Month: June 2021

In general why would anybody want to stop people from using a drug that potentially very useful against Covid and at the same time is a very safe drug. I have my opinion and my reasoning involves something that begins with a C. Those that know me would 100% agree that I usually do not believe in C theories, but let’s take a reasonable look at some facts. 

First: Ivermectin is not a new drug. It was discovered in 1975 and came into medical use in 1981. It is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. Ivermectin is FDA-approved as an antiparasitic agent, and has been used worldwide for a multitude of parasitic infections, with estimates running into hundreds of millions people having been treated with Ivermectin. … Hmmm!

Second: As all physicians know, no drug is without potential side effects. The side effect profile garnered from many years of experience in an uber number of patients worldwide reveals Ivermectin to be quite safe. Hmmm!

Third: Ivermectin is inexpensive. At present it costs about $2.90 for 100 twelve mg. sized tablets (The initial price proposed by Merck in 1987 was US$6 per treatment, not affordable for most patients in Africa. The company donated hundreds of millions of courses of treatments since 1988 in more than 30 countries.) As of 2019, ivermectin tablets in the United States were the least expensive treatment option for lice in children at about US$10.

Hmmm!

Fourth: A recent peer reviewed meta-analysis study published in the American Journal of Therapeutics published on 6/24/21 demonstrated a probable 62% decreased mortality (3406 patients in 24 trials) and a possible 86% decrease in the transmissibility (2738 patients) of the coronavirus. By the GRADE analysis the mortality decrease was at a moderate level of certainty, and the transmissibility decrease was at a low level of certainty. Hmmm! … interesting.

The NIH last commented on Ivermectin back in February, and basically said that because of insufficient data, it could not recommend for or against its use for Covid.(Note that was four months ago!) In Great Britain  in April, the Cochran Library said that they were going to plan to do a study on Ivermectin in Covid. (Thus far that study has not started.)

Hmmm!

Here’s my dilemma . . . people are dying from Covid all over the world in poorer countries, and there is a safe, cheap, possibly/probably effective drug that could be used extensively both as prophylaxis and as treatment. Why isn’t this happening? Hmmm!

6/30/21

Do Democratic politicians actually think that people of color are less intelligent than the general population? While the local press is in a tizzy over the California tradition of tossing tortillas … “it’s racist!”, they ignore how the Democrats imply that people of color just are not smart enough to obtain a photo I.D. Is this implication “racist?”

When the Democrats object to laws that attempt to guard against voter fraud, they imply that minorities, (actually, it is much more than just an implication!), specifically African-Americans, are being targeted by these laws. In essence they are saying that black people do not have the wherewithal to get a picture ID. In Mexico one needs a picture voter ID with a fingerprint to vote. Do the Democrats actually believe that black Americans cannot do something that is a standard in Mexico? Embarrassing ?

Should this be embarrassing for African Americans? Logically speaking this should depend on whether the implication is true or not. If it is true, then there is no reason to be embarrassed. Whereas if it is not true, then there is a valid reason to be embarrassed. (To me, I personally do not think that blacks are at a distinct intellectual disadvantage when it comes to being able to get a picture ID.)

(As an example, let’s take the generalization phrase, “white men can’t jump.” If it is a true statement, then there is no reason for a white man to be embarrassed by it. Whereas if it is not true, then there is. )

How do the people who are supposedly being “targeted” by voter ID laws actually feel about this issue? If they sincerely think that most of them are just too dense to get a photo ID, I would think that this should be apparent in polling data.

A survey from Monmouth University published on 6/21/21 indicates that 84 percent of minority respondents said they support “requiring voters to show a photo I.D. in order to vote.” The poll was conducted by phone from a six-day span from June 9 to June 14 among 810 U.S. adults.

Meanwhile, White non-Hispanic respondents were more likely to oppose requiring photo ID in order to cast a ballot, with just 77 percent indicating they support it. Overall, minorities favored strict identification requirements by a seven percent margin over Whites.

At this point one might ask who are those 23% of Whites who do not favor photo IDs to vote? With a high degree of likelihood, these are liberal Democrats … a group that “always” knows what is best for everyone! Is this group embarrassed by their racial presumption that minorities are just not smart enough to get a picture ID? . . . “Come on, man!”

But it gets worse! From the Washington Examiner:

“The Biden Justice Department announced a lawsuit against Georgia over its new election laws, with Attorney General Merrick Garland alleging the voter laws could restrict the rights of black Georgians.”

