WATCH: AUN-TV Network’s ‘Our Country, Our Freedoms, Our Constitution — Lessons For Freedom!’

The AUN TV Network and its 11 broadcast TV Stations along with its 24/7 live streaming element, will broadcast a series of programs dedicated to explore the Constitution and the principles of American government. The United States Constitution was designed to secure the natural rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

WATCH: Our Country, Our Freedoms, Our Constitution — Lessons For Freedom!

In conjunction with Liberty Sentinels Fund, this twelve part series, “Our Country, Our Freedoms, Our Constitution — Lessons For Freedom!” will examine the political theory of the American Founding and subsequent challenges to that theory throughout American history. Topics covered in this course include: the natural rights theory of the Founding, the meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution, the crisis of the Civil War, the Progressive rejection of the Founding, and the nature and form of modern liberalism.

©2024. Conservative Commandos Radio. All rights reserved.

Army Quietly Dropped 5-Mile Run Requirement From Airborne School In 2018

A reader sent us the Task & Purpose article below. As a U.S. Army paratrooper we were the elite of the elite. I, like many others, served in airborne units during our careers. I served in the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam, in peace time in the Airborne, Electronics and Special Warfare Board, the 7th Special Forces Group and in the 10th Airborne Corps.

Lowering any military standard means inextricably lowering our ability to fight and win wars. 

Without a physically fit military we put our solders and our nation in danger.

To lower standards of service borders on dereliction of duty.


Army quietly dropped 5-mile run requirement from airborne school in 2018

Students still must complete 3-mile runs for the Basic Airborne Course.

BY JEFF SCHOGOL | PUBLISHED MAR 1, 2024

The Army’s Basic Airborne Course at Fort Moore, Georgia, is meant to prepare students for the challenges of life as a paratrooper.

What you may not have heard until now is that service members who attend the course are no longer required to complete a 5-mile run to graduate. That requirement went away several years ago, but many graduates of the course remember it as an essential part of earning their Airborne wings.

Also known as “airborne school,” the course is a requirement for any service member that goes to a unit that requires active jump status, including soldiers assigned to the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, 173rd Airborne Brigade, and most special operations forces.

While at the course, classes regularly run in formation for physical training, or PT, at a slow pace somewhere between a march and jog that is meant to build stamina. The pace is known colloquially as the “Airborne Shuffle.” As a vintage Army recruiting commercial from years ago put it: Airborne students, “Run until your legs get tough, so when you hit, it’s the ground that hurts.”

One of the prerequisites for the Basic Airborne Course is that service members must be able to run 3 miles at a 9-minute pace. Once they attend jump school, students are required to go on 3-mile runs as part of the three-week training.

But a requirement for students to complete a  5-mile run prior to graduation is no longer part of the curriculum. An Army Reddit user recently posted that he had just learned the Army had nixed the longer run in favor of 2- and 3-mile runs for airborne students.

Task & Purpose checked and learned that the U.S. Army Infantry School dropped the 5-mile run as a graduation requirement for the Basic Airborne Course in 2018, according to  Col. Scott P. Knight, U.S. Army Infantry School Deputy Commandant

“Analysis found the physical training requirements did not correlate with meeting any course learning objectives related to static line parachute operations such as safely donning a parachute, exiting a high-performance aircraft, controlling descent, or performing a parachute landing fall,” Knight told Task & Purpose.

The reason why soldiers may be learning only now that the 5-mile run is no longer a Basic Airborne Course graduation requirement is the Infantry School does not make formal announcements when it changes its programs of instruction, according to the Army.

The school reviews all its courses every two years to make sure they are as rigorous and relevant as possible, Knight said.

“We continue to maintain physical course prerequisites as well as graduation requirements for successful completion of the Airborne Course,” Knight said.

However, one service member told Task & Purpose that the 5-mile run helped to weed out troops who were not strong enough to serve in airborne units.

The Army overall has de-emphasized running in favor of weightlifting and CrossFit training, said the paratrooper senior noncommissioned officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid potential reprisal.

“It makes your legs stronger, which helps your legs whenever you are jumping,” the paratrooper said. “It also makes you lighter; that way, you’re not dropping with so much weight. And then, usually we drop to an objective, and then you’ve got to move to the objective. So, if you’re fit cardiovascular-wise, then it will help you make it to the objective.”

Retired Army Command Sgt. Maj. Jeffrey Mellinger conceded that the Basic Airborne Course is not as physically demanding as when he went through it in 1972. At the time, students ran everywhere, including from their barracks to training areas; and when they had extra time, they had to do pushups and sit-ups.

However, the main purpose of jump school is not to get soldiers in shape but to make sure that students know how to use their parachutes, respond to emergencies, and develop a sense of self-confidence and an aggressive spirit, said Mellinger, a former Special Forces military freefall instructor. Being able to run 5 miles is not essential to learning how to jump out of airplanes, he said.

“I don’t know that a 5-mile run added a whole lot,” Mellinger said. “It sure made us tired, but I don’t know that it enhanced our ability to safely load an airplane, don a parachute, perform emergency procedures, and land safely under difficult conditions.”

By the time service members graduate from the Basic Airborne Course, they have learned the fundamentals about how to safely jump from an aircraft and land, Mellinger said. It isn’t until they join their units and go through more advanced training that they become proficient paratroopers.

“If that is an airborne unit, I guarantee you those NCOs and officers of that airborne unit will look at them and say: ‘OK, you’ve only got five jumps. So, we’re going to enhance your training.’ And they’re going to add their organizational emphasis, whatever that may be. It always involves a lot more physical training.”

Mellinger also said that some service members will always believe that making training less difficult is the same as lowering standards. He noted that the many noncommissioned officers objected when the Army allowed soldiers to run in shoes instead of boots years ago.

Rather than hurting readiness, the change prevented soldiers from injuring their knees while running, he said.

Overall, the Basic Airborne Course is meeting its goal of teaching students how to safely use their parachutes, Mellinger said.

“I think if you stand out on that drop zone and watch those young soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines get out of that aircraft, they have accomplished the task they are there to do,” Mellinger said. “That is to use that parachute, learn a little bit about leadership, learn a lot about self-confidence and spirit, land safely, recover your equipment, put a big smile on their face, and move on to their first unit of assignment.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jeff Schogol is a senior staff writer for Task & Purpose. He has covered the military for 15 years, with previous bylines at the Express-Times in Easton, Pennsylvania, Stars & Stripes, and Military Times. You can email him at schogol@taskandpurpose.com, direct message @JeffSchogol on Twitter, or reach him on WhatsApp and Signal at 703-909-6488. Contact the author here.

RECENT TASK & PURPOSE ARTICLES:

Afghanistan’s ‘Angel of Death’ is retiring from Air Force special ops

Drill sergeant shoots first perfect score at Army marksman course

National Guard asked to deploy to suburban Boston high school

Space Force cancels classified military communications satellite project

Navy commissions ship named for Medal of Honor recipient

RELATED VIDEO: The Emerging Cold War 2.0 Blocs EXPLAINED


Subscribe to Task & Purpose today. Get the latest military news and culture in your inbox daily.


©2024. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

The introduction of Corporate Fascism in The Netherlands

13 years ago, Mr. Mark Rutte started to govern in my country Holland as Prime Minister. Though he is a member of the Dutch Conservative Party, he’s in his heart not for individual freedom at all.

Right now, he is at the end of his last term. Elections for a new Dutch Government have already been held, and so he is on his way out.

The Netherlands changed a lot during his reign. And not for the better.

For example, the total amount of taxation per citizen, was 13 years ago about 35% of the average income. Now it’s up to 40%! That means that if you have an income of 20,000 Euro then you pay a total of taxes of that amount to the value of 8,000 Euro. This makes you a part-time slave of the Dutch Government.

There is a name for the system with which Mark Rutte governs. It’s not a pretty term: Corporate Fascism.

Corporate Fascism means that the CEO’s of the largest companies and a small group of powerful politicians rule over the citizens in total cooperation. They suppress the common man and empty his pockets with the power of the full state behind them.

Corporate Fascism can be found in many countries in Europe. It has replaced Social Democracy, otherwise known as the Welfare State.

In The Netherlands we see after 13 years of corporate fascism, that a huge amount of nice small shops with quality products and good personal service, have closed their doors. There are very few places where you can still buy artisan made traditional high quality products.

It’s gotten hard these days to make enough money simply to buy your groceries, clothes and pay your monthly rent, mortgage, electricity bill, phone bill et cetera. That’s strange, because you pay most money to big firms that produce their products in factories at almost no costs at all. The CEO’s of these companies are therefor FAKE capitalists. Competition is an illusion.

In a country with corporate fascism, there is an elite class that doesn’t do any productive work at all. These profiteers just sit behind computer screens and produce nothing. They enrich themselves in an extreme way.

Mr. Mark Rutte, who introduced Corporate Fascism in The Netherlands, now is considered the number 1 candidate for leading NATO.

I think that you should be warned.

When he can operate at a global level, he will do a serious effort to introduce Corporate Fascism on a global scale.

©2024. Matthys van Raalten. All rights reserved.

UK: 74% of Transgender Prisoners Found to be Sex Offenders or Violent Criminals

Last year, the UK government-staffed organization — the Pride in Prison & Probation (PIPP) group — which advances an aggressive LGBTQ agenda, called it “transphobic” to discuss the issue of protecting women in prisons from biological males. Now comes the news that “nearly three-quarters of all transgender prison inmates in Britain were convicted of sexual offences or other violent crimes.” It should go without saying that women should not be put in harm’s way for the sake of political correctness; but this is not clear to those who value “gender affirmation” more than the safety of women.

Former prison governor Rhona Hotchkiss states below that “the vast majority of men who identify as transgender in prison did not do so before they came into contact with the justice system.” In other words, these biological males are perverts with nefarious intentions, which should have been obvious.

Last year, after many unfortunate assaults, the UK finally stopped allowing “transgender women with male genitalia…to be held in mainstream women’s prisons.” But of course it wasn’t the trans activists from the Pride in Prison & Probation (PIPP) group and their ilk who suffered the consequences of their own destructive activism.

74 Per Cent of UK Trans Prisoners Are Sex Offenders or Violent Criminals

by Kurt Zindulka, Breitbart, February 28, 2024:

Nearly three-quarters of all transgender prison inmates in Britain were convicted of sexual offences or other violent crimes, which campaigners say demonstrates the dangers of housing biological males in female prisons.

According to Ministry of Justice figures, 74 per cent of British transgender prisoners, or 181 out of 244, were convicted of sex offences including rape and child sexual assaults. The data, reported by The Telegraph, goes on to say that currently 144 biologically male transgender prisoners are being housed in male prisons in Britain compared to five being housed in female jails.

The figures were revealed after a whistleblower complained of a violent male claiming to be transgender was put in a female prison. “She was not huge but very athletic and very strong and had all the physical features of a man. She was a bully and was very threatening and intimidating,” the insider said.

“The belief that she should have been housed in a male prison was unanimous, not just among the prisoners but also the staff,” she added.

Commenting on the need for prisoners to be separated by sex, former prison governor Rhona Hotchkiss said: “It is always an issue to have males who identify as women in women’s prisons. It’s not necessarily always the physical threat that they experience but the re-traumatisation because many women in prison are already traumatised at the hands of men. They are also faced with constant gaslighting when they are forced to call these men ‘she’.

“The vast majority of men who identify as transgender in prison did not do so before they came into contact with the justice system.”…

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

TRANS-TERROR: Lakewood Church Shooter Identified As Transgender Immigrant

Ohio Becomes 23rd State to Protect Minors from the Transgender Industry

Feminism Is the Mother of Transgenderism

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

UC Berkeley’s Hitler Youth Accost Jewish Speaker & Attack Jewish Students

University of California, Berkeley, administrators have offered no apology to Israeli lawyer Ran Bar-Yoshafat, whose speech to a campus Jewish group was abruptly canceled by the university after violent protesters choked a female student attendee, spit in another attendee’s face, and broke into the auditorium where Bar-Yoshafat waited onstage….more here.

Berkley Schools:  Nazi Youth/Hamas Chapter Running Loose in District

By

The Berkeley schools have declared themselves a chapter of Hamas.  Teachers and Administrators openly and quietly are going after Jewish teaches and students.  This is reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

“The Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) “knowingly allowed its K-12 campuses to become viciously hostile environments for Jewish and Israeli students,” according to a copy of the complaint, filed with the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Parents who have signed onto the complaint say anti-Semitic incidents in the schools have “positively surged” since Hamas conducted its unprecedented Oct. 7 terror attack on Israel.

“At BUSD, a virulent wave of anti-Semitism swept through its schools immediately following the massacre,” the complaint alleges. “Jewish and Israeli students have since been subjected to nonstop anti-Semitic bullying and harassment by their teachers and peers, in hallways, in classrooms, and in school yards.”

Reminder;  Like the Nazi’s, Communists, using Karl Marx principles are also Jew haters—so this should be no surprise that the Communist city of Berkeley promotes Jew hating.

Berkeley Public Schools Hit With Federal Complaint Over ‘Severe and Persistent’ Anti-Semitic Bullying

Complaint alleges hallway chants of ‘kill the Jews’ and anti-Semitic teacher rants in support of Hamas

Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon,  2/28/24  https://freebeacon.com/campus/berkeley-public-schools-hit-with-federal-complaint-over-severe-and-persistent-anti-semitic-bullying/

A public school district in Berkeley, California, was hit with a federal complaint on Wednesday alleging it has failed to stem an escalating series of anti-Semitic incidents that include hallway chants of “kill the Jews” and anti-Semitic teacher rants in support of the Hamas terror group.

The Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) “knowingly allowed its K-12 campuses to become viciously hostile environments for Jewish and Israeli students,” according to a copy of the complaint, filed with the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Parents who have signed onto the complaint say anti-Semitic incidents in the schools have “positively surged” since Hamas conducted its unprecedented Oct. 7 terror attack on Israel.

“At BUSD, a virulent wave of anti-Semitism swept through its schools immediately following the massacre,” the complaint alleges. “Jewish and Israeli students have since been subjected to nonstop anti-Semitic bullying and harassment by their teachers and peers, in hallways, in classrooms, and in school yards.”

The complaint, filed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, follows a flurry of similar federal filings against many of America’s top universities, including Harvard, MIT, and University of Pennsylvania, among others. Like its college counterparts, the Berkeley school district stands accused of becoming a dangerous place for Jews and Israelis.

