It must be really hard to be a liberal . . . they change the "rules" on each other too.

CRT is a method of looking at things that is outcome driven. It exists and disagreeing with it doesn't make you racist.

"CRT is a method of looking at things that is outcome driven. It exists and disagreeing with it doesn't make you racist."

It is a *racist* method of looking at things, period. The overarching theme of this vile nonsense is that if you are white, you are a racist.

As for your position that disagreeing with it doesn't make a person racist- GOOD FOR YOU! As a liberal, that is likely one of the very few things you have right in this life. But given the overwhelming position to the contrary coming from the Left, you are hardly representative of what the majority is saying.

Quite the opposite actually. CRT looks at racism and race and how old and inarguably racist policies which are sometimes still on the books still have effects today.

Hell, one of the core tenants is that race is a social construct - any laws that unfairly treat one race is therefore bogus.

CRT doesn't even really look at motive or individual actions - it focuses on outcomes. CRT would look at things like gerrymandered districting and say, yes, I know this is old and the guys who drew these districts are long retired, but they diluted the voting power of black people in this city. And as it is a method of analyzing things, you can come to different conclusions.

In fact, you could likely draw up a fairly well done argument against affirmative action using CRT.

While there may be people who believe all white people are racist who also believe in CRT, that doesn't change the fact that the scope of CRT isn't that large.

If you want to hate it as part of some overarching plot, then whatever. I can't change your mind, but CRT isn't what you say it is.

If you want to hate it as part of some overarching plot, then whatever. I can't change your mind, but CRT isn't what you say it is."

No- CRT isn't what I say it is, and neither is it what you say it is. It 'is' what those that implement it say it is. You are either a liar or a fool to believe that this is not being foisted on the public in a manner that is objectionable to a person of conscience. But one thing is certain- it is not necessary to accomplish the ideals you outlined.

One then wonders, given its honest motives, why the Left is pushing back so hard against the objections to it, and labeling those that do as racists and white supremicists.

One also wonders why so many parents are pushing back, when the purpose of CRT is as clean as the driven snow.

When someone runs so far afoul from reality as you have in this instance, I have no way of knowing if you are naive about the reality on the ground, or if you are one of the many lying apologists, seeking to falsely assuage the rightful fears of so many. Another option, which is just as likely, is that your liberal bias prevents you from seeing something that is bad, as being bad.

Its a bogeyman. People's actual issue is that their kids are connected in ways other generations haven't been. The same way cell phone cameras are exposing certain police actions to us, our kids are seeing it. And some of them are forming opinions that don't match their parents. We try to teach our kids to think for themselves...but we expect they will think just like us.

I've just spent a half an hour looking for a CRT lesson plan or example of curriculum. I haven't found one. I've found several anti-crt resources though.

I read one article by a teacher that pointed out that she studied CRT in college, but it is a concept that isn't taught at the k-12 level simply due to how difficult it would be to integrate. She considered it to be an advanced subject.

The issue with the fuzzy definition, is that the laws being written to block CRT, actually won't. They are aimed at the right's definition of CRT, which I guess will maybe block things that aren't even happening...so victory, I guess?

As far as assuaging your fears...that's a losing prospect if I ever heard one. Vaccines, CRT, and Socialism, oh my!

"People's actual issue is that their kids are connected in ways other generations haven't been."
Spoken like someone who doesn't have children. or doesn't know danger when he sees it.

Proverbs 27:12
The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.

"As far as assuaging your fears"

OK- that one made me laugh out loud.
I do not fear you liberals, not in the least, but it is ever concerning to me all the ill mannered ways in which you exercise the evil of your hearts onto others. No, just as liberals lost big last Tuesday, eventually the truth overtakes you. Not unlike the truth of Bidenflation and really really bad foreign policy- you can lie to yourself, but you cannot hide.

Psalm 118:6-9

The Lord is on my side; I will not fear.
What can man do to me?
The Lord is on my side as my Helper;
I shall look in triumph on those who hate me.
It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in man.
It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in princes.

Proverbs 27:12
The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.

hey, that's a good one to use against the "lockdowns are evil" people.

Lost big - lost for sure, lost big? No. No more than Trump lost big. Its a mistake to say such things. We are pretty evenly divided at this point and margins are tight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRzsatNaLuE

I am not sure about lockdowns being evil, but they don't work. Now the liberals BEHIND the lockdowns, they are evil.

