Another day, another propaganda video for your kids to enjoy:
Hey kids, here’s a healthy dose of reality with a grope and search:
I wonder why TSA didn’t include that in their info-cartoon…
Another day, another propaganda video for your kids to enjoy:
Hey kids, here’s a healthy dose of reality with a grope and search:
I wonder why TSA didn’t include that in their info-cartoon…
Because Texas had the audacity to refuse Obama’s Core Curriculum, along with the associated textbooks, they are under a major attack from the Progressive Commies who have flocked to Texas in an attempt to turn the state Blue.
In the near future, expect to see more examples of teachers in Texas bullying students into compliance with Progressive ideals:
In one Texas School, Students have the Right to Opt-Out of Reciting the American Pledge of Allegiance . . . but Not the Mexican Pledge; Lawsuit Filed
ANN ARBOR, MI – Just as the 2011 school year began, Brenda Brinsdon, then a 15 year-old sophomore at Achieve Early College High School (AECHS) in McAllen Texas, was thrust into the national spotlight after she refused to stand up, extend her arms straight out with palms down and recite the Mexican Pledge of Allegiance and sing the Mexican National Anthem. Reyna Santos, the Spanish 3 teacher, required all her students to recite this allegiance to Mexico. Click here to see local news coverage.
When the time came for the students to stand up and recite the Mexican pledge, Brenda Brinsdon refused. Brenda, born in the United States, is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant and an American father. Brenda is fluent in Spanish and English and is proud of her Mexican heritage, but she is a true blooded American. So to Brenda, the words of the pledge have a deep meaning. Her conscience and patriotism would not allow her to participate in the assignment. She believed it was ‘un-American’ and she was exercising her constitutional right not to be forced to pledge allegiance to Mexico. The school punished her for her refusal.
As a result, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, along with local Texas attorney Jerad Najvar, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Brenda and her father William Brinsdon claiming that school officials violated Brenda’s constitutional rights. Click here to read the federal lawsuit.
Ironically, the assignment to recite the Mexican pledge was given during the school’s celebration of Freedom Week, marking the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks and also on U.S. Constitution Day. According to the McAllen School District policy for Special Programs, social studies classes during Freedom Week were required to recite the text of the Declaration of Independence. However, excusals from recitation are granted for students who have a conscientious objection.
The longstanding Supreme Court decision, West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, (1943), and the school district’s own policy prohibit a school from compelling students to recite the American Pledge of Allegiance. However, the School District ignored those rules when Brenda Brinsdon refused to recite the Mexican pledge.
Brenda’s refusal was not well received by her teacher, Reyna Santos, or the school principal, Yvette Cavasos. Both tried to coerce her to recite the Mexican pledge, saying this was just an assignment. Brenda attempted to discuss reasons for her refusal to pledge allegiance to a country other than the United States with both Santos and Cavasos. When Brenda did not back down, she was punished.
The problem with all of this is that the moment they start learning Arabic, the indoctrination into Islam has begun and the Muzzies come out of the woodwork to flood your schools with Islamic propaganda.
Have these fools in New York learned nothing from September 11, 2001?
Arabic mandatory at city public school
By SABRINA FORD – NYP
An upper Manhattan public elementary school will be the first in the city to require that students study Arabic, officials said yesterday.
Beginning next semester, all 200 second- through fifth-graders at PS 368 in Hamilton Heights will be taught the language twice a week for 45 minutes — putting it on equal footing with science and music courses.
Science is only an hour and half per week??? When I was in elementary school, science was taught every day! No flippin’ wonder most kids coming out of school are so ignorant!
One reason Principal Nicky Kram Rosen selected Arabic — as opposed to more common offerings, such as Spanish or French — is because it will help the school obtain a prestigious International Baccalaureate standing.
“She proposed this to the parent association. They were very supportive,” said Angela Jackson, CEO of the Global Language Project, which is backing the initiative.
“Arabic has been identified as a critical-need language,” she said, citing students’ future “career trajectories.’’
“It means they can spin the globe and decide where they want to work and live.”
Students now taking the class in a pilot program during their free afternoon periods said it’s been a challenge — but a rewarding one.