“Reported incidents of anti-Semitism include school ‘walkouts’ praising Hamas with students shouting ‘f— the Jews’ and ‘KKK,’” according to the complaint. “Teachers use class time to propagandize that the Hamas massacre was admirable ‘resistance.’ Following their teachers’ lead, students bully their Jewish peers and deride their physical appearance.”

Berkeley Unified did not respond to a request for comment.

Parents have reported this behavior to school administrators, the complaint says, but the district “has done nothing to address, much less curtail, the hostile environment that has plagued BUSD for over four months.”

The ADL and Brandeis Center are asking the federal government to open a formal probe into the school district to determine if the Jewish population’s civil rights are being violated.

Anti-Semitism is allegedly “normalized throughout BUSD. And teachers have responded with threats.”

In one case, a teacher approached a parent who had complained and said, “I know who you are, I know who your f—ing wife is and I know where you live,” according to testimony included in the federal filing.

Perhaps taking a cue from their instructors, students have harassed their Jewish classmates, telling them, “it is excellent what Hamas did to Israel” and “you have a big nose because you are a stupid Jew,” according to incidents relayed in the complaint.

“While Berkeley Unified School District plasters its buildings with ‘United Against Hate’ posters, Jewish hate is ignored,” said Berkeley Unified parent Ilana Pearlman.

In the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel, Berkeley Unified teachers and administrators have allegedly staged walkouts “denigrating Israelis and calling for the elimination of Jews.”

“Teachers, staff, and administrators,” the complaint states, “have participated in and encouraged students to join walkouts, depriving Jewish and Israeli students of a safe place to learn and all students of instruction.” In some cases, these events have taken place during school hours.

In another case cited in the complaint, an unnamed art teacher “spent significant class time imposing his anti-Semitic views on students by showing them violent pro-Hamas videos, projecting anti-Israel and anti-Semitic images during class.” This includes an image of a fist holding a Palestinian flag punching through a Star of David.

The complaint outlines other similar incidents, including anti-Semitic harassment, that has left Jewish students shaken and scared about going to school each day.

“The Berkeley public school district is just one of many districts in California and other states that are experiencing an extreme wave of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic language and incidents in the classroom and the schoolyard,” said Rachel Lerman, vice chair and general counsel for the Brandeis Center. “Since October 7, there have been continual anti-Israel rallies, taking kids off campus without parent permission, where students are provided with signs and permitted to call for the extermination of Zionists and Jews. Students feel free to engage in anti-Semitic speech and bully their Jewish classmates because a number of their teachers tolerate and even encourage it. Meanwhile the administration does nothing in the face of widespread parent complaints.”

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Nothing has prepared me for the anti-Semitism I see on college campuses now

Yes, Marwan Barghouti Could Serve As ‘Palestinian’ President From Prison

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Appeals Court Overturns Jan. 6 Defendant’s Sentence, Impacting Dozens of Cases

Even so, the Biden regime is jailing journalists and putting them in leg and belly Chains to face Jan. 6 ‘misdemeanors.’

The prosecutions are/were treason at the highest level.

That the 2020 election was stolen.

These criminal actions merely secure the coup.

Dozens of Jan. 6 cases might be impacted after the court’s ruling on Friday.

By: Jack Phillips, Epoch Times, March 1, 2024;

An appeals court in Washington unanimously ruled that a Jan. 6 defendant’s sentence was improperly enhanced, a move that could impact numerous other Jan. 6 cases.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Larry Brock, who was convicted for a range of crimes related to Jan. 6, improperly had additional charges of “interference with the administration of justice.” The judge who wrote the court’s opinion wrote that the charge doesn’t apply to a sentencing enhancement, however, and struck it down.

“Brock challenges both the district court’s interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2)’s elements and the sufficiency of the evidence to support that conviction,” wrote the judge, Patricia Millett.

The judge, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, concluded that any interference with Congress’ certification of the 2020 electoral votes isn’t tantamount to a sentencing enhancement.

“Because Section 2J1.2’s text, commentary, and context establish that the ‘administration of justice’ does not extend to Congress’s counting and certification of electoral college votes, the district court erred in applying Section 2J1.2(b)(2)’s three-level sentencing enhancement to Brock’s Section 1512(c)(2) conviction,” the judge wrote.

The judges, in siding with Mr. Brock, wrote that Congress’ function on Jan. 6 was not judicial but was only a part of the 2020 presidential election process.

“Taken as a whole, the multi-step process of certifying electoral college votes—as important to our democratic system of government as it is—bears little resemblance to the traditional understanding of the administration of justice as the judicial or quasi-judicial investigation or determination of individual rights,” the panel concluded.

Law enforcement officials who were there at the Capitol on that day, they added, were “to protect the lawmakers and their process, not to investigate individuals’ rights or to enforce Congress’s certification decision.”

“After all,” the judges wrote, “law enforcement is present for security purposes for a broad variety of governmental proceedings that do not involve the ‘administration of justice’—presidential inaugurations, for example, and the pardoning of the Thanksgiving Turkey.”

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Regime Arrests Investigative Journalist

There’s A Few Major Warning Signs For Biden After Latest Primary Contest

Here’s How One Anti-Israel Protest Group Plans To Throw Wrench In Biden’s Reelection Campaign

‘It’s Class Warfare’: Newsweek Editor Says Biden Is Hemorrhaging Blue Collar Votes

‘A Slow Motion Car Crash’: Dems’ ‘Freak Out’ Is Reaching A Fever Pitch After Yet Another Dismal Poll For Biden

‘Americans Hate That Sh*t’: Bill Maher Says ‘Nobody’s Buying’ That Biden Is Fit For Office

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Ten Percent Of 2020 Biden Voters Now Back Trump: POLL

Ten percent of President Joe Biden’s 2020 voters now back former President Donald Trump, a new poll found.

While 97 percent of voters who cast their ballot for Trump in 2020 still plan to vote for him, Biden is only attracting 83 percent of his previous voters, according to a New York Times and Siena College poll. Trump has a five-point lead overall, ranking ahead of Biden 48% to 43%, the poll shows.

Just 36% of voters say they approve or strongly approve of how Biden is handling his job as president, with 43% of voters saying they think his policies have hurt them personally.

Trump has earned voters from blocs that traditionally vote Democrat, according to the NYT. Women are equally split between Trump and Biden, while Trump gained a lead among Latinos, according to the NYT.

The NYT/Siena College poll surveyed 980 voters nationwide between Feb. 25 to 28, 2024 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for registered voters.

Another recent Bloomberg News/Morning Consult survey found the majority of voters in seven key battleground states blame Biden and Democrats for the border crisis.

In the Michigan Democratic primary on Tuesday, Biden received just over 80% support, which some analysts and consultants said is a “warning” sign and indication there is “not a lot of enthusiasm” for Biden among Democrats.

Around 23% of Democratic primary voters surveyed in the NYT/Siena College poll said they were enthusiastic about Biden, while 48% of Republicans said they were enthusiastic about Trump being the nominee.

The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

There’s A Few Major Warning Signs For Biden After Latest Primary Contest

Here’s How One Anti-Israel Protest Group Plans To Throw Wrench In Biden’s Reelection Campaign

‘It’s Class Warfare’: Newsweek Editor Says Biden Is Hemorrhaging Blue Collar Votes

‘A Slow Motion Car Crash’: Dems’ ‘Freak Out’ Is Reaching A Fever Pitch After Yet Another Dismal Poll For Biden

‘Americans Hate That Sh*t’: Bill Maher Says ‘Nobody’s Buying’ That Biden Is Fit For Office

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

CHAPTER 8: Constructivism Impedes Reality-Testing Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier—Reality Is

Constructivism is a learning theory that has its beginnings in the educational philosophy of John Dewey (1859–1952) and the work of Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1896–1980) and Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934).

Piaget believed that human beings pass through four stages of cognitive development based on our brain’s growing ability to think in new ways. His theory of cognitive development focuses on childhood and education. In Piaget’s view the learner is a unique individual, whose childhood interactions and explorations influence his development. Piaget believed that children act on their environment to learn, and that the function of social interaction is to move the child away from the self-absorption of early childhood. Piaget saw childhood development in universal human terms.

Lev Vygotsky, on the other hand, focused on learning as a social process and developed the sociocultural theory of development called Social Constructivism. Vygotsky considered the learner to be a social being, whose development is influenced by environmental factors. He saw childhood development in culturally determined terms, and believed that children interact socially with their environment in order to learn the cultural values of their specific society. Vygotsky believed that behavior cannot be understood outside its cultural setting, and that culture actually shapes cognition.

The divergent perspectives of Piaget and Vygotsky parallel the differences in educational philosophies and pedagogy that we see in traditional education versus today’s politicized education.

An article by educator Chris Drew, PhD, published May 13, 2023, “What Is Constructivism in Education? Piaget’s Pros & Cons,”[i] defines Constructivism, describes its key concepts, and compares traditional teachers with constructivist teachers:

Definition: The constructivist learning theory explains that we learn by “constructing” knowledge in our minds through interaction with our environments. Constructivism argues that learners have an active role in thinking things through, mulling them over, and coming to logical conclusions. We also build on our prior knowledge, like a builder constructing his skyscraper.

Key Concepts: Learning is a cognitive process; we learn through experiences; we learn through social interactions; we use prior knowledge to make sense of new information; learning occurs in linear stages; students should learn actively rather than passively….

Central to this theory is the idea that we learn by “mulling over” new ideas in our heads and come to our own conclusions through logic and reasoning. To achieve this sort of learning, students need to engage in active learning, learning by doing, and personal experiences.

Chris Drew’s bias toward Constructivism is evident in his description:

Constructivism in education is the dominant educational theory in the 21st Century. It helps students to develop 21st Century skills such as collaboration, cooperation and creativity.

It is also conspicuous in his comparison of teachers’ roles:

Traditional Teacher:

Monologue (teacher talks)

Tells the answers

Expects one “correct” answer

Believes they know everything

Teacher-centered classroom

Teaches theories

One size fits all lessons

Teacher as Facilitator:

Dialogue (teacher and students discuss)

Asks questions and guides

Lets students come up with their own answers

Sees themselves as a co-learner

Student-centered classroom

Links theories to practical experiences

Differentiated lessons to meet students’ cognitive needs

Educational reformer Bruce Deitrick Price offers a very different view of Constructivism and its catastrophic effects on education. In his Canada Free Press article published September 12, 2019, “K–12: How Constructivism constructs confusion,”[ii] Price writes:

Constructivism is not just another educational gimmick. It can be used in every class, for every subject, and with students of all ages. It is multifaceted, ubiquitous, and grandiose. In fact, the Education Establishment wants you to believe that Constructivism is the King Kong of instructional theories. The educrats want you to take it home for dinner, marry it, and live happily ever after.

We are told that Constructivism adds immensely to the educational experience. On the other hand, students exposed to this thing—and virtually all American students have been exposed—seem to become dumber. In some mysterious way, Constructivism is intellectually befuddling. The acquisition of new knowledge is stymied. WNET, a TV station in Manhattan, prepared a long presentation extolling and explaining Constructivism“Constructivism is basically a theory—based on observation and scientific study—about how people learn. It says that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences.” That’s the key claim. You construct your own knowledge. It is not out there somewhere in the world. You construct it. Really. Consider an instance of learning. The teacher says, “The capital of France is Paris, a very beautiful city.” Does all that verbiage about people constructing their own understanding and experiencing things, and reflecting on those experiences, add anything to the commonsense understanding of what happens when a teacher tells students about Paris?

WNET continues: “The constructivist teacher provides tools such as problem-solving and inquiry-based learning activities with which students formulate and test their ideas, draw conclusions and inferences, and pool and convey their knowledge in a collaborative learning environment.” Let’s imagine a teacher telling students, “Most early settlers in North America came from England or Spain. Crossing the Atlantic Ocean in a small sailing ship is a dangerous adventure.” Now look at the WNET spiel. Why do students need to formulate and test ideas? Why do we have to convey the knowledge in a collaborative learning environment? More steps, more clutter. Imagine you’re a teacher who wants to teach about the American Revolution, why water freezes, or how the dinosaurs lived. Why do we need the clutter in any of those teaching scenarios? My suspicion is that this clutter is an obstacle, obviously so. We have started to see what may be Constructivism’s unavoidable negative. Constructivism adds distractions, like a hyperactive TV series when a child is trying to read his first book. In short, there’s too much going on. WNET continues: “Constructivism transforms the student from a passive recipient of information to an active participant in the learning process. Always guided by the teacher, students construct their knowledge actively rather than just mechanically ingesting knowledge from the teacher or the textbook.”

Apparently when somebody tells you something you are passive and that’s bad. You are mechanically ingesting. But if we label the classroom constructivist, everything changes for the better. Now you are actively constructing knowledge. Do you see any change? WNET wants us to know: “Students are not blank slates upon which knowledge is etched. They come to learning situations with already formulated knowledge, ideas, and understandings. This previous knowledge is the raw material for the new knowledge they will create.” Really? What does the child know about someone sailing from Spain? Nothing. That’s why it’s exciting. The conceit in Constructivism is that the speaker or teacher doesn’t add very much. You (a student) create the whole experience in your brain, i.e., you construct it. Is this a reasonable expectation? This next passage is so absurd, you might think I wrote it as satire. Not so. WNET explains: “An elementary school teacher presents a class problem to measure the length of the Mayflower. Rather than starting the problem by introducing the ruler, the teacher allows students to reflect and to construct their own methods of measurement. One student offers the knowledge that a doctor said he is four feet tall. Another says she knows horses are measured in ‘hands.’ The students discuss these and other methods they have heard about, and decide on one to apply to the problem.”

I think this is the paradigm of what is wrong. The obvious next step was to see a picture or a model of the ship, with people nearby for a sense of scale. You could go outside and walk off the basic design of the ship. Children learn about the Mayflower, not about measuring horses. There seems to be a lot of bait-and-switch in Constructivism. You can easily imagine that this elementary school teacher would never reach the heart of any subject. Every comment by every student would be a seductive avenue of distraction. WNET waxes ever more frenzied: “Students control their own learning process, and they lead the way by reflecting on their experiences. This process makes them experts of their own learning.” Lead the way? Experts of their own learning? Wouldn’t it be better if they became expert in the subjects being studied? WNET: “The teacher helps create situations where the students feel safe questioning and reflecting on their own processes, either privately or in group discussions. The teacher should also create activities that lead the student to reflect on his or her prior knowledge and experiences.” Reflecting on their own processes? Anything, you see, but the new knowledge we want them to learn. Ironically, Constructivism seems designed to insulate kids from new knowledge, to keep them busy with extraneous details and tangential activities. WNET says: “The main activity in a constructivist classroom is solving problems.” Maybe. But in a real classroom the main activity is learning today what you didn’t know yesterday.

