Rant

Trump v. Wilcox on application for stay was granted. It was a 6-3 opinion. The usual suspects were on the wrong side of history, again.

Justice Kagan wrote the dissent.

Miggy made the mistake of letting me write for him. Then I begged him to let me write when he wanted to close GFZ. When I started, I knew I had things to say about some cases happening. I just didn’t know what I didn’t know.

I started reading and listening. The more I learned, the more I knew I needed to learn.

I have gotten to the point where I read at least part of every opinion the Supreme Court writes. Certain things keep showing up.

It is obvious to any honest person that the Second Amendment means that all gun-control is unconstitutional. The closest we have gotten to anything that is even remotely close to being allowed is that a violent person can be temporarily disarmed.

The Justices that believe in the Constitution express it as “The plain text and this Nation’s historical tradition of …”. This means that if the plain text of the Constitution is implicated, the burden shifts to the government to prove that there were similar regulations at the time the constitution was adopted and when the particular amendment was ratified.

The 14th Amendment must be interpreted as it was understood at the time it was ratified, in the late 1800s, not 1791. The Second Amendment must be interpreted as it was understood at the time it was ratified, in 1791.

The authority of the Executive branch was established on June 22, 1788.

Humphrey’s Executor v. United States was issued in 1935. It cannot be used to establish the meaning of Article II. It is NOT part of this Nation’s historical tradition of regulations regarding the President’s authority.

Since Roe v Wade, every Supreme Court nomination has been asked, “will you mess with Roe v. Wade?”. If the answer is “yes”, the Democrats would fight tooth and nail to keep that person off the Court.

This is always the way of the left. We see it in the court battles against the Trump administration. They will fight a battle, lose, claim victory, then fight the same battle again.

They repeat this until they win. After they win, they claim that this is the standard and cannot be chanted. To attempt to change it is evil, against the will of The Person, and wrong. This is what is happening with the court shopping they are doing. They don’t have to win every case against Trump, just one.

If they lose, they will attempt the same case in a different jurisdiction, until they get a win.

Roe v. Wade was a shit decision. The Dred Scott opinion was even worse. But according to the left, these cases should never have been challenged, much less overturned.

FDR decided that Government was the answer. Regardless of the question, the answer, according to him, was the government.

You don’t have a job? The government will create work, then hire you to do that work. People aren’t preparing for their retirement, the government will do that for you.

The problem he was facing was that much of what he wanted to do wasn’t really constitutional.

In addition, the next president could just undo the shitty things he had done. He needed a way to protect his policies.

The answer was the creation of Government Entities that were performing Article II duties, but which had limited presidential oversight.

Before FDR’s power grab, the president could fire anybody in the executive branch. He was that powerful. He got Congress to pass bills creating entities who’s governing body or head could only be fired for cause.

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson all believe that an opinion from 90 years ago says more about this Nation’s historical tradition of regulations than does Article II, adopted in 1788.

The People chose to put the authority into one person, the President, who they could change, every four years. The government is beholden to the People. The government doesn’t get to say that “a group of knowledgeable people” should be exempt.

Power corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We often talk about government interference. We are forced to talk about race, constantly.

Just as most gun control laws are racist in nature, designed to disarm blacks so that racist assholes could murder them, marriage license serve a similar purpose.

What is a marriage license?

In short, it is the government’s permission to perform a religious or secular ceremony declaring somebody to be your partner.

It is also a legally binding contract. At the moment you sign that contract, you have agreed to a set of laws, enforced by threat of force, on how you separate, what it costs to separate, and who will decide the access you will have to your children.

Many entities recognize that license as granting you special privileges and services.

In other words, that license is what your spouse uses to get on your insurance or for you to get on theirs. It sets the rules for custody and property. It details death benefits.

All of this in an implied contract.

Having signed that contract three times, I know what the contract implies.

How did marriage license come to be?

Before the War of Northern Aggression, the southern states had laws against blacks and whites marrying. It wasn’t allowed.

That didn’t mean that white men weren’t dipping their wick when they wanted. It didn’t mean there weren’t mixed race babies.

This didn’t bother them. If it popped out of a slave, it was a slave that would be a slave until emancipated or death. If its skin color was too dark, it was a slave until emancipated or death. Racist as hell.

