Connect with us

Education

The real danger of quashing voices like Ben Shapiro’s on college campuses

Published

on

Why is it that so many colleges react negatively when a conservative speaker is booked to do an event on campus? It seems lately the words many college administrators dread the most are, “Young America’s Foundation has invited Ben Shapiro to speak on campus.”

It isn’t just Shapiro, but he’s conspicuous for two reasons. First, the unhinged hatred towards him is not congruous with his level of offense. Yes, he will offend people sometimes as the truth invariably does, but he’s not David Duke or Louis Farrakhan. Somehow, he’s able to stir up such positive and negative responses on college campuses that one might think President Trump himself was making an appearance.

The second reason he’s conspicuous is because his protesters don’t have valid reasons to protest him. They’re forced to pull from their own irrational fears of him that have been conjured up out of fiction. He’s a devout Jew, yet protesters call him Hitler. He’s adamantly opposed to authoritarianism, yet protesters call him a fascist. He’s one of the most targeted journalists in America by white supremacists, yet for some reason protesters seem to think he’s a white supremacist.

Gonzaga recently claimed their reason for not allowing Shapiro to speak on campus is because his speeches “routinely draw protests that include extremely divisive and hateful speech and behavior, which is offensive to many people.”

They weren’t accusing him of being offensive, which colleges often cite when rejecting speakers like Suzanne Venker or Milo Yiannopoulos. Instead, they were accusing him of drawing protests that were offensive. Let that sink in for a moment. Here’s a speaker that a good chunk of any college campus wants to hear and a bigger chunk needs to hear, but he’s being quashed because of the protests that rise up when he speaks. I’m not going to go into a long rant about mob rule. Either you see it in play here or you don’t.

Commentators, particularly conservative ones, often discuss how colleges have a problem with free speech. Colleges often counter by having “free speech zones” or their polar opposite, the much maligned “safe space.” They might hold free speech events before cancelling them over someone’s… speech. Hmm.

But here’s the problem with framing the issue in this way. First, it adds to confusion about what free speech is and isn’t. The 1st Amendment, which is the first thing that comes to mind when people invoke “free speech,” has very little to do with what’s happening on college campuses. Our Constitutional right to free speech is a protection against government suppressing speech for unlawful reasons. What’s happening on college campuses is different. Now, thanks to the ugly protests that have been following conservative speakers, private AND public colleges can invoke safety concerns whenever a heavily protested speaker is planning on coming to campus. The progressive puppetmasters have known this for decades. That’s why they spark the protests in the first place. It’s a dirty little secret the organizers of these protests will never mention. By allowing their protests to turn violent, they set the precedent by which universities can turn away controversial conservative speakers. It’s not spontaneous in most instances. It’s done by design.

The second reason we shouldn’t frame the issue as one about freedom of speech is because we can debate all day about it, but the best we can hope for is a logical victory that does nothing to change the situation. We shouldn’t allow the left to drive the narrative within the futile debate over free speech. Instead, we need to address the core issue, which is the systematic quashing of free thinking.

If you read the introduction page of any college in America, they all claim to nurture free thinking among their students, but this is absolutely false. They only nurture thoughts that align with their progressive agendas. Students are free to think whatever thoughts are approved of within these leftist echo chambers. Progressives are free to do or say their heart’s desires and their worldviews are reinforced by their treatment as students. Meanwhile, conservatives must persevere through their college experience with hopes they won’t succumb to the sustained festival of leftist indoctrination they’re forced to immerse themselves in while they work towards getting their degrees.

Freedom of thought is a nebulous concept because it’s often difficult to recognize attempts to suppress thought. We can easily recognize when the freedom of expression is being suppressed because it’s enforced through rules. However, suppressing freedom of thought is done through absence. Meteorology students aren’t told it’s against the rules to be skeptical of proposed methods to reverse man-made climate change. They’re simply never shown any research that runs contrary to the “settled science” that embraces Al Gore’s politics over actual scientific debate. Students are told that socialism can be effective if the greed of the elite can be eliminated, yet every failed attempt to institute socialism is categorized as a false attempt. This is why students leave college thinking that socialism has never been tried. Legitimate contradictions to Darwinian evolution are never discussed. Once again, it’s “settled science.” If ever a student brings up evidence that points to intelligent design, they’re either told that given enough time, nature can accomplish anything, or they’re fed the multiverse theory. Either way, the challenging evidence is dismissed as settled, debunked, and let’s get back to looking at chimp DNA.

The same process is applied to conservative speakers. Rather than allow the discussion, university administrators have grown so accustomed to controlling every aspect of their indoctrination centers that they’re preference is to prevent these thoughts from making an appearance at their schools. They are ill-prepared to win the debate, so they suppress the debate before it can occur. Even those that allow conservative speakers prepare their students for the unapproved thoughts they’re about to be exposed to.

