Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Deep State: Progressives Started the Mess

“The USAID story is way bigger than most people realize. It’s not just that they funded Politico, NY Times, etc., but then the articles in those publications were used as sources all over CNN, NBC News, etc. to further push their agenda. This is how they laundered their lies.” —Dave Rubin, Rubin Report

By Robin Itzler 

 Editor's Note:  This is one of the commentaries selected from Robin's weekly newsletter Patriot Neighbors. Any cartoons appearing will have been added by me.  If you wish to get the full edition, E-mail her at PatriotNeighbors@yahoo.com to get on her list, it's free. RK

 

President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and DOGE Chair Elon Musk, along with many America First Patriots, are working overtime to rid our country of a mess progressives started in the early 20th Century. 

In 1913, Congress passed the 16th amendment that imposed a federal income tax. This gave the federal government more money and they happily spent it. 

In 1900, there were six government agencies. Today there are 15, and in the 2oth century those know known as Progressives happily created as many as they could.  Here they are and the year they were established—along with department changes: 

  1. 1789 Department of State 1789 Department of Treasury 
  2. 1789 Department of War (in 1947 merged with Department of Defense) 
  3. 1789 Attorney General (in 1870, merged with Department of Justice) 
  4. 1798 Department of Navy (in 1947 merged with Department of Defense) 
  5. 1829 Postmaster General (privatized in 1970) 
  6. 1849 Department of the Interior 1862 Department of Agriculture 
  7. 1903 Department of Commerce and Labor (split into two in 1913) 
  8. 1913 Department of Commerce 
  9. 1913 Department of Labor 
  10. 1953 Department of Health, Education and Welfare (in 1980, became the Department of Health and Human Services) 
  11. 1965 Department of Housing and Urban Development 
  12. 1966 Department of Transportation 1977 Department of Energy 
  13. 1979 Department of Education 
  14. 1989 Department of Veterans’ Affairs 
  15. 2002 Department of Homeland Security 

Now consider all the federal programs these agencies produce. Realizing most Americans do not get into the details of every program, progressives come up with appealing names such as New Deal, Great Society and Green New Deal. Or they use symbolism such as the War on Poverty or War on Hunger. After all, who doesn’t want to win a war on poverty or hunger? Click here to learn more about each department.

Democrats’ Resistance to MAGA Runs Into an Echo Chamber Wall

Trump’s political opponents think they’ve figured out their problem – but they still don’t get it. 

By Feb 17, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags:  Articles, Opinion, Politics

 Democrats’ Resistance to MAGA Runs Into an Echo Chamber Wall

Between Nov. 5, 2024, and Jan. 20 of this year, Democrats licked their wounds, trying to figure out how and why they lost so badly. Once Donald Trump walked back into the White House, though, his opponents turned their attention to resisting his MAGA agenda. They are flailing, and that may be largely because they never solved their post-election, pre-inauguration puzzle. The “Resistance” is struggling for purchase because the people behind it still don’t understand precisely why they find themselves resisting rather than governing.

Politico recently published a trio of articles that could perhaps collectively be described as a Democratic Party postmortem. The articles featured Democrat strategists and three officeholders, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and New York City councilman Chi Ossé (D) opining on what they think went wrong for them in 2024. They also shared their thoughts on why they are struggling to win the messaging war against President Trump and, indeed, the wider MAGA movement.

“Trump and Republicans have been able to grasp different types of media in how to get their message across that impacts society as a whole,” said Ossé, “and I do believe that Dem leadership is missing the mark, not only in the election but in our resistance 2.0. We need to be active in every medium.”

Perhaps three significant factors are at play, here. The fact that Trump’s new government efficiency pit-bull, Elon Musk, also happens to be the world’s richest man and the owner of perhaps the world’s most influential social media platform gives MAGA a big advantage. There is also Trump’s own understanding of the power of social media – and his not insignificant use of it.