I’m sure there were some “bucks” that were servicing white women, but that wasn’t acknowledged at all.

After the unCivil War, many of those racist laws were struck down. The rules against mixed marriages went away as they were rules for slaves, not laws.

So laws were passed. These laws were designed to work around certain federal restrictions on racist behavior.

The gist? To be legally married, you need to have a license from the government, granting you permission.

The requirements to get that license weren’t relevant enough, so we’ll just do that later.

Blood Tests

Ostensibly, the marriage license protected against inbreeding, transfer of STDs, and mixing of blood.

You know, that thing that got the German’s in so much hot water in the 1938-1945 time frame. Mixing races with a government designated inferior race.

The reason Los Vegas became a marriage destination wasn’t the Gambling, Food, and Shows. It was because there were no blood tests and no waiting.

You and your bride-to-be could fly into Vegas in the morning, be married by noon. Be broke by 5pm. Be on a plane back home by 7pm. Arriving with your beautiful wife to an empty airport.

But we need records!

Absolutely, we need records. Does the government require a record of your marriage? Not really.

But we want to stop people from marrying somebody else while still married!

What business is it of yours how many spouses a person has?

Well, we don’t want people defrauding insurance companies!

Sure. But is the least intrusive method?

The fact is, that before those racist laws came into existence, and the government took over record keeping, births, deaths, and marriages were recorded. They were recorded in the family bible and at the church where you married.

Those records are still trusted today. Finding a family bible with those records in them is a treasure trove for people doing genealogy.

There is no record keeping that requires government involvement.

But what about the children!

Yep, that’s an important thing. What about the children?

Bluntly, most people getting married have no idea what the contract they are signing implies. They are likely not even thinking of that.

It is the same with pre-nuptials. Why are you talking about pre-nuptials when we are about to get married? Don’t you love me? Don’t you trust me?

The needs of the children need to come first. Notice the word “need”, not “want”. If you separate, you still have a responsibility to your children.

Property

Let’s pretend you are wealthy, you’ve got an entire $1000 in your bank account. You get married in California. How much money do you have in your bank account?

The correct answer is $500. Your spouse now has $500 in your bank account.

As one cynical lawyer explained it to me, a 50/50 state is where she starts with 50 percent of everything you own, the rest of the divorce is her working to get 50 percent of what you have left.

An extreme example is during John Denver’s divorce. His wife was going to get 50% of everything he owned. He took a chainsaw to their wedding bed and cut it down the middle, giving 50% to her.

Of course the judge didn’t see it the same way, but that’s neither here, nor there.

All of these can be handled by actual, explicit contracts.

We had a constructed family a few years back. The family owned 125 acres of woodland and farm land as well as a large house, a barn, and a couple of out buildings. One part of the family put up the down payment. My lovely wife and I were putting our salaries into the homestead.

When the constructed family was destroyed, we needed to split up the household assets.

I had been stupid, I trusted and didn’t get a good contract.

The toxic person who destroyed the family had planned it that way. Her husband was responsible for the finances. Every penny she or her husband brought in went to paying down the mortgage. The money my wife and I brought in went to “maintenance” and “living expenses”. And he had records to prove all of that.

The amount of their down payment plus the total of all of their salaries was about 1/3 of the total contributes my wife and I made.

That was entirely my fault for failing to have a good contract in place.

Contracts

The legal books are awash with contract law. There are lawyers who have spent and will spend their entire career doing contract law, the last courtroom they saw was the mock court in school.

We know how to write good contracts. We know how to read contracts. We can write a contract that will cover what needs to be covered.

Do you want your spouse to have survivor benefits? Put it in the contract. Do you want child support to be 50/50? Put it in the contract. Do you want 50% of the first 5 years of your spouse’s income after you put them through school? Put it in the contract.

Is it challenging to think of all the things that should be in that contract? Yes. Are there people that can do it? YES.

Conclusion

Let’s go back to a time when marriage was a religious or secular event, and contracts were contracts.

I learned situational awareness very quickly one night at University.

It was sometime after 2300, I was talking to a co-worker at the entrance to his cubicle. Since I was focused on our conversation, I wasn’t aware that somebody had walked up behind me.

