thewashingtonstandard--2020-06-16--A Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents – A Study in Left Wing Bias

A Crisis in Civility ?
Political Discourse and Its Discontents .
Edited by R. G. Boatright , T.J. Shaffer , S. Sobieraj and D. G. Young .
Routledge , Taylor & Francis Group , 2019 .
238 pp .
$ 39.96 ( paperback ) .
Boatright , R .
( Ed . )
, Shaffer , T .
( Ed . )
, Sobieraj , S .
( Ed . )
, Goldthwaite Young , D .
( Ed. )
.
( 2019 ) .
A Crisis of Civility : Political Discourse and its Discontents .
New York : Routledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Civility : Political Discourse and its Discontents , attempts to break down and define the issue of civility in a day when America is seemingly more divided than ever before .
Bringing civil discourse back to the national conversation is viewed through the lens of scholars in various fields of academia like sociology , economics , psychology , communications , and political science .
America ’ s major political parties are comprised of two opposing ideologies that are in direct contradiction with one another and fighting for dominance .
The question arises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a civil manner .
Crisis in Civility lays the groundwork for differentiating between civil and uncivil discourse while also distinguishing the differences between the way the public views civility as opposed to how scholars and politicians may define it .
It also does an in-depth evaluation of how the public ’ s definition of civil or uncivil rhetoric can change based on social group perceptions and whether they are considered an in or out group .
Unfortunately , the book ’ s positive attributes end here .
There is an obvious bias @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the word civility itself but the worldview and political opinions of one political party in an agreeable manner .
The whole book is written from the perspective that the presidential election of 2016 represents one of the most uncivil times in American history , and that is all due to who the hard political left routinely referred to as “ the deplorables.
” One chapter even goes so far as identifying the political right as white supremacists , a narrative commonly pushed in the mainstream media .
Crisis in Civility : Political Discourse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation for what it is , a constitutional republic and continually refers to it as a democracy , without defining the differences .
There is indeed a legitimate question whether a civil conversation can take place between two opposing worldviews when one side is not accurately represented , and the terms of civil discourse are defined by one side only .
Chapter one starts by breaking down civility into two separate concepts , civility of politeness and civility of responsiveness ( Laden pp .
10 ) Each can be characterized by the theoretical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affects their views on civil discourse ( Laden pp .
10 ) .
Civility as politeness suggests that the language we use and the way we present our self , our mannerisms if you will , may bear as much weight on the discourse as the logic behind the argument .
For example , Laden ( 2019 ) uses the example of Representative Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar over his “ Obamacare ” claims on the floor of the House of Representatives .
He suggests that this was rude , uncivil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a liar may be lying .
He is suggesting that yelling the truth at someone telling a lie is just as uncivil as lying itself .
In this writer ’ s opinion , the bias of the author is showing by using this as an example because there is no explanation of why Representative Wilson called President Obama a liar .
This is an issue that strikes right at the heart of what divides America so deeply .
The battle between socialized medicine and free markets .
Two ideologies diametrically opposed to one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to as civility as responsiveness ( Laden , pp .
13 ) .
This is best explained by describing civility as a virtue of life in a cooperative society which involves the willingness to consider others ’ ideas and when one should adjust their own positions in consideration of others ( Kingwell 1995 ; Gutmann and Thompson 1998 ) .
These are excellent virtues to possess in civil dialogue .
Laden ( 2019 ) describes them by saying that civility as responsiveness involves striving to understand others ’ positions even if they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in tone .
Again , political discourse in America is not being done by two political parties that hold the same ideals but have different views on implementing them .
The worldviews are vastly different .
For example , the Democrat left has as much interest in listening to why the ban on AR-15 ’ s had no effect on crime as Republicans do on wealth redistribution .
These two beliefs are made up of two completely different views which each side holds onto vehemently .
Neither one is willing , nor likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less to do with politeness than the nature of the argument itself ( Laden , pp .
14 ) .
People can exercise civility as politeness without giving any consideration to the thoughts or positions of others and still be considered as behaving uncivilly .
Civility of responsiveness is described as an action that sets aside personal bias in favor of a deliberative process ( Laden , pp .
24 ) .
The author claims that the civilly responsive citizen sacrifices his own political advantages in the name of compromise .
This suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting for .
Is it civil to sacrifice principles of truth to appear polite ?
Finally , the author ’ s biased view of American life shows on page 26 when he describes our society as being unjust by claiming we alienate large segments of the population and , by using the typical wealth inequality argument so often used by political elites .
Political elites no less that are worth billions .
The view held by the right is never described in this book .
The wealth inequality argument suggests that it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth equally and that it is not something created through individual effort .
Individuals are the owners of their labor .
Secondly , the argument that there are large segments of the population that are alienated revolves around the same argument the political left always makes .
That America is racist .
Attempting to define terms of civil discourse without defining the beliefs the opposing sides are arguing for is from the beginning , a dead end .
Chapter two begins to dive into the public ’ s perception of civility .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less bias , ( though one could argue she is displaying bias from the other side in some instances ) and presents her argument strictly based on the data that exists .
While she refers to the 2016 presidential election as tumultuous , she acknowledges that the public saw uncivil behavior from both democrats and republicans .
The main point of the chapter revolves around the issue of personal vs public incivility .
Personal incivility is considered behavior that may go against what one perceives as normal polite behavior ( Muddiman , pp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name-calling , interrupting , and displaying one ’ s emotions while engaged in an argument ( Muddiman , pp .
32 ) .
Public level incivility on the other hand is considered anything that violates the normal political or deliberative processes ( Muddiman , pp .
32 ) .
Just as chapter one describes civility as politeness as responsiveness as being more concerned with the heart of the issue and less with politeness , public incivility revolves around the idea of political opponents refusing to consider each other ’ s positions and breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
33 ) .
The general public , according to Muddiman ( 2019 ) , generally views incivility as anything from failure to compromise on meaningful legislation , to what they referred to as playing the race or gender card , and even political parties making threats against the constitution .
Chapter two also discusses the idea that people will generally view civil or uncivil behavior based on their own biases and political leanings ( Muddiman , pp .
37 ) .
Political parties , according to social identity theory ( Muddiman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public as in or out groups .
The party they identify with is typically considered the in group .
When members of their political party break with political norms or behave in a manner consistent with their perceptions of civil or uncivil behavior , they are likely to side with their personal bias on the issue and make excuses for the behavior .
This , again , hints at the idea that any real civility will forever be out of reach because the two opposing parties are both basing their positions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Muddiman ( 2019 ) goes on to ask what the differences are between the public perception of incivility and those conducting research in the field as people tend to expand their definitions of what constitutes civil or uncivil behavior beyond the standard academic definitions .
Muddiman ( 2019 ) concludes by suggesting that incivility largely lies in the eye of the beholder while acknowledging that simply going off of what a largely divided public view as civil behavior may not answer the question .
Chapter three addresses the definitional aspects of civility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ par with how the public views it ( Kenski , et al , pp .
45 ) .
The findings are on par with chapter two in the sense that citizens ’ perceptions of civility differ widely from that of scholars .
Most notably in the areas of what they consider to be civil dialogue .
Perceptions of incivility among the public are rude and insensitive behavior towards others ( Kenski , et al , pp .
50 ) .
The chapter goes in-depth describing the varying degrees the public views incivility in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variables .
While they are trying to determine what types of speech the public determines to be the most uncivil , it almost seems unnecessary to break it down to such extents .
For example , there are slight variations between the different types of speech .
Kenski , et al , ( 2019 ) note that there is only a one-point deviation between the way the public views name-calling , for example , and lying about political intentions ( 52 ) .
Most interesting , is the finding that the public does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of lying are not viewed as detrimentally as the scholarly definitions may suggest ( Kenski , et al , pp .
52 ) .
From this writer ’ s perspective , this part of the chapter is unnecessary as the previous chapter already set out to define the differences between scholarly and public perceptions .
The next part of the chapter attempts to define the differences in gender perception .
Kenski , et al , ( 2019 ) take note that women are far less likely to exhibit real political knowledge than men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being less involved ( 53 ) than men are .
Interestingly , however , they tend to show up in larger numbers to vote .
Women also , are more likely to base their opinions on incivility based on the different types of speech than men are ( 54 ) .
While this may seem like important information this chapter muddies the waters if you will by diving too deep into what types of comments men and women may view as civil or uncivil .
Kenski , et al , ( 2019 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the ways men and women view certain comments .
It is difficult to determine , unless one is trying to specifically formulate a way to appeal to one demographic , why such insignificant differences matter .
The chapter concludes by saying the same thing as Muddiman in chapter two .
The definition of incivility largely lies in the public perception ( Kenski , et al , pp .
55 ) and there is some discrepancy in the ways different people view speech .
Among the public , however , is the shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are considered uncivil ( Kenski , et al , pp .
55 ) .
The author notes that the findings in this chapter may prove useful in considering the consequences of certain types of speech .
Thus far , the main idea behind the book has been describing how the public views civility in politics and the different concepts that describe civility .
Chapter four discusses the importance of tone in the speaker ’ s voice .
The author , Emily Sydnor , also seems to be displaying her personal bias as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s uncivil behavior while a few paragraphs later , refers to President Bush in the same manner .
While she does mention President Reagan in a positive light , there is nothing referring to any uncivil behavior by democrats in a manner that directly implicates them .
Sydnor highlights essentially the same thing that was noted in chapter 3 concerning what people saw as uncivil behavior .
Messages that directly address certain individuals while staying on topic , no matter if they disagree are not necessarily considered uncivil until inflammatory language is used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is not any different than saying that people view name calling and vulgar language as being uncivil .
The same point is made on page 62 when Sydnor describes the various actions people consider to be uncivil while attempting to break it down by demographic as which group of people view what behavior more uncivilly .
Sydnor points out that incivility may be defined by the message or ideas presented by certain speakers .
For example , she cites the Allegheny Survey of 2016 ( 63 ) that shows attacks against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or sexual orientation constitute the highest levels of incivility .
Sydnor ’ s bias shows again by using President Trump ’ s statements on illegal immigration as an example of uncivil dialogue ( 63 ) and highlighting Hillary Clinton remarking on it by saying he used “ deeply offensive rhetoric ” ( 64 ) .
Sydnor failed to acknowledge the fact that Hillary Clinton routinely referred to Trump and his supporters as “ deplorables ” without making any attempt to understand what our views are .
From this perspective , the rules of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people that the authors of this book seem to support .
The point is that sometimes views on civility are often based on who is delivering a message along with the tone .
President Trump said that illegal immigrants are bringing in drugs .
This is true , but it is viewed as uncivil because of the tone .
Finally , Sydnor introduces another concept that the rest of this review will be based on .
On page 63 she cites studies by Chaff and Zerilli suggesting that sometimes incivility is called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an idea that presents itself again in chapter 9 .
The rest of this review will start with this idea and cover other important points aside from the public perception of civility .
Chapter 9 starts by highlighting a poll suggesting that seventy-eight percent of the surveyed electorate viewed the Republican primary of 2016 as rude , while only forty-one percent saw the Democrat primary that way ( Gastil , pp .
161 ) .