Legacy Media Bubble

There is another pivotal factor, however, and one of the Politico articles touches on it. “Democrats’ weakness in reaching voters outside traditional channels — TikTok, not MSNBC; YouTube, not national newspapers — isn’t new,” the article observes. The political left’s decades-long dominance of the establishment legacy media has backfired in this information age. Democrats got too comfortable with the idea that The New York Times and the alphabet TV news networks such as ABC, MSNBC, and CNN, along with DC’s most prominent print newspaper, would always give them positive exposure and champion their agenda.

New banner Perpective 1 

This became the Democrats’ echo chamber. They got comfortable with it – and complacent. They were almost never asked the tough questions and were rarely challenged, even if they made easily debunked claims.

By contrast, Republicans and conservatives have been crowded out in these traditional media platforms. They are constantly challenged, accused, berated, and shouted down. The legacy media, by shunning them, drove them to social and alternative media, which are now the most common platforms from which Americans get their news.

The Failure to Grasp MAGA

None of this goes to the heart of the Democrats’ problem, though, or explains why MAGA has arguably now become the most consequential grass-roots political movement in the history of the western world.

MAGA – Make America Great Again – was a reaction to years of failed policy and social/cultural destruction. Democrats have simply never grasped this fact. Instead, they have only doubled down on the same tired and discredited narratives. Raskin perfectly demonstrated this mental inertia during the interview he did for Politico’s “Deep Dive” podcast.

Asked where Democrats go from here in their effort to resist the Trump agenda, Raskin responded: “Overall, we have to work on a short-term, daily basis to defeat and block every authoritarian, fascistic move against the rights of the people, against the separation of powers, against legislative supremacy to be the lawmaking power.”

Stuck in the Echo Chamber

Naturally, Raskin’s interviewer did not challenge him on what was “authoritarian” or “fascistic” about anything Trump has done since returning to the White House. Then again, this was a Politico interview, and therein lay the problem. Democrats are talking about the need to compete with MAGA across the wider new media landscape, but they are forced to stick within the leftist echo chamber – which Politico inhabits – if they want their usual rhetoric to go unchallenged.

Play Video
It’s News, Captain – But Different!

If Raskin appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast or One America News Network or The Blaze – or did an interview with Liberty Nation News – and described Trump as a fascist, he would be challenged to explain himself.

At least some Democrats appear to be on the verge of figuring out their decline in the public’s esteem. “I think the majority of the party realizes that the ideological purity of some of the groups is a recipe for disaster and that candidly the attack on over-the-top wokeism was a valid attack,” Sen. Warner observed. By and large, though, Trump’s political enemies are still stuck on the idea that Trump is a fascist, Trump is a racist. The 2024 election proved that Americans aren’t buying it. All Democrat efforts to compete with MAGA across the broader media and information landscape will be in vain if they do not fundamentally change the message itself.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Graham J Noble Chief Political Correspondent & Satirist

Media Balance Newsletter, February 17, 2025

Free... Twice-a-Month... What you won't find in one place, anywhere else

By John Droz, jr., Physicist & Citizen’s Rights Advocate 

Enjoy the latest edition of our free, critically thinking Media Balance Newsletter. We cover Climate to COVID, Elections to Education, Renewables to Religion — showing you what the mainstream media has revised or filtered out.  If you missed it, here is the prior Newsletter. 

Please use these links to pass on the Newsletter to other open-minded citizens via social media, etc. Anyone can subscribe (or unsubscribe) by emailing me, (aaprjohn@northnet.org).   We are continuously working at making this twice-a-month publication more interesting, more useful and more accessible to our 20,000± readers. Due to loyal supporters, the Newsletter has been published 16 years now — thank you! Please let me know the email of anyone you feel would appreciate getting this unique and powerful information. 

PS — My substack site is now quite popular! It's about the lack of Critical Thinking relating to numerous societal matters (education, climate, energy, etc.). If you haven't already, signup for a FREE subscription. Enjoy and pass it on!

Copyright © 2025; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.orgElection-Integrity.info & C19Science.info)

The U.S. Sent Over $3 Billion to Hezbollah’s ‘Army’

By @ Sultan Knish Blog 

In 2006, after a Hezbollah invasion, Israel launched a military campaign against the Islamic terrorist group. After a month of fighting, the Bush administration forced a ceasefire under UN Security Council Resolution 1701 that required the disarmament of Hezbollah and its replacement by the Lebanese Army and a United Nations ‘peacekeeping’ force.

