The story:
Teenager Who Once Wowed Conservatives with CPAC Speech Admits: No Longer Conservative
Well, now 17, Krohn is admitting to Politico he’s become a liberal and dismissing his former views as childish parroting of views he grew up hearing.
“He likes gay marriage and Obamacare. He’s going to New York University in the fall,” The Atlantic reports. “He name drops German philosophers.”
And sure enough.
“I think it was naive,” Krohn told Politico of the speech. “It’s a 13-year-old kid saying stuff that he had heard for a long time.… I live in Georgia. We’re inundated with conservative talk in Georgia.… The speech was something that a 13-year-old does. You haven’t formed all your opinions. You’re really defeating yourself if you think you have all of your ideas in your head when you were 12 or 13. It’s impossible. You haven’t done enough.”
And the goal of Wilson:
“I should like to make the young gentlemen of the rising generations as unlike their fathers as possible.”
–Woodrow Wilson, What Is Progress?
And of John Dewey, the father of the modern American Public School System. He started kindergarten so he could “shape the apples before they fell from the tree.”
And, if you have read my post, Progressive=Communist: Connecting the Dots, then you will understand that Wilson and Dewey can be traced back to these men, as well:
“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.“
–Vladimir Lenin
“The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.’
–Karl Marx
In this story, we can clearly see how effective our public schools have become at indoctrinating our children: they even succeeded in pulling this child away from his own parents.
Doesn’t every teenager rebel against his parents? As for the public schools, I don’t know of any that are turning kids on to the likes of Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Kant, Saul Kripke and David Chalmers. Your paranoia is showing, again.
I suppose you think kids should stop thinking at 13? Besides, he’s still a kid: Chances are he’ll be a conservative again by the time he finished college.
Typically, it’s when they get a job.
“I suppose you think kids should stop thinking at 13?” – John
Oh there you go again John. No where has Black suggested that a child should cessate thought processes at age 13. This is the exact type of disingenuous logic and posting that I was discussing with you before.
You say we are paranoid, yes? Do you think that listening to statements such as these may contribute to the paranoid condition?
Augger,
james is a self-described Progressive: enough said
Who is John?
Yeah, not enough coffee to have avoided that mistake. You’ll have to forgive me that slight … if you can.
Holder was talking about making guns “less cool” for kids so teens (esp. in the cities) wouldn’t think it was cool to carry them. But it’s not surprising that you’d take a partial quote out of context–so yes, your clip is probably exactly the sort of thing Krohn was talking about being inundated with when he was a kid, and which leads to paranoia among some conservatives. Thanks for coming up with the fine example.
Holder has no moral high ground to even suggest either “brainwashing” or to supersede, and your attempts to down-trodden the point do nothing more than to show a lack of moral compass on your part. For the sake of the discussion ….
Amendment II – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
Additionally, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Furthermore in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
That is the law, and it places no age restrictions on the right to bear arms. Those restrictions may be placed at a state, and or local level, but it does not fall within the scope of the Federal Government according to the BIll of Rights, and the Supreme Court.
Holder had no business making the comments he made. Thank you for driving my point home.
“Those restrictions may be placed at a state, and or local level…”
He was talking about the city of Washington, D.C., which at the time (17 years ago, which is how far conservatives had to go back to find this misleading “damning evidence”) had a serious problem with kids and guns. And conservative hero Ronald Reagan used anti-gun language that was at least as strong. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/18/Holder-Fight-Guns-Like-Cigarettes
“places no age restrictions on the right to bear arms”
Most people and courts have figured out that kids and adults have different rights. But if a kid shoots you because you’re about to spank him, I supposed you’d call that a justified “stand your ground” case, huh?
Oh, I can play this silly little game….
1. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it state that “kids”, and “adults” have a different set of rights? Are you implying that “kids” are somehow second class citizens … slaves perhaps?
2. So you have a big problem with me going back 17 years to something so foreshadowing of current events (who’s to say Holder’s gun walking tactics are not motivated by an underlying gun agenda)?
3. When you can’t blame Bush, go back and blame Reagan. Hell for that matter, why don’t we just get that tired old argument out of the way, and blame everyone (but Obama of course) all the way back to G. Washington?
note: You never caught Reagan blaming Carter for anything. Reagan just simply assumed office, and took on the job.
Stand your ground huh? You going to reach for that one? Guess you decided to skip over that part where it said “traditionally lawful purposes” on purpose huh? How convenient.
And since we are spinning things at 9800 rpms, let’s just go toss in immigration …
Do you find it at all odd that every single citizen must prove they are insured, but people do have have to prove they are citizens? I mean c’mon man, where is the logic in that?
Hang in there James … we are almost there.
Be careful ,augger, you can get hurt if you’re trying to reason in an arena where you are the only rational combatant.