My first indication was when I felt somebody pulling my knife from my right hip pocket. Without thinking, I turned, blocked the arm holding the knife and started to punch my attacker in the throat.

This is the sort of thing that happens when you are young, have been training in martial arts, and are scared you are about to be killed.

Well, I pulled the punch because I recognized it was a cop. First time I’d seen a cop in the building in over 8 years of “living” there. Last time I saw a cop in the building.

It made me aware. To this day, I never leave my back to an entrance or place where trouble might come from. I walk into a location, I choose a place with my back protected and clear sight of most, if not all, the exits. It is just me.

Part of being aware, is knowing when it is time to be elsewhere. The clues are often right in front of you. Ally has seen me go from relaxed, to being on a hair trigger in just a few seconds. She’s seen me shift my stance, move, so I have cleaner shot lines. And I’ve never been in a situation where I needed to draw.

One of the first places I learned to avoid, was groups of blacks. It just wasn’t worth the risk. It is never worth the risk.

I lived for four years in a section 8 apartment complex. I wasn’t getting government assistance, but every unit in the complex was section 8 eligible, and most of the people living there were on section 8. In that complex, there were maybe three white families, including mine.

The house across from us was a crack house. We invited the cops to observe from my office if they wanted to. They didn’t. The dealers had a 1-mile straight view to the only entrance to the complex. If the cops showed up, they had plenty of time to ditch the drugs and guns.

I learned to avoid my neighbors. My kids’ bikes were stolen four or five times. Locked to a rack, locked in the shed. It didn’t matter. It was just something that happened.

So here is the thing, before I was in middle school, I never considered skin color in my threat assessment. 1 week in high school in Calvert County, Maryland, and I did.

I was coming from Rhode Island, we arrived in Maryland, my first day of school started with a 30-minute wait for the bus, followed by a 25-mile bus ride to the school. I was picked on every single day on that bus. I hated it. I hated going to school.

I was able to observer a half dozen black kids get off the bus, head into a tar paper shack that they called home. We knew they were on welfare. We knew because the house looked like that, but there were often 2 or 3 new Cadillacs in the (unpaved) driveway.

The gym teacher would open the locker rooms an hour before school started. Why? Because many of those kids didn’t take showers at home. They would take advantage of the school showers.

The school system was using merit grouped classes. They were labeled A through F. In class A there were 30 kids. One black kid. In B there were 30 kids, I think 5 blacks. In Classes D and F there were 30 kids each, and no white kids.

The school was at a constant low rumble of violence, never breaking out in shootings or knifings, but about once a week, some black kid would be expelled for starting a fight. Most of the targets of those fights were white kids.

By the end of the first month, I was tired of being around blacks. For the following years that we lived in Calvert County, my parents shelled out money they couldn’t afford to, so that my brother and I could attend a private catholic school.

I’ve been told that it is extremely racist to say “13 do 50”. Why? Because what it says is that while blacks constitute about 13% of the population of the United States, they account for around 50% of all violent crime. It might be all crime.

It is actually worse than that. About 6.4% of the United States population, black males, account for over 50% of violent crimes.

In reading the 2019 UCR, the raw numbers are 1,488,876 whites arrested for violent crimes. 779,089 blacks were arrested for violent crime. By the percentages, that 62.97% white and 32.95% black.

Simplifying, if there is a pool of 100 people, 13 of them would be black, 4 others, and 83 white. There would be 51 women and 49 men.

If that pool was pulled from those arrested for violent crimes, 51 would be black, 4 others, and 45 white. 73 would be men and 27 women.

The next “math” would be to say what the odds of a violent crime being committed against you by white, black, or other. This is not as easy, it depends on the victim’s race.

What is true is that where blacks congregate, there will be violence and crime.

Here is the sad part of this, it is likely that most blacks are good people. The issue is so bad that even if they are good people, we don’t know it.

We will often look at a bad cop getting away from it. Where are the good cops stepping up and putting a stop to the bad cop’s actions? It is difficult to find that person.

We see blacks acting out. Where are the people from the black community stepping up and putting a stop to the bad actors? It is difficult to find that person.

I’m tired of looking at a video of violence breaking out and seeing that it is blacks doing it. I’m tired of looking at looting videos, and before they even zoom in, I know that they will be mostly blacks. I’m tired of seeing kids and the elderly sucker punched by blacks.

I think many of us are getting tired of it.

My father used to say, “I’m color-blind by an act of congress.” When evaluating the sailors who served under him, he was blind to the color of their skin. He was taught to judge people by their character.

He and my mother taught me the same. Judge people by their character. I want us to start moving towards an integrated society where I can trust the person beside me to act responsibly, regardless of the color of their skin.

Judge Boasberg is a rogue judge. He has found himself as the judge of many cases dealing with Trump. For some reason, the magic lottery machine picks his name at “random” when the case involves Trump.

While it is true that you should never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity, this guy is not dumb.

He made it through Yale to be given a Bachelor’s. He then completed a Juris Doctor at Yale, then passed the bar. He was in private practice from 1991 though 1996. In 1996, he became an Assistant US Attorney for D.C. After 6 years, he was made an associate Judge at the Superior Court of DC. This is a “state” level court.

In 2011, Obama appointed him a Judge of the District Court, District of Columbia.

I don’t care what your politics are, you don’t make it to this point without having some level of smarts.

So this is not something that can be explained away by stupidity, leaving malice as the most likely cause.

Boasberg was slapped down by the Supreme Court in April. The Justices said that he did not have Jurisdiction in the case.

He knew this. He knew it when the case came before him. He issued a Preliminary Injunction, called it a TRO, then allowed the administration only a short time to accomplish the impossible.

Having been put in his place by the Supreme Court, he then proceeded to hold the administration in contempt of court for failure to follow his TRO.

It works like this, a party requests a TRO, asking for something, “bring me the head of that troublesome priest.” The judge grants the TRO. Now, the party ordered to do bring the head refuses.

They are now in contempt of court. They appeal, the Appeals court says, “you can’t order them to execute somebody.” The party no longer has to cut the head of that troublesome priest. They are still in contempt of court.

That is the power of a judge.

That is what Boasberg did. He gave a court order. That order was not followed out because it was not possible, nor was it an order he had the constitutional authority to issue. He has the case law to back him, though. He knew the administration would refuse, and therefore he gets to slap them with a contempt charge.

Having found the administration in contempt, the administration appealed to the Circuit Court and requested an administrative stay by the district court.

We are used to seeing this in Second Amendment cases, the district court finds for The People, the judge knows the state will appeal, he issues a 30-day administrative stay of their order to allow the state time to appeal.

This judge denied the motion for an administrative stay.

He ordered the government to assert they have custody of the people in CECOT. This means that the administration can be ordered to present any of them in court. If the administration does not assert custody of the deported Alien Enemies in CECOT, they must provide this rogue judge some other means of ordering them to bring terrorists before him.

The only other option he “granted” was for the administration to offer up a scapegoat to be vilified and punished by this rogue court.

This Representative is talking out of both sides of her mouth.

According to her, “they” went into the Delaney Hall premises, guided by the guards.

She claims that she has oversight authority to be there.

Let me see, what happens when you enter a federal property, look around, take pictures and selfies, then walk back out, thanking the cops on duty?

If I remember correctly, you get tossed in jail without bail to wait till a judge decides to hear your case. You are given an option to confess or to be returned to your cell.

The rest of the story is that the Mayor of Newark was arrested. He does not have any “oversight” authority.

The democrat representatives were there for a camera opportunity. Not oversight. I do not know if they even sit on a committee that oversees this facility.

So the good news, is these stunts are getting these showboating politicians arrested.

Ally and I have had some long conversations about winning the hearts and minds of the middle.

The common saying is, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

This is normally true. Sometimes it is not.

In 2016, my parents expressed their disgust for Trump. They were convinced that he was doing horrible things.

Today, there are people that scream and call him a felon. The “fine people” hoax still lives on.

If you are a normal person, you can’t help but be inundated with negative coverage of Trump.

His tariffs will destroy the economy! There is a recession coming! All those empty ships sitting in China means that the US economy is failing and prices are going to go through the roof.

What I see when I see all of those empty container ships is tariffs working. Those are sales China is not making. That is their economy burning to the ground.