How can Hezbollah claim victory, President George W. Bush wondered, when they were “going to be replaced by a Lebanese Army and an international force?”

The answer was quite obvious. The Lebanese Army and UNIFIL didn’t replace Hezbollah, they were co-opted by it. And nearly two decades later, Hezbollah had far more firepower and attempted to launch its own version of Oct 7 until Israel neutered it with its pager operation.

And then the Biden administration negotiated another ‘ceasefire’ under which Hezbollah is supposed to be replaced by the Lebanese Army and a UN peacekeeping force. Just like Hezbollah, the LAF and UNIFIL were supposed to have done 18 years ago. But didn’t.

To disarm Hezbollah, the Lebanese Army would need permission from a cabinet that includes Hezbollah. And Hezbollah is not likely to authorize a government it controls to disarm it.

Hezbollah spokesman Mohammad Afif responded by bragging that no one would be “able to sever the connection between the army” and the terror group which is “strong and solid and will remain so.” Sizable portions of the Lebanese Armed Forces are loyal to Hezbollah including officers trained by Hezbollah or in Syria so that by funding LAF, we’re funding Hezbollah.

And the United States not only made the mistake of falling for the same failed policy again, but since 2006, Americans have provided over $3 billion to the Lebanese Armed Forces.

That money was not used to disarm or replace Hezbollah. It was not used to bring peace to the region. Even the LAF and Hezbollah campaign against ISIS in 2017 ended with a ceasefire agreement between the Sunni and Shiite Islamic terror groups while the LAF looked away.

And the United States had to fight the ISIS terrorists because the LAF and Hezbollah wouldn’t.

During the same period in which the U.S. poured over $3 billion into the LAF, Hezbollah’s arsenal rose from 15,000 rockets to over 150,000. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that Hezbollah had “dramatically improved its military since 2006” and while much of that assistance had come from Iran, it is all too likely that American military training and weapons provided to the LAF also ended up directly or indirectly benefiting Hezbollah.

Israel’s 2024 conflict with Hezbollah conclusively demonstrated that UN Resolution 1701, the LAF and UNIFIL not only did not disarm the Islamic terror group, but covered up for it. Despite that, the Biden administration turned around and forced a nearly identical agreement on Israel.

What had not worked for the last 18 years was somehow going to work this time around.

After over $3 billion which did nothing but prop up Hezbollah’s front army, the Biden administration pulled money from military aid to Israel and diverted it to the LAF, reprogramming $95 million in security assistance from Egypt and $7.5 million in security aid to Israel to the LAF.

Last year, Rep. Greg Steube introduced the PAGER Act (Preventing Armed Groups from Engaging in Radicalism) to stop “sending U.S. taxpayer dollars to Lebanon when they are complicit in empowering a terrorist organization whose primary mission is to destroy America and Israel.”

“For two years I filed an amendment to the annual State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill to eliminate funding to the Lebanese Armed Forces, as the money goes to Hezbollah. Republicans and Democrats continue to vote it down,” Rep. Steube complained.

The State Department has spent nearly two decades selling the myth that empowering the LAF will weaken Hezbollah, but after $3 billion in spending, Hezbollah is more powerful than ever, while American taxpayers are stuck with financing its auxiliary force in the hopes of defeating it.

Hezbollah won’t disarm, nor will the LAF disarm it or prevent it from attacking Israel, because Lebanon’s entire balance of power depends on aiming Hezbollah’s weapons at Israel.

Under the 1989 Taif agreement, all of Lebanon’s militias were supposed to disarm and cede power to the LAF. That’s the basis for UN Resolution 1701 and the latest ceasefire deal. Hezbollah’s basis for an exemption from the Taif agreement is its campaign against Israel. By waging war against Israel, Hezbollah secures its legal right to run a separate army.

If Hezbollah really stopped attacking Israel or if the Lebanese government secured the border, Hezbollah would lose its legal basis for having an army. Then either the Lebanese government would have to disarm Hezbollah or admit that the Taif agreement was a charade that turned over Lebanon to Hezbollah, and to its backers in Tehran. And Hezbollah would have to admit that the real purpose of its military is to dominate Lebanon’s Christians for the Shiites.