"Then how come people die in churches?"

Your problem is multifaceted. You err, because you do not know the Scriptures.

You are asking me to answer a question that cannot be specifically answered, because it lies with the will of God.

However, here are some possibilities based on what God has told us:
1. Just as standing in a garage and calling yourself a car does not make you a car, sitting in a pew and calling yourself a Christian does not make you one. While your understanding of what this passage means is faulty, surely you can understand that God has no obligation to rescue those who reject Him.
2. Sometimes God brings His actual children home because they are mired in sin, and will never turn from it. cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-32
3. I would willingly offer to die, if such a death would prompt someone I know and love to be shocked into understanding how fragile and impermanent this life is. God would know this of any of us.
4. People don't just die in churches- they die everywhere. God would know this since He pronounced the curse after the fall of Adam. Even if we used your foolish argument, that God doesn't exist, the writers of that Psalm would know this too. Either way, it clearly cannot be referring to just a physical death. Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture, so when we also understand that God has said elsewhere, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28). So ultimately man can do nothing to us in the bigger picture.

You fail to understand this because you are intentionally blind, but when a person knows the overall picture of the Scriptures, this is easy to see. And please understand this- my quotes from the Bible are hardly exhaustive on this matter. It would be nice if you were asking these questions because you genuinely wanted answers vs trying to trip me up, but just as I am not afraid of your questions, neither is God.

Not that I give any credence to what the liberal media has to say, the fact remains that they do not agree with your assessment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB7SB579WDE

Reality vs what you have been told by the MSM.

Fact Check: Is Critical Race Theory Taught in Virginia Schools?

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/11/03/fact-check-is-critical-race-theory-taught-in-virginia-schools/?fbclid=IwAR1sazbsSF9bGS52CMIS2SUPt32Qbf4-BsAC2ouaHNWHO75lip-LKSex1Ik

Looks like for the most part they were teaching the concept to teachers, not to kids. But, I'll admit that is splitting hairs.

Of course, since I actually understand that CRT is, i don't really have an issue with it.

But them misleading and trying to make it sound like they're was no CRT makes it look suspicious. They should have been upfront. Given how much of a Boogeyman it's become to the right, being less than up front plays into those fears.

I still say it being what you think it is requires all the teachers at the schools to be actively bad, and I just don't buy that.

You think there is a plot, I see people trying to do what they think is right. We can disagree on whether it's the correct path, but doubting the intent of do many people.... <Shudder> I can't imagine thinking so badly about so many.

Even people I disagree with politically I think are doing what they think is right...

"You think there is a plot, I see people trying to do what they think is right. We can disagree on whether it's the correct path, but doubting the intent of do many people.... <Shudder> I can't imagine thinking so badly about so many."

In essence, there is a plot. The Left moved decades ago to first overtake the "institutions of higher learning", and once they had that locked down, they churned out teachers whose heads were filled with much of this nonsense. This is in part why there are so many people that ignorantly buy "the Parties switched" nonsense that is used to hide the fact that the Democrat Party has a long and storied history of being the Party of Racism. And it still is to this day.

This top-down approach to propagandize the propagandizers is brilliant, and has worked very well for them. Are all teachers aligned with this? Of course not, as reality and truth easily clears away the fog this creates.

Moreover, you do not allow for the fact that there is true evil in the world- in the human heart, and among the devil and his angels.

Many people believe many things which simply are not so, but they embrace them because it fits what they want to believe- such is the fallen human heart.

As to what you think CRT is- your reading is academic only; the practice is clearly much different. But, for the sake of argument let's say you are right- why the incredible push back from the Left? And the Liberal MSM is out of control on this issue. Either you are wrong, or they are simply crazy. Actually, it is both in this instance.

This video link will begin where Watters plays clips of the media, doing their level best to deny what we know to be true. If CRT isn't being taught in K-12, then all they need to do is agree it shouldn't be taught, and support the removal of it wherever it is found. You tell me if that is the sentiment being expressed by these leftists: https://youtu.be/gvo6li61hew?t=130

Why the pushback? Because it is t actually CRT that people are trying to ban. You can CRT and then any claims of ongoing racism or systemic issues are said to fall under CRT. What happens when we get to modern history and need to talk about BLM? What happens if we can only teach once side of that issue?