This does more to show the bias of the author in this writer ’ s opinion because there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump won the election and for what reasons .
From the perspective of the Republican party , the eight years of President Obama discrediting American ideals , suggesting that everyone that disagreed with him or his policies was racist and the lies he told about Obamacare , along with the damage many people felt it caused to our health care system is the reason Trump was elected in the first place .
The perspective of Republicans is never considered in this book .
In fact , chapter 9 is written from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally pushes , depicting America as a racist country rooted in white supremacism .
Gastil , speaking in the first person ( 169 ) describes the partisan struggle in the United States by referring to President Trump as a president who threatens democracy , incites violence , and encourages white supremacists .
This is an inflammatory opinion and does little to advance any real dialogue .
Furthermore , America is not a democracy .
Democracy is where majority rules hands down .
we have democratic processes , but we are a Democratic Republic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This writer could point to several examples where the President Obama ’ s rhetoric was thought to incite hatred against the police over situations that were inaccurately , and to the opinion of many on the right , purposefully misrepresented by the media .
What this writer finds most disturbing about Gastil ’ s writing is found on page 170 where he says that winning every election from this day forward may require the use of uncivil actions such as shutting out and shutting down political opponents .
He says , “ Civility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy ’ s institutions have been secured and normal political life can resume ” ( Gastil , pp .
170 ) .
This writer was left with the impression that Mr. Gastil was a reader and follower of Saul Alinsky ’ s Rules for Radicals ( 25 ) , where in chapter two , Alinsky refers to the morality of means and ends or the common belief in politics that the ends justify the means .
Saul Alinsky is very relevant here because Hillary Clinton , who is mentioned several times in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more moral tone to Trump ’ s disrespectful rhetoric wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky entitled “ There is Only the Fight.
” The general misconceived notion is that America is a land of oppression , not freedom .
That is a matter of opinion , not fact .
At this point , the question must be asked because it has thus far been left unaddressed .
What constitutes normalcy in American life ?
This is a concept that would garner vastly different responses , not only from the political left and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
The same is true with terms like white supremacism and racism for that matter .
Furthermore , Mr. Gastil ’ s comments reinforce a concept of civility found earlier in the book .
One that this writer saved for this point in the review .
Laden , who in chapter one described the two concepts of civility suggested that uncivil arguments were more centered around winning an argument where being civil was concerned with reaching agreements ( Laden , pp .
19-20 ) .
Is Mr. Gastil admitting that the nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with winning than reaching any civil consensus ?
That is what his rhetoric on page 170 suggests .
This book is full of examples that suggest this idea , while also failing to define certain terms and ideologies accurately .
For instance , on page 132 of chapter seven , the authors , J. Cherie Strachan and Michael R. Wolfe , refer to republicans as authoritarians who stand opposed to political correctness .
Political correctness is viewed by many Republicans as a tool to suppress free speech .
Therefore , the people insisting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correctness would be the authoritarians .
This is another example demonstrating the vast differences between the two political parties and the unlikelihood of real political civility .
Furthermore , on page 113 they suggest that “ uncivil or rude interactions , on the other hand , are characterized by ad hominem attacks , name-calling , overt challenges , and interruptions .
These are rhetorical moves that , often purposefully , diminish the likelihood of future collaboration ” ( Strachan & Wolfe , pp .
113 ) .
Is not referring to the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their viewpoint an example of an ad hominem attack ?
Finally , in chapter seven we see another example of failing to define specific terms .
Strachan & Wolfe ( 121 ) bring up the issue of American Muslims and their attempts to build a Mosque at ground zero , the site of the September 11 , 2001 terror attacks .
Many people responded to this with offense because it was suggested that opposition to such an action was based on deeply rooted racism and suspicion of the Muslim community .
The truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most horrific in most Americans ’ memory .
The idea that a mosque would be built there was offensive for that reason .
The Muslim community , who has been more than welcome in America , demonstrated an inability to show sensitivity to our concerns .
There are Mosques all over America and in most cases , American ’ s do not object to them .
Stracham and Wolfe , on page 114 suggest the following ̶ Advocates of deliberation point out that when people continue to engage with one another despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to how to listen but also may use new insights to develop shared solutions , sometimes referred to as the “ third way ” or “ win-win ” solutions , that could not be uncovered without deliberation .
They also learn to set aside issues that will damage their ability to cooperate on less controversial items—which allows them to identify “ shared pain ” or “ shared sacrifice ” solutions and to avoid gridlock .
Are they subtly suggesting that only one side needs to show this level of tolerance towards another person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Muslim community not be expected to show sympathy and understanding of our positions concerning the 9-11 mosque ?
Finally , chapter 11 offers an interesting insight into the book itself and possibly the reason the studies on civility are occurring in the first place .
To the credit of the author , Timothy J. Schaffer , he acknowledges there is a struggle in ideologies between the concepts of individualism and communitarianism ( 188 ) to a certain degree .
The focus of the chapter , however , has left this writer wondering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the aims of the research presented in the book .
The chapter revolves around the civil discussions that took place in the 1930s and ’ 40s , particularly concerning the passage of Roosevelt ’ s New Deal legislation .
Schaffer ( 2019 ) acknowledges that the New Deal was not necessarily viewed by all as a good thing .
Too many , it represents America ’ s turn towards socialism as the government took over large areas of land and agricultural development .
The focus of the chapter revolves around the development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Schaffer ( 2019 ) suggests , to get the community involved .
Given the idea that our country was founded as a constitutional republic where the government was not supposed to own land , but it was for the people to own , the true nature of these discussions should be considered .
Especially realizing that much of what the federal government was after they were able to obtain through these discussions .
This caught this writer ’ s interest because there is something called the Delphi technique which is a form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they go the way the facilitators desire .
People are allowed their input , but techniques are employed to persuade people to the other side , or at the very least , give the impression their input matters .
For example , in the article entitled The Delphi method : A description , review , and criticism , the author writes that when using the Delphi technique dominant speakers can not only control the discussion but the outcomes ( Fisher , 1978 ) .
To conclude , Crisis in Civility : Political Discourse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insight into the issues of civil discourse .
The public ’ s perception of what constitutes civility , as opposed to the political elite or scholar ’ s definition is examined thoroughly .
It has been revealed , for example , that the public holds a certain bias towards their own political ideology and are more likely to view their own side behavior as civil despite displaying the same kind of behavior as their opposition .
The message that civility largely lies in the eyes of public perception rings true through several chapters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major theme in the first half .
Unfortunately , the book also is written , for the most part , with a severe left-wing bias pushing the narrative that many of America ’ s ideals stem from racism , wealth inequality , sexism and any other “ ism ” that can be thrown into the mix .
The election of Donald Trump , in the opinion of many of the authors , represents America ’ s most uncivil time , which is debatable .
It certainly uncivil , however , to claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone is itself , uncivil and dishonest .
The authors in the book fail to live up to some of the very descriptions they offer as being examples of what entails civil discourse while also , failing in many cases , to describe the true nature of what Republicans describe as their political beliefs .
Many chapters are simply written from the perspective that civil discourse is needed because the nation is in an epic battle against white supremacism .
This is also a term that is defined in a vastly way between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all honesty , after finishing this book , this writer was left the impression that the authors were more concerned with defining the terms of political discussions for their own purposes than they were with actually engaging in civil debate with the opposition .
The ideological debate between the Republicans and Democrats revolves around the issue of whether men can be free or whether they need to be managed and tended to .
Democrats argue for a welfare state while Republicans are supposed to stand for individual liberty .
One of these ideologies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s opinion .
Men are created free , by God , according to the founders of our nation .
John Adams argued that our constitution was for a moral and religious people and unsuited for any other ( John Adams Center ) .
The belief was based on the notion that men could be free because we adhered to the absolute moral truth that came from believing in the Christian God .
John Locke , for example , argued that men should take heed to follow God ’ s law first because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bizzell & Herzberg , 824 ) .
This was the foundation of American life and it is supposed to be the ideals that represent the Republican party , not racism or white supremacism .
It is not the republican party that insists minorities need the welfare state to make an equal playing ground .
The democrat ’ s beliefs are more centered around moral relativism or humanist philosophy .
Their governing philosophy is more in line with Peter Ramus ’ beliefs that men did not need religion ( Bizzell & Herzberg , 678 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He believed men could define their own morality and reason on their own , without a God ( Bizzell & Herzberg , 675 ) .
That makes up the general view of the Democrat party .
After all , they removed God from their campaign platform in 2012 .
Crisis in Civility : Political Discourse and its Discontents is anything but a plan to develop civil rhetoric designed to find the truth and an agreeable consensus .
It is more akin to how John Locke would define man ’ s logic ̶ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are liable to the common and natural obscurities and difficulties incident to words ” ( Bizzell & Herzberg , 824 ) .
In some places , despite its best efforts , the book is confusing in its attempts to define every possible perspective on every type of civil discourse .
Much of the book revolves around determining the differences between the way the public , politicians and scholars view civil or uncivil behavior without addressing the real issues which create the division causing the incivility .
It is just written from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its problems are due to republicans , essentially .
Perhaps , the authors would do better to pursue an accurate description of how Republicans view race relations , political processes , and other social issues , as the book claims that is what makes up civil behavior .
The American constitution is the one remaining document in the world where individual dignity and identity supersedes government power .
In this writer ’ s opinion , it is still worth fighting for .
Fischer , R. ( 1978 ) .
The Delphi method : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Journal of Academic Librarianship , 4 ( 2 ) , 64-70 .
Retrieved from http : //www.journals.elsevier.com/the-journal-of-academiclibrarianship/ Gastil , J .
( 2019 ) Seeking a Mutuality of Tolerance .
From A Crisis of Civility : Political Discourse and its Discontents .
New York : Routledge , https : //doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989 Kenski , K. , Coe , K. & Rains , A. S. ( 2019 ) Perceptions of Civility in Public Discourse .
From A Crisis of Civility : Political Discourse and its Discontents .
New York : Routledge , https : //doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civil Tongue : Justice , Dialogue , and the Politics of Pluralism .
University Park , PA : Pennsylvania State University Press .
Laden , S , A .
( 2019 ) Two Concepts of Civility .
From A Crisis of Civility : Political Discourse and its Discontents .
New York : Routledge , https : //doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989 Locke , J .
( 1689 ) .
From Bizzell , P. & Herzberg , B .
The Rhetorical Tradition : Readings from Classical Times to The Present 2nd Ed .
Boston .
Bedford/St .
Martin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2019 ) How People Perceive Political Incivility .
From A Crisis of Civility : Political Discourse and its Discontents .
New York : Routledge , https : //doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989 Ramus , P. ( 1549 ) .
From Bizzell , P. & Herzberg , B .
( 2001 ) The Rhetorical Tradition : Readings from Classical Times to The Present 2nd Ed .
Boston .
Bedford/St .
Martin ’ s .
Sydnor , E. ( 2019 ) Signaling Incivility .
From A Crisis of Civility : Political Discourse and its Discontents .
New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , C & Wolfe , R. M. ( 2019 ) Can Civility and Deliberation Disrupt the Deep Roots of Polarization ?
From A Crisis of Civility : Political Discourse and its Discontents .
New York : Routledge , https : //doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989 Schaffer , J , T. ( 2019 ) Enabling Civil Discourse .
From A Crisis of Civility : Political Discourse and its Discontents .
New York : Routledge , https : //doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989