I think you boys missed James’ point. In the article, the boy, at the age of 13, claims to have been indoctrinated (inundated) by Conservative rhetoric and has since become a Progressive as a 17-year-old. As James points out “Chances are he’ll be a conservative again by the time he finished college.”
Thanks, kells, but missing the point seems to be what your boys often do best in response to comments they don’t like. By the way, I put up another post over at my own site last night: http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/the-affordable-care-act-and-the-gops-really-big-lie/
I shall come over and play. Now you’re in trouble….
If he is Progressive now, there is about as much chance of him coming our of college as a ‘conservative’ as there is of you winning the lottery.
Probably. After all, he’ll keep reading and learning.
Indoctrination is not learning. James is irrelevant. What those reading this need to understand is that he is a living illustration of what indoctrination actually does: it destroys the individual’s ability to reason properly – starting with the destruction of the individual’s ability to recognize and accept objective truth.
Oh, brother! Here you go again! If you actually bothered to take the time to visit James’ website, you would see that he thinks objectively. His link is right above yer purdy lil head.
Judging from what I have seen him post in his comments here, I have seen absolutely NO reason to believe this is true.
Judging from everything I have seen you say, I have EVERY reason to question your understanding of what thinking objectively actually means.
Heaven forbid you do your own investigating. Gah! You really kill me sometimes! Crap! Gotta fly!
YOU telling ME to do my own investigation? ROTFLMFAO!
Now THAT is a good joke, Kells. See, I knew you could do it – if you tried long enough.
You see Kells, there is an issue here that James will avoid at all costs. Liberals love to cry foul and accuse conservatives of “indoctrination”, but yet they conveniently overlook their own instances of indoctrination, and then when exposed for the very same behavior, they whimper, piss, and moan even more as they back peddle in feeble attempts to downtrodden the fact that they consistently practice hypocrisy.
There are two sides to a story, and I do not have problems playing that tit-for-tat game when I see it.
Augger, I think you will see that James has a different ideology,but he is reasonable and will concede on points. While I don’t agree with the Progessive ideology, I feel there is always something to be learned. I’m a little sponge. (Unfortunately, my little sponge keeps getting wrung out.)
Texas,
Note Kells’ comment about her sponge getting wrung out. Do you remember what I told you about open minds? DO you see my point now?
I’m about to wring your little sponge out!
“Augger, I think you will see that James has a different ideology,but he is reasonable and will concede on points. While I don’t agree with the Progessive ideology, I feel there is always something to be learned. I’m a little sponge. (Unfortunately, my little sponge keeps getting wrung out.)”
So far, all I have seen from James is spin, spin, and more spin. I have yet to detect anything that is not disingenuous coming forth from him. Hopefully that will change, but until it does, I am content to play game of intellectual chess. He’s not the only educated person here.
And yes Kells. When folks come sincere (I think back to how far B, Greg, Gates, myself, and others have come), ideals can be exchanged. I have such an ideal on deck, just waiting for a time that I can pitch it, and we can discuss without the “blame Bush” silliness.
Dewey was an atheist. He believed in secular humanism. He though man was his own god. HE SAID SO! Dewey wanted the teacher to be the prophet of a secular humanist religion that worships man as its god: or, to be more accurate, men of supposed superior intellect (i.e. men like himself). This is all in his books, just read them and you’ll see. Start with Democracy and Education and/or Experience and Education. You might also want to read My Pedagogic Creed. Just remeber, Dewey was a Progressive, so he speaks in code.
“Dewey was an atheist. He believed in secular humanism.”
So in that regard he was just like Ayn Rand, who provided the name for this blog?
Intellectual dishonesty or ignorance – or both? Either way, this objection is based in fallacious reasoning. It’s called Tu Quoque (a.k.a. ‘and you, too’).
If this guest were interested in honest discussion, he would take time to do a quick search of the RNL where he would promptly find that the blog was not named for Rand or her philosophy, but for the illustration of the Taggart Line and the way the govt. destroyed it. He would also find that both the blog host (Utah) and I have addressed Rand’s atheism (as evidenced in Kells failed attempt at making a joke of it by calling us “Randy Christians”).
I still think my joke is funny (giggles). Oh, and please, give me a break! She wrote the dang book for Pete’s sake!
More Dewey:
There is more, a lot more, but – unless you go find it for yourself – it will mean little to you. However, if you do go find it and you understand it rather than get caught up in the hypnotic allure of its deception, then you’ll understand so much more that you only probably sense right now.
Allow me to try getting the comments back on the issue at hand by pointing out that the reason we do not understand the TRUE intentions behind the 2nd Amendment is AGAIN because of Dewey/Wilson and the Progressive indoctrination conducted by our schools.
The 2nd Amendment was NOT designed to allow you to hunt, sport shoot or even to allow ONLY for personal self-defense: it was designed to allow the people to defend themselves from the government.
