not just lives but ‘life years’ – accounts not only for those who died, but also for the blindness and other health disabilities that Vitamin A deficiency causes. The majority of those who went blind or died because they did not have access to Golden Rice were children."

Golden rice is a GMO which merely added vitamin A to rice. The opposition is opposed to any GMO, in the same sense that it is opposed to DDT: just because of the Precautionary Principle, which is the Luddite thesis that technology could, possibly harm someone; so don't do it, despite no evidence to support that position. So despite the obvious benefits to malnourished peoples, they are protected from being nourished.

The Messiah Luddites should be shamed by the bright light of numerical deaths and suffering that they have aided and abetted. But they cannot be shamed, because their morals do not include shame. They are always more moral than any moral facts to the contrary. That is the definition of evil.

"The opponents of Golden Rice who have caused this harm should be held accountable.

That includes Greenpeace, which in its values statement promises, “we are committed to nonviolence.” Only their non-violent opposition to Golden Rice contributes directly to real human death and suffering. It includes the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, which claims the credibility of scientific expertise, and then denies or distorts scientific evidence in order to oppose GMOs. It includes the U.S. Center for Food Safety and the Sierra Club and several environmental groups who deny and distort the scientific evidence on GM foods every bit as much as they complain the deniers of climate change science do. It includes the Non-GMO Project, started by natural food retailers who oppose a technology that just happens to threaten their profits."

The perversion of "risk" for the benefit of a set of egos:

"The whole GMO issue is really just one example of a far more profound threat to your health and mine. The perception of risk is inescapably subjective, a matter of not just the facts, but how we feel about those facts. As pioneering risk perception psychologist Paul Slovic has said, “risk is a feeling.” So societal arguments over risk issues like Golden Rice and GMOs, or guns or climate change or vaccines, are not mostly about the evidence, though we wield the facts as our weapons. They are mostly about how we feel, and our values, and which group’s values win, not what will objectively do the most people the most good. That’s a dumb and dangerous way to make public risk management decisions.

And yet: the author goes wildly off message as he leaves technology and veers straight into Leftist swamp of dogma and cant:

"When advocates get so passionate in the fight for their values that they potentially impose harm on others, it puts us all at risk, and we have the right to call attention to those potential harms and hold those advocates accountable. And this is much broader than just GMOs:

-Delay on dealing with climate change exposes us all to much greater risk. We should hold responsible those whose ideology-driven denial of climate change is responsible for some of that risk.

-Resistance to anything to make it harder for bad guys to get guns puts us all at risk. Society should hold responsible the paranoid arch-conservatism that has created resistance to any prudent gun control and contributed to that risk.

-Parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids put others in their communities at risk. They certainly should be held accountable for this, and in some places, that’s beginning. Several states are trying to pass laws making it harder for parents to opt out of vaccinating their kids."

There are significant differences between these issues and the GMO food issues at the beginning of the article. Here the author flips to the other side, becoming the advocate of the Precautionary Principle himself. There are, within each of these three non-GMO situations, significant contrary facts to consider, facts which the author now suddenly presumes not to exist. So he commits the EXACT error which he started out to condemn: denial of rights (to nutrition) by asserting a "risk" principle which is not provable and is arguable by contrary fact, and further, to assume that the solution (denial of rights) is better than personal choice.

What started as an objective article on nutrition turned out to be a Trojan Horse type vehicle for Leftist suppression.

Does Scientific American have no editors? Or is it so AtheoLeftist that it needs no editing for dogma? As always, the tautologically-moral cannot be shamed.

Zero Tolerance Follies

The uber-toleranti have zero tolerance and they stick to it regardless of common sense:

Here Are 10 Outrageous 'Zero Tolerance' Follies of 2014

"Are your children safe at school? That depends on if you're worried about bullies or administrators. Here are 10 of the most infamous "zero tolerance" punishments handed down to kids—and even some adults—this year.

1. Student, 13, shares lunch, gets detention

A 13-year-old boy at Weaverville Elementary School in California shared his school lunch (a chicken burrito) with a hungry friend. For this, he got detention. Superintendent Tom Barnett explained, "Because of safety and liability we cannot allow students to actually exchange meals.”

2. Sunscreen not allowed on field trip—kids might drink it

A San Antonio, Texas, school forbid students to bring sunscreen on a field trip. Why? According to spokeswoman Aubrey Chancellor, "We can’t allow toxic things to be in our schools.” The children, "could possibly have an allergic reaction (or) they could ingest it. It’s really a dangerous situation.”