A Crisis in Civility? Political Discourse and Its Discontents. Edited by R. G. Boatright, T.J. Shaffer, S. Sobieraj and D. G. Young. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2019. 238 pp. $39.96 (paperback).
To cite this book:
Boatright, R. (Ed.), Shaffer, T. (Ed.), Sobieraj, S. (Ed.), Goldthwaite Young, D. (Ed.). (2019). A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents . New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989
The book Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents, attempts to break down and define the issue of civility in a day when America is seemingly more divided than ever before. Bringing civil discourse back to the national conversation is viewed through the lens of scholars in various fields of academia like sociology, economics, psychology, communications, and political science. America’s major political parties are comprised of two opposing ideologies that are in direct contradiction with one another and fighting for dominance. The question arises whether the two can resolve their differences in a civil manner. Crisis in Civility lays the groundwork for differentiating between civil and uncivil discourse while also distinguishing the differences between the way the public views civility as opposed to how scholars and politicians may define it. It also does an in-depth evaluation of how the public’s definition of civil or uncivil rhetoric can change based on social group perceptions and whether they are considered an in or out group. Unfortunately, the book’s positive attributes end here. There is an obvious bias and a failure to define not only the word civility itself but the worldview and political opinions of one political party in an agreeable manner. The whole book is written from the perspective that the presidential election of 2016 represents one of the most uncivil times in American history, and that is all due to who the hard political left routinely referred to as “the deplorables.” One chapter even goes so far as identifying the political right as white supremacists, a narrative commonly pushed in the mainstream media. Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents fails to define our nation for what it is, a constitutional republic and continually refers to it as a democracy, without defining the differences. There is indeed a legitimate question whether a civil conversation can take place between two opposing worldviews when one side is not accurately represented, and the terms of civil discourse are defined by one side only.
Chapter one starts by breaking down civility into two separate concepts, civility of politeness and civility of responsiveness (Laden pp. 10) Each can be characterized by the theoretical outlook one may have and how it affects their views on civil discourse (Laden pp. 10). Civility as politeness suggests that the language we use and the way we present our self, our mannerisms if you will, may bear as much weight on the discourse as the logic behind the argument. For example, Laden (2019) uses the example of Representative Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar over his “Obamacare” claims on the floor of the House of Representatives. He suggests that this was rude, uncivil behavior even though the person being called a liar may be lying. He is suggesting that yelling the truth at someone telling a lie is just as uncivil as lying itself. In this writer’s opinion, the bias of the author is showing by using this as an example because there is no explanation of why Representative Wilson called President Obama a liar. This is an issue that strikes right at the heart of what divides America so deeply. The battle between socialized medicine and free markets. Two ideologies diametrically opposed to one another.
The next concept is referred to as civility as responsiveness (Laden, pp. 13). This is best explained by describing civility as a virtue of life in a cooperative society which involves the willingness to consider others’ ideas and when one should adjust their own positions in consideration of others (Kingwell 1995; Gutmann and Thompson 1998). These are excellent virtues to possess in civil dialogue. Laden (2019) describes them by saying that civility as responsiveness involves striving to understand others’ positions even if they are alien to our own and seem rude in tone. Again, political discourse in America is not being done by two political parties that hold the same ideals but have different views on implementing them. The worldviews are vastly different. For example, the Democrat left has as much interest in listening to why the ban on AR-15’s had no effect on crime as Republicans do on wealth redistribution. These two beliefs are made up of two completely different views which each side holds onto vehemently. Neither one is willing, nor likely to compromise.
Civility as responsiveness has less to do with politeness than the nature of the argument itself (Laden, pp. 14). People can exercise civility as politeness without giving any consideration to the thoughts or positions of others and still be considered as behaving uncivilly. Civility of responsiveness is described as an action that sets aside personal bias in favor of a deliberative process (Laden, pp. 24). The author claims that the civilly responsive citizen sacrifices his own political advantages in the name of compromise. This suggests that neither side has a position worth fighting for. Is it civil to sacrifice principles of truth to appear polite? Finally, the author’s biased view of American life shows on page 26 when he describes our society as being unjust by claiming we alienate large segments of the population and, by using the typical wealth inequality argument so often used by political elites. Political elites no less that are worth billions.
The view held by the right is never described in this book. The wealth inequality argument suggests that it is the government’s job to distribute wealth equally and that it is not something created through individual effort. Individuals are the owners of their labor. Secondly, the argument that there are large segments of the population that are alienated revolves around the same argument the political left always makes. That America is racist. Attempting to define terms of civil discourse without defining the beliefs the opposing sides are arguing for is from the beginning, a dead end.
Chapter two begins to dive into the public’s perception of civility. The author of this chapter tends to show less bias, (though one could argue she is displaying bias from the other side in some instances) and presents her argument strictly based on the data that exists. While she refers to the 2016 presidential election as tumultuous, she acknowledges that the public saw uncivil behavior from both democrats and republicans. The main point of the chapter revolves around the issue of personal vs public incivility. Personal incivility is considered behavior that may go against what one perceives as normal polite behavior (Muddiman, pp. 32). It entails, name-calling, interrupting, and displaying one’s emotions while engaged in an argument (Muddiman, pp. 32). Public level incivility on the other hand is considered anything that violates the normal political or deliberative processes (Muddiman, pp. 32). Just as chapter one describes civility as politeness as responsiveness as being more concerned with the heart of the issue and less with politeness, public incivility revolves around the idea of political opponents refusing to consider each other’s positions and breaking formal political procedures (Muddiman, pp. 33). The general public, according to Muddiman (2019), generally views incivility as anything from failure to compromise on meaningful legislation, to what they referred to as playing the race or gender card, and even political parties making threats against the constitution.
Chapter two also discusses the idea that people will generally view civil or uncivil behavior based on their own biases and political leanings (Muddiman, pp. 37). Political parties, according to social identity theory (Muddiman, pp. 37) are viewed by the public as in or out groups. The party they identify with is typically considered the in group. When members of their political party break with political norms or behave in a manner consistent with their perceptions of civil or uncivil behavior, they are likely to side with their personal bias on the issue and make excuses for the behavior. This, again, hints at the idea that any real civility will forever be out of reach because the two opposing parties are both basing their positions on deeply rooted principles that define their worldview. Muddiman (2019) goes on to ask what the differences are between the public perception of incivility and those conducting research in the field as people tend to expand their definitions of what constitutes civil or uncivil behavior beyond the standard academic definitions. Muddiman (2019) concludes by suggesting that incivility largely lies in the eye of the beholder while acknowledging that simply going off of what a largely divided public view as civil behavior may not answer the question.
Chapter three addresses the definitional aspects of civility and whether the scholarly descriptions are on par with how the public views it (Kenski, et al, pp. 45). The findings are on par with chapter two in the sense that citizens’ perceptions of civility differ widely from that of scholars. Most notably in the areas of what they consider to be civil dialogue. Perceptions of incivility among the public are rude and insensitive behavior towards others (Kenski, et al, pp. 50). The chapter goes in-depth describing the varying degrees the public views incivility in speech, rating it based on several variables. While they are trying to determine what types of speech the public determines to be the most uncivil, it almost seems unnecessary to break it down to such extents. For example, there are slight variations between the different types of speech. Kenski, et al, (2019) note that there is only a one-point deviation between the way the public views name-calling, for example, and lying about political intentions (52). Most interesting, is the finding that the public does not share the same view that accusations of lying are not viewed as detrimentally as the scholarly definitions may suggest (Kenski, et al, pp. 52). From this writer’s perspective, this part of the chapter is unnecessary as the previous chapter already set out to define the differences between scholarly and public perceptions.
The next part of the chapter attempts to define the differences in gender perception. Kenski, et al, (2019) take note that women are far less likely to exhibit real political knowledge than men, while also taking less interest and being less involved (53) than men are. Interestingly, however, they tend to show up in larger numbers to vote. Women also, are more likely to base their opinions on incivility based on the different types of speech than men are (54). While this may seem like important information this chapter muddies the waters if you will by diving too deep into what types of comments men and women may view as civil or uncivil. Kenski, et al, (2019) notes that the differences can be razor-thin between the ways men and women view certain comments. It is difficult to determine, unless one is trying to specifically formulate a way to appeal to one demographic, why such insignificant differences matter. The chapter concludes by saying the same thing as Muddiman in chapter two. The definition of incivility largely lies in the public perception (Kenski, et al, pp. 55) and there is some discrepancy in the ways different people view speech. Among the public, however, is the shared perception that name-calling, and vulgar comments are considered uncivil (Kenski, et al, pp. 55). The author notes that the findings in this chapter may prove useful in considering the consequences of certain types of speech.
Thus far, the main idea behind the book has been describing how the public views civility in politics and the different concepts that describe civility. Chapter four discusses the importance of tone in the speaker’s voice. The author, Emily Sydnor, also seems to be displaying her personal bias as the chapter immediately refers to President Trump’s uncivil behavior while a few paragraphs later, refers to President Bush in the same manner. While she does mention President Reagan in a positive light, there is nothing referring to any uncivil behavior by democrats in a manner that directly implicates them. Sydnor highlights essentially the same thing that was noted in chapter 3 concerning what people saw as uncivil behavior. Messages that directly address certain individuals while staying on topic, no matter if they disagree are not necessarily considered uncivil until inflammatory language is used (Sydnor, pp. 62). This is not any different than saying that people view name calling and vulgar language as being uncivil. The same point is made on page 62 when Sydnor describes the various actions people consider to be uncivil while attempting to break it down by demographic as which group of people view what behavior more uncivilly. Sydnor points out that incivility may be defined by the message or ideas presented by certain speakers. For example, she cites the Allegheny Survey of 2016 (63) that shows attacks against a person’s patriotism, race or sexual orientation constitute the highest levels of incivility. Sydnor’s bias shows again by using President Trump’s statements on illegal immigration as an example of uncivil dialogue (63) and highlighting Hillary Clinton remarking on it by saying he used “deeply offensive rhetoric” (64). Sydnor failed to acknowledge the fact that Hillary Clinton routinely referred to Trump and his supporters as “deplorables” without making any attempt to understand what our views are. From this perspective, the rules of civility of responsiveness are being broken by the people that the authors of this book seem to support. The point is that sometimes views on civility are often based on who is delivering a message along with the tone. President Trump said that illegal immigrants are bringing in drugs. This is true, but it is viewed as uncivil because of the tone. Finally, Sydnor introduces another concept that the rest of this review will be based on. On page 63 she cites studies by Chaff and Zerilli suggesting that sometimes incivility is called for when addressing injustices. This is an idea that presents itself again in chapter 9. The rest of this review will start with this idea and cover other important points aside from the public perception of civility.
Chapter 9 starts by highlighting a poll suggesting that seventy-eight percent of the surveyed electorate viewed the Republican primary of 2016 as rude, while only forty-one percent saw the Democrat primary that way (Gastil, pp. 161). This does more to show the bias of the author in this writer’s opinion because there is no mention of the fact that President Trump won the election and for what reasons. From the perspective of the Republican party, the eight years of President Obama discrediting American ideals, suggesting that everyone that disagreed with him or his policies was racist and the lies he told about Obamacare, along with the damage many people felt it caused to our health care system is the reason Trump was elected in the first place. The perspective of Republicans is never considered in this book. In fact, chapter 9 is written from the perspective that the mainstream narrative the media generally pushes, depicting America as a racist country rooted in white supremacism. Gastil, speaking in the first person (169) describes the partisan struggle in the United States by referring to President Trump as a president who threatens democracy, incites violence, and encourages white supremacists. This is an inflammatory opinion and does little to advance any real dialogue. Furthermore, America is not a democracy. Democracy is where majority rules hands down. we have democratic processes, but we are a Democratic Republic. The book fails to differentiate. This writer could point to several examples where the President Obama’s rhetoric was thought to incite hatred against the police over situations that were inaccurately, and to the opinion of many on the right, purposefully misrepresented by the media. What this writer finds most disturbing about Gastil’s writing is found on page 170 where he says that winning every election from this day forward may require the use of uncivil actions such as shutting out and shutting down political opponents. He says, “Civility can wait for a better day when democracy’s institutions have been secured and normal political life can resume” (Gastil, pp. 170). This writer was left with the impression that Mr. Gastil was a reader and follower of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (25), where in chapter two, Alinsky refers to the morality of means and ends or the common belief in politics that the ends justify the means. Saul Alinsky is very relevant here because Hillary Clinton, who is mentioned several times in a light suggesting she brings virtue or a more moral tone to Trump’s disrespectful rhetoric wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky entitled “There is Only the Fight.” The general misconceived notion is that America is a land of oppression, not freedom. That is a matter of opinion, not fact.
At this point, the question must be asked because it has thus far been left unaddressed. What constitutes normalcy in American life? This is a concept that would garner vastly different responses, not only from the political left and right but from the American people as well. The same is true with terms like white supremacism and racism for that matter. Furthermore, Mr. Gastil’s comments reinforce a concept of civility found earlier in the book. One that this writer saved for this point in the review. Laden, who in chapter one described the two concepts of civility suggested that uncivil arguments were more centered around winning an argument where being civil was concerned with reaching agreements (Laden, pp. 19-20). Is Mr. Gastil admitting that the nature of the political left is more concerned with winning than reaching any civil consensus? That is what his rhetoric on page 170 suggests.
This book is full of examples that suggest this idea, while also failing to define certain terms and ideologies accurately. For instance, on page 132 of chapter seven, the authors, J. Cherie Strachan and Michael R. Wolfe, refer to republicans as authoritarians who stand opposed to political correctness. Political correctness is viewed by many Republicans as a tool to suppress free speech. Therefore, the people insisting on adhering to the terms of political correctness would be the authoritarians. This is another example demonstrating the vast differences between the two political parties and the unlikelihood of real political civility. Furthermore, on page 113 they suggest that “uncivil or rude interactions, on the other hand, are characterized by ad hominem attacks, name-calling, overt challenges, and interruptions. These are rhetorical moves that, often purposefully, diminish the likelihood of future collaboration” (Strachan & Wolfe, pp. 113). Is not referring to the Republican party as authoritarian without trying to understand their viewpoint an example of an ad hominem attack? Finally, in chapter seven we see another example of failing to define specific terms. Strachan & Wolfe (121) bring up the issue of American Muslims and their attempts to build a Mosque at ground zero, the site of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Many people responded to this with offense because it was suggested that opposition to such an action was based on deeply rooted racism and suspicion of the Muslim community. The truth is that that day was one of the most horrific in most Americans’ memory. The idea that a mosque would be built there was offensive for that reason. The Muslim community, who has been more than welcome in America, demonstrated an inability to show sensitivity to our concerns. There are Mosques all over America and in most cases, American’s do not object to them. Stracham and Wolfe, on page 114 suggest the following ̶
Advocates of deliberation point out that when people continue to engage with one another despite their differences, they not only learn to how to listen but also may use new insights to develop shared solutions, sometimes referred to as the “third way” or “win-win” solutions, that could not be uncovered without deliberation. They also learn to set aside issues that will damage their ability to cooperate on less controversial items—which allows them to identify “shared pain” or “shared sacrifice” solutions and to avoid gridlock.
Are they subtly suggesting that only one side needs to show this level of tolerance towards another person or parties’ position? Why would the Muslim community not be expected to show sympathy and understanding of our positions concerning the 9-11 mosque?
Finally, chapter 11 offers an interesting insight into the book itself and possibly the reason the studies on civility are occurring in the first place. To the credit of the author, Timothy J. Schaffer, he acknowledges there is a struggle in ideologies between the concepts of individualism and communitarianism (188) to a certain degree. The focus of the chapter, however, has left this writer wondering what his true position is, along with the aims of the research presented in the book. The chapter revolves around the civil discussions that took place in the 1930s and ’40s, particularly concerning the passage of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation. Schaffer (2019) acknowledges that the New Deal was not necessarily viewed by all as a good thing. Too many, it represents America’s turn towards socialism as the government took over large areas of land and agricultural development. The focus of the chapter revolves around the development of discussion methods that were designed, as Schaffer (2019) suggests, to get the community involved. Given the idea that our country was founded as a constitutional republic where the government was not supposed to own land, but it was for the people to own, the true nature of these discussions should be considered. Especially realizing that much of what the federal government was after they were able to obtain through these discussions. This caught this writer’s interest because there is something called the Delphi technique which is a form of facilitating public discussions while ensuring that they go the way the facilitators desire. People are allowed their input, but techniques are employed to persuade people to the other side, or at the very least, give the impression their input matters. For example, in the article entitled The Delphi method: A description, review, and criticism, the author writes that when using the Delphi technique dominant speakers can not only control the discussion but the outcomes (Fisher, 1978).
To conclude, Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents provides great research and insight into the issues of civil discourse. The public’s perception of what constitutes civility, as opposed to the political elite or scholar’s definition is examined thoroughly. It has been revealed, for example, that the public holds a certain bias towards their own political ideology and are more likely to view their own side behavior as civil despite displaying the same kind of behavior as their opposition. The message that civility largely lies in the eyes of public perception rings true through several chapters of the book almost dominating as a major theme in the first half. Unfortunately, the book also is written, for the most part, with a severe left-wing bias pushing the narrative that many of America’s ideals stem from racism, wealth inequality, sexism and any other “ism” that can be thrown into the mix. The election of Donald Trump, in the opinion of many of the authors, represents America’s most uncivil time, which is debatable. It certainly uncivil, however, to claim that all the incivility came from the right alone is itself, uncivil and dishonest. The authors in the book fail to live up to some of the very descriptions they offer as being examples of what entails civil discourse while also, failing in many cases, to describe the true nature of what Republicans describe as their political beliefs. Many chapters are simply written from the perspective that civil discourse is needed because the nation is in an epic battle against white supremacism. This is also a term that is defined in a vastly way between the left and the right. In all honesty, after finishing this book, this writer was left the impression that the authors were more concerned with defining the terms of political discussions for their own purposes than they were with actually engaging in civil debate with the opposition.
The ideological debate between the Republicans and Democrats revolves around the issue of whether men can be free or whether they need to be managed and tended to. Democrats argue for a welfare state while Republicans are supposed to stand for individual liberty. One of these ideologies represents an absolute, in this writer’s opinion. Men are created free, by God, according to the founders of our nation. John Adams argued that our constitution was for a moral and religious people and unsuited for any other (John Adams Center). The belief was based on the notion that men could be free because we adhered to the absolute moral truth that came from believing in the Christian God. John Locke, for example, argued that men should take heed to follow God’s law first because natural religion was not easily misunderstood (Bizzell & Herzberg, 824). This was the foundation of American life and it is supposed to be the ideals that represent the Republican party, not racism or white supremacism. It is not the republican party that insists minorities need the welfare state to make an equal playing ground. The democrat’s beliefs are more centered around moral relativism or humanist philosophy. Their governing philosophy is more in line with Peter Ramus’ beliefs that men did not need religion (Bizzell & Herzberg, 678) to argue from a moral standpoint. He believed men could define their own morality and reason on their own, without a God (Bizzell & Herzberg, 675). That makes up the general view of the Democrat party. After all, they removed God from their campaign platform in 2012. Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents is anything but a plan to develop civil rhetoric designed to find the truth and an agreeable consensus. It is more akin to how John Locke would define man’s logic ̶ “books and other forms of logic that are liable to the common and natural obscurities and difficulties incident to words” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 824). In some places, despite its best efforts, the book is confusing in its attempts to define every possible perspective on every type of civil discourse. Much of the book revolves around determining the differences between the way the public, politicians and scholars view civil or uncivil behavior without addressing the real issues which create the division causing the incivility. It is just written from a perspective that America is bad, and its problems are due to republicans, essentially. Perhaps, the authors would do better to pursue an accurate description of how Republicans view race relations, political processes, and other social issues, as the book claims that is what makes up civil behavior. The American constitution is the one remaining document in the world where individual dignity and identity supersedes government power. In this writer’s opinion, it is still worth fighting for.
Alinsky, S. (1972) Rules for Radicals . New York. Vintage Books.
Fischer, R. (1978). The Delphi method: A description, review, and criticism. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 4(2), 64-70. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-journal-of-academiclibrarianship/
Gastil, J. (2019) Seeking a Mutuality of Tolerance. From A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents . New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1998. Democracy and Disagreement . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kenski, K., Coe, K. & Rains, A. S. (2019) Perceptions of Civility in Public Discourse. From A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989
Kingwell, Mark. 1995. A Civil Tongue: Justice, Dialogue, and the Politics of Pluralism . University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Laden, S, A. (2019) Two Concepts of Civility. From A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989
Locke, J. (1689) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding . From Bizzell, P. & Herzberg, B. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to The Present 2nd Ed. Boston. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Muddiman, A. (2019) How People Perceive Political Incivility. From A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989
Ramus, P. (1549) Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintilian . From Bizzell, P. & Herzberg, B. (2001) The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to The Present 2nd Ed. Boston. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Sydnor, E. (2019) Signaling Incivility. From A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989
Strachan, C & Wolfe, R. M. (2019) Can Civility and Deliberation Disrupt the Deep Roots of Polarization? From A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989
Schaffer, J, T. (2019) Enabling Civil Discourse. From A Crisis of Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents. New York: Routledge, https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.4324/9781351051989
Article posted with permission from David Risselada