When universities hamper or block conservative speakers, they’re not attacking freedom of speech. Their suppressing freedom of thought. Indoctrination is standard operating procedure at most universities today. The greatest threat to this status quo isn’t conservative speakers who might say something offensive. It’s that their students might hear something that actually makes them think.

I’m JD Rucker. Thank you for listening.

Advertisement

0

Conspiracy Theory

The clock is ticking on climate change… alarmists

Published

on

The clock is ticking on climate change alarmists

The world is going to end in ten years. The world has been ten years away from ending for the last four decades. And yet, here we are.

I’m not one of those who denies we need to be better stewards of this world. We are trashing the planet that God gave us, oftentimes in ways that no longer make sense. Whether or not these actions are actively changing the climate is for smarter people than me to debate, but I’ve suffered through too many doomsday predictions to give any credence to hypothetical timetables. Invariably, these doomsdayers have been proven wrong as their predictions fail miserably.

Those who say we need to take radical action to preserve the environment are making empty, political threats whether they realize it or not. Most are indoctrinated. Some are fully aware they’re using the politics of climate change to advance their economic and power-grabbing agenda.

Those who say we need to find solutions to improve conditions in the world for humans, animals, and plants are correct. There are old practices that need to change, new practices that need to be adopted, and problems that need to be solved. We need to address these issues in a systematic way. But not because of climate change. Not because of the doomsdayers.

Advancing human society, protecting vulnerable aspects of the environment, and making the world a cleaner place for all to live are righteous goals that are being subverted by climate change alarmists. Instead of a systematic, pragmatic approach to improving conditions, they want to force-feed sweeping authoritarian changes into the world. The indoctrinated masses are behind the climate change puppetmasters like sheep being led to the slaughter.

Before I get into the real agenda of the climate change puppetmasters, let’s look at actual solutions for protecting the environment that should be implemented through the proper course of an advancing society.

Clean energy that makes sense

I am very much in favor of expanding research into renewable energy sources that will EVENTUALLY replace fossil fuels when it makes fiscal sense. Today, that’s not the case. Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric energy collection are all still terribly inefficient. Moreover, they require resources such as large swaths of land for wind, expensive projects for geothermal and hydroelectric, and rare components for solar that could be used better.

We know we can collect and store energy. We just haven’t figured out how to do it efficiently yet. Trying to force the issue before it’s time is silly. The problems of finite fossil fuels have been identified and we must move towards solutions that will ween us off their use. But we must do so in a way that makes sense. We must be practical. Setting arbitrary time limits based on false doomsday predictions is idiotic.

Instead of expensive projects to prematurely collect renewable energy inefficiently, we should be focusing on improving the collection process. Why are we building massive wind farms and solar arrays using stage-one technology? We know we can do it better if we have the patience to let the technology blossom. But the technology isn’t ready. It’s too expensive. It’s inefficient at best, ineffective at worst. Much of the renewable energy infrastructure will have to be replaced once better technology is discovered and developed.

Pushing for mass clean energy initiatives now is like picking fruit before it’s ripe. We need to let the technology guide the politics, not the other way around.

Potable water is shockingly ignored

The biggest environmental problem we face is the one few climate activists ever address. Clean drinking water is genuinely difficult to find in many populated areas of the world. If there’s a reason to sound an environmental alarm, this is the one. Unfortunately, the alarm bells over fossil fuels, cows, and carbon emissions drown out the real challenges people are facing today with potable water.

Eliminating plastic straws will not give water to those who need it in Africa. Replacing ten million SUVs with Priuses will not end the drought in southeast Asia. It’s the ultimate con-job that climate alarmists point to people needing water as a reason for their alarms while they do absolutely nothing to help these people get the water they need. Keep in mind, the problem with potable water existed long before climate change became an issue, which is why the alarmists do nothing to address the issue.

More people will die today from lack of potable water than any of the alleged climate change catastrophes that happen this year. Yet the problem is ignored. It’s just not politically expedient for the doomsdayers to address an issue that preexisted their doomsday claims.

Again, we must turn to technology. But this time it’s not a matter of technology needing to be created through research. The technology exists. Instead, we need to apply funding to make the technology readily available to those who need it. The money spent promoting climate change propaganda would go a long way towards a desalination and filtration infrastructure that would bring clean drinking water to the billions who need it. The solutions are staring us in the face, but we’re too busy trying to cut carbon emissions.

Cleaner world through federalism

I’ve long called for the Environmental Protection Agency to be abolished. It’s a regulatory nightmare that stands in the way of progress so virtue-signalling bureaucrats can say they’re doing something. Instead of an EPA, we need to turn to local communities. States, counties, cities, and communities can go a long way towards cleaning up the mess we humans are making of this world if the challenge is presented at those levels rather than at a national level.