“I like Arabic class. I like the words we learn. I thought they sounded funny at first, now I think they sound cool,” said Nayanti Brown, a 7-year-old second-grader. “I teach my little sister the words I learn.’’
Nayanti said her mother was skeptical at first.
“When I gave my mom the [permission slip] to sign, she was shocked. [Now] she’s happy I’m in the class,” she said.
The Arabic requirement becomes mandatory in September. But PS 368 is a so-called “choice’’ school and no kids, even those living nearby, are forced to attend it. If the school ever enrolls a student who objects to learning Arabic, administrators will deal with that on a case-by-case basis, Jackson said.
Mohamed Mamdouh, who teaches the pilot program, said, “Soon, Arabic will be a global language like French and Spanish. These kids are like sponges. It’s amazing to see their progress.’’
See? The indoctrination has already begun!: “Islam will dominate the world!!!”
Mamdouh yesterday played a version of duck, duck, goose with the kids using the Arabic words for mother and father — mama and baba — for ducks and geese.
He also played a version of Simon Says where he would say a word or phrase in Arabic like, “ma drasti” — my school — and make a gesture like opening a book.
Bella Moon Castro, 34, of Harlem, signed her son up and is glad he’ll have a chance to learn Arabic.
“This makes the world smaller for the kids. It develops their confidence,” Castro said.
And lowers their intelligence…
This is Big Brother propaganda at its best, folks.
Under the radar, it is no coincidence that Julia is also the name of Winston’s girlfriend in Orwell’s 1984. If you will remember, Julia and Winston are in love with each other and hate Big Brother. After their unauthorized relationship is discovered, Julia and Winston are tortured. Under duress, Winston betrays Julia and screams for the rat to be placed on Julia’s face, not his. At the end of the book, Julia and Winston meet up again. Julia has a scar on her face (the reader is left to interpret this as being the result of the rat) and casually, lovelessly chit-chats with Winston. Winston finally comes to the realization the he no longer loves Julia. The last line of the book is: “He loved Big Brother.”
By extrapolation, the reader is also left with the knowledge that Julia now loves Big Brother more than she loves Winston:
H/T – Mrs. Bulldog for reminding me that Julia was Winston’s girlfriend in 1984 when I first told her about Obama’s propaganda piece.
P.S. – She says that she only remembered it because of the Eurythmics’ song, Julia, from their album: 1984 (For the Love of Big Brother).
Conservatives mock Obama’s ‘Julia’
By Tim Mak – Politico
Conservatives are getting personal with a new figure in President Barack Obama’s campaign: Julia.
Who is Julia? On Thursday, Obama’s campaign released a slideshow showing how the president’s policies would aid a hypothetical woman named “Julia” over her lifetime, and how presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s policies would disadvantage her.
For example, the slideshow suggests that at age 18, Julia would qualify for a college tax credit, one that would be allowed to expire under a Mitt Romney presidency. At age 65, Julia could enroll in Medicare – something that Romney “could end as we know it.”
Conservatives were quick to lampoon the meme, criticizing the Obama campaign for viewing the life of a woman only in terms of her relationship with the government, and soon #Julia was trending on Twitter, across the United States.
“What we are left with is a celebration of a how a woman can live her entire life by leaning on government intervention, dependency and other people’s money rather than their own initiative or hard work. It is, I’d say, brazenly un-American, in the sense that it celebrates a mindset we have — outwardly, at least — shunned,” writes David Harsanyi on Human Events. “It is also a mindset that women should find offensively patronizing.”
“Creepy,” was the verdict from National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke. “[A] perfect example of the man’s cradle-to-grave welfare mentality.”
“Is it just me or is there something fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of Strong, Independent Women and paternalism?” adds Ace of Spades.
Of course a Muzzy would claim this. After all, Muzzies routinely lay claim to just about every scientific achievement ever made (methinks they have an inferiority complex of some sort). Don’t believe me? Well, for instance, take a look at the “Jagged 85” Wikipedia debacle HERE. That’s just right off the top of my head. There are thousands more examples to be had.
And now, you can add the following farcical sophistry to that ever growing list:
Da Vinci was a Muslim?