You mean to say you would have believed is they agreed to remove it?

How do you "churn out teachers?"

I can't continue this back and forth with your perversion of what "implicit" means. What total nonsense. I wonder if you really mean what you are saying, because it is incredulous and lacking logic.

At any rate, you remain on the side that uses black people as pawns, and when those pawns don't move in the direction they are told to, they are simply ignored or removed: https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2021/11/03/cnn-msnbc-ignore-victory-speech-historic-black-republican?fbclid=IwAR3_5Nl1MKWcVYopMVRLb8YRHWrvIfC4pDVwiL5jvsYvonOo9CoR43DtNrM

https://adfontesmedia.com/gallery/

Both MSNBC and CNN are ranked as having a left bias and being guilty of mixing fact and reporting. CNN is better than MSNBC, but MSNBC has long been clearly biased. And biased against progressives as much as conservatives too. Ah, their Bernie coverage...

Its difficult to prove a negative, but I don't see where CNN specifically covered any of the Lieutenant Governor's speeches. They did have written articles. MSNBC...yeah. They aren't even pretending anymore.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/politics/winsome-sears-virginia-lieutenant-governor-race/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/politics/historic-firsts-2021-election/index.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsP-n54qBEU

Kids coming home traumatized.... The fact is every country pretty much has skeletons in their closet. So, the US being a historically white nation does have a history that includes slavery, Japanese internment camps, etc.

"Studying history will sometimes disturb you.

Studying history will sometimes upset you.

Studying history will sometimes make you furious.

If studying history always makes you feel proud and happy, you probably aren’t studying history."

You interpretation of events, people, and history has just enough truth in it to sound plausible, but your personal interpretation is just that, and it smacks of having a limited base of information, along with a heavy bias that causes you to miss the obvious.

For instance, while I do not ascribe to your analysis of Trump, even if we were to agree on that point, you miss the overall fact of the incredible successes that he achieved while in office. So again, agreeing for the sake of argument, Trump still managed to do all of that (www.magapill.com) and even with such social hindrances managed to move this country significantly forwards in a small amount of time.

I could decide on which meme to leave you with, but since what you have said is not 100% untrue, I won't use the Luke Skywalker meme. Instead, I leave you with this.

This is the difference between Conservatism and today's Liberalism/Progressivism- Conservatives look to 'conserve' the original intent, once it is clear that the original intent is worth preserving, whereas liberals look for new meanings that did not exist at the time of the original writings. Hence alleged civilized human beings, allegedly adhering to some mystical social contract, can find the "right" of a mother to have her unborn baby murdered, largely for the sake of convenience.

Liberalism as expressed today is evil, including your expression of it.

www.magapill.com - I'm sure I could find a list of Obama's achievements as well. Strange how they don't mention project warp speed.

Moved the country forward: I disagree, which is why I didn't vote for him. I don't think everything he did was wrong, but this is clearly the good news page telling of his accomplishments.

I find the Roe V Wade 'viability' to be a good compromise. If the fetus if viable, then it is for all intents and purposes alive. If it isn't viable...then I find it to be a matter of philosophy and religion, and I don't see how it shouldn't be a matter between a woman and her doctor. Now, me personally...I don't think I could encourage a woman to get an abortion

Now I would have that birth control was freely available in schools and support any effort to provide assistance so that a woman has every opportunity choose life. But it is her choice.

And on a more personal observation, the hypocrisy of the pro life crowd often being the ones who say things like "if you couldn't afford a baby you shouldn't have had one" is extremely frustrating.

Liberalism is evil...If I agreed with you, I would be voting differently.

"It is also called on implicitly in the declaration of independence. The idea that there are certain inalienable rights and the concept of why governments are instituted among men. And the bill of rights is the foundation of and an attempt to document our social contract instead of leaving it subjective."

"Implicit" means, this is how you interpret it, but you can't point to the actual concept since it isn't there. That's a cute trick, but it smacks of living in a reality found only in your imagination. And it is not unlike the invisible "umbra" that the libs on the Supreme Court imagined when they ruled in the Roe v Wade case.

The idea that there are certain inalienable rights comes from their recognition that those rights were given to us by God. As to why governments are instituted among men, well, that is also comes with a wide range of possibilities, unless you stick to God's definition. For proof, see North Korea, the USSR, China, etc etc etc ad nauseam.