Instead of wasting billions of dollars on an environmental nanny, we should empower and encourage communities to go to work for themselves. Imagine if the money spent on studies about the delta smelt’s habitat was instead spent on building local efforts to promote recycling. We could kill two birds with one stone by helping homeless people. In Little Rock, Arkansas, the city is paying homeless people to pick up trash.

Let’s eliminate the federal virtue-signaling agency and replace it with localized efforts. Empower the lower governments to experiment with ways to make our nation cleaner. This would yield real results instead of obtuse and unnecessary regulations.

The truth about climate change alarmists

Climate change actions such as the Green New Deal are all about transforming the economic and governmental systems of this nation and the world. Climate change itself is simply the engine these Marxists are using to get the masses riled up.

It’s a powerful vehicle for them because we have years of indoctrination in schools, propaganda in the media, and an array of false (political) science studies that have been tilted for nefarious reasons. They use fear to promote their agenda, and frankly I’m extremely concerned we may be beyond the point of no return. Too many Americans have fallen for the ruse. But the clock is ticking. As long as we continue fighting their agenda, the false claims will be proven to be nothing more than doomsday political machinations of forces bent on our nation’s destruction.

There are two types of climate change alarmists: The indoctrinated Americans, such as those in the #ClimateStrike, and the authoritarian puppetmasters using climate change as a pedestal to push their political agenda. They must be exposed.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

‘Pandering Pete’ Buttigieg wants to pay teachers as much as doctors

Published

on

Pandering Pete Buttigieg wants to pay teachers as much as doctors

It was one of those debate moments that is taboo to decry. Teachers are treated with the same reverence in Democratic circles as law enforcement officers are treated in Republican circles. Both play major roles in how our country operates. Both deserve a ton of respect.

It’s not politically correct to say this, but I’m not very PC: Neither teachers nor law enforcement officers deserve to paid as much as doctors. It’s not that they’re less important. They’re simply less skilled. It’s hard to become a teacher, but by no means is it in the same league as the challenges that must be met to become a doctor.

Getting into medical school is more difficult. The degrees necessary to become a doctor are harder to acquire. The educational costs are much higher for doctors than teachers. Lastly, fewer people are capable of being good doctors than good teachers.

This is why Pete Buttigieg’s proud proclamation during last night’s Democratic debate is so asinine:

This is a very popular message to commit to during the Democratic primaries. Most teachers are Democrats and the various teachers’ unions offer endorsements that are highly sought by Democratic candidates. The South Bend Mayor is gunning for these endorsements as his campaign seems to have stalled in the last two months.

Teachers average somewhere around $60,000 per year. Doctors range widely depending on their specialty with salaries generally ranging from $80,000 to $250,000 per year. This is fair when considering all the factors in both professions. But Mayor Pete invoked how other counties treat doctors and teachers, noting how in some countries the salaries are more comparable. What he didn’t note is that healthcare in many of these countries is sorely lacking and the education systems often pay teachers more because they’re more difficult to find.

In America, we do not have a teacher shortage. We do, however, have a looming medical crisis when it comes to doctors and other medical professionals due in large part to Obamacare. Whatever healthcare plan is proposed by the eventual nominee, ranging from Joe Biden’s abysmal Obamacare 2.0 to Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-All, the result will be an exodus from the medical profession as salaries will invariably drop.

Pete Buttigieg desperately needs a rejuvenation in his floundering campaign. His pandering to teachers is disingenuous, but lying to teachers may be his only hope of making the impact he did at his campaign’s earlier stages.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Education

Ryan Fournier points out reality of AOC’s loan gripe

Published

on

Ryan Fournier points out reality of AOC's loan gripe

Poor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Like many Americans, she has student debt. As a member of the House of Representatives, she also now has the power to do something about it. And if the Democrats get control of the White House and Senate in 2020, her debt-free dreams will come true at the expense of the American taxpayer.

There’s a funny thing about student loans. Nobody is forced to take them. Nobody is forced to go to a prestigious university with high costs. Nobody has to use their degree to become a low-wage bartender in a city with one of the highest costs of living in the world. But based on the cries of the left and the whining of the freshman Congresswoman from the Bronx, she and the rest of Americans with student debt are victims. This mentality is pervasive, especially with Democrats trumpeting their victimhood like a badge of honor.

When people willfully accept financial support in exchange for an education, and that financial support comes in the form of a loan, they are obligated to pay that loan back. It’s a fair trade-off; college students have prospects of higher-paying jobs and therefore should be considered safe investments in the form of loans. The jobs that come available to graduates as a result of these loans mean they should have the means to pay back the loans under the extremely loose terms of their agreement to accept the financial support. The system works. It has worked. It should always work.

But to people like AOC, student debt is unfair.

Students for Trump‘s Ryan Fournier has some thoughts on the ranting Representative:

We couldn’t agree more.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending