The plan to destroy America
- Thread starter saintrose
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So, you're making the claim that young school students are being taught a PhD-level philosophical approach to history?
Um. Ok....? If that's what you want to believe....
If that's the case, where's your proof? And how do you define whether or not a history course is "CRT" or actual real events that occurred?
Um. Ok....? If that's what you want to believe....
If that's the case, where's your proof? And how do you define whether or not a history course is "CRT" or actual real events that occurred?
Ok, so, you just entered into the realm of the ridiculous. I was reading your post, up until you spoke about illegal immigrants walking across your lawn, to killing you and your entire family and taking over your home. Because that just simply isn't something that's actually happening...
I don't think I'll be responding to any more of your posts.
I don't think I'll be responding to any more of your posts.
Every single teacher in NYC was required to take an Implicit Bias professional development.
This training was loosely based on science that shows the human brain will have a much more detailed analysis of a person who is considered "in your group" compared with one who is "outside your group".
In that sense there is a "bias" but that does not equate to prejudice, nor does it define who your group is, nor does this claim that this is more prevalent in one group of people over another.
This is taught in juxtaposition with the ways in which prejudice can harm others, the implication being that bias = prejudice, a logical fallacy that is not supported by the research they provide to "support it".
You then finish the training with a positive affirmation that you will not be prejudiced.
To not be prejudiced is a great goal, to inform people that humans will inherently have a bias hard wired into us to identify with a group is interesting and probably useful. To equate the two with this broad brush condemnation and then justification -- all the bad outcomes that happened to you in your life were due to others being prejudiced against you is pathetic and lame.
I don't think anyone actually said that (among those running the PD) however, it was certainly stated by teachers afterwards for the months following it. It became the all inclusive explanation for bad outcomes -- impiicit bias
This training was loosely based on science that shows the human brain will have a much more detailed analysis of a person who is considered "in your group" compared with one who is "outside your group".
In that sense there is a "bias" but that does not equate to prejudice, nor does it define who your group is, nor does this claim that this is more prevalent in one group of people over another.
This is taught in juxtaposition with the ways in which prejudice can harm others, the implication being that bias = prejudice, a logical fallacy that is not supported by the research they provide to "support it".
You then finish the training with a positive affirmation that you will not be prejudiced.
To not be prejudiced is a great goal, to inform people that humans will inherently have a bias hard wired into us to identify with a group is interesting and probably useful. To equate the two with this broad brush condemnation and then justification -- all the bad outcomes that happened to you in your life were due to others being prejudiced against you is pathetic and lame.
I don't think anyone actually said that (among those running the PD) however, it was certainly stated by teachers afterwards for the months following it. It became the all inclusive explanation for bad outcomes -- impiicit bias
Hawley: Kentanji Brown Jackson ‘Lenient’ on Child Sex Predators, ‘Soft on Crime’
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/202...lenient-on-child-sex-predators-soft-on-crime/
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/202...lenient-on-child-sex-predators-soft-on-crime/
Great. Didn't answer my question though.
the claim is that CRT is being taught to school children. From what I understand, HISTORY is being taught to school children. So. What's the difference between actual history and "CRT?" Because apparently, we aren't allowed to teach that black people were slaves, and that "whites only" signs really were a thing. Anything and everything that paints certain white people as "bad" is now being claimed as "CRT."
the claim is that CRT is being taught to school children. From what I understand, HISTORY is being taught to school children. So. What's the difference between actual history and "CRT?" Because apparently, we aren't allowed to teach that black people were slaves, and that "whites only" signs really were a thing. Anything and everything that paints certain white people as "bad" is now being claimed as "CRT."
First I never said that elementary school children are being taught a Phd thought experiment. You have to understand the root of this teaching to really get it. I said that was where it came from.
The initial idea among Phd students was "let's assume that all decisions are made based on skin color and see where that leads". No legitimate scholar thinks that is true, but the purpose of the experiment is maybe you'll discover something that you hadn't realized before.
However, you then had a few people who ran with this as though it were true and created a curriculum based on that. For example, the reason they want to get rid of the name Lincoln is that they teach that Lincoln was a racist. Why? Because he was quoted as saying that if he could have kept the union without a civil war he would have. The reason they tore down Teddy Roosevelt's statue in front of the Museum of Natural History was because they were incredibly ignorant. The statue included a Native American as a personification of North America and an African American as a personification of Africa. Teddy Roosevelt was there because he was the major contributor to the museum when it was first set up.
In elementary school the lesson plan will come up with an arbitrary basis on which to treat a group in the class despicably, for example eye color, hair color, height, etc. Then those kids don't get treats. If you did this in HS or JHS kids might be able to understand but in 1-3rd grade the kids are devastated.
They also teach that everything is racist. Again that was a thought experiment, anyone with a decent education knows that is not an accurate description of human history.
Over the last few years I noticed all kinds of posters that were from a Black Lives Matter mantra, which has a very ugly inference that for some reason Black Lives don't matter. This led to the whole push for defunding the police. It was absurd, yes Blacks are being killed at an astonishing rate, but not from police, it is from other blacks.
