===================
Guru, wrong. The purpose of the meeting was presenting the damages that CRT has done, and the actions of the Board that were unconstitutional. That was why the Judge restored back the position of the teacher.

This gentleman presented all the adversities that CRT had caused to their children, and will further destroy their children. Board acted without any justification to stop the meeting. to prevent him from talking.

It was an assumption. The constitution and the law does not decide on assumptions. That was stupid if not a Marxist government now implemented.

School Board are like leaches. Schools are funded by these parents, and citizens who pay taxes. Without them, they won't exist. That is how our constitutional Republic is done. Now, thru Biden by Barack, it becomes a Marxist of his hope and change.

There was no such thing presented what you've asserted. When that happens then they could prevent that. But did not happen That completely violated the right of the Spokesman, And he has all the right to sue the stupid Board of the school system.

Principle one: People face Trade-offs

You may have heard the old saying, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Grammar aside, there is much t***h to this adage. To get one thing that we like, we usually have to give up another thing that we like. Making decisions requires trading off one goal for another.

Consider a student who must decide how to allocate her most valuable resource—her time. She can spend all of her time studying economics, spend all of it studying psychology, or divide it between the two fields. For every hour she spends studying one subject, she gives up one hour she could have used studying the other. And for every hour she spends studying, she gives up an hour that she could have spent napping, bike riding, watching TV, or working at her part-time job for some extra spending money.

Or consider parents deciding how to spend their family income. They can buy food, clothing, or a family vacation. Or they can save some of the family income for retirement or the children’s college education. When they choose to spend an extra dollar on one of these goods, they have one less dollar to spend on some other good.

When people are grouped into societies, they face different kinds of trade-offs. The classic trade-off is between “guns and butter.” The more society spends on national defense (guns) to protect its shores from foreign aggressors, the less it can spend on consumer goods (butter) to raise the standard of living at home. Also important in modern society is the trade-off between a clean environment and a high level of income. Laws that require firms to reduce pollution raise the cost of producing goods and services. Because of the higher costs, these firms end up earning smaller profits, paying lower wages, charging higher prices, or some combination of the three. Thus, while pollution regulations yield the benefit of a cleaner environment and improved health that comes with it, they have the cost of reducing the incomes of the firms’ owners, workers, and customers.

Another trade-off society faces is between efficiency and e******y. Efficiency means that society is getting the maximum benefits from its scarce resources. E******y means that those benefits are distributed uniformly among society’s members. In other words, efficiency refers to the size of the economic pie, and e******y refers to how the pie is divided into individual slices.

When government policies are designed, these two goals often conflict. Consider, for instance, policies aimed at equalizing the distribution of economic well-being. Some of these policies, such as the welfare system or unemployment insurance, try to help the members of society who are most in need. Others, such as the individual income tax, ask the financially successful to contribute more than others to support the government. While achieving greater e******y, these policies reduce efficiency. When the government redistributes income from the rich to the poor, it reduces the reward for working hard; as a result, people work less and produce fewer goods and services. In other words, when the government tries to cut the economic pie into more equal slices, the pie gets smaller.

Recognizing that people face trade-offs does not by itself tell us what decision they will or should make. A student should not abandon the study of psychology just because doing so would increase the time available for the study of economics. Society should not stop protecting the environment just because environmental regulations reduce our material standard of living. The poor should not be ignored just because helping them distorts work incentives, Nonetheless, people are likely to make good decisions only if they understand the options they have available and the consequences of the decisions. The study of economics starts with recognizing and acknowledging life’s trade-offs

See if you can follow my logic. Canada is our North American Ally. You with me so far. Canadian oil going to Texas refineries and being shipped to the rest of the world is a good thing and not a bad thing. First of all it adds to the World supply. That keeps the World price down. Still with me. If Russia or Middle Eastern tensions cut off supplies, that Canadian oil is part of the DIVERSITY of World Supply. A liberal such as you knows that all diversity is good, just cause it is.

So Canada earns foreign exchange which is good for them. The richer they are is good for us because they are a major trading partner for the US of A. Then of course we, the Americans would earn precious foreign exchange for t***sporting and refining the oil. Plus building the Keystone pipeline added American jobs. A super Duper win win for everyone.