Author of ‘Leonardo Da Vinci’s Drawings’ says in this book he has proved that Da Vinci had been converted to Islam: “The book presents a comprehensive biography of Da Vinci and here for the first time I have proved that the artist had been converted to Islam based on authentic documents.”
(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) – Morteza Khalaj Amirhosseini’s book “Leonardo Da Vinci’s Drawings” contains best drawings as well as a detailed biography of this eminent artist. Based on valid sources, the book proves that Da Vinci had been converted into Persian.
Amirhosseini added: “I have prepared the book in order to address the needs of art students as there was no comprehensive book of Da Vinci’s works available in Iran. We should know an artist by his works, but unfortunately Da Vinci is just an icon in Iran with mythological fame.”
Amirhosseini went on to say that the book presents a complete biography of Da Vinci in which he has proved based on first-hand sources that the Renaissance artist had become a Muslim. However, the west prefers to keep silent on the subject, he added.
He added: “A French writer in the 19th century has evaluated the issue of Da Vinci’s conversion to Islam in a treatise, but the west has banned the publication of this treatise.”
Uh, yeah. Right. Sure there was. LOL!
Just more speciousness. Notice that he conveniently forgets to mention the name of this supposed 19th century French writer. That’s clue number one that he made it up. Clue number two is that he claims the French treatise is banned by the west. So, when you do come up empty-handed after an exhaustive search while trying to verify is assertion, well then… It’s banned doncha’ know, and that’s, like, um, why you couldn’t find it anywhere. Yeah, that’s the ticket! LOL!
I guess we’ll just have to wait until after the November elections before the U.S. government can read a map:
State Department Won’t Say Jerusalem Is in Israel
BY: Adam Kredo – March 27, 2012 – FreeBeacon.com
An official State Department communication has labeled Jerusalem and Israel as separate entities.
In an official press release yesterday, the State Department announced that “Acting Under Secretary Kathleen Stephens Travels to Algeria, Qatar, Jordan, Jerusalem, and Israel.”
Keeping up with its longstanding policy, the State Department refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s official capital—despite a U.S. law stating otherwise. Obama faced criticism on the issue last year, when it was revealed that the White House had scrubbed all references to Jerusalem being part of the Jewish state from a collection of photos on its website.
Obama has also been lambasted by pro-Israel leaders and some on Capitol Hill for capitulating to pressure from the State Department, which has long opposed U.S. law on the matter.
A senior GOP aide condemned the State Department’s recent press release as unsound foreign policy.
“Once again, President Obama’s administration reminds Jewish voters why he cannot be trusted when it comes to Israel’s security,” said the source. “He doesn’t think Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Is it its own sovereign nation?”
The GOP source also chided Obama for continuing to buck U.S. law on the issue.
“Under U.S. law, Jerusalem is recognized as the undivided capital of Israel—period,” said the adviser. “Unlike the U.S. embassy’s move, that fact is not subject to any waiver or exception. So the question really is, why is Barack Obama ignoring U.S. law and refusing to recognize Israel’s capital?”
I saw THIS PIECE OF ISLAMAGANDA GARBAGE in the Huffington Post and was going to comment on it, but I noticed that Robert Spencer has done a much more elegant dissection than I. So, I’ll give you a snippet of Mr. Spencer’s take on the article to whet your appetite; and then, link on over to Jihad Watch so you can read the rest of the article:
Huffington Post enables beating of women: publishes whitewash of Qur’an’s justification for domestic abuse
Robert Spencer – JihadWatch
“Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great.” — Qur’an 4:34
The three-million-dollar campaign of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) to whitewash Sharia and fool Americans about its nature began in earnest yesterday. Is this nonsensical article part of it? Is ICNA paying Qasim Rashid and/or the HuffPo to retail these soothing deceptions? We may never know the answers to those questions, but it is certain that if Qasim Rashid were an anti-jihad, pro-freedom writer, the mainstream media would be all over him asking questions about his funding and his backers. Whoever Rashid’s may be, certainly this farrago coalesces neatly with ICNA’s “war is deceit” Sharia whitewash effort.