The entire teaching of CRT blamed the poverty of those in the inner city on the color of their skin and ignored some other very basic factors (single parent families and people without HS diplomas or college degrees).
I would also point out that too many people are way too naive. There are people who want jobs, if CRT helps them promote their career that is all they care about.
The initial idea among Phd students was "let's assume that all decisions are made based on skin color and see where that leads". No legitimate scholar thinks that is true, but the purpose of the experiment is maybe you'll discover something that you hadn't realized before.
However, you then had a few people who ran with this as though it were true and created a curriculum based on that. For example, the reason they want to get rid of the name Lincoln is that they teach that Lincoln was a racist. Why? Because he was quoted as saying that if he could have kept the union without a civil war he would have. The reason they tore down Teddy Roosevelt's statue in front of the Museum of Natural History was because they were incredibly ignorant. The statue included a Native American as a personification of North America and an African American as a personification of Africa. Teddy Roosevelt was there because he was the major contributor to the museum when it was first set up.
In elementary school the lesson plan will come up with an arbitrary basis on which to treat a group in the class despicably, for example eye color, hair color, height, etc. Then those kids don't get treats. If you did this in HS or JHS kids might be able to understand but in 1-3rd grade the kids are devastated.
They also teach that everything is racist. Again that was a thought experiment, anyone with a decent education knows that is not an accurate description of human history.
Over the last few years I noticed all kinds of posters that were from a Black Lives Matter mantra, which has a very ugly inference that for some reason Black Lives don't matter. This led to the whole push for defunding the police. It was absurd, yes Blacks are being killed at an astonishing rate, but not from police, it is from other blacks.
The entire teaching of CRT blamed the poverty of those in the inner city on the color of their skin and ignored some other very basic factors (single parent families and people without HS diplomas or college degrees).
I would also point out that too many people are way too naive. There are people who want jobs, if CRT helps them promote their career that is all they care about.
4
Deleted what I had entered for a reply. It may have ruffled some feathers 
...
Anyway, came across this article from June 2008. Interesting read.
P.S. Take note of the last sentence in the article...
Supreme Court: No Inalienable Right To Bear Arms
Lee Rogers - Rogue Government
go to original
ANP: Judges rule 5-4 to get rid of DC's 32-year-ban on handguns as gun advocates celebrate victory
This week the U.S. Supreme Court released their ruling on the District of Columbia gun ban case. The court ruled that the Second Amendment did guarantee an individual’s right to bear arms, but also went on to say that the government still has the right to control and regulate firearms.
The mainstream press is hailing this as a victory for gun owners and a defeat for anti-American gun control advocates. Unfortunately, this is incredibly misleading spin by the mainstream press as the ruling essentially says that the government still has the authority to implement regulations to control who has access to firearms and who doesn’t. The Second Amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, yet these egghead Supreme Court Justices have gone out of their way to try to redefine what it actually means.
Either these Supreme Court Justices can’t read or they have been paid off by the criminals that run the federal government. Not only that, but it is incredibly frightening that the court only ruled 5-4 in favor of the Second Amendment with limitations. The dissenting Justices essentially said that the people don’t have the right to bear arms. It doesn’t get much more insane than this. This is totally unacceptable as the main purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people can stand up against a tyrannical government and defend their lives, liberty and property. This ruling is more proof that the establishment is continuing its agenda of disarming the American people so they can setup a global dictatorship of death.
The following is taken from a Reuters report which summarizes what Justice Antonin Scalia said on behalf of the majority opinion.
In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.
He said the ruling should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in places like schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions on gun sales.
This is proof that Scalia and the other Justices in the majority opinion simply do not have an understanding of the Second Amendment or refuse to interpret it properly. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written so that the vast majority of people could understand them. They were not written so that only lawyers and judges could understand its contents. Let’s take a look at the full text of 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 words “shall not be infringed” is what is key. The Second Amendment doesn’t say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in certain cases. It doesn’t get anymore clear than this yet Scalia and the majority opinion Justices some how get the impression that the right to bear arms is not unlimited? How can someone make such a statement and be a Supreme Court Justice? This is proof that Scalia and the other Supreme Court Justices in the majority opinion are not competent to hold office and should be removed immediately. The founding fathers were saying that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right. Any regulation of firearms is unconstitutional and the government does not have the authority under the Constitution to dictate who is allowed to bear arms and who doesn’t.
With that said, the Justices in the minority should also be removed from the bench because according to their interpretation they believe that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the individual’s right to bear arms. This is of course total idiocy.
It becomes even more ridiculous when a so called pro-gun lobby like the National Rifle Association claims that this ruling is a victory for gun owners. How is this ruling good for gun owners? The U.S. Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the right to bear arms can be infringed when the language of the Second Amendment indicates that this is totally false. Clearly, this shows how the NRA is a phony gun rights group. They hail this ruling as a victory when it simply isn’t.