Everyone in Lebanon knows all of these things are true, but no one can say them out loud.

Allowing Hezbollah to control the border and attack Israel is the price for keeping the Hezbollah puppet regime in power in Beirut. It allows the various players in the government, including Hezbollah and its Christian Dhimmi puppets, to pretend that Hezbollah doesn’t rule Lebanon.

Actually disarming Hezbollah would lead to another civil war. One that without Israeli military intervention, the terrorist group would win, and that would officially turn Lebanon into another Iran, Syria or Iraq: a nation ruled by Shiite clerics and their terrorist militias. Eventually that day will come, but maintaining the illusion that Hezbollah is an anti-Israel “resistance” movement allows the other factions to delay the moment of truth for a few more years.

Regular wars with Israel are part of the price that they pay for this arrangement.

The $3 billion dollars that America squandered on the LAF, like the even larger sums wasted on arming and training the Iraqi military, didn’t counter Shiite Islamic rule, it enabled it.

Rep. Steube’s PAGER Act would cut off further funds to the LAF until the “Lebanese Armed Forces ceases coordination and support with Hezbollah” and the “Lebanese Armed Forces cease coordination and support with Iran”.

If the LAF is really a counterweight to Hezbollah, then why oppose the bill?

The only reason for opposing the PAGER Act is because the politicians know quite well that the LAF coordinates with Hezbollah, and are content to keep sending money based on the promise that if we arm the Lebanese military enough, it will one day be ready to take on Hezbollah.

That day has not come for 18 years. It will not come. Ever.

The LAF is perpetually short of money, renting out its helicopters for sightseeing tours and delaying payments to soldiers, forcing us to step in and write more checks, because it’s a corrupt organization of toy soldiers who do almost no actual fighting, and are there to shield the terrorists. Lebanon’s government is a Hezbollah puppet regime. The LAF is a puppet army.

It’s time to take away the shield, the excuses and stop sending more money to terrorists. Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading.

Can America’s Unluckiest Residents Escape Illinois without Moving?

February 15, 2025 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

As part of my continuing comparisons of blue states and red states, I’ve written several columns comparing New York and Florida, and I’ve done the same thing with Texas and California.

I was thinking of doing something similar for Illinois and Indiana.

After all, these neighboring states starkly illustrate the difference between bad governance and good governance.

And the gap is apparent when looking at state rankings.

But instead of simply comparing Illinois and Indiana, I want to use the two states as a springboard for a discussion about secession.

But not the bad version of secession like the U.S. experienced in 1861.

Instead, we’re going to discuss a good version, specifically the effort by some counties to secede from Illinois and join Indiana.

This is not a trivial effort. As shown by this map, 33 counties in the Prairie State have explicitly voted to leave Illinois.

The effort has even attracted the attention of the Wall Street Journal.

Here are some excerpts from an editorial last week.


…the difference between good and bad governance is coming into sharper relief for voters. Enough people are noticing in Illinois that some counties want to secede from the Land of Lincoln and join a state that isn’t ruled by public unions and their political yes-men. …Indiana House Speaker Todd Huston says the Illinois counties would be more than welcome to come on over. On Jan. 14 the Republican introduced legislation to establish the Indiana-Illinois Boundary Adjustment Commission, which would include five members appointed by the Indiana Governor and five members appointed under Illinois law, to discuss moving the state line. …Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker called the secession idea a “stunt”… Mr. Pritzker is essentially claiming the superiority of his welfare-state, public-union governance model. But fewer people are buying it. …Illinois saw the third highest state out-migration of people in the country, according to census data from October 2024. The state lost 93,247 residents in 2023, after losing 116,000 in 2022 and 141,000 in 2021. Indiana gained 30,000 residents in 2023.

It’s almost an understatement to say that people are fleeing Illinois.

There are many reasons, some of which are shown in this table that was part of the WSJ editorial.

The moral of the story is that Illinois is an unfriendly place for people who are productive.