But I can’t talk to those in the middle about it. Yes, it is my opinion. My friends that are thinking and on the left, can’t get past the constant barrage of “Evil Trump”!

They just tune out or they get TDS. My ex-friend went that way. It was Trump’s fault that Roe v. Wade was reversed, and that meant there would be no “reproductive care” for women.

It is years since that decision, there are still abortions happening in this country. In some places, more than before the Dobbs decision.

Most of all, I’m reminded of the people telling me that because there are so many accusations of Trump, there is so much smoke coming from the Trump Administration, there must be fire there.

What I saw were arsonists and smoke bombs.

There is a battle of procedure that takes place in our courts. That is getting to a final result.

If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Trump in December 2028, it would not matter that he won. We would have lost.

That would be four years of waiting for a final result.

We watched and are watching this play out in the Second Amendment community. Duncan v. Bonta has been around for almost a decade at this point. It has been through the district court twice, the Ninth Circuit court multiple times, and the Supreme Court at least once.

The case has won at the District and Supreme Court, yet the relief sought by the plaintiff is still out of reach. In March 2025, the Ninth Circuit decided to twist the words of the Supreme Court to find that magazines are not arms and are not protected by the Second Amendment.

The State of California doesn’t care how long this case takes or how much money it costs to litigate. The district court enjoined the law back in 2017-2018. The Ninth stayed the injunction. That stay has remained in effect even now as the case has been remanded to the district court, ordering the district court to rule for the state.

As long as the status of the case leans towards the infringers, they are happy to delay.

To show how real this is, a district judge in New York issued a TRO enjoining the SAFE act (Bruen tantrum law). The state had that appealed within hours, even though a TRO is not appealable. The Second Circuit Stayed the injunction.

It took over a year before the Second Circuit finally ruled against The People and The Constitution, sending it back to the District Court for more litigation before the case can start up the chain to the Supreme Court, again.

Because that stay is in place, most of New York state is a gun free zone.

The left is using the same methods to stop the Trump administration. They do not care if they win or if they lose, as long as it doesn’t happen now.

They go court shopping until they find a court willing to issue a universal injunction, stopping the Article II executive branch.

Once the injunction is in place, they start slow walking things.

The Circuit courts are just as rogue in these locations as the District Courts. They are using the interlocutory state to excuse not staying the injunctions. “Just let it play out in court.”

The leftest Justices on the Supreme Court echo those words, “just let it work its way here through the normal process. There is no reason to rush this.”

This go around, the Trump administration has been ready and has been moving hard and fast. Multiple cases have made it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has issued opinions favorable to the Trump administration each time.

How are they favorable? In most of the cases, the Justices have ruled to allow the Trump administration to continue as they had intended, while the case works its way through the courts.

This means that the left is on the wrong side of that snail. They are the ones attempting to get the cases through as fast as they can. And it isn’t working for them.

In the few cases where the Justices have not issued a stay, they have chastised the lower courts or scheduled oral hearings quickly.

The case at hand.

A group of people suffering from gender dysphoria have been given medical release from the military. They sued in federal district court, asking for an injunction, which was granted.

This means that the military does not have the power to determine which service members are medical disqualified from serving.

The Supreme Court issued a stay against that injunction for the duration. The stay will remain in effect until the Supreme Court denies cert OR issues a final opinion.

We are winning, the courts are moving at breakneck speed, and it keeps looking good.

The other thing which is happening, is that the lanuguage of the Court is changing, they are getting less and less polite and more and more pointed in their correcting of the inferior courts.

When dealing with people of the left, a failed program with horrible outcomes is almost always excused with, “it was done with good intentions.”

Obamacare was intended to give health care to every one. Instead, it cost people their insurance, their doctors, and made everything more expensive. But the intentions were good, so just forgive and forget the bad outcomes.

“Do I believe that this language is meant to harm or confuse students?” is not relevant. “Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity”. That is where I lived for many, many, many years. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three time is enemy fire.

“More inclusive?” No, it is designed to allow people, teachers, administrators, parents, and students to get participation awards for failing.

I took my oldest daughter to the range, back when I didn’t know enough, and tried to teach her how to shoot. She did a miserable job. In the end, she managed to get all 8 rounds from the 1911 on paper. Not even in the target, just on paper.