If I were a black Georgian I would be more than just embarrassed that the Justice Department thinks that I am unable to obtain a photo ID . . . I would be pissed!

6/29/21

Last week I overheard the following: “I didn’t vote for Trump the last time, and I could never vote for him again, because he is such a “mean tweeter.” I bit my tongue, and thought to myself, “how shallow you are.”However, I didn’t say a word because here in California, ‘shallowness’ is practically endemic, especially when it comes to something that requires some thought, like voting. 

Nonetheless, I thought about this frame of mind for a bit. When one votes for a candidate, is it reasonable to vote for or against him/her based on one single thing? If, in a voter’s opinion a candidate has good ideas or has done a good job on A, B, and C, but has done a poor job on d, should that voter place undo emphasis on d, and basically ignore A,B, and C? This obviously is a rhetorical question, and the answer is going to depend on the relative weight that that specific voter gives to A,B,C, and d. Back in 2016, I voted for Donald Trump because of his feelings on the education of minorities (A), his views on the economy (B), and who he would appoint to the Supreme Court (C), and parenthetically, he didn’t disappoint. I did not especially like his gruff personality, and how he had treated certain people in the past (d), but in my mind, A, B, and C far outweighed (d). 

What I have stated thus far not only points out the asininity of not voting for someone because he is “mean tweeter,” (which to a rational thinking person rates a ‘d minus’, at best), as contrasted with voting for a candidate despite the fact that he is a ‘mean tweeter’ … as A,B, and C are more important.

More importantly it serves as a lead-in to the present political soup de jour which is ‘abortion,’ and how it relates to one’s Catholic faith. Here I am not going to address our “devout,” (according to the NYT) President Biden and his ‘if I just wave my magic wand’ way of thinking on this issue, but rather to the subject of voting for candidates who are emphatically pro-abortion.

For those of you non-Catholics, I am encouraging you to read on as although initially it might appear that I am specifically relating ‘abortion’ to only Catholicism (because that is how the Mainstream Media is phrasing it), I am not. In actuality the principle, is not related solely to Catholics, but to anyone that potentially has some moral fabric. If a person feels that a fifteen week old fetus with a heartbeat is a living thing, or if one believes the science that a fetus can feel pain as early as twelve weeks gestational age, but certainly at twenty weeks, then to me it is not important if one identifies as a Catholic or not.  

For the moral voter it comes down to whether that individual regards ‘abortion’ as an A, B, C, or d-issue. Each individual has his/her own system of weighting different issues. For some ‘abortion’ may be an A issue, and for others it may be a d-issue, and to me this explains why some Catholics as well as other moral non-Catholics can rationalize voting for candidates who are obviously and often aggressively pro-abortion. 

The thinking might go something like this: “Since I am only one voter among thousands, my one vote does not actually elect that pro-abortion candidate, and besides, I do like the other things that he/she stands for, and thus it is not amoral to vote for that candidate.”

It is interesting that the data show that in 2020, about 50% of Catholic voters supported the pro-abortion candidate, Joe Biden. Either these 50% did not think about ‘abortion’ when voting or they put ‘abortion’ into that same category as ‘mean tweeting’ …  “I will vote for that pro-abortion candidate despite his feelings on abortion, which I consider a d-issue. (As an aside, I suppose that is why my local bishop cannot seem to muster the courage to say that Biden’s position is wrong here. To him, I say, “Certainly, for a bishop, ‘abortion’ deserves better than a d-rating.”)

6/28/21

As I have questioned many times before: 

“Do liberals, leftists, and those Democrats in charge purposely do things that they know will inevitably end up hurting the little guy? … or are they  dumb? … or perhaps just plain incompetent? “Albert Einstein pointed out that the definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result, but here in California that’s basically what happens over and over and over. Again and again!

For example: 

The increased gasoline tax that hurts the little guys the most, specifically those that cannot afford to buy the expensive electric cars or even the newer cars with better mpg.

The increased minimum wage and the so-called Covid heroes pay that have caused grocery stores as well as mom & pop restaurants to close in the poorer areas of these liberal towns and cities. However, keep in mind that California does not have a monopoly on this form of insanity. I recently read a few things out of Chicago papers concerning the “peaceful protests” that occurred there last May-June. For those not familiar with Chicago, the mayor, Lori Lightfoot, is a liberal Democrat and it appears that she could not have handled these “peaceful protests” any worse than she did. (Incompetent? Dumb? Or purposely hurting the little guy?)