Many of the problems in Illinois are the result of the state being dominated by one of the worst-governed cities in America. So it’s understandable that many downstate residents are moving.

But wouldn’t it be nice if they could simply stay where they are and instead become part of a well-governed state?

As the late, great Walter Williams wrote, secession is a great way of helping people escape oppression.

P.S. I wrote back in 2015 about how some people in Sardinia want to secede from Italy and join Switzerland. And imagine how many lives could have been saved if people followed my 2014 advice about Ukraine and secession.

The Full Facts on DOGE – Part 1

Past is most certainly prologue

By | @ Liberty Nation News, Feb 17, 2025, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

Editor’s note: This three-part series on the legality of DOGE focuses on the past, present and future of the agency.

A president created an agency out of thin air with a mission to use high-tech tools to deliver a “better government experience.” Relying on a small team of tech experts, this agency would streamline, solve, and enhance efficiency. And shockingly, no Democrats in Congress had public meltdowns. No, this is not Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency – or DOGE – but rather, President Barack Obama back in 2013 laying the groundwork for the United States Digital Service. If the former commander-in-chief’s venture at streamlining the federal government went unchallenged, why does Elon Musk’s pet project get a tough rap?

Legal/Illegal – It Depends What Is Is

The United States Digital Service (USDS) is more than just a precursor to DOGE; it is DOGE. In President Trump’s January 20 Executive Order, he (or his scribe) was very precise in the “creation” of this government efficiency project. His order stated:

“Sec. 3.  DOGE Structure.  (a)  Reorganization and Renaming of the United States Digital Service.  The United States Digital Service is hereby publicly renamed as the United States DOGE Service (USDS)”

As you can see, it even kept the initials. The agency has received funding from Congress and has, in its own words, partnered with more than “30 federal agencies” to deliver streamlined tech services across government. Indeed, in a self-congratulatory tenth anniversary post, USDS outlined some of the deliverables it has achieved during its decade-long existence.

“USDS has brought more than 700 top-tier technologists into government,” the post reads. More than 100 of these technologists went on to permanent positions across agencies. Further, the missive outlines the work it has done across multiple agencies with a specific focus on the work it has done to improve Social Security and the IRS.

DOGE is the same agency under a slightly different moniker, and as such, falls entirely in line with current laws. So, it is not the existence of DOGE that is at question – it was created by a former president and funded through Congress – but rather the parameters by which it is operating. And here, things get a little murkier.

In-House DOGE

As per the president’s order:

“In consultation with USDS, each Agency Head shall establish within their respective Agencies a DOGE Team of at least four employees, which may include Special Government Employees, hired or assigned within thirty days of the date of this Order. Agency Heads shall select the DOGE Team members in consultation with the USDS Administrator.  Each DOGE Team will typically include one DOGE Team Lead, one engineer, one human resources specialist, and one attorney.”

This has been a bone of contention for Trump’s critics in Washington, DC, and the Fourth Estate. We have been granted endless column inches and soundbites decrying the fact that a band of young technologists have been setting up camp within agencies. To reiterate, this appears entirely within the law and consistent with what has been happening for the last ten years. So, where’s the beef?

Much of the political ire and fire is aimed at Elon Musk. Accusations range from him being the “shadow president” to not being authorized to oversee the USDS. However, a brief perusal of the agency’s history demonstrates that the critics perhaps protest too much.

A Leader by Any Other Name …

Matt Cutts, an uber wealthy Google tech pro was given the top spot at the agency under Barack Obama, a position he held until 2021. Notably, this position did not require Senate approval. His mission was, as he described it to his staff across the various agencies, to “go where the work is.” Translation: Find the problems, fix the problems.

The Washingtonian described a staff conference taking place in the USDS building just across from the White House, writing:

“That the scene is more Silicon Valley than West Wing is no accident. USDS was created in part to demonstrate how official Washington might look if it were run like a start-up. Its ranks are filled with people who, by government standards, might as well belong to an invasive species: software engineers, web designers, product managers, and other veterans of the technology industry. ‘A ragged band of 180 geeks,’ as Cutts puts it.”