As to your take on the Bill of Rights, you simply need to find a specific reference from one of the authors that makes this claim. Again, this is you shoe-horning what you want to believe into an already existing set of documents. Apart from this, what you are suggesting is subject to everyone's interpretation of what things are supposed to mean, and while that particular chaos looks good to the average liberal, it is detrimental to a working society.

No, implicit means implied. They didn't explicitly call out the term social contract, but it is evident.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1920452

The ideas the social contract led to the Magna Carta which in turn inspired our bill of rights. Prior to the idea of a social contract, it was often held that god was the source of the kings authority. After all, didn't god control who was king?

The social contract established that there was tacit consent between the governed and the governor, not some external authority.

If god made someone king, then how can you possibly question that authority? But if god wasn't the source of that authority, then terms could be negotiated. Its also important to remember that at founding we were a super liberal country (classic liberalism). They intentionally established that we wouldn't have a state religion in the first amendment, because it needed to be clear that it was a contract instituted among men, not the divine.

I'm not shoe horning - I'm a history buff and the way western civilization developed and how one idea led to the next has always been fascinating

https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-20-2-c-hobbes-locke-montesquieu-and-rousseau-on-government.html

"In 1690, Locke published his Two Treatises of Government. He generally agreed with Hobbes about the brutality of the state of nature, which required a social contract to assure peace. But he disagreed with Hobbes on two major points.

First, Locke argued that natural rights such as life, liberty, and property existed in the state of nature and could never be taken away or even voluntarily given up by individuals. These rights were “inalienable” (impossible to surrender). Locke also disagreed with Hobbes about the social contract. For him, it was not just an agreement among the people, but between them and the sovereign (preferably a king).

According to Locke, the natural rights of individuals limited the power of the king. The king did not hold absolute power, as Hobbes had said, but acted only to enforce and protect the natural rights of the people. If a sovereign violated these rights, the social contract was broken, and the people had the right to revolt and establish a new government. Less than 100 years after Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government, Thomas Jefferson used his theory in writing the Declaration of Independence."

"I'm not saying its impossible that black people have issues...its just funny that that's always who gets chosen to criticize. Prager U is really funny to always do that. Want someone to say racism is over? Get an older black lady to do it. Want someone to say Muslims are dangerous? get an "ex Muslim" to say it. Want someone to say CRT is actually racist, get a black person to say it. It like so many things isn't an issue individually, but the pattern is fairly well established at this point."

You think this odd, but you fail to see the underlying truth behind it. They use this method, not because of some flaw found within their thought process or ideology, but rather because of the flaws found in the thought processes and ideologies of the Left.

Your response to this method is blind to the fact that it wouldn't be necessary in the first place were it not for the corrupt thinking on the Left. This is not unlike the bad rap that Trump got for his method in dealing with the Liberal Media. It wasn't that Trump was some barbarian, but rather that he was dealing with barbarians.

Liberals enjoy this win/win scenario you set up in your minds- if it was a white person, well they are lying because they're rAaaaAcIsT!!!! And while you haven't exactly done this, the Leftist Media has trotted out their own black people to call Conservative blacks all manner of ill.

So steeped in your own racism, you are able to look past the practical use of CRT in schools, and you rely on ad hominem like this quote of yours I started with to protect yourself from reality.

I realize I am trying to explain what the color blue looks like to a blind man, but here's hoping some light penetrates.

Trump ignored what he didn't like and called things fake news that were often things he had said or were objectively true. Like it or not, the questions being asked by the media were often questions we had (we being people who weren't his supporters), and by blowing off the media and refusing to engage, he blew us off and refused to engage.

What's funny/sad is the few times he was actually right about it being fake news, he had no credibility left.

Nah, people can have opinions and not be racist. I'm not saying the racist card doesn't get played more often than is strictly warranted, but so is the socialist/communist label. The mistake is associating noise with numbers. Will everything be called racist by someone? Probably. But at this point, the right has leaned into the racist thing. If one person on the left called something racist and the rest didn't say anything, you guys would use it as an example of the left calling everything racist and play the clip forever. There are people on the left, not a hive mind.