Either way it doesn’t matter. We know what the agenda is and it involves incrementally abolishing the Second Amendment so that the American people can eventually be enslaved to the New World Order. All of the propaganda and lies cannot change the fact that this ruling is contrary to what the Second Amendment says. These Supreme Court Justices should all be removed from the bench for this ruling. It proves that they either can’t read properly or they are corrupt establishment hacks that love being slaves to this coming global dictatorship of evil.
...Anyway, came across this article from June 2008. Interesting read.
P.S. Take note of the last sentence in the article...
Supreme Court: No Inalienable Right To Bear Arms
go to original
ANP: Judges rule 5-4 to get rid of DC's 32-year-ban on handguns as gun advocates celebrate victory
This week the U.S. Supreme Court released their ruling on the District of Columbia gun ban case. The court ruled that the Second Amendment did guarantee an individual’s right to bear arms, but also went on to say that the government still has the right to control and regulate firearms.
The mainstream press is hailing this as a victory for gun owners and a defeat for anti-American gun control advocates. Unfortunately, this is incredibly misleading spin by the mainstream press as the ruling essentially says that the government still has the authority to implement regulations to control who has access to firearms and who doesn’t. The Second Amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, yet these egghead Supreme Court Justices have gone out of their way to try to redefine what it actually means.
Either these Supreme Court Justices can’t read or they have been paid off by the criminals that run the federal government. Not only that, but it is incredibly frightening that the court only ruled 5-4 in favor of the Second Amendment with limitations. The dissenting Justices essentially said that the people don’t have the right to bear arms. It doesn’t get much more insane than this. This is totally unacceptable as the main purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people can stand up against a tyrannical government and defend their lives, liberty and property. This ruling is more proof that the establishment is continuing its agenda of disarming the American people so they can setup a global dictatorship of death.
The following is taken from a Reuters report which summarizes what Justice Antonin Scalia said on behalf of the majority opinion.
In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.
He said the ruling should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in places like schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions on gun sales.
This is proof that Scalia and the other Justices in the majority opinion simply do not have an understanding of the Second Amendment or refuse to interpret it properly. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written so that the vast majority of people could understand them. They were not written so that only lawyers and judges could understand its contents. Let’s take a look at the full text of 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 words “shall not be infringed” is what is key. The Second Amendment doesn’t say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in certain cases. It doesn’t get anymore clear than this yet Scalia and the majority opinion Justices some how get the impression that the right to bear arms is not unlimited? How can someone make such a statement and be a Supreme Court Justice? This is proof that Scalia and the other Supreme Court Justices in the majority opinion are not competent to hold office and should be removed immediately. The founding fathers were saying that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right. Any regulation of firearms is unconstitutional and the government does not have the authority under the Constitution to dictate who is allowed to bear arms and who doesn’t.
With that said, the Justices in the minority should also be removed from the bench because according to their interpretation they believe that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the individual’s right to bear arms. This is of course total idiocy.
It becomes even more ridiculous when a so called pro-gun lobby like the National Rifle Association claims that this ruling is a victory for gun owners. How is this ruling good for gun owners? The U.S. Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the right to bear arms can be infringed when the language of the Second Amendment indicates that this is totally false. Clearly, this shows how the NRA is a phony gun rights group. They hail this ruling as a victory when it simply isn’t.
Either way it doesn’t matter. We know what the agenda is and it involves incrementally abolishing the Second Amendment so that the American people can eventually be enslaved to the New World Order. All of the propaganda and lies cannot change the fact that this ruling is contrary to what the Second Amendment says. These Supreme Court Justices should all be removed from the bench for this ruling. It proves that they either can’t read properly or they are corrupt establishment hacks that love being slaves to this coming global dictatorship of evil.
-
1
- Show all
4
And as interesting as Atheism's view is on all these important matters an nudge would help,that is there's of a truth somehow, some way you could save us from goofing our afterlives up from our manner of thinking right? I propose an question "If you don't believe in God nor any type afterlife just what is the necessity in your attempt to save us,help us from our folly ect.? Now if you don't believe in any of this how exactly do you perceive that we are even at an loss? Is it not hypocritical for one to say they believe there is no afterlife but then themselves see the necessity to correct an-other's path into nothingness? You have to admit it might seen quite odd to others for someone to both believe in nothingness after ones life and again be of the mind that others might even be capable of goofing up nothing....
-
1
- Show all
If Trump was in another term, he may started a large scale war at some point.
Trump sold arms to the Saudis. The Saudis are slaughtering the Yemenis.
Reagan sold arms to Saddam Hussein. That set the foundation for his terrible regime. Saddam killed thousands of Kurds, etc.
History does repeat itself.
Trump sold arms to the Saudis. The Saudis are slaughtering the Yemenis.
Reagan sold arms to Saddam Hussein. That set the foundation for his terrible regime. Saddam killed thousands of Kurds, etc.
History does repeat itself.
-
1
- Show all