thewashingtonstandard--2020-06-16--Supreme Court: No Consequences for Police Who Destroy Home, Mistakenly Shoot 10-Year-Old Boy, or Sic

Supreme Court : No Consequences for Police Who Destroy Home , Mistakenly Shoot 10-Year-Old Boy , or Sic Police Dog on Suspect Already Under Arrest WASHINGTON , DC — Despite growing calls to hold police accountable for using excessive force in non-threatening circumstances , the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review any cases challenging the doctrine of “ qualified immunity , ” which shields police from liability for official wrongdoing .
The nine qualified immunity cases in which the Court denied cert involved a SWAT team ’ s destruction of a home by bombarding it with tear gas grenades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack a man who had already surrendered , and the mistaken shooting of a 10-year-old boy by a cop who was aiming for a non-threatening family dog .
The Rutherford Institute and a coalition that included the DKT Liberty Project , the Due Process Institute , and Reason Foundation had asked the Court to reign in police abuses by holding police accountable to the rule of law .
Attorneys Jessica Ring Amunson and Andrew C. Noll of Jenner & Block LLP in Washington , D.C. , assisted The Rutherford Institute with its amicus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Supreme Court to hold police accountable for official misconduct is a chilling reminder that in the American police state , ‘ we the people ’ are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat , what constitutes resistance , and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘ serve and protect , ” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead , president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America : The War on the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being erected around us , the police and other government agents can probe , poke , pinch , taser , search , seize , strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance , all with the general blessing of the courts , no matter how egregious or in opposition to the Constitution.
” Beginning in the 1970s , the U.S. Supreme Court started carving out legal protections to insulate government employees from civil rights lawsuits , frivolous or otherwise , arising from official misconduct .
The most widely applied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” which shields police and other government officials from being sued unless it can be shown that the officials ’ actions violated “ clearly established law.
” When applied to police , the “ qualified immunity ” doctrine establishes a test in which victims of police brutality must prove that excessive force was used and that police were aware their actions were illegal based on prior court rulings .
The effect of the “ clearly established ” test creates a Catch-22 that ensures that agents of the government almost always win and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose .
The doctrine has indirectly given police a green light to routinely violate the Fourth Amendment ’ s prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures .
In recent years , courts across the nation have used “ qualified immunity ” to dismiss hundreds of Fourth Amendment lawsuits against police accused of using excessive force .
For example , in West v. Winfield , a SWAT team in pursuit of a man wanted on firearms charges lobbed tear gas grenades into his former girlfriend ’ s home , despite the suspect not being in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to give police the keys to search the home .
The Court ’ s refusal to revamp or eliminate qualified immunity , leaving any possibility of reform with Congress , comes in the midst of a growing national outcry over police brutality .
The amicus curiae brief in West v. Winfield