I was so proud of her improvement, I praised her, “That’s perfect, brat!”.

She came home, excited about range day. She showed her final target to the rest of the family, telling everybody she had done perfectly.

Today, If there is more than a MOA in my pattern, I have to do better. No, I don’t get MOA most of the time. There is lots of room for improvement.

Telling somebody they are a “learner”, when they are not, is malicious. It might not be meant in a malicious way, that doesn’t mean it isn’t.

A learner is somebody with a learning mind set. Someone who is open to learning something new, or improving on something they already know. I’ve known many learners over the years.

Some people are not natural learners. They will “turn off their brains” after a hard day at the office. They do mindless things. They only have enough energy to learn when it is required.

I know people who have 4.0 grade point averages that were not learners. They were great students, they learned while in class, but they might not ever apply that to anything in the future.

I want to highlight the entire quote, but there are three sections.

“Done with positive intentions.” I do not know that it was done with positive intentions. Nobody has presented any evidence to me that it was done with positive intentions. The intentions are not relevant.

I believe the most of the people who are currently using the term haven’t really thought about it. Instead, they fall into the patterns of their bosses. They are slowly herded into standard group think.

Most of these people never thought about the misuse of the word “learner”, they didn’t think at all. They were sheep.

The second part is the definition. Yes, that is a reasonable definition of a learner.

“It reflects a belief…” is not part of the definition. It is wishful thinking. Not every person can grow, discover and take ownership of their learning.

This type of thinking is certainly reflective of left think. If we label something, then that something will become the label.

This is a pile of dung. Calling it pizza will not make it pizza. “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” — Act II, Scene II, Romeo and Juliet

We don’t call somebody a “winner” because of their potential to win. We call them a winner when they do win.

We don’t give out Medal of Honor to soldiers because of their potential to earn the medial, but because they did earn it.

… I still believe all students can become learners… Exactly! A student can become a learner. And when they do, they are learners. Until that, they can still be students.

I am a computer scientist by education. I’m good at it. I was hanging with my friends, all of them scientists as well. We were working on a difficult problem, making slow headway on it. One of them spoke up, “Come on, it’s not that hard. It isn’t rocket science.”

Everybody got very silent and stared at her. She worked for NASA. The problem we were working was rocket science.

We all laughed, and I remember it to this day.

When I have to deal with somebody with an associates degree in information technology claiming the mantel of “Scientist”, I become irritated.

The sales jerk that expressed his opinion, incorrectly quoting MSM telling me I couldn’t have an opinion because I wasn’t a “Scientist”, made me walk to the other end of the building to confront him in person. The words I had to say weren’t for the rest of the team to hear.

We need to stop giving out participation awards

I remember coming up on a tee-ball game.

“What’s the score?”

Player’s dad: “We don’t keep score, everyone is a winner.”

Player: 4 to 1, they won’t use the scoreboard, so we have to keep track ourselves.

…or to become curious, independent learners?

Personally, I want them to become curious, independent learners, with a lifelong learning mindset. To that end I will reward them with the well-earned title of “learner” when it happens. Until then, they are, at best, students.

Before I got to high school, the term was “illegal alien”. This was the technically, legally correct term.

According to the INA, The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States — 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)

The term “illegal alien” is not used, but no term is defined within the INA for illegal aliens.

Now the term “illegal alien” was used to create faux outrage, “Nobody is Illegal!” was the scream.

They then became “aliens”, then “undocumented migrants”, and then “undocumented works” and finally, “migrants”.

All of these language changes were done with purpose and evil in the hearts of the manipulators.

Who wants an “illegal alien” living with them? How worries about an undocumented migrant living with them. One sounds much more “criminal” than the other.

This worked so well, that today, and every day, I hear leftists scream about “she was just a Maryland mother, she had committed no crimes.”

She committed the crime of entering this country illegally. That is a crime.

In the Second Amendment community, we’ve seen the infringers pivot to “assault weapons” to “gun safety” to “prevent gun violence”. The words are designed to hide the actual intentions.

The Education Industry

There is a community that I’ve labeled the Education Industry. This includes teacher’s unions, school boards, school administrators, the Department of Education at all levels, and the vendors selling into these groups.