As Stephen Miller(Townhall) recently pointed out … “we should have learned from the last episode of urban rioting during the late 1960s, the devastating adverse effects from rage and lawlessness are long-lasting and borne mostly by minorities, immigrant communities and the poor.”

He continues:

“Amazingly, the media had rarely investigated what really happened last summer when criminal gangs seized control of cities under the guise of racial justice. The politicians cynically celebrated the violent protests as “mostly peaceful” and gave cover to the assailants by glorifying them as “social justice warriors.”

Thankfully, four reporters at the Chicago Tribune have investigated what really happened in the once great “city that works” and the devastating effects that still are felt. It’s harrowing and Pulitzer-worthy material.” (FYI : one has to pay to be a subscriber to the Tribune in order to read online anything it publishes.)

The following is from an editorial in the Chicago Sun Times:

“Mostly, the Tribune investigation documented what we knew but needed to be reminded about: the hardships of business owners, even now, who were helpless in trying to stop the breaking and entering, the theft, the destruction of their livelihoods — and many in neighborhoods already struggling with abandonment.

‘I thought, ‘I’m a Black-owned business, they’re not going to bother me,’ Roseland pharmacy owner Howard Bolling told the Tribune.

He was wrong. Looters on May 31, 2020, descended on his South Michigan Avenue store and stole nearly all of his supply of prescriptions and medications.

Some of the businesses ruined — many on the South and West sides still boarded up, abandoned and showing signs of damage — won’t be coming back. What began as legitimate protest over the police murder of George Floyd ended with what is likely to be permanent economic loss to struggling areas of Chicago.”

(For those of you not familiar with Chicago, the South and West sides are the predominantly black areas of the city.)

The Sun Times editorial continues:

“Ariel Atkins was the Black Lives Matter Chicago organizer who encouraged the looting in August as it unfolded, saying: “I don’t care if somebody decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store because that makes sure that person eats. That makes sure that person has clothes. That is reparations. Anything they want to take, take it because these businesses have insurance.”

She was as wrong then as she is today.

In a June 2020 op-ed from Chicago-based journalist Mark Guarino after he watched a West Side Dollar Tree being looted and burned, he wrote:

“Looting is a destroyer in these neighborhoods. I agree that Gucci can rebuild. And Gucci customers can move on. But you know who can’t? Jerry Winfrey, 54, the caretaker for his mother. The Dollar Tree looting and fire now means he has nowhere to buy groceries. He has no car. The nearest Jewel might as well be on Mars. ‘Can’t go to the grocery store no more,’ he says. With Dollar Tree gone, ‘it’s gonna be rough. It’s a tragedy. It’s horrible, destroying things we need,’ he says.

You know who agrees? Tamara Collins, 34, who worked as the manager of the Dollar Tree for three years. Tonight she’s jobless.” 

“Throughout last summer, the entire Chicago region was put in harm’s way. Failures were too many to count. Those failures, the violence, won’t ever be forgotten, particularly by families in neighborhoods that came under siege, particularly by small businesspeople who saw years of entrepreneurial hard work and dreams crumble.”

The pattern is repeated again and again, and to me the major question continues to be, “Is it done on purpose?”

6/27/21

There is a country in our hemisphere that apparently does not allow anyone to speak out against whatever the party line is. Who determines what the party line is? One would guess in this particular country that those in charge determine the party line. However this then begs the question of exactly who is in charge. Is it the President? Is it the Congress? Is it the courts? Or could it even be someone/something else? 

This morning I read and also listened to something that makes me think that, in fact, it is someone/something else that determines what is and what is not appropriate in that country.

What country is this ?

Now granted that while I am far from fluent in Spanish, I can read some things in Spanish  … however neither reading, speaking, or understanding Spanish actually came into play here, as what I am going to tell you about occurred in an English speaking country.

I am going to assume that none of you have heard of Robert Malone, or more precisely Dr. Robert Malone. Actually we all should recognize that name, because he is the man who invented the mRNA technology used in some coronavirus vaccines. He discovered in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection when he was at the Salk Institute in 1988, and he subsequently invented mRNA vaccines. The two most popular vaccines being used in the USA, namely the Pfizer and the Moderna vaccines, are both mRNA vaccines.

According to the Washington Examiner, Dr. Malone says he was censored by YouTube for sharing his concerns on the vaccines in a podcast.

“One of my concerns are that the government is not being transparent with us about what those risks are. And so, I’m of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept a vaccine or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines,” said Dr. Robert Malone during a 6 23/21 Wednesday segment on Fox News‘s Tucker Carlson Tonight, saying YouTube deleted a video of him speaking about the associated risks.