3. Kindergarten cancels its year-end show to allow more time for college prep

A letter home from the Harley Avenue Primary School in Elwood, New York, read, in part: "The reason for eliminating the Kindergarten show is simple. We are responsible for preparing children for college and career with valuable lifelong skills and know that we can best do that by having them become strong readers, writers, coworkers and problem solvers."

4. Teacher suspended on weapons charge for demonstrating carpentry tools

A second grade teacher at Chicago's Washington Irving Elementary School was suspended for four days without pay for bringing screwdrivers, wrenches and other shop tools to class, and demonstrating how to use them. These are dangerous items.

free-range-kids
5. School bus driver loses job for keeping kids warm when bus breaks down

This one's in Canada! On a day when the windchill dipped to -34 Fahrenehit, school bus driver Kendra Lindon's bus broke down. Knowing it could take a long time for a replacement to arrive—and that kids would be waiting outside till it did—she picked up the few children on her route (including her son) in her SUV. A neighbor noticed two kids sitting in the cargo hold without seat belts and called the bus company. She was promptly fired.

6. 79-year-old substitute teacher fired for having student-friends on Facebook

Carol Thebarge was a substitute teacher at Stevens High School in Claremont, New Hampshire, for nine years and was friends with about 250 current students on Facebook. She was told to unfriend them or lose her job. She chose to lose her job. Superintendent Middleton McGoodwin told the press, "She’s loved by many, but that doesn’t give you allowance to ignore a protocol designed to protect all.”

7. Student suspended for slicing apple with knife during health food demonstration

Da'von Shaw, a Bedford, Ohio, high school student, brought apples and craisins to school for a "healthy eating" presentation. When he took out a knife to slice an apple, his teacher told him he was not allowed to use it. He immediately handed it over to her. Case closed? Nope. Later that day he was suspended for a week because he brought a weapon to school.

8. School goes on lockdown when mom fails to sign-in

The mother of a special needs child in Walnut Grove, Missouri, raced to school when she got a "frantic" call from her kid'steacher. After she was buzzed into the building, she ran straight to his room, thereby committing the cardinal sin of not signing in. The school went into lockdown. Cops arrived and took the mom to the police station, where she was charged with trespassing.

9. Girl in wet bathing suit forced to stand outside... in February... in Minnesota... due to school policy

After the fire alarm went off in Como Park High School in St. Paul, Minnesota, everyone evacuated, including Kayona Hagen-Tietza, 14, who had been swimming in the gym pool and didn't have time to change. School policy forbids teachers from having students in the car, so she stood outside, barefoot, for 10 minutes in 5-degree weather until a teacher obtained "permission" to let her sit in her car just this once.

10. Student suspended for twirling pencil, subjected to five-hour evaluation

Ethan Chaplin, 13, was twirling his pencil, which made the child sitting behind him feel "threatened or uncomfortable." That's all it took for the Vernon, New Jersey, school to send Chaplin for a 5-hour physical and psych evaluation. His urine was tested and blood drawn. “We never know what’s percolating in the mind of children, okay?" the superintendent, Charles Maranzano, said. "When they demonstrate behaviors that raise red flags, we must do our duty.”

And a very Happy New Year to everyone who goes to school, works at a school, or is suspended from school for a sandwich swap, monkey wrench, or pencil twirl!"

Give the site a hit just out of kindness...

More Tranny Insanity

In their stampede toward gaining righteousness with the PC crowd, some schools are sacrificing their children for the sake of potential transsexual emotional comfort. In other words, boys may use the girls' restrooms, taking their sexual "confusion" into the girls' restroom with them. There seems to be a LOT of confusion these days, and it all seems to sacrifice the normal child for the "benefit" of the - ahem - not so normal child. Unless the not so normal child is exceptionally smart, then he must hang beck with the not so normal (slowest) ones so that "no child is left behind".

Conformity to PC Standards is necessary at all times except when a new Victim Group has been designated. But then it is still conformity, it's just that everyone must now conform for the benefit of the new Victims. There is no perversity that is not included in Victimhood it seems. But there are cultural norms that are not allowed, including boys pointing bananas at each other and going "puh chew". In fact, boys must be drugged so that they become more aligned with the girls and female teachers.

What results is a war, this one on normal children, those who are neither slow nor fast, not sexually confused, and so on. Because anyone who is normal and objects to any of this is the one who will not be accommodated, and if objections are too loud, will be punished - unlike transsexuals who object to using the restrooms dedicated to their biological sex.