Supreme Court: No Consequences for Police Who Destroy Home, Mistakenly Shoot 10-Year-Old Boy, or Sic Police Dog on Suspect Already Under Arrest
WASHINGTON, DC — Despite growing calls to hold police accountable for using excessive force in non-threatening circumstances, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review any cases challenging the doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which shields police from liability for official wrongdoing. The nine qualified immunity cases in which the Court denied cert involved a SWAT team’s destruction of a home by bombarding it with tear gas grenades, a police dog that was ordered to attack a man who had already surrendered, and the mistaken shooting of a 10-year-old boy by a cop who was aiming for a non-threatening family dog. The Rutherford Institute and a coalition that included the DKT Liberty Project, the Due Process Institute, and Reason Foundation had asked the Court to reign in police abuses by holding police accountable to the rule of law.
Attorneys Jessica Ring Amunson and Andrew C. Noll of Jenner & Block LLP in Washington, D.C., assisted The Rutherford Institute with its amicus brief in West.
“This refusal by the Supreme Court to hold police accountable for official misconduct is a chilling reminder that in the American police state, ‘we the people’ are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘serve and protect,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People . “In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, no matter how egregious or in opposition to the Constitution.”
Beginning in the 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court started carving out legal protections to insulate government employees from civil rights lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise, arising from official misconduct.
The most widely applied of these doctrines is “qualified immunity,” which shields police and other government officials from being sued unless it can be shown that the officials’ actions violated “clearly established law.”
When applied to police, the “qualified immunity” doctrine establishes a test in which victims of police brutality must prove that excessive force was used and that police were aware their actions were illegal based on prior court rulings.
The effect of the “clearly established” test creates a Catch-22 that ensures that agents of the government almost always win and the victims of government abuse almost always lose.
The doctrine has indirectly given police a green light to routinely violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In recent years, courts across the nation have used “qualified immunity” to dismiss hundreds of Fourth Amendment lawsuits against police accused of using excessive force.
For example, in West v. Winfield, a SWAT team in pursuit of a man wanted on firearms charges lobbed tear gas grenades into his former girlfriend’s home, despite the suspect not being in the home and the former girlfriend offering to give police the keys to search the home.
The Court’s refusal to revamp or eliminate qualified immunity, leaving any possibility of reform with Congress, comes in the midst of a growing national outcry over police brutality.
The amicus curiae brief in West v. Winfield
Article posted with permission from John Whitehead


thewashingtonstandard--2020-06-16--MSM Silence:  Elitists Gather In Swiss Town to Finalize World Enslavement, “The Great Reset” & New W

MSM Silence:  Elitists Gather In Swiss Town to Finalize World Enslavement, “The Great Reset” & New World Order

Editor ’ s Note : One would think that if you are truly “ America First , ” that instead of continuing to supply terrorists like Saudi Arabia with weapons to use against Yemen and instead of continuing to drop bombs on third world countries , the US would target this particular meeting .
Wouldn ’ t you think that , I mean if you truly are what you say you are ?
Make no mistake , this will be absolute tyranny on a global scale .
The mainstream media is silent as the elitists who want power over every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Swiss town to discuss “ the Great Reset , ” a push to a one-world currency – one in which they have ultimate control .
The plan is to make sure a “ post-COVID ” world is built the way they want it .
Slavery and totalitarian control .
If you haven ’ t figured out now that the system was put there to protect them , not you , line up for the Bill Gates sponsored vaccine .
Things are going to get much uglier , and quick .
The objective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of the world ’ s economic and social system in order to make it more “ sustainable.
” It sounds good , right ?
But , by more sustainable , they mean more enslaveable .
“ Nothing will ever be the same again.
” It was the mantra that we heard in many countries at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic .
It came with a warning that a “ new normal ” would replace the existing order .
Easy travel , interpersonal relations , large gatherings , even things like shaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-term social distancing , drastic rules , and surveillance .
But these changes on the personal level are only a part of the picture .
The World Economic Forum , together with Prince Charles of England and the International Monetary Fund ( IMF ) , has launched an initiative revealingly dubbed “ The Great Reset , ” with the objective of “ rebuilding ” the world ’ s economic and social system in order to make it more “ sustainable.
” –Life Site News The Great Reset Is Here : Prepare For The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be bothered to understand that the best way to protect yourself is to remove yourself from the system of slavery that was already set up , that they are desperately trying to keep you in , then you ’ re going to likely get caught up in this mess .
The idea of a “ Great Reset ” has received the full support of the United Nations secretary-general , António Guterres , former president of the Socialist International from 1999 to 2005 .
Is anyone surprised ?
The reset has been planned for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Has Arrived : ‘ All Signs and Evidence Point to the Great Global Economic Reset ’ It was already being talked about before the Chinese coronavirus was moving out of Wuhan .
On December 30 , 2019 , for instance , the Financial Times published a YouTube presentation under the title “ Why capitalism needs to be reset in 2020.
” ( As if any country has capitalism anymore .
Most , and yes , even the United States , are now at the very least , corporatocracies – the merging of governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
But the globalists are pushing a theme that capitalism ( which means no interference in the market/economy ) is the problem , even though literally everything is centralized .
The recurring theme is “ stakeholder capitalism , ” by which “ a company ’ s approach to people , the planet , and innovation — including how it protects and applies the value-added of its data — must figure more prominently in capital-allocation decisions ” ( as the WEForum site explains ) .
Prepare by refusing to accept their new one-world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gold , silver , and lead .