Constructivism is an educational humanitarian hoax that presents its destructive methodology and relativist perspective as superior and scientific. The word Constructivism is as misleading as its source: John Dewey and his educational reform movement he called progressive education. Dewey, the “Father of American Education,” believed that “what” students were taught was not as important as “how” students were taught. His focus was on form, not content.

As discussed in Chapter 5, Dewey was a globalist, but he was also an elitist who did not believe in the value of teaching mathematics, geography, history, science, art, philosophy, archaeology, or any objective truths to the masses. His 1900 educational manifesto, The School and Society,[iii] was presented as a three-part lecture series. In Lecture 1, “The School and Social Progress,” Dewey begins:

We are apt to look at the school from an individualistic standpoint, as something between teacher and pupil, or between teacher and parent. That which interests us most is naturally the progress made by the individual child of our acquaintance, his normal physical development, his advance in ability to read, write, and figure, his growth in the knowledge of geography and history, improvement in manners, habits of promptness, order, and industry— it is from such standards as these that we judge the work of the school. And rightly so. Yet the range of the outlook needs to be enlarged. What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy. All that society has accomplished for itself is put, through the agency of the school, at the disposal of its future members. All its better thoughts of itself it hopes to realize through the new possibilities thus opened to its future self. Here individualism and socialism are at one….

The mere absorption of facts and truths is so exclusively an individual affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat.

Words matter––and some words matter more than others. The United States of America was founded as a republic, not a democracy. The distinction is essential and often deliberately obfuscated by the enemies of individualism. The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the degree to which its citizens control the process of making laws. In a republic, the people elect representatives to make laws according to the constraints of a constitution. In a democracy, the majority has almost unlimited power to make laws, and minorities have few protections from the will of the majority. In a republic, the constitution protects the rights of all people from the will of the majority. In a democracy, individual rights can be overridden by the will of the majority. Individualism and socialism are never “at one.”

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land that protects individualism and individual rights, the hallmarks of Americanism. We are a constitutional republic. It is a grave and consequential error to assume that a collectivist innocently uses the word democracy in its colloquial usage as a synonym for republic. The enemies of freedom—socialists, communists, and globalists—exploit the word in order to confuse the public, collapse our republic, and replace it with the mob rule of pure democracy that our Founding Fathers definitively and categorically rejected.

Collectivist John Dewey believed that experiential learning, social learning, and a basic Constructivist approach to pedagogy could achieve social reconstruction in America. He insisted that education and learning are social and interactive processes, and that schools are the appropriate institutions where social reform should take place. Dewey’s manifesto is the bible for the philosophical shift in American education from traditional, foundational learning to progressive education. What most Americans have not realized is that “progressive” education is not an advancement in knowledge and skills; to the contrary, it is a pivotal step in the incremental movement toward collectivism, socialism, globalism, and one-world government.

Perhaps the most disturbing of Constructivism’s deceitful claims is “The teacher helps create situations where the students feel safe questioning and reflecting on their own processes, either privately or in group discussions.” Once again, we see the emphasis on feelings, subjective reality.

Constructivism is a dangerous, crippling methodology designed to confuse children and deny them the foundational knowledge and skills required for critical thinking and life as a productive citizen in a constitutional republic. Constructivism denies objective reality by making everything a matter of opinion. The subjective reality it embraces intentionally impedes children’s developing ability to reality-test. Johnny’s feelings are not facts, and Johnny’s opinions are not equivalent to his teacher’s facts.

Generations of teachers trained in these methods have become ideological soldiers for progressive education. Children are not the only ones who live what they learn; so do indoctrinated teachers. Constructivism is an educational Weapon of Mass Destruction in globalism’s attack on America.


[i] What Is Constructivism in Education? Piaget’s Pros & Cons; https://helpfulprofessor.com/constructivism/

[ii] K-12: How Constructivism constructs confusion; https://canadafreepress.com/article/k-12-how-constructivism-constructs-confusion

[iii] The School and Society, John Dewey, University of Chicago Press, 1915; https://archive.org/details/schoolsociety00dewerich/page/n7/mode/2up

©2024. Linda Goudsmit. All rights reserved.

Pundicity page: goudsmit.pundicity.com and website: lindagoudsmit.com

Who Would You Rather Have As The Republican Senate Minority Leader?

Senator John Cornyn is a former Texas Supreme Court judge and state attorney general.  He has been a close ally of Mitch McConnell.  Even with good credentials and a good background, he is mostly referred to in Texas as a RINO or an establishment Republican who needs to be removed from office.

Cornyn’s announcement to run for the leadership of the U.S. Senate, following Mitch McConnell’s decision to step down, is news, especially in Texas.  The spin is that as the first senator to declare his intention to run for Senate Republican leader, Cornyn’s candidacy is notable for his “experience and leadership background” and “how his aim is to restore the Senate to its essential role in the constitutional republic” and a lot more about his “electoral strategy and external support.”

However, as of today, Cornyn is unsuitable for leadership for two main reasons.  For one, he did not back Attorney General Ken Paxton during his impeachment by the Texas state House.  He is also anti-Trump and anti-gun, as A.G. Paxton has already pointed out.

It is worth noting that after the fake impeachment by the “Deep State” Republicans in the Texas House (known as the UniParty) and his final acquittal in the state Senate, Paxton has become an icon, the only man left blocking Biden and his cronies from making Texas as blue and lawless as California.  His popularity has soared.

Cornyn played a significant role in negotiating the first major anti-gun bill in decades following the Robb Elementary shooting in Uvalde.  The Second Amendment is clear.  Anyone going against the spirit of the Second Amendment doesn’t have the commitment to understanding its historical context and purpose.

Cornyn has also been involved in efforts to support the migrant influx at the U.S.-Mexico border, and he has introduced bills aimed at making this influx easy, including measures to rapidly process migrant invasion and speed up the processing of asylum-seekers.  His approach has exposed him, and it reeks of an agenda-driven policy detrimental to the well-being of the state of Texas.  For one, rapidly processing illegal aliens raises concerns about sacrificing thorough vetting procedures, potentially undermining national security, and also resulting in overlooking legitimate asylum claims.

Cornyn’s current abilities as a leader are under a cloud, as it is clear that his involvement in supporting measures to ease the illegal alien flood is driven more by political expediency and the New World Order (NWO) agenda.

On the other hand, we have Senator Ted Cruz.  Cruz has consistently advocated against gun regulation, arguing that such policies are ineffective and do not prevent crime. This stance reflects a commitment to uphold the Second Amendment and the belief that the focus should be on enhancing law enforcement and security measures rather than on restricting gun ownership.  For those who prioritize individual rights and the belief in the efficacy of law enforcement over gun control, Cruz’s position is to be seen as more aligned with their values.

In fact, Cruz was chiefly instrumental in introducing a rival bill that would increase school security funding, showcasing his willingness to propose alternative solutions to the issue of gun violence.  This action exemplifies Cruz’s abilities as a leader, as he offers a comprehensive approach to safety beyond just gun control, which is more in keeping with broader strategies to prevent violence.  “Cruz says $8B in economic aid to Ukraine is ‘crap’: “A lot of that is almost certain to go to waste.”

Moreover, Ted Cruz’s support for Paxton during the impeachment effort highlights his commitment to the principles of due process and conservative governance.  Cruz openly supports Paxton for his efforts to combat the abuses of the Biden administration, emphasizing his effectiveness in battling these issues.