As far as black conservatives...depends on who you mean. If you mean black voters, that's their business. If you mean people like Candace Owens, she's the one dentist out of ten saying that sugar doesn't cause tooth decay and that you shouldn't floss. She is allowed to have her opinions, but her job description seems to be "the black woman who parrots conservative talking points in relation to black issues". Her purpose is to prevent people from questioning. George Floyd was murdered - here comes Candace to talk about his criminal record, because cops are allowed to murder people with criminal records. /s

"As to us all being responsible, Its not nonsense. It is the social contract. I don't get to say it wasn't my fault that we invaded Iraq and killed a ton of civilians just because I didn't support it, but I continued to live and work here. I paid taxes that supported it."

This, at least, I can chalk up as a disagreement, since in practice your point is true. As for me, and you, neither of us signed a "social contract". As far as I know, that is liberal speak for "you have no choice but to play along". But I suppose the fact that millions of gun owners haven't yet taken up arms to make things go their way, that can be seen as some form of tacit agreement to your "social contract".

That, however, doesn't make it right. The world does see the push-pull that occurs in American politics, and rightly so- the genius of the Founders was to create a government with this in place.
Evil will always exist- it just so happens to have found a welcoming home in the Democrat Party. That is not to say it doesn't exist in the GOP, we're human after all, though it finds its expression there largely in the RINOs that plague the Party.

So, no, when evil has the upper hand, as it does right now, I am not responsible for that. I am, however, under your "social contract", responsible to oppose it, and to offer up right solutions that benefit our country and the world. THAT is where my obligations under some nebulous social contract begin and end.
When it comes to the unnecessary inflation taking place right now, a burden which is largely born by the Middle Class- that is the responsibility of everyone that voted and cheated for Biden, period.
When it comes to the immoral and godless practice of murdering unborn children- that is the responsibility of everyone that votes for Democrats, period.

Etc.

And when it comes to the souls of the lost, who are more likely to vote for the perversion and evil that is the Democrat Party, my responsibility ends with warning them that their choices are reflective of the wickedness that lies in their hearts, which will ultimately leave them condemned before a holy God.

"Repent, or you shall likewise perish." Luke 13:5

It is a liberal concept, but traditional liberals were both socially and financially liberal.
They would have been for deregulation much like the Libertarians and a full free market, but also they wouldn't have supported any 'moral' laws, as all laws were seen as a restriction on personal freedom.

Social contract is a 17th century concept. It was an attempt to answer the question of what is the difference between a robber and a tax collector. In the end it comes down to this: When you are born into a society with written laws and social mores, you can either abide those rules or remove yourself to somewhere else.

It is also called on implicitly in the declaration of independence. The idea that there are certain inalienable rights and the concept of why governments are instituted among men. And the bill of rights is the foundation of and an attempt to document our social contract instead of leaving it subjective.

"If you love America (and representative government in general) you have to accept responsibility for what happens when another party is in power. "

Of course, that is utter nonsense. Perhaps on the global stage the muck from liberals will stick to rational people, but no, I do not accept responsibility for morons making bad political leader choices.

Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are why we can't have nice things, like freedom, and an actual representative government. If you love America and representative govt in general, you will NEVER vote for a Democrat. It's not as if we do not have the last 5 decades and more as proof of this, as well as extant examples in major cities around the country that have been throttled by decades of Democrat control.

"I love how it's always a black person with an issue I'm the videos. Like it adds credibility to the accusation."

This is the problem with you liberals- at your core, you are racist, which explains why you think everyone is racist. You focus this on white people, because you cannot afford to lose the black vote, but as with most irrational thinkers, you believe that everyone thinks like you do.

So the first thing of importance you noticed was her skin color vs the content of her message, and the content of her character? That is racist, but it is also a tacit admission, via ad hominem, that you have no counter to her points. "What she said doesn't count because she's just letting herself be used by whitey!!!"
The "hilarious" bit about this is that had the person been white, you likely would have said that they were only saying the things they were saying because they are inherently racist, and are afraid of talking about racism.
i.e. ""Studying history will sometimes disturb you. Studying history will sometimes upset you. Studying history will sometimes make you furious. If studying history always makes you feel proud and happy, you probably aren’t studying history.""