Malone clarified that he was not discouraging the use of the vaccine but was providing people with as much fair information as he could about their risks.

“This is a fundamental right having to do with clinical research ethics,” he said. “And so, my concern is that I know that there are risks. But we don’t have access to the data, and the data haven’t been captured rigorously enough so that we can accurately assess those risks — and therefore … we don’t really have the information that we need to make a reasonable decision.”

Malone also said he has “a bias that the benefits probably don’t outweigh the risks” for younger people who are being encouraged or required to take the vaccine.

“I can say that the risk-benefit ratio for those 18 and below doesn’t justify vaccines, and there’s a pretty good chance that it doesn’t justify vaccination in these very young adults,” he added.

So it seems that because the opinion of Dr. Malone went against the party line, he was censored. Keep in mind that we are not talking about some schmo expressing his opinion on something that he knows relatively little about … OMG, he invented mRNA vaccines!

Likewise, we are not talking about an authoritarian country like Venezuela. OMG! What country is this?

Interestingly writing in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, UCLA Geffen School of Medicine Doctor Joseph Lapado and Yale School of Public Health Doctor Harvey Risch warn there are legitimate and serious concerns about the side effects of the Wuhan coronavirus vaccine. They also worry vaccine politics could be preventing officials from telling Americans the truth about the risks.

This is more like it! The Wall Street Journal is allowing individuals with some standing to express their own opinions. I know what country in which the WSJ publishes, and this sounds more like the country I know!

6/26/21

Does a politician need to have a sense of humor? My answer is, “no me Importa,” or in other words “It’s not important to me” or “I don’t care.” In general, I like people who have a sense of humor, but there are many more things that I find important in a politician … like being honest and telling the truth.

In the same vein, does the President need to have a sense of humor? Again, “No me importa.” I really do not give a toot whether or not the President has a sense of humor. If President Trump had a sense of humor, I was not aware of it. The last President that I know that for sure had a sense of humor was Ronald  Reagan, who in fact seemed to have a very good sense of humor.

Does our present President, Joe Biden, have a sense of humor? Personally, “no me importa.” However the evidence argues against it as he is often snapping at reporters in certain situations. Prior to the Nov 2020 election, when Biden was asked by a CBS reporter about him taking a cognitive test, his response was” Are you a junkie?” “Come on, man!” …  not much evidence of a sense of humor.

In Dec, 2019 while on the campaign trail in Iowa at a townhall meeting Joe Biden was initially all smiles and then suddenly got into a heated exchange with a man and challenged him to do push-ups with him, after he called the questioner a liar. What initially appeared to possibly a sense of humor immediately vanished.

I bring up Biden’s apparent lack of a sense of humor because of something that happened on 6/23/21. Speaking from the East Room of the White House on a Wednesday afternoon, President Joe Biden re-introduced his extreme gun control agenda, advocating for a ban on modern sporting rifles and reminding lawful gun owners that the federal government has nuclear weapons. 

“Those who say the blood of Patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said. “If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

Let’s be clear, I am not a gun owner . . . Yet! To me the frightening thing about this statement is that Joe Biden is not a joker. I am very dubious that he has any sense of humor. 

Is he actually threatening to use nuclear weapons on American citizens?

Es muy importante para me!

6/25/21

About twenty years ago a group of us went to Palm Springs in May for some kind of meeting. As we were checking into the hotel at 6:30 pm, I made some off the cuff comment to the hotel clerk about the temperature, as it was 106 degrees … at 6:30 at night … in May. He then responded with a snarky, but in retrospect, clever and insightful comment, “If you don’t like the heat, stay out of the desert!” It was only much later did I realize that the young clerk had adapted a favorite rejoinder of Harry S. Truman, when a member of his war contracts investigating committee objected to his strenuous pace. Truman said, “If you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

I thought about this perceptive comment as I read about a recent school board meeting in Loudoun County, Virginia. For those of you who do not know, Loudoun County is in northern Virginia, west of D.C. abutting on the Potomac. (Note that it is not in the hill county of Virginia “where all of the Republicans live.”)

To make a long story short, the school board was not ready for what occurred at the meeting. (Perhaps apropos here would be  “if you don’t like the heat, do not run for the school board!)

Anti-CRT protestors flooded the meeting hall, making their opposition crystal clear to board members who were apparently not prepared for any criticism. When it became apparent that the school board was not going to run roughshod over the parents, the school board declared the public meeting to be an unlawful assembly, and the police were called, and arrests were made. 

