The point of the David Barton position is that (in Texas) the STATE School Board is very powerful (and offers a big enough market for its own TEXTBOOKS).

However, while the Federal government hands out even one Dollar – its regulations will continue to deprave and corrupt education.

As so often these days, I see no practical solution – other than secession.

Someone like David Barton (down in Texas) would strongly agree with you – that action via the School Boards is the key thing.

My own view is that government education will prove to be unreformable.

Let us hope I am wrong.

That’s why I have been saying for some time that it is the elections to school boards and local bodies that will lead to a recovery of a limited state, not some sudden coup at the top.

And llamas, the key question is—can you do it with a gleam in your eye?

‘I didn’t know llamas was a bubble-headed bleach blonde. ‘

Only on the weekends.

llater,

llamas

The newspaper had already lost 70 thousand subscribers (for being a far left rag) and is losing more every day.

But they do not care – as the local State Senator says “if the newspaper goes under, they will just get a job at a university somewhere” (I just listened to him).

This is the problem – the media do not operate on their own, they grow out of the education system.

What I find amazing is you can irritate that many people and not get a single email that crosses the line. I’ll bet I can get torrent of death threats just by writing something negative about Obama, say, or the latest game console.

John K
January 4, 2013 at 2:50 pm

The aggrieved parties to this should be the citizens who do not own guns. If a property is not on the newspaper’s little list, then thieves know they can break in with impunity. It will be just like living in Britain for the robbers!

Since the data is only for handgun license holders, and since a shotgun is actually much more deadly, the ‘impunity’ may disappoint. Indeed, one looks forward with delight to “The Journal News” being sued by the relict of a deceased burglar for failing to make this point clear.

The paper asked the local sheriff for protection and was turned down because the vaguely hostile emails they cited weren’t even actually threats.

I’m glad I don’t live in the surreal world of this paper’s management, in which law abiding citizens pose a deadly threat because of a disagreement, but proposing to violate those same citizens’ constitutional rights is sacred journalism, and totally protected by the same constitution at that.

I’ve seen more outrageous cognitive dissonance on display, but this one is right up there competing for a top spot.