“The Islamic Solution to Stop Domestic Violence,” by Qasim Rashid in the Huffington Post, March 5:
Critics incorrectly allege that Islam command’s husband’s to beat their wives, often citing the Quran verse 4:34. Unfortunately, like any Muslim man who harms his wife, critics miss the keen wisdom in verse 4:34 that actively pre-empts domestic violence.In Virginia, I provide pro bono legal support to victims of domestic and sexual violence. Virtually all of our clients are female. Every nine seconds — nearly 10,000 victims daily — a woman in the United States is abused. In America, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, more than car accidents, muggings and rape — combined. Would those who blame Islam for domestic violence also blame Christianity every nine seconds?…
Domestic violence is found in every culture and every nation, among people of every religion. The difference in Islam, which Rashid is busy trying to obscure, is that Qur’an 4:34 gives the practice divine sanction. Christianity doesn’t teach that God commands that a man should beat his disobedient wife. No other religion does, either. No other culture teaches such a thing. In every other context, domestic violence is considered a crime. In Islam, it is a husband’s prerogative according to the words of Allah himself.
Pre-emptive deterrence is the key. And this precisely is the wisdom behind verse 4:34 to decrease and stop violence against women. The verse in its totality describes a process of restraint, anger management and reformation.The verse begins by defining a family unit, holding the husband accountable as the household’s guardian and provider. This obligation gives him certain authority, privileges and a requirement of magnanimity — but never the right to employ domestic violence. The verse then urges women to also act virtuously, and protect the family unit by cooperating with their husband, listening to him in all good things and to not publicize private family matters.
Note that Rashid never actually quotes Qur’an 4:34; why not? Is that not a curious and telling omission in an article that purports to be about explaining it? In any case, clearly in this part of his article he is explaining this portion of the verse: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding.” Notice how he glosses over the part about God preferring men “in bounty” over women — or, as another translation has it, “Men have superiority over women because God has made the one superior to the other…” And in explaining the man’s “authority, privileges” and “requirement of magnanimity,” he said that he is never given “the right to employ domestic violence.” But in fact, the rest of the verse gives him exactly that “right,” and this part of the verse does not forbid him from exercising it. Rashid’s claim that this part of Qur’an 4:34 forbids men to employ domestic violence is based on nothing in the text whatsoever.
Next, verse 4:34 employs the process of anger management, reformation and reconciliation. This process may only be employed after a wife has initially and deliberately undermined or attempted to destroy the family, as indicated by the words, “as for those on whose part you fear disobedience.” But “disobedience” does not mean any random disagreement a wife may have with her husband. Arabic lexicon provides the correct understanding as that of a wife who has deserted her husband altogether or has unjustly attempted to destroy the family. Once a wife deliberately engages in this form of behavior, then the Quran describes a process to peacefully reconcile the dispute.
This is palpable hooey. All over the Islamic world men inflict the command in this verse upon women for far less than desertion or unjustly attempting to “destroy the family.” And note also, Rashid’s taqiyya fog doesn’t quite manage to obscure the uncomfortable fact that the Qur’an doesn’t envision any penalty for men who desert or attempt to destroy their families. The latter is so remote that Rashid is clearly trying to make the wife-beating command something that a Muslim would only resort to in the most extreme cases, but reality is different. Take the case of Pakistan: Amnesty International reports that “according to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, over 90% of married women report being kicked, slapped, beaten or sexually abused when husbands were dissatisfied by their cooking or cleaning, or when the women had ‘failed’ to bear a child or had given birth to a girl instead of a boy.” Women got “kicked, slapped, beaten or sexually abused” for far less than desertion and attempting to destroy the family.
The first step, anger management, obliges the husband to merely admonish his wife of his concern, essentially encouraging the parties to admit that a problem exists. This forces a man to strictly control himself in hopes that his wife will also incline to reconciliation.
This part of the verse actually says, “And those you fear may be rebellious admonish…” There is nothing there whatsoever about the man having “to strictly control himself.” This again is Rashid’s whitewash. There is nothing inherent in giving someone a warning that involves controlling oneself. And given the content of the verse, what kind of self-control is Rashid saying is called for anyway? Apparently Rashid is saying that the husband must control his impulse to beat his wife — no other form of self-control enters into the verse at all.