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The Washingtonian’s description could well be detailing Elon Musk (the start-up king), and his team of tech disruptors. In fact, for anyone who cares to read just about any article written regarding the agency before the 2024 election, one might assume that – as Dragnet was wont to mention – “the names have been changed to protect the innocent.” What is different though, is the scope of what the USDS, now ubiquitously called DOGE, is doing. And it is here, in these thick bureaucratic weeds, that the legal challenges have begun to take root.

~

Part 2 in this DOGE series will examine the various legal challenges that have so far been made against DOGE, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief

K-12 Education: Knowledge vs Skills

By John Droz, Jr. @ Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

One of the most significant K-12 education battles today (and also among the least discussed) is between the forces who want to prioritize the teaching of Knowledge vs those who advocate for more emphasis on Skills. To the detriment of students and the public, the Knowledge proponents are winning by a landslide. I’ll explain why this is not a good development, below.

A word about Skills —

Skills are also called Competencies in the education business, but for here, I’ll stick with Skills… Some states claim to promote several Skills (e.g., here). This sounds nice, but there are two problems. First, these Skills are treated as if they are all of equal value, and they are not. Critical Thinking is the Master Skill — learning that will make an individual better at all the other listed Skills! However, it is not prioritized as it should be.

Second, despite assurances that “graduates will have these Skills” there is no evidence that any of them — especially Critical Thinking — are formally taught. For example, there are no Professional Development (PD) classes focused on educating teachers on how to teach Critical Thinking. Worse, there are no K-12 classes that are dedicated to teaching children how to be a Critical Thinker — and explaining all the benefits of doing so.

In other words, the advocacy of K-12 Skills is mostly aspirational and political. (I say political as State education departments know that legislators, parents, and citizens want to hear that their school system is producing Critical Thinkers, so they tell them what they want to hear.) No one is bothering to investigate whether that is really happening. An innate trait of bureaucracies is that their effort on any topic is in direct pro-portion to the investigative attention paid to it — which here is near zero.

Several words about Knowledge —

Knowledge is also called Content in the education trade, but for layperson purposes, I’m going to use the term Information. Right now, in most States, the Information vs Skills ratio of what is taught in K-12 schools is about 95/5. This is way off the mark for multiple reasons. There’s no scientifically proven perfect ratio, but 60/40 would be much better.

Here are some concerns about the over-emphasis of Information

Point #1: Would we (as a Country) rather have a graduate (citizen) who has: a) high Information and low Skills, or b) lower Information and higher Skills? The evidence says we would be better off with “b,” but our public schools are designed to produce “a”.

Point #2: How many times have you heard someone say: “I was taught ABC {Information} in high school, but I’ve completely forgotten it”? How many times have you heard someone say: “I was taught to Critically Think in high school, but I’ve completely forgotten it”? The point is that skills stay with us longer than information.

Point #3: How many times have you heard school officials say: “Many of the jobs our K-12 students will eventually be employed in, don't even exist today”? What that indicates is that Information is relative, and in a fast-changing world, much of it can soon become outdated. Skills, on the other hand (like Critical Thinking), are largely independent of technical progress.

Point #4: All information is not good, as some is inaccurate. For example, teaching K-12 students that we need millions of wind turbines to save the planet from extinction, is provably false.

Point #5: All information is not good, as some is incomplete. For example, teaching K-12 students that fossil fuels are bad is a political view, not a representation of scientific reality. There are numerous well-documented benefits of fossil fuels.

Point #6: All information is not good, as some is counter-productive. For example, teaching students that they should just go along with: a) what is politically correct, or b) what the consensus view is, or c) what some experts assert, or d) what a computer program projects — are all messages that convey: “There is no need for you to spend time and effort on thinking about XYZ, as people much smarter than you have already determined what’s right and wrong, so just keep your thoughts to yourself." This is all about producing conformists, who are the opposite of Critical Thinkers!

Point #7: All information is not good, as some is age-inappropriate. For example, teaching eight-year-olds about LBGTQ is not age-appropriate.

Point #8: Interestingly the argument for focusing on Information is being undermined by technology. Today we can electronically query what the facts are about almost anything — so what’s the point of memorizing it?