If board members can’t handle the heat, then perhaps they are the ones who should vacate the premises and get out of the kitchen. 

This is apparently the same school district that suspended Tanner Cross, an elementary school teacher for raising concerns to the board about a proposed gender policy. Apparently the school board was again not ready for criticism, and when they could tolerate the heat, the district suspended the teacher. Mr. Cross has since won a temporary injunction and Judge Plowman ordered his reinstatement.

The school had argued that it suspended Cross not for his beliefs but because of the “disruption” he allegedly caused. However, Judge Plowman said there was “simply an absence of evidence” that any disruption to school operations took place. Apparently the school board has since learned that when there is criticism, and it’s getting hot for them, the easiest thing to do is to call the meeting “an unlawful assembly,” and have the police intervene.

Furthermore, Judge Plowman found the “school system’s suspension was unconstitutional” and its handling of the situation was “vindictive.” 

Good for Judge Plowman, and as Tanner Cross’s attorney tweeted, “A massive victory for freedom of speech.”

6/24/21

I just read something very disheartening from the Colorado Sun. The disturbing article was by Jennifer Brown from the Health section of that journalist-owned, award-winning news outlet based in Denver. It strives to cover all of Colorado. After initially reading the article, I asked myself, “Is Colorado any different from other states in terms of the problem that it having with adolescent mental health?” 

As many of us are aware, Colorado was one of the first states to legalize marijuana, and it is possible that marijuana availability is playing a role in this issue. However, if I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the legalization of marijuana is playing only a minor role here.

The title of the article is: “Children’s Hospital Colorado declares mental health state of emergency as suicide attempts rise,” and the stats from this piece are truly disturbing.

“Colorado children are attempting suicide and arriving in emergency rooms in psychiatric crisis at levels never seen in this state, while abuse of alcohol and drugs to cope with mental health struggles is also on the rise.

“The youth mental health crisis has escalated to the point this spring that hospital beds are full and more parents are sending kids out of state for treatment, according to a Children’s Hospital Colorado panel of experts who recently sent up a flare for help.

“In Aurora, the hospital’s 52-bed emergency department has been overrun with children in psychiatric crisis. Mental health emergency visits were up 90% last month compared with April 2019. The hospital’s transport team is seeing three or four kids each week who have just tried to kill themselves. 

“Children’s Chief Medical Officer Dr.  David Brumbaugh, who has practiced medicine for more than 20 years, said that in the last 15 months he has seen a demand in children’s mental health care like nothing he’s ever experienced. Brumbaugh began to cry as he spoke of a dad whose 9th-grade son recently tried to kill himself after not making the baseball team near the close of an isolating first year of high school. 

“Our kids have run out of resilience,” the doctor said. “Their tank is empty.” Then he apologized for crying: “I’m sorry, but this is what we are feeling as caregivers every day.”

“The isolation and stress of the pandemic have exacerbated mental health struggles, leading to higher rates of substance abuse in kids and teens and more diagnoses of eating disorders, said Dr. Jenna Glover, director of psychological training at Children’s. 

More than ever, she said, children are turning to alcohol and drugs to escape feelings or try to find a sense of control, rather than asking for help because they think they will cause more stress for their parents, she said.”

After reading this article through multiple times, my same question remains, “Is Colorado any different from other states in terms of the problem that it having with adolescent mental health?” 

I am sorry to say that my answer is … “No!”

And a recent CDC study agrees:

“Among the adolescent girls aged 12-17 years, the average weekly visits to the emergency department for suspected suicide attempts from February 2021 to March 2021 was 50.6% higher than the same period the year before, according to the CDC analysis. Boys were far less likely to show suicidal tendencies during the same time period; the number of emergency department visits for suicide attempts rose by 3.7% for males

A recent CDC study theorized that the stresses of the COVID-19 pandemic may have been toxic to the mental health of young people.

“Young persons might represent a group at high risk because they might have been particularly affected by mitigation measures, such as physical distancing (including a lack of connectedness to schools, teachers, and peers); barriers to mental health treatment; increases in substance use; and anxiety about family health and economic problems, which are all risk factors for suicide,” the CDC study said.

So for the sake of clarity tell me again who were the main driving forces in lockdowns and Zoom schooling? Other than the teacher’s unions it was the governors who thought that this approach was a good idea. This inane idea of preventing kids from going to school was somewhat pervasive throughout the country, but much more so in blue states. As I I’m sure you are aware, the Governor of Colorado, Jared Polis, is indeed a blue state Democrat.