The founders did not mean ‘firearms’ as in rifles and pistols. When they used the word ‘arms,’ it held a specific military definition. The founders would have had no issue with a man owning and operating their own aircraft carrier – just as long as he could afford to do so and did so responsibly and within the confines of the law.
Finally, the militia also had a specific definition: ALL able-bodied males who had reached the age of maturity.
Most Americans do not know this because our schools and politicians have LIED to them about what the founders really intended when they included the 2nd Amendment in the bill of Rights. But, as always, do NOT take my word for it, take the founders’ words – you just have to go find them (they are there waiting for you, even the part about Franklin, who argued the 2nd should be 1st because, without the 2nd, NONE of the others could EVER be secured)
With your clueless potshots at education, mostly what you’re demonstrating is how long it’s been since you were in a classroom.
If those are clueless pot-shots James, why the change in the teaching plans surrounding the Civil War?
From personal experience, when I was in grade school in the 70s, we were taught all about the economic differences, the “Compromise of 1850″, the WIlmot Proviso, the Dred Scott Case, … all the way to, and including The Emancipation Proclamation. Now, my children do not have this in their curriculum, and when I view the teacher’s approved teaching plans, they do not exist there. The kids are simply taught that the Civil War was fought over nothing other than “slavery”.
The true meaning of the second amendment was to ensure Americans would always have the ability to replicate the “shot heard round the world” and the ensuing actions at Lexington and Concord. Our founders understood governments always tend to enslave their people and chose not to leave the American people without the means and ability to retake their freedom. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting, self-defense, or sporting arms.
You could be right about Franklin’s quote, though in retrospect it doesn’t make much sense. After all, if all of the proposed amendments had been adopted, it would be the fourth (and the current 1st Amendment, which journalists and pastors like to point out is “number one,” would be third. The first two were rejected, however.
“Oh, I can play this silly little game….”
But not well, apparently.
“Where in the U.S. Constitution does it state that “kids”, and “adults” have a different set of rights?”
I said nothing of the sort, of course. I pointed out that we allow adults certain freedoms that we don’t allow children. Nothing in the Constitution says kids can’t drink, smoke, die in war, or be executed, either.
“Are you implying that “kids” are somehow second class citizens … slaves perhaps?”
Now I feel like I’m dealing with children.
“Who’s to say Holder’s gun walking tactics are not motivated by an underlying gun agenda?”
What happened to your “local” argument? And who’s to say Holder isn’t motivated by a fear being lynched at gunpoint by a conservative mob, if we want to go back in time? But I won’t use an old out-of-context video to pretend I have “evidence” for that.
“When you can’t blame Bush, go back and blame Reagan.”
I’m not blaming either one–just pointing out that Holder was far from the only public official to support gun control. Reagan, Nixon, and Bush I all did, too.
“Hell for that matter, why don’t we just get that tired old argument out of the way, and blame everyone (but Obama of course) all the way back to G. Washington?”
Another clueless indication that folks here don’t actually read much of what I write, since you keep implying I’m an Obama fan.
“Stand your ground huh? You going to reach for that one?”
So I take it you don’t have a good answer for my question. Figures.
“Do you find it at all odd that every single citizen must prove they are insured, but people do have have to prove they are citizens? I mean c’mon man, where is the logic in that?”
Not being a fan of “papers, please” government, I don’t like either one.
“Hang in there James … we are almost there.”
I take it “there” is 8th or 9th grade?
And there you have it folks. I applied every single liberal spin used by this administration to my rebuttal of James’s post. The same tactics I have seen him use here, and now you see his response.
How’d it feel James? Yeah, you didn’t like it much, and now that brings us to the crux …
Are you ready for serious discussion, or do you still want to play this silly little game?
Augger,
What he’s been doing is all he knows. He doesn’t know how to do anything different. He’s a Progressive.
I know, I know. I am glutton for it. This chap sort of reminds me of that one dude from the old News Herald days. Can’t remember his name, but his icon was that of Grouch o Marx (or something similar). Meh, either way. Both believe they are superior to the rest of us, etc, etc, etc, Same ole tired song and dance, and you would think I would learn.
But hey … Greg’s still here! 1 out of 3 isn’t so bad!
side note: Do I need any special privs to start a topic here?
LOL, Utah already said he reminds him of buggerthat, too. I am going to go out on a limb and assume Utah would not mind you starting a post, so I will send you an invite as a guest blogger. He can decide whether or not I goofed, so, for now, it is easier to beg for forgiveness…
No no, hold on that thought. I am not quite ready yet, and maybe once I get closer, I’ll bounce the post off you over email. It’s a fairly bold idea, and given it’s proximity to edges of the Constitution, would likely need a bit of review/tweeking.
After that, we’ll post it up and let everyone have a go at it.
Here to help in any way you think I can.
(please copy my email, I will delete it shortly)
I have it. Mail incoming.