Point #9: Being deluged with information gradually dulls the senses of students. Unconsciously, they focus on information retention, rather than the much more important information processing (a Skill).

Point #10: The Left acknowledges that they want to take control of our children’s thinking. As such, they are largely behind the emphasis on Information, as that is something they can easily control. And they are doing just that (e.g., see the NGSS). Who is paying any real attention to exactly what is being taught in K-12 subjects like Science?

Point #11: On the other hand, the number one fear of the Left is to have Critically Thinking citizens. As such they have gone to great lengths to squelch the teaching of Critical Thinking (a Skill) in K-12 education. As an example, one strategy being used is their false claim (see here) that Critical Thinking is not teachable.

Point #12: Having knowledge about something does not make you skilled in it. Likewise, being skilled at something does not mean you have all the required knowledge to excel at it. The proper balance is key.

Point #13: How has this intensive focus on teaching Information worked out? The standing of US K-12 students (on standardized tests in subjects like Science) has continued to go downhill for decades. At what point do we conclude that enough is enough, and we ought to seriously re-examine all of our education assumptions?

The Bottom Line —

Essentially everyone agrees that the US K-12 public school system is awash with serious problems. However, one of the reasons that we are making little headway is that the efforts of many good people are diluted by being aimed at good issues, but of secondary importance — like school choice.

There needs to be broad agreement that our top priority should be to produce Critically Thinking K-12 graduates. Until we are laser-focused on that, our decline will continue.


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Leave a comment

Share

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).

Monday, February 17, 2025

The Kobayashi Maru No Win Scenario and The Questions Never Asked

What was a civilian fuel ship doing in the Klingon Neutral Zone in the first place?

By Rich Kozlovich 

For Star Trek fans this is a well known story, and recently this scenario came up in an article, Will the Deep State Be Beaten via a ‘Kobayashi Maru Maneuver by DOGE Team?, forcing Democrats to "defend the indefensible" with their obnoxious, brash, senseless, outrageous claims regarding Trump's policies, while failing to offer any coherent answers. 

As for this idea that what Trump is doing isn't what America voted for, well, it appears that's exactly what America voted for as 60% favor expanding oil and gas production, 59% favor declaring emergency at southern border, and Trump has put Democrats in the position of opposing his massively popular positions — “defending the indefensible” — and they have no coherent answers.

Being a Star Trek fan over the years (I don't like the new woke stuff) I always liked that "no win" scenario.  Everyone taking the test knew if they attempted a rescue, the test was unbeatable, you were dead, the crew was dead, and the ship was destroyed, unless you cheated as did cadet Kirk.  He says he didn't cheat, he altered the parameters of the program....he cheated.... and he says he did it because he didn't believe in a no win scenario, and claimed he received a commendation for initiative.   He cheated because he wanted to win.   

That was from the original Star Trek series, but in a later movie what he received wasn't a commendation.  At least initially, and then he received a command.  As I said, it's fiction!  So as I go through this keep that in mind, but nonetheless there's a lot to be gleaned regarding the Kobayashi Maru scenario as there are six issues surrounding this whole Star Trek story that are instructive.

  1. First, it's fiction. 
  2. Secondly, this story is predicated on the Bretton Woods cold war idea it's America's job to resolve all the world's problems.  That's the philosophical framework for this scenario, making the assumption the Star Fleet captains would risk destruction and the lives of their crew to save a completely defenseless victim.  
  3. No one in any of these shows dealing with this ever asks why that fuel ship was there in the first place?  The Neutral Zone was huge, and the distances between the neutral zone and the federation planets was also huge.  So, where exactly were they going and how did they get there? 
  4. What if this is just a trap to start a war? No single star ship would survive, and they knew it.
  5. No one ever explains "rationally" throughout all the various Star Trek TV manifestations and movies why the federation ever agreed to an arms limitation, meaning cloaking devices for their star-ships.  They claimed it was to get a peace treaty?  Really? Is that in any way sound rational?  Everyone else had one, and it was huge advantage, and remember in the original show this vessel was surrounded by a lot of cloaked Klingon ships just waiting for them to attempt a rescue.  
  6. Why would an enemy, especially those with tyrannical violent militarized cultures having such an advantage agree to such a treaty, and if they did, why would they honor any such a peace treaty? It's all irrational, but it's instructive.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario is exactly like so many issues surrounding us today, including the Russo/Ukrainian War.    Entirely too much information is left out, too many lies have been told, too much corruption and backstabbing has take place, and done so deliberately, and now those lies and misdirection from the media, politicians, and the Deep State are coming home to roost. 