In short, Texas has two Republican senators.  One is pro-Texas, and one is in tune with the Washington “Deep State.”  Cornyn’s overall approval rating hovers around 24 percent, a dramatic reversal from previous years, when a majority of Texans were not even aware of Cornyn’s daily activities.

Cruz emerges as a more suitable choice for Texas and the nation as a whole.  Cornyn’s past actions, including his stance on key issues such as gun confiscation and illegal immigration, raise concerns about his commitment to upholding fundamental principles and addressing complex challenges effectively.  In contrast, Cruz has consistently advocated for preserving individual rights, upholding due process, and comprehensive solutions to issues like gun violence.  His support for Ken Paxton during the impeachment effort demonstrates a commitment to conservative governance and principles.

Moreover, Cruz’s approach resonates with a broader base of Texans, as evidenced by his higher approval ratings and continued support.  In a political landscape where leadership and integrity are paramount, Ted Cruz stands out over John Cornyn for representing the values and interests of Texas.

©2024. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

President Donald J. Trump Is On Fire On The Campaign Trail WATCH!

President Donald J. Trump is winning for the American people. He is driven to drain the Democrat swamp and restore our God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

President Trump is focused on our faith, our families and our freedoms.

Watch the following video and posts on X to understand that he is serious about taking back our nation from those who are determined to destroy it.

There is a new slogan for the people’s president that is flooding social media sites, “To Big To Rig.”

President Trump in Richmond, Virginia

President Donald J. Trump on X

©2024. All rights reserved.

VIDEOS: Operation ‘Swords of Iron’ News Summary: March 1st and March 2nd, 2024

Here are the latest news headlines from this afternoon that reached our news desk. The times given are Jerusalem time (GMT +2)

March 1st, 2024

12:34 – SYRIA: The Syrian army claims that it managed to intercept and shoot down in the sky of the city of Raqqa in Syria, 2 American drones manufactured by the Boeing company RQ-21 A Blackjack while they were on intelligence gathering flights. The cost of each such UAV is estimated at about 8 million dollars

13:10 – IRAN: Iranian channels affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards: Reza Zaraei, commander of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards, was killed in an attack tonight in Banias in Syria, along with two senior Hezbollah officials.

13:58 – LEBANON: Lebanese channels: The IDF fires shells at the town of Khula Wazani in the Marj Ayon district

14:01 – JERUSALEM: Clashes between Arab rioters and the security forces in the Old City of Jerusalem. [VIDEO]

14:02 – GAZA: A number of rockets fall in the fence area in the Ashkelon beach area in open areas.

14:03 – LEBANON: Lebanese channels: air strike on buildings in the town of Ita al-Sha’ab in southern Lebanon, there are casualties

14:09 – LEBANON: Hezbollah launched a heavy rocket at a military target in the Upper Galilee area in the Ramim Ridge area.

14:09 – LEBANON: Arab reports: air strike towards Jebel Blat in southern Lebanon

15:21 – SYRIA: Arab reports of explosions in the Syrian Golan

15:29 – LEBANON: The IDF attacked military buildings and terrorist infrastructure of the terrorist organization Hezbollah

14:38 – IRAN: Reports that the Israeli attack in Syria killed an advisor in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards named Reza Zarei, in addition to two Hezbollah members

March 2nd, 2024

12:09 – USA: US Representative Ilhan Omar: “President Biden’s administration gave Israel the green light to commit a massacre against the Palestinians.”

12:14: The IDF spokesman confirms that this morning the Air Force eliminated terrorists belonging to the Imam Hussein Division who had previously fired rockets into the territory of the State of Israel in a vehicle attack in southern Lebanon; military buildings and infrastructure of the terrorist organization Hezbollah were attacked during the night and morning.

12:20 – LEBANON – Hezbollah announces the deaths of 3 more of their officers. The three killed this morning belong to the Imam Hussein Division, which operates in Syria directly by Iran and in Lebanon under Hezbollah. IDF spokesperson: “This morning, the IDF eliminated in a vehicle attack in southern Lebanon terrorists who belong to the Imam Hussein division and had previously fired rockets into the territory of the State of Israel.” Military buildings and infrastructure of the Hezbollah terrorist organization were attacked during the night and morning. This morning, aircraft attacked a vehicle in the area of southern Lebanon containing a number of terrorists who fired rockets at Israeli territory. The terrorists operated under the Imam Hussein Division, which is associated with Iran and works for the terrorist organization Hezbollah. In addition, a short time ago fighter jets attacked a terrorist infrastructure of the Hezbollah terrorist organization in the Lebanon region of Lebanon, and during the night two additional military structures of the terrorist organization were attacked in the Leyda region.

12:35 – GAZA: The Egyptian Air Force in aid drop carried out over the Gaza Strip

13:05 – RED SEA: Freighter Rubymar has sunk in Red Sea, Yemen internationally recognized government says

14:00 – GAZA: The IDF spokesman announces that the fighters of the commando formation are engaged in intense combat in the west of Khan Yunis, during which they eliminate dozens of terrorists and carry out raids on terrorist infrastructures in accordance with designated intelligence.

14:01 – RED SEA: The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) agency said on Saturday that it received a report an attack 15 nautical miles west of Yemen’s port of Mokha, where the Houthis that control much of Yemen have been attacking shipping lanes.

14:42 – JUDEA: 57-year-old man moderately injured in suspected attack at Mount Hebron

16:05: LEBANON: Reports on Arab networks: A vehicle was attacked from the air in the Rashia al-Fakhar area in southern Lebanon. According to the report of the Lebanese newspaper affiliated with Hezbollah, “Al-Akhbar”, the attack was carried out using an Israeli drone.

16:28 – GAZA: Reports in Gaza of two dead and several wounded in the bombing of a house in southern Deir al-Balah.

16:33 – RED SEA: U.S. Central Command reports: The ship that was attacked by a Houthi bomb in the Red Sea on February 18 sank as a result of the hit today.

18:30 – IDF continues striking targets in Lebanon: IDF spokesperson, “This morning, IDF aircraft struck a vehicle in southern Lebanon, in which a number of terrorists who launched rockets into Israeli territory were driving in. The terrorists operated under the Imam Hossein Division, which is affiliated with Iran and operates for the Hezbollah terrorist organization. In addition, IDF fighter jets struck Hezbollah terrorist infrastructure in the area of Labbouneh in southern Lebanon a short while ago. Moreover, two Hezbollah military compounds were struck in the area of Blida overnight.”

20:30 – ‘He strengthened Hamas’ position’ – Former U.S. ambassador blasts Biden’s ‘ice cream shop’ prediction. Former U.S. ambassador Friedamn accuses Biden of ‘malpractice,’ slamming president for ‘ice cream shop’ prediction on hostage deal with Hamas.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Speech from 98th Division Commander to his Paratrooper unit

FL Rep. Chase Tramont: ‘There is no objection to the teaching of facts and truth of history. In fact, we demand it!’

Republican Florida Representative Chase Tramont of Port Orange, Florida took to the floor of the House this week to defend our history and refute the “big lie” that Republicans are somehow trying to censor the teaching of history in a new bill that outlaws the use of ideology to interpret hard fast facts.

Chase is a cosponsor of a bill that requires an honest rendition of our past, warts and all.