Editor’s Note: One would think that if you are truly “America First,” that instead of continuing to supply terrorists like Saudi Arabia with weapons to use against Yemen and instead of continuing to drop bombs on third world countries, the US would target this particular meeting. Wouldn’t you think that, I mean if you truly are what you say you are?
Make no mistake, this will be absolute tyranny on a global scale. The mainstream media is silent as the elitists who want power over every human on Earth plan to meet in a Swiss town to discuss “the Great Reset,” a push to a one-world currency – one in which they have ultimate control.
The plan is to make sure a “post-COVID” world is built the way they want it. Slavery and totalitarian control. If you haven’t figured out now that the system was put there to protect them, not you, line up for the Bill Gates sponsored vaccine. Things are going to get much uglier, and quick. The objective of this meeting is the “rebuilding” of the world’s economic and social system in order to make it more “sustainable.”
It sounds good, right? But, by more sustainable, they mean more enslaveable.
“Nothing will ever be the same again.” It was the mantra that we heard in many countries at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It came with a warning that a “new normal” would replace the existing order. Easy travel, interpersonal relations, large gatherings, even things like shaking hands would have to give way to long-term social distancing, drastic rules, and surveillance. But these changes on the personal level are only a part of the picture. The World Economic Forum, together with Prince Charles of England and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has launched an initiative revealingly dubbed “The Great Reset,” with the objective of “rebuilding” the world’s economic and social system in order to make it more “sustainable.” –Life Site News
The Great Reset Is Here: Prepare For The NWO & Enslavement
If you cannot be bothered to understand that the best way to protect yourself is to remove yourself from the system of slavery that was already set up, that they are desperately trying to keep you in, then you’re going to likely get caught up in this mess.
The idea of a “Great Reset” has received the full support of the United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, former president of the Socialist International from 1999 to 2005. Is anyone surprised? The reset has been planned for a long time:
The End Game Has Arrived: ‘All Signs and Evidence Point to the Great Global Economic Reset’
It was already being talked about before the Chinese coronavirus was moving out of Wuhan. On December 30, 2019, for instance, the Financial Times published a YouTube presentation under the title “Why capitalism needs to be reset in 2020.” (As if any country has capitalism anymore. Most, and yes, even the United States, are now at the very least, corporatocracies – the merging of governments and corporations, masquerading as crony corporatism.) But the globalists are pushing a theme that capitalism (which means no interference in the market/economy) is the problem, even though literally everything is centralized. The recurring theme is “stakeholder capitalism,” by which “a company’s approach to people, the planet, and innovation — including how it protects and applies the value-added of its data — must figure more prominently in capital-allocation decisions” (as the WEForum site explains).
Prepare by refusing to accept their new one-world currency. Stock up on precious metals, gold, silver, and lead.
Article posted with permission from Mac Slavo


thewashingtonstandard--2020-06-17--“All Of Them Sat On This Man”:  Cops Gave False Story About Floyd’s Death Despite Testimony From The

“ All Of Them Sat On This Man ” : Cops Gave False Story About Floyd ’ s Death Despite Testimony From Their Own Following the death of George Floyd , officials with the Minneapolis Police Department were evasive about the actions taken by the officers involved with his arrest .
In initial statements to the press , the police department only said that Floyd appeared to be suffering from “ medical distress ” during the arrest and that he was then taken to a nearby hospital where he passed away .
However , there was no mention of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ medical distress ” was caused by his encounter with the officers who arrested him , in which they all knelt on him for nearly ten minutes .
One of the officers , Derek Chauvin , had his knee on Floyd ’ s next for the length of a viral video which has now sparked protests around the world .
When local police made their initial statement about Floyd ’ s death , millions of people around the world had already seen the footage of the incident , yet for some reason , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the video .
Eventually , as unrest in the city began to spread , police officials provided numerous updates to their original statement , where they slowly verified facts that had already been well-known to the public and the press .
However , in the days following Floyd ’ s death , the Minneapolis Police Department continued to release incorrect information about the incident that intended to take the blame away from the officers by suggesting that Floyd attempted to resist arrest .
Later , security camera footage that was released by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer ’ s commands , contradicting the statements from police .
Earlier this month , Minneapolis Council Member Jeremy Schroeder expressed dismay with the misinformation that was released by the police department in the wake of the killing .
“ It is deeply concerning that the information initially circulated by the Minneapolis Police Department early Tuesday morning did not fully reflect the horrifying circumstances surrounding George Floyd ’ s death .
The original news release did not in my view accurately convey the facts or the role of the officers in this tragedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Star Tribune .
Police departments have large streams of information coming in about all of the encounters that officers have with the public , through dash cameras , body cameras , and dispatchers .
In theory , all of this information should leave police departments more knowledgeable on these incidents than the press , so there is really no honest excuse to be releasing such incorrect information hours after an event happened .
Police officials have blamed the “ fluid ” situation for their poor communication , but critics argue that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the facts before their first public statement about the case .
This week , some of the audio and transcripts for the 911 calls regarding the incident have been released , further revealing how much the police department knew about the killing .
In one of the recordings , a police dispatcher who was watching live video feeds from the scene called into police supervisors to warn them about the excessive force that they were witnessing .
In the call the dispatcher can be heard saying , “ I don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you want to but we have the cameras up for ( squad ) 320 ’ s call , and…I don ’ t know if they had to use force or not , but they got something out of the back of the squad , and all of them sat on this man , so I don ’ t know if they needed you or not , but they haven ’ t said anything to me yet.. ” “ Yeah , they haven ’ t said anything yet…just a takedown , which doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll find out , ” the supervisor responded .
“ No problem , we don ’ t get to ever see it so when we see it we ’ re just like , well , that looks a little different , but… ” the dispatcher said .
The supervisor then cut the dispatcher off and stopped the call , saying only , “ Sounds good , bye.
” This call was moments after Floyd ’ s death , yet the department still chose to run with the “ medical distress ” narrative .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason people are mad .
This is not a bad apple at work here , this is a coordinated effort , denying facts , to paint a picture that favors a police narrative .
It is wrong , it is dishonest , and it is the impetus behind the anger in the United States that is directed at police today .
Article posted with permission from The Free Thought Project

“All Of Them Sat On This Man”: Cops Gave False Story About Floyd’s Death Despite Testimony From Their Own
Following the death of George Floyd, officials with the Minneapolis Police Department were evasive about the actions taken by the officers involved with his arrest. In initial statements to the press, the police department only said that Floyd appeared to be suffering from “medical distress” during the arrest and that he was then taken to a nearby hospital where he passed away.
Never forget that these are the lies the Minneapolis PD told about George Floyd’s death, and without video evidence, we may have never known the truth… https://t.co/pVSWmp0wT3 — Rachel Blevins (@RachBlevins) June 9, 2020
However, there was no mention of the very likely possibility that Floyd’s “medical distress” was caused by his encounter with the officers who arrested him, in which they all knelt on him for nearly ten minutes. One of the officers, Derek Chauvin, had his knee on Floyd’s next for the length of a viral video which has now sparked protests around the world.
When local police made their initial statement about Floyd’s death, millions of people around the world had already seen the footage of the incident, yet for some reason, their statement disregarded the information revealed in the video.
Eventually, as unrest in the city began to spread, police officials provided numerous updates to their original statement, where they slowly verified facts that had already been well-known to the public and the press. However, in the days following Floyd’s death, the Minneapolis Police Department continued to release incorrect information about the incident that intended to take the blame away from the officers by suggesting that Floyd attempted to resist arrest.
Later, security camera footage that was released by a nearby business showed Floyd peacefully obeying the officer’s commands, contradicting the statements from police.
Earlier this month, Minneapolis Council Member Jeremy Schroeder expressed dismay with the misinformation that was released by the police department in the wake of the killing.
“It is deeply concerning that the information initially circulated by the Minneapolis Police Department early Tuesday morning did not fully reflect the horrifying circumstances surrounding George Floyd’s death. The original news release did not in my view accurately convey the facts or the role of the officers in this tragedy,” Schroeder said, according to the Star Tribune.
Police departments have large streams of information coming in about all of the encounters that officers have with the public, through dash cameras, body cameras, and dispatchers. In theory, all of this information should leave police departments more knowledgeable on these incidents than the press, so there is really no honest excuse to be releasing such incorrect information hours after an event happened. Police officials have blamed the “fluid” situation for their poor communication, but critics argue that they had plenty of time to sort out the facts before their first public statement about the case.
This week, some of the audio and transcripts for the 911 calls regarding the incident have been released, further revealing how much the police department knew about the killing. In one of the recordings, a police dispatcher who was watching live video feeds from the scene called into police supervisors to warn them about the excessive force that they were witnessing.
In the call the dispatcher can be heard saying, “I don’t know, you can call me a snitch if you want to but we have the cameras up for (squad) 320’s call, and…I don’t know if they had to use force or not, but they got something out of the back of the squad, and all of them sat on this man, so I don’t know if they needed you or not, but they haven’t said anything to me yet..”
“Yeah, they haven’t said anything yet…just a takedown, which doesn’t count, but I’ll find out,” the supervisor responded.
“No problem, we don’t get to ever see it so when we see it we’re just like, well, that looks a little different, but…” the dispatcher said.
The supervisor then cut the dispatcher off and stopped the call, saying only, “Sounds good, bye.”
In a phone recording released this afternoon, a Minneapolis Police dispatcher watching a video feed of officers holding George Floyd down called a Sergeant to report it. The officers hadn't done so. (The knife reference is an unrelated call.) pic.twitter.com/evgYww8kSN — Tony Webster (@webster) June 15, 2020
This call was moments after Floyd’s death, yet the department still chose to run with the “medical distress” narrative. It was completely dishonest and exactly the reason people are mad. This is not a bad apple at work here, this is a coordinated effort, denying facts, to paint a picture that favors a police narrative. It is wrong, it is dishonest, and it is the impetus behind the anger in the United States that is directed at police today.
Article posted with permission from The Free Thought Project


thewashingtonstandard--2020-06-17--New Bill Claims To “Protect” Children While Ignoring Them Being Pimped Out