One of the worst things about the EI, is that it isn’t interested in good results, it is interested in looking like they are providing good results.

I’ve had many people within the EI tell me that it is impossible to use objective standards to “grade” teachers. Then proceeded to prove it by informing me that judging teachers by how well their students do, doesn’t work.

These same people have then told me which teachers in the school are good or bad. They know what makes a good teacher, they know what makes a bad teacher. They are not willing to turn those into written, objective, criteria.

When my children were younger, there was an incident in the classroom. I was brought in to hear about how my son had misbehaved.

“Your son hit one of his friends.”

“He hit Jimmy? I’ll have to speak with Jimmy’s parents to find out what happened and make sure they can patch it up.”

“No, it wasn’t Jimmy.”

Turns out that the “friend” that he hit was the classroom bully and had no friends.

She was my son’s “friend” because everybody in the room was a “friend.”

The research strongly suggested that students with good social interactions and with a strong support base of friends performed better.

This meant that schools that wanted to have students perform well, they needed friends.

Since you can’t force people to be friends, they just redefined all classmates as “friends”. Instant solution. Everybody has friends now. They will all do better.

Nope, of course not. This is just industrial-sized cheating.

Nothing more than the marathon runner who trotted off the starting line, ran a mile, got on the subway and then to the ending line.

They waited “long enough” then rejoined the other runners for the last mile, mile and a half.

They caught her because her time put her in world-class times.

She wasn’t “cheating” in her mind, she “didn’t want to disappoint her daughter.” So she cheated.

The EI cheats all the time.

“No Child Left Behind”. The EI turned to malicious compliance and malicious misunderstandings to create a disaster.

If you read the bill, if you read the statements made around it, you quickly realize that the goal was to make sure that no child was shorted the opportunity to succeed.

If you were a little slow, more resources would be provided, to help you reach classroom standards. It was also supposed to help the gifted children, making sure they also received extra resources.

Instead, it became BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). No child left behind meant that schools couldn’t hold students back.

Their Learners

One of the latest pushes was “the learning mindset” where the EI would create “lifetime learners”.

I’m a learner, I’m always attempting to learn something new. I don’t always succeed, but I darn well try. If you’ve been following this blog, you’ve read about the things I attempt to learn.

People that have a learning mindset naturally do better at learning things.

We want learners in our schools. We want to encourage learners.

Knowing how important having a lifetime learning mindset is, the schools have ditched the term “student” and replaced it with “learner”.

Now everybody is a learner. It says so right on the label.

My teacher explained to me that calling them “learners” was encouraging them to have that learning mindset.

I reached over and picked up something on the table. “This is the medal of honor. It is awarded to those that do amazing, heroic acts, putting the lives of others before their own. I’m giving this to you to encourage you to do amazing, heroic acts, putting the lives of others before your own.”

I was lucky, she got it and I didn’t get slapped.

You can call it day when it’s night, you can call it good when it’s bad, that doesn’t make it so.

Situational morals at work again.

It is being reported, and I haven’t heard anybody deny it, that two or more U.S. Citizens under 10 were “deported”.

Well, they weren’t actually deported, their mother(s) were deported. Their father may or may not have been deported as well.

This is what happens when an illegal alien is detained, they are given due process to challenge the removal before an immigration judge. If that judge finds that you are in the country illegally, they will sign a removal order.

The illegal alien can appeal that to a higher immigration judge. If they agree, the removal order remains. They can then appeal outside the immigration court system, I don’t know how that works.

These mothers had that due process, there were removal orders issued against them.

Those mothers then had to make a very difficult decision, leave the children who were born in the US here in the US or take them with them.

In one case, the child had a serious medical condition.

In these cases, the mothers opted to take their children with them. Those children remain U.S. Citizens, they can return to the United States at any time. Hopefully, they haven’t become MS13 or TDA members before they do return.

This is what Trump wanted, according to the dog whistle people. He wants to deport people he doesn’t like. He wants to deport U.S. Citizens who he declares are enemies of the state. This is proof.

In other news, an illegal alien mother was deported, choosing to leave her US Citizen children behind. Isn’t it horrible how Trump is choosing to seperate families?