The bill prohibits teacher preparation programs, EPIs, and Level I and Level II school leader preparation programs from distorting significant historical events or including a curriculum or instruction that teaches identity politics, violates the Florida Educational Equity Act, or is based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political, and economic inequities.

The bill requires all teacher preparation programs and EPIs to afford candidates the opportunity to think critically, achieve mastery of academic program content, learn instructional strategies, and demonstrate competence

The bill requires Level I and Level II school leader preparation programs to afford candidates the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of program content, including instructional leadership strategies, coaching development, school safety, and continuous improvement efforts.

Representative Chase Tramont, “…[A]nd for the future education of my son who will be introduced to the world on Wednesday, I am proud to stand on the right side of protecting our history today.’“

WATCH: Representative Chase Tramont Defends History

©2024. Volusia GOP. All rights reserved.

Hamas on October 7th: The Teachings of Islam on Display Part 2

Please click here to read Part 1 of Hamas on October 7th: The Teachings of Islam on Display.


In this part we will look at Killing Non-Combatants/Disbelievers, Mutilation, and Burning People Alive.

Killing Non-Combatants/Disbelievers

It is important to note that the distinction between non-combatants and combatants is not found in the doctrines of Islam.  Instead, the fundamental distinction is between Muslims (believers) and non-Muslims (disbelievers).

This distinction has been in place since the early days of Islam.  According to the commands of Allah in the Koran and teachings of Muhammad, as long as a Muslim remained a Believer and did not violate any of the doctrines of Islam, he was not to be harmed by another Muslim.  However, there were three conditions that allowed a Muslim to intentionally kill another Muslim: adultery, apostasy from Islam, and killing another Muslim without legal authority.

With regard to non-Muslims, Muhammad taught that their “blood and property” were not protected from the Muslims unless they converted to Islam:

It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, they establish the prayer, and pay the Zakat.  If they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.[1]

That non-Muslims were to be fought against and were not protected unless they converted to Islam is openly proclaimed by Allah in Chapter 9, Verse 5 of the Koran; this is the verse referred to by some Muslim scholars as the Verse of the Sword:

Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun [non-Muslims] wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.  But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salat (the prayers), and give Zakat (obligatory charity), then leave their way free.  Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

This command of Allah to kill the Mushrikun was followed during the time of Muhammad as Muslim warriors attacked unsuspecting, non-Muslim communities late at night or early in the morning to the undiscriminating battle cries of Kill! Kill![2] and O victorious one, slay, slay!.[3]

Muhammad even stated that there was to be no penalty for a Muslim who killed a non-Muslim (disbeliever), with no distinction being made between a combatant and a non-combatant:

It was narrated from ‘Amr bin Shu’aib, from his father, from his grandfather that the Messenger of Allah said: “A Muslim should not be killed in retaliation for the murder of a disbeliever.”[4]

And it is significant to note that the Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir said this about that statement by Muhammad:

No opinion that opposes this ruling could stand correct, nor is there an authentic Hadith to contradict it.[5]

During the time of Muhammad there were numerous incidents in which non-Muslims were killed by Muslims, whether they had surrendered after battle or were simply non-combatants.

For example, after the Muslims had emigrated from Mecca to Medina, the first major battle between the Muslims and their Meccan adversaries occurred in March 624 AD: the Battle of Badr.  The Meccans were defeated.  Among the Meccan captives were a man named Umayya bin Khalaf, and his son.  As they were being led away, unarmed, and to be held for future ransom, some of the Muslims recognized Umayya and his son and they killed them both with swords.  When Muhammad found out about these killings, he made no objection.[6]

As Muhammad gained power he personally ordered the killing of a number of non-Muslim poets and others who had criticized him and/or Islam (e.g. Ka’b b. al-Ashraf, Abu Rafi’, ‘Asma’ bint Marwan, Abu ‘Afak, and a singing girl named Quraybah).

Muhammad’s attitude and actions were best summed up in a letter written shortly after the Muslim conquest of Mecca in 630 AD.  It was sent to a non-Muslim poet who used to satirize Muhammad, from the poet’s brother; here is a portion of that letter:

Allah’s Messenger killed some men in Makkah who used to satirize and harm him, and the poets who survived fled in all directions for their lives.  So, if you want to save your skin, hasten to Allah’s Messenger.  He never kills those who come to him repenting.  If you refuse to do as I say, it is up to you to try to save your skin by any means.[7]

So to save their lives from Muhammad, poets had to flee Mecca.

At one time Muhammad even gave a general order to kill any of the Jews that fell into a Muslim’s hands:

The Messenger of God said, “Whoever of the Jews falls into your hands, kill him.”  So Muhayyisah b. Mas’ud [a Muslim warrior] fell upon Ibn Sunaynah, one of the Jewish merchants who was on close terms with them and used to trade with them, and killed him.[8]

And there were examples of individual Muslims taking the initiative to kill non-Muslims for criticizing Muhammad and/or Islam. When Muhammad was told of these, he gave his approval.[9]

And after the defeat of the Jewish Bani Qurayzah tribe, Muhammad supervised the beheading of 600-900 captured males of the tribe.  He ordered that all of the males who had reached puberty were to be killed; whether or not they were combatants was irrelevant.[10]  Muhammad sent for them and struck off their heads…as they were brought out to him in batches…This went on until the apostle [Muhammad] made an end of them.[11]

Muhammad even specifically ordered that elderly non-Muslims were to be killed:

It was reported from Al-Hasan, from Samurah bin Jundab who said: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Kill the old polytheist men, but spare their children.’”[12]

So we can see that Muhammad not only condoned the killing of non-combatant, non-Muslims, he even ordered it at times.  The Hamas jihadists were following those orders.

Mutilation

There were multiple reports that the Hamas jihadists mutilated men, women and children.  Much of the evidence of this was seen on dead bodies.  But for our purposes the issue is, did this mutilation occur while the person was still alive or did it occur after they died?  We know of two reports that victims were being mutilated while they were alive:

  1. “ZAKA personnel reported finding naked, injured women with mutilated sexual organs.”[13]
  2. “Sapir, a survivor of the Nova festival, describes a rape incident where the terrorists cut off the victim’s breasts followed by cutting her face.  With the disfigurement of her face, she collapsed and fell out of Sapir’s sight.”[14]

This is important, because support for the mutilation of the living can be found in the teachings and example of Muhammad.

According to Muhammad, Muslims were not to mutilate dead bodies. Before he sent Muslim forces against non-Muslims, it was reported that he would issue the following order:

… Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah.  Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah.  Make a holy war…do not mutilate (the dead) bodies…[15]

And on another occasion:

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Yazid Al-Ansari: The Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others by force without their permission), and also forbade the mutilation (or maiming) of bodies.[16]

So when Muhammad talked about forbidding mutilation, he was talking about how dead bodies were to be treated.  This understanding that mutilation applied to dead bodies was reiterated by Ibn Hajar, a noted 15th century Islamic scholar, when he explained the meaning of mutilation:

Mutilation means disfigurement of the appearance of a corpse; for example, chopping off limbs for it to be remembered (by the opposition), and the likes.[17]

It should be noted that in Sunan An-Nasa’i we find a hadith stating that:

…The Messenger of Allah used to stress charity in his sermons, and prohibit mutilation.[18]

The modern commentary for this hadith explained:

Mutilation means cutting or tearing off the limbs of the person slain (ear, nose, private parts, etc.) so that the corpse is debased or desecrated.[19]

So Muhammad’s command against mutilation was directed toward how dead bodies were to be treated.