New Bill Claims To “ Protect ” Children While Ignoring Them Being Pimped Out Have you heard of the Bill titled “ The EARN IT Act ” ?
The main sponsor is Sen. Lindsey Graham from SC .
However , on this particular Bill , he has several co-sponsors .
This Act is supposed to set up a protective data system for children , especially when it comes to sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of children .
Sen. Graham and the bipartisan co-sponsors have sponsored or co-sponsored many other Bills which turn education into workforce prep !
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children ’ s safety ?
Let ’ s look at S3398 with the Common Core Diva Lynne Taylor on this episode of Rotten to the Core Wednesday on Sons of Liberty Radio .
Articles and additional resources mentioned in this episode .
ESEA of 1965 ( amended in 2015 as ESSA ) , page 230 shows ‘ internet safety ’ .
S 3398 is to amend this portion .
https : //www2.ed.gov/documents/ essa-act-of-1965.pdf Communication Decency Act ( 1990s version of the original 1934 Communication Act ) .
Both bills are amended in S @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ‘ homework ’ ) : https : //www.eff.org/issues/ cda230 # : ~ : text=47 % 20U.S.C.
, of % 20the % 20Communication % 20Decency % 20Act & text=Section % 20230 % 20says % 20that % 20 % 22No , % C2 % A7 % 20230 ) .
The National Center on Sexual Exploitation video : *** 8 minutes and some graphic images** The Human Rights Campaign ( ties to UN ) lesson plan for “ Red : A Crayon ’ s Story ” .
This also ties to “ I am Jazz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ //assets2.hrc.org/ welcoming-schools/documents/ WS_Lesson_Red_A_Crayons_Story .
pdf The PA Teen ’ s ( KC Miller ) Tedx Talk on pushing CSE in schools : https : //www.ted.com/talks/kc_ miller_the_abstinence_of_ essential_information_ advancing_sex_education ( his talk is based off UN CSE it ’ s about 12 minutes , but it ’ s what he says that needs exposing . )
**If you choose to not show his talk , use image # 5 here .
Folks can listen at if they choose , later .
NBC Link to cartoons for kids using gender bending : https : //www.nbcnews.com/ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in other States , too ) the PPP ( Positive Prevention Plus ) Special Needs pdf .
Pages xx and 6 are what I want to focus on .
Page xx is the parental caveat and page 6 is the teacher ’ s part .
https : //static1.squarespace .
com/static/ 557227cee4b0c5ac0270c331/t/ 5dac91f368d586435e5a9fc7/ 1571590647100/Speical+Pops+ 2020+Preveiw.pdf **The Vimeo for PPP ’ s high school independent study is about 5 minutes long .
It ’ s worth playing , though .
https : //vimeo.com/167462779 **The middle school PPP vimeo is only 3 minutes , but is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ //vimeo.com/198709545 The Stop CSE website , where lots more curriculum/resources are exposed : https : //www .
comprehensivesexualityeducatio n.org/cse-materials-index/ Link to my archived article on HR 2720 and S 1524 ( Real Education for Healthy Youth Acts ) .
These 2 push MORE CSE in education .
https : //www.commoncorediva .
com/2020/05/26/congressional- solicitation-of-our-children/ Link to this Saturday ’ s Child Protection League webinar on warning parents about SEL ( social emotional learning ) and CSE ( comprehensive sexuality education ) https : //cplaction.com/ register/ Link to Erin ’ s Law ( requires all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex abuse .
To date , 37 states have embedded this in public ed ) .
http : //www.erinslaw.org/ erins-law/ Sen. Graham ’ s money trail : His support for S 3144 ( sister is HR 5236 ) called the Youth Workforce Readiness Act is exposed in this article : https : //www.commoncorediva .
com/2020/02/27/uniting- ageless-workers/ Channel 19 WTXL ’ s videos on Graham ’ s money in campaign contributions : https : //www.wltx.com/article/ news/local/congress-cashes-in- while-prescription-drug- prices-soar/353627720 ( drugs/ big pharma ) Graham ’ s biggest industry supporters from Open Secrets .
Big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By the way , there are over 41 bio-tech companies in SC .
Partner with us as a Son or Daughter of Liberty : https : //thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/membership/ Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

New Bill Claims To “Protect” Children While Ignoring Them Being Pimped Out
Have you heard of the Bill titled “The EARN IT Act”? The main sponsor is Sen. Lindsey Graham from SC. However, on this particular Bill, he has several co-sponsors. This Act is supposed to set up a protective data system for children, especially when it comes to sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of children. Sen. Graham and the bipartisan co-sponsors have sponsored or co-sponsored many other Bills which turn education into workforce prep! Now, ‘suddenly’ they all care about children’s safety? Let’s look at S3398 with the Common Core Diva Lynne Taylor on this episode of Rotten to the Core Wednesday on Sons of Liberty Radio.
Articles and additional resources mentioned in this episode.
https://www.commoncorediva.com/2020/06/16/congresss-educratic-sense/
ESEA of 1965 (amended in 2015 as ESSA), page 230 shows ‘internet safety’. S 3398 is to amend this portion.
https://www2.ed.gov/documents/ essa-act-of-1965.pdf
S 3398 in bill form:
https://www.congress.gov/116/ bills/s3398/BILLS-116s3398is. pdf
Communication Decency Act (1990s version of the original 1934 Communication Act). Both bills are amended in S 3398. Explained in everyday terms (for ‘homework’):
https://www.eff.org/issues/ cda230#:~:text=47%20U.S.C.,of% 20the%20Communication% 20Decency%20Act&text=Section% 20230%20says%20that%20%22No,% C2%A7%20230).
https://www.eff.org/issues/ cda230/infographic
The National Center on Sexual Exploitation video:
*** 8 minutes and some graphic images**
The Human Rights Campaign (ties to UN) lesson plan for “Red: A Crayon’s Story”. This also ties to “I am Jazz’ (transgender children)
https://assets2.hrc.org/ welcoming-schools/documents/ WS_Lesson_Red_A_Crayons_Story. pdf
The PA Teen’s (KC Miller) Tedx Talk on pushing CSE in schools:
https://www.ted.com/talks/kc_ miller_the_abstinence_of_ essential_information_ advancing_sex_education (his talk is based off UN CSE it’s about 12 minutes, but it’s what he says that needs exposing.)
**If you choose to not show his talk, use image #5 here. Folks can listen at if they choose, later.
NBC Link to cartoons for kids using gender bending:
https://www.nbcnews.com/ feature/nbc-out/bandwagon- builds-lgbtq-diversity- children-s-tv-n1037146
From CA (used in other States,too) the PPP (Positive Prevention Plus) Special Needs pdf. Pages xx and 6 are what I want to focus on. Page xx is the parental caveat and page 6 is the teacher’s part.
https://static1.squarespace. com/static/ 557227cee4b0c5ac0270c331/t/ 5dac91f368d586435e5a9fc7/ 1571590647100/Speical+Pops+ 2020+Preveiw.pdf
**The Vimeo for PPP’s high school independent study is about 5 minutes long.
It’s worth playing, though.
https://vimeo.com/167462779
**The middle school PPP vimeo is only 3 minutes, but is labeled ‘elementary’.
https://vimeo.com/198709545
The Stop CSE website, where lots more curriculum/resources are exposed:
https://www. comprehensivesexualityeducatio n.org/cse-materials-index/
Link to my archived article on HR 2720 and S 1524 (Real Education for Healthy Youth Acts). These 2 push MORE CSE in education.
https://www.commoncorediva. com/2020/05/26/congressional- solicitation-of-our-children/
Link to this Saturday’s Child Protection League webinar on warning parents about SEL (social emotional learning) and CSE (comprehensive sexuality education)
https://cplaction.com/ register/
Link to Erin’s Law (requires all the states to teach prevention of child sex abuse. To date, 37 states have embedded this in public ed).
http://www.erinslaw.org/ erins-law/
Sen. Graham’s money trail:
His support for S 3144 (sister is HR 5236) called the Youth Workforce Readiness Act is exposed in this article:
https://www.commoncorediva. com/2020/02/27/uniting- ageless-workers/
Channel 19 WTXL’s videos on Graham’s money in campaign contributions:
https://www.wltx.com/article/ news/local/congress-cashes-in- while-prescription-drug- prices-soar/353627720 (drugs/ big pharma)
https://www.wltx.com/article/ news/local/sen-graham-leads- effort-to-bring-medical- supply-chain-to-us/101- 08799c79-8913-4410-9773- ad0e75bd2a45
(China, COVID-19, Elon Musk’s company for SC jobs)
Graham’s biggest industry supporters from Open Secrets. Big pharma and big tech are included. By the way, there are over 41 bio-tech companies in SC.
https://www.opensecrets.org/ members-of-congress/ industries?cid=N00009975& cycle=2018&recs=0&type=I
https://sonsoflibertyradio.com
https://sonsoflibertymedia.com
Sons of Liberty Store: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/
Support us through a donation: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/donate
Partner with us as a Son or Daughter of Liberty: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/membership/
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media