@CourierTimes TL;DR Pennsbury School Board Policy 903 states that members of the public can be asked to stop speaking for “lengthy, personally directed, abusive, obscene or irrelevant” comments.
@CourierTimes The School Board legal ADVISER, Peter Amuso, cuts off anyone saying anything he doesn’t like is “irrelevant.”
Example: A citizen making the point that the success of 1st generation Nigerian Americans undermines the idea that “all black people are held back by systemic racism.”
@CourierTimes So, we have a situation where a lawyer, who is not a member of the School Board, is blocking citizens from speaking to the school board, by declaring their comments “irrelevant” — WITH NO REGARD TO WHAT THE COMMENTS ACTUALLY ARE.
@CourierTimes In a court, a lawyer who claimed testimony was irrelevant would have to have that claim sustain or overruled by the judge.
Here, there is no appeal.
Again, this lawyer is an ADVISER. He has no AUTHORITY to do what he is doing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
This is easily shown to be FALSE.
Thus: A accuses B of wronging her. C does not know whether A’s accusation is true or false.
If B did wrong A in the manner accused, there is a situation of injustice.
If not, then A has falsely accused B, and there is a situation of injustice.
C being neutral is not unjust.
The neutrality of C is the foundation of DUE PROCESS. Neither A nor B have any claim on C’s allegiance, so long as C is in a state of ignorance regarding the particulars, even though C knows that EITHER A OR B has acted unjustly, and so there is ‘a situation of injustice.'
“Most important, and of greatest concern, was how intelligents thought. An intelligent signed on to a set of beliefs regarded as totally certain, scientifically proven, and absolutely obligatory for any moral person.”
“A strict intelligent had to subscribe to some ideology—whether populist, Marxist, or anarchist—that was committed to the total destruction of the existing order and its replacement by a utopia that would, at a stroke, eliminate every human ill.”
“The mentality of the intelligentsia constituted a cruel parody of religion, preserving “the external features of religiosity without its content.”
“What is it? It is, I’d argue, the sudden, rapid, stunning shift in the belief system of the American elites. It has sent the whole society into a profound cultural dislocation.”
“It is, in essence, an ongoing moral panic against the specter of “white supremacy,” which is now bizarrely regarded as an accurate description of the largest, freest, most successful multiracial democracy in human history.”
Nothing so far has made America accept Communism — but a race war might.
Well, most of us won’t accept it, but our elites might.
If America falls to Race Communism, it will achieve what Communism always achieves: totalitarian terror, misery, mass murder, the end of freedom, and incalculable human suffering — for a century or so, until it collapses under its own evil weight.
Even Verne — who is wrong to say that anything that can be imagined can be done — subordinates imagination to “what can be done,” or reality.
Verne is obviously wrong: we can *imagine* all sorts of things we cannot do, e.g. squaring the circle in Euclidean geometry, building a perpetual motion machine, implementing a happy, non-tyrannical Communism, and so on.