6/23/21

As background, Californians pay 79.6 cents per gallon in gas taxes in addition to fees. A lot of these fees are related to climate change, This come to an additional 38.9 cents per gallon for a combined total of $1.19 per gallon of gas. Not only does California have the highest gas tax in the country, but as of last week it also had the highest gas price in the country. As the last gas tax hikes were in 2017 and 2019, one might ask …”with all due respect, who is proposing and encouraging gas tax hike after gas tax hike?” The short answer is: the politicians in Sacramento, most of whom, … and I am going out on a limb here … most of whom do not drive. ( I just cannot imagine a state politician driving on I-5 between Stockton and Bakersfield with the tule (pronounced “too-lee”) fog in the winter or the 100+ temperatures in the summer.) For sure our last few governors here in California do not drive, but yet are happy to sign on to increasing gas taxes. Does anyone besides me think that in order to impose higher gas taxes on everyone else, the voting politician must drive? When can we expect some reporter to ask the Governor, of California, “With all due respect, sir, do you drive a car?”

Similarly at a national level should a president who reflexively by diktat immediately canceled the Keystone Pipeline with a resultant increase in gasoline prices across the country for everybody, should he himself be a driver? Realistically, probably not, but should he at least have a driver’s license?

Likewise should a President and a Vice President make proclamations about our southern border without having actually viewed the problem in person? Most rational people would say, “no,” and this leads me to the real purpose of this essay . . . Should politicians be pro-abortion without actually having seen an abortion? Can Democratic politicians be staunchly pro-abortion if they have never witnessed an abortion? It has always been interesting to me that pro-abortion politicians are never asked that question. I postulate that the reason for this is because the answer would undoubtedly be “Err … no I have never witnessed an abortion.”

Someone should ask the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Beccera, if he has ever witnessed a partial birth abortion. For all intents and purposes his answer would most likely be … “err, not actually.”

Why are pro-abortion politicians never asked, “With all due respect, sir (or ma’am) have you ever personally witnessed an abortion?” 

Actually the answer as to why this question is never asked to national politicians is the same as to why no Sacramento reporter would ever ask a Governor of California if he ever drives a car and is forced to pay gas taxes.  Namely, everyone knows the answer!

When will some news reporter with fortitude have the chutzpah to publicly ask that question? Will anyone ever be allowed to ask the most pro-abortion President in history that question? (“With all due respect, Mr. President, in light of your overwhelming support of abortion policies, have you ever witnessed a live abortion?”) 

I can imagine that his answer would be akin to … “Come-on, man!”

6/22/21

John McWhorter, a black linguistics professor at Columbia University, says that parents who truly believe themselves to be anti-racist need to yank their kids out of schools that implement critical race theory into their curriculums. 

(McWhorter, in addition to being a noted academic, is an author and journalist who has written for CNN, Forbes, National Geographic, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Time, among other prolific outlets.)

McWhorter targeted Dwight-Englewood School in Englewood, New Jersey, in particular after former English teacher Dana Stangel-Plowe announced her decision to resign from her position at the school following allegations that it was indoctrinating children through CRT teachings.

Meanwhile, Keisha King, a black mom in Florida, has gone viral for her heated remarks against teaching critical race theory in Florida schools.

King spoke to the Florida Board of Education recently, insisting that the only people who are proponents of CRT are racists themselves.

King, a parent in Duval County and speaking on behalf of the grassroots activist group Moms for Liberty, warned the board that if unchecked, critical race theory would ruin America.

From the Daily Wire: 

A black father in Illinois sounded off in a viral speech at a local school board meeting about the dangers of Critical Race Theory, saying that the far-left ideology “deliberately” teaches kids “to hate each other” This parent absolutely obliterate Critical Race Theory at an Illinois school board meeting: “How do I have two medical degrees if I’m sitting here oppressed?

On 6/10/21, The Florida Board of Education approved a rule that essentially prohibits the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in schools across the state. 

With the board’s approval, Florida becomes the fifth state — following Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee — to bar the teaching of CRT from its public schools. 21 other states have already introduced some form of anti-CRT legislation, with more poised to follow.

So back to my initial question:

CRT – Who Wants It ?

At this point it appears to me that only those with Marxist leanings are pushing CRT in an attempt to further divide and fracture America.

From Jesse Kelly:

“It’s not enough to ban Critical Race Theory. That’s simply step one. That’s defense. Overthrow your local school board and make sure the next generation learns YOUR values. That’s offense. Nothing else matters if we continue to churn anti-patriots out of our schools.”

6/21/21