What would I have done as a cadet faced with the Kobayshi Maru scenario?  Nothing! They got themselves in that mess, let them get themselves out, as there were much larger issues at stake, like potentially starting another interstellar war.  How would the admirals have like it? I have no idea since it appears all the cadet captains tried to save that ship, and they all died, except the one who cheated.

It's kinda like the Russo/Ukrainian War. They got themselves in that mess, let them get themselves out, it's not our fault nor is it our responsibility.  As for this idea that Putin had to attack because he was afraid of NATO, that's nonsense. (more here)  Putin recently noted that Europe's leaders will eventually come to Trump wagging their tails.  Why is that profound? Because that totally undermines his claim he had to attack Ukraine to defend against NATO. He knew those manning NATO's walls are a bunch of wimps, and he had nothing to fear from them, his aggression was all about revanche, acquiring lost territory, and this is all on Putin

Vice President Vance torched Europe's leaders, and beat up the globalist oligarchs, putting them on notice, we don't care what you think, what you say, or what you do, and they hated it, with German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius saying , “This Is Not Acceptable!”  Well listen up Boris, you don't have a say any longer.   Their hypocrisy and back stabbing has been unending, along with other corrupt self serving schemes such as the EU continued to buy Russia fertilizer through out the war, and Trump isn't going to tolerate it. 

Trump is working to bring an end to this war, and he's cutting out all the players who are obstructing any agreement, that being Europe's leaders and Zelenskyy, who are all have a hissy fit over that, which is understandable, but they've done nothing that works, offer nothing that works, never will agree on anything except keeping the war going, and wanting America to pay for it.  Even much of the weaponry we've given to Ukraine has ended up on the black market, and the money has been diverted, but we don't know where, since Joe Biden wouldn't allow it to be tracked.   So why should we care what Zelenskyy thinks?

But the EU isn't the only ones upset.  The D.C. War Party is angry also, but like the others,  they're out of the talks also.  However, I do find it interesting NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte tells Europe to stop whining about being left out of the peace talks, saying if they want to be a part of the debate then come up with concrete ideas. But that's not gonna happen, and that's why Trump is dumping them.  

Now for the questions not asked. 

What I wonder about is this new issue regarding what's being called Ukrainian Economic Colonization over the vast mineral deposits in Ukraine, and the ability to mine them making Ukraine a very wealthy nation.  

Well, if that was true, and I'm assuming it is, then why didn't they take advantage of that before this?  If they had and had become a very wealthy nation they would have been capable of buying, or even better yet, manufacturing all the military hardware necessary to defend themselves and preventing an attack in the first place.  Why didn't they?

If that's part of the deal then we're talking American boots on the ground in order to enrich investors, and in my view, that's no deal at all, it's a Kobayashi Maru scenario, and I still say they created this mess, let them fix it, or not. 


The Ten Comandments for Old People

By Robin Itzler 

Editor's Note:  This appeared in Robin's weekly newsletter Patriot Neighbors in her humor section, and it's true, there's truth in humor, especially number ten.  If you wish to get the full edition, E-mail her at PatriotNeighbors@yahoo.com to get on her list, it's free. RK

1. Talk to yourself. There are times you need expert advice.
2. You don’t need anger management. You need people to stop irritating you.
3. "In style" means the clothes that still fit.
4. Your people skills are just fine. It’s your tolerance for idiots that needs work.
5. On time is when you get there.
6. The biggest lie you tell yourself is: “I don’t need to write that down.  I’ll remember it.”
7. You’ve noticed people your age are much older than you.
8. Aging has slowed you down, but hasn’t shut you up.
9. You still haven’t learned to act your age and hopefully never will.
10. “One for the road” means peeing before you leave the house.