It was another matter for those who were alive.

In Koran 8:12, Allah stated:

(Remember) when your Lord revealed to the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed.  I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved…smite over all their fingers and toes.”

“Smite over” their fingers and toes means to cut them off.  Although this verse states what Allah had commanded the angels to do when they reportedly helped the Muslims during the Battle of Badr, it was also a command for what the Muslims (believers) were to do to their enemies:

Ibn Jarir commented that this Ayah [verse] commands, “O believers!  Strike every limb and finger on the hands and feet of your (disbelieving) enemies.”[20]

Why cut off fingers and toes?  In the commentary about this verse of the Koran, the modern Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan explained:

If the fingers of the hands are cut off, they will become unable to move their swords.  Similarly, when the toes are cut off, they will be unable to run away.[21]

And for many years Muhammad had a standing order for the mutilation and then killing of a particular non-Muslim:

I have not seen the Messenger of God send an expedition ever, except he said:  If you defeat Habbar cut off his hands and legs and then his head.[22]

However, after the conquest of Mecca in January 630, Habbar converted to Islam and was spared by Muhammad.

The mutilation of living people was continued by Abu Bakr, who, after Muhammad died, became the first of the four “Rightly Guided” Caliphs (these first four caliphs were so named because they are believed to have held the most firmly to the teachings of Muhammad):

It is reported that certain women at an-Nujair having rejoiced at the death of the Prophet, abu-Bakr wrote ordering that their hands and feet be cut off.  Among these women were ath-Thabja’ al-Hadramiyah, and Hind, daughter of Yamin, the Jewess.[23]

And soon after Muhammad’s death two singing women appeared before Al-Muhajir, the Muslim governor of the Yemen.  One of them sang a song reviling Muhammad, and Al-Muhajir had her hand cut off and a front tooth pulled out.  Abu Bakr wrote to Al-Muhajir:

Now then: I have learned that you cut off the hand of a woman because she sang satirizing the Muslims, and that you pulled her front tooth.  If she was among those who claim (to have embraced) Islam, then (it is) good discipline and a reprimand, and not mutilation.[24]

So we can see that the command of Allah, the teachings and example of Muhammad, and the examples of the first “Rightly Guided” Caliph, make it permissible for Muslims to mutilate those who are still alive.  And the HAMAS jihadists did so.

Burning People Alive

There were many reports about finding burned bodies of civilians, some inside burned-down structures.  Were they intentionally burned to death?

According to the teachings and example of Muhammad, burning people alive is allowed.

Muhammad considered burning Muslims’ houses down around them to compel their attendance at congregational prayers:

It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘I was thinking of commanding that the call to prayer be given, then I would tell a man to lead the people in prayer, then I would go out with some other men carrying bundles of wood, and go to people who do not attend the prayer, and burn their houses down around them.’”[25]

In December 627 Muhammad…launched a raid against the tribe of al-Mustalaq and they fought back.  So he commanded to set fire to their fortifications all night long with the widespread knowledge that women and children were in there.[26]

In October 630, there was some resistance among the Muslims toward a military expedition Muhammad was planning against the Byzantines at Tabuk.  So Muhammad…heard that the hypocrites were assembling in the house of Suwaylim the Jew (his house was by Jasum) keeping men back from the apostle in the raid on Tabuk.  So the prophet sent Talha b. ‘Ubaydullah with a number of his friends to them with orders to burn Suwaylim’s house down on them.  Talha did so, and al-Dahhak b. Khalifa threw himself from the top of the house and broke his leg, and his friends rushed out and escaped.[27]

Muhammad’s example of being willing to burn people alive continued.  After Muhammad died, there were many Arab tribes that left Islam.  This resulted in the Wars of Apostasy (Riddah Wars) under Abu Bakr, the first of the four “Rightly Guided” Caliphs.  The commander of each army that Abu Bakr sent out had a letter to be read to the tribe before it was attacked.  The letter explained that if the tribe did not return to Islam, the army commander…will not spare any one of them he can gain mastery over, [but may] burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means…[28]

The commander of one of the Muslim armies was Khalid bin al-Walid. Here is a command that Abu Bakr gave to Khalid:

…kill them by every means, by fire or whatever else.[29]

And Abu Bakr gave Khalid a specific command when he sent him against the Bani Hanifah in Al-Yamamah:

Kill their wounded, seek out those of them who flee, put the captives among them to the sword and strike terror among them by killing and burn them by fire.  And I warn you against contradicting my orders. Peace (be upon you).[30]

Khalid took Abu Bakr’s admonitions to heart and was known for burning many captives alive.  Abu Bakr’s response to this was:

I shall not sheathe a sword that Allah had unsheathed against the ‘unbelievers.’[31]

Abu Bakr had even set the example when a captive who had fought against the Muslims was brought to him.  Abu Bakr…ordered a fire to be kindled with much firewood in the prayer yard (musalla) of Medina and threw him, with arms and legs bound, into it.[32]

The burning continued as ‘Ali, the fourth “Rightly Guided” Caliph, ordered some people to be burned alive for being hypocrites. A modern commentary explained this decision:

The people, who were burnt alive, were the followers of a Jew named ‘Abdullah bin Sabah.  They were hypocrites and they were involved in a heinous crime of preaching ‘Ali’s divinity, so ‘Ali giving a lesson for others, gave them such a severe punishment.[33]

And it is interesting to note that in 2015, the jihadist group ISIS burned alive a captured Jordanian Air Force pilot. Soon afterwards an article appeared in their online magazine Dabiq that included Koran verses, teachings of Muhammad, and examples of Muhammad’s companions to provide the Islamic doctrinal support for the burning alive of “the Jordanian crusader pilot.”[34]

Burning people alive is allowed by Islamic doctrine, and the Hamas jihadists were following that doctrine.

AUTHOR

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.


On to Part 3

In Part 3 we will examine the remaining atrocities.

[1]           Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, No. 22, pp. 21-22.

[2]           E.g.,; The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 355; Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, No. 2638, pp. 275-276; Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Vol. VIII, trans. and annotated Michael Fishbein (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1997), p. 142;      and Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Sa’d ibn Mani’ al-Zuhri al-Basri, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, 2 Volumes, trans. S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi, India: Kitab Bhavan, 2009), Vol. 2, p. 146.

[3]           E.g., The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), n. 738, p. 768, and n. 760, p. 770; The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 549; and Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 237.

[4]           Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, No. 2659, p. 528.

[5]           Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 1, p. 485.  The significance of Ibn Kathir’s statement lies in the fact that his commentaries are still considered authoritative today.  In the publisher’s comments in 2000 for the ten volume English translation of Ibn Kathir’s commentaries, it was pointed out that this collection is the most popular interpretation of the Qur’an in the Arabic language, and the majority of the Muslims consider it to be the best source based on Qur’an and Sunnah.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 1, p. 5.

[6]           Essay Regarding the Basic Rule of the Blood, Wealth and Honour of the Disbelievers, At-Tibyan Publications, August 22, 2004, p. 24.

[7]           Safiur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2008), p. 521.

[8]           Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Foundation of the Community, Vol. VII, trans. M. V. McDonald and annotated W. Montgomery Watt (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1987), p. 97.

[9]           1) A Muslim stabbed to death his pregnant female slave: Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 5, No. 4361, pp. 20-21; and Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman Ahmad bin Shu’