However, because olde senile Uncle Joseph caved into the loony tune Evironmental case wackos and shut that great Canadian Pipeline down, it is a lose lose lose for everyone except Russia and the Middle East Oil Barons.

I dare you to shoot down any of my bullet proof points.

That was the whole purpose of the f********t e******n! to put Obama in control again.

http://www.kegley-inc.com/8-levels-control-useful-i***ts-saul-alinsky/

8 Levels of Control- Useful I***ts by Saul Alinsky

Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on this writing and Obama writes about him in his books.

There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.

1. Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
2. Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3. Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4. Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5. Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6. Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.
7. Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the government and schools.
8. Class Welfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more disconnect, and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Yep!
HOLY MELTDOWN, BATMAN! Watch Rachel Maddow get that SMIRK wiped off her face E******n Night 2016

https://youtu.be/WjN_4VTy-jk

What do you think? Are we still getting liberal BS "polls"?

"MSNBC's top-rated host Rachel Maddow dev**ed a segment in 2019 to accusing the right-wing cable outlet One America News (OAN) of being a paid propaganda outlet for the Kremlin. Discussing a Daily Beast article which noted that one OAN reporter was a "Russian national” who was simultaneously writing copy for the Russian-owned outlet Sputnik on a freelance contract, Maddow escalated the allegation greatly into a broad claim about OAN's real identity and purpose: “in this case,” she announced, “the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda."

In response, OAN sued Maddow, MSNBC, and its parent corporation Comcast, Inc. for defamation, alleging that it was demonstrably false that the network, in Maddow's words, “literally is paid Russian propaganda." In an oddly overlooked ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and t***h when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda").

In concluding that Maddow's statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual, the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism:

On one hand, a viewer who watches news channels tunes in for facts and the goings-on of the world. MSNBC indeed produces news, but this point must be juxtaposed with the fact that Maddow made the allegedly defamatory statement on her own talk show news segment where she is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers. Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.

Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.

The judge's observations about the specific segment at issue — in which Maddow accused a competitor of being “literally paid Russian propaganda" — was even more damning. Maddow's own viewers, ruled the court, not only expect but desire that she will not provide the news in factual form but will exaggerate and even distort reality in order to shape her opinion-driven analysis (emphasis added):

Viewers expect her to do so, as it is indeed her show, and viewers watch the segment with the understanding that it will contain Maddow’s “personal and subjective views” about the news.

The Biden Administration chalked up another loss in court, as a federal judge in Florida issued an injunction suspending the CDC’s “extensive, disabling, and exclusive” C****-** “sailing orders” that were crushing the cruise industry.

https://www.westernjournal.com/judge-puts-overreaching-cdc-place-victory-cruise-lines-gov-desantis/

I say “another loss” because, while Biden slammed Trump as a “lawless” President, he’s racked up a bigger string of court losses in his first six months than Trump. And remember, liberals challenged everything Trump did and went shopping for the most activist leftwing judges to thwart him – the kind of judges who would rule that they had powers plainly granted to the President by the Constitution, like enforcing i*********n l*ws.

But as Jonathan Turley points out at The Hill, many of Biden’s disruptive policies have been blocked by lower courts or already rejected by the Supreme Court.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/559247-bidens-bad-run-is-he-doing-worse-in-the-courts-than-trump

Ironically, many of these court losses have been due to the Biden’s Administration actually doing what it falsely accused Trump of doing, like blatantly exceeding the President’s Constitutional powers, engaging in systemic racial discrimination (his programs to help minority-owned restaurants and farms, but not those owned by white people), and “acting arbitrarily and capriciously in carrying out federal policy.”

It’s a good reminder that even though it’s easy to get disheartened by the aggressive attempts to “t***sform” America through abuse of P**********l and Congressional power, there are three branches of government, and we can still “take the bums to court” and win.

https://www.mikehuckabee.com/latest-news?id=DA10AB3C-0E20-49E0-AB95-F2BB94CE80B2&s=21SH