I'm not saying its impossible that black people have issues...its just funny that that's always who gets chosen to criticize. Prager U is really funny to always do that. Want someone to say racism is over? Get an older black lady to do it. Want someone to say Muslims are dangerous? get an "ex Muslim" to say it. Want someone to say CRT is actually racist, get a black person to say it. It like so many things isn't an issue individually, but the pattern is fairly well established at this point.

Content of the message - no, I got it. I even see the point: she sees it as telling her kids they are going to fail because the deck is stacked against them. I see it differently though. Pointing out that historically deck-stacking has happened and how it was done can hopefully lead to people being knowledgeable about those things and knowing how to avoid them.

Think everyone thinks like me - no, I certainly don't. I do think however that forming stereotypes is one of our inborn pattern recognition adaptations. It helps to make fast decisions in an emergency.

I don't call people racist, because its pointless. Actions are racist. Attitudes and beliefs can be racist. Calling a person racist makes it an all or nothing thing, and people are complicated. Is someone racist who supported equal rights and wanted to end Jim Crow, but thought his daughter is too good to marry a black person? Depending on when they were alive, they would be positively progressive. We all have biases we form. People who think there is zero chance that they have bias aren't going to perform the self reflection necessary to identify those biases. CRT is that level of self awareness and reflection not at the individual but at the level of society. It isn't about blame, its about moving forward and not allowing past missteps to guide the future. Or at least that's what is should be. As with most philosophies, I don't get to say how it is implemented. If someone learns CRT and comes away from it with "all white people are racist" then they are as misguided as people who come away from crime statistics with "black people are criminals." or who look at Muslim extremism and conclude that "Muslims are terrorists".

As to us all being responsible, Its not nonsense. It is the social contract. I don't get to say it wasn't my fault that we invaded Iraq and killed a ton of civilians just because I didn't support it, but I continued to live and work here. I paid taxes that supported it.

"If studying history always makes you feel proud and happy, you probably aren’t studying history.""

The only problem there is with American history is that there are Democrats, the Party of slavery & internment camps.

If you love America (and representative government in general) you have to accept responsibility for what happens when another party is in power. Whether the parties switched out not isn't relevant. I'm fine know which side of historical issues my family was on, and honestly don't care. I'm not loyal to the Democrativ party.

As far as Japanese internment camps, they were pretty much supported by everyone.

https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/main/us-public-opinion-on-japanese-internment-1942

That second sentence is a little choppy- uncertain of the point there.

"What happens when we get to modern history and need to talk about BLM? What happens if we can only teach once side of that issue?"

When we get to modern history, we teach the facts of it- that BLM had some well meaning adherents, but overall it was a massive con job, making a few people very rich. It also resulted in a number of minority businesses and neighborhoods being burned to the ground, and did absolutely nothing positive for the black community. Except for those few that made themselves rich. We could also point out that at its heart was Marxist ideology, an evil ideology.
As to only one side being taught? Facts should not require sides to be taken, but given the liberal stranglehold on education, we can be certain that only one side will be taught.

"How do you "churn out teachers?""
A figure of speech, but given the terrible state of education these days, that is about all it amounts to. But I should have said, "churn out propagandized liberal teachers" to be more exact.

I love these kind of montages, where it becomes clear that the MSM works off of the same script, likely handed down from the DNC, or even more nefarious sources.
At about 3:30 you get to hear what an alert parent saw regarding the VA curriculum, and this can be repeated over and over again. This was one of the biggest mistakes the liberal lockdown artists made- while doing their best to undermine Trump's campaign in 2020 by making everyone as miserable as possible, they forced parents to become engaged with their childrens' academic learning, and parents across the country were shocked with what they were seeing.

At some point you will need to move past the smokescreen provided by the MSM, and the liberal educators, and open your eyes to the reality on the ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUpDZ247bVs

Or not- remaining in a liberal cocoon of ignorance is par for the course for most libs.

I love how it's always a black person with an issue I'm the videos. Like it adds credibility to the accusation.

Did nothing positive - Derrick Chauvin is in jail. Kentucky banned no knock warrants.

NY passed laws preventing police misconduct reports from being hidden from the public.

Louisiana uncovering practices that shielded police officers against misconduct allegations, including signing off as having reviewed bodycam without actually reviewing.

And the ongoing evidence that these aren't isolated incidents being known and publicly seen.

To name a few.

Annnnd, say goodbye to the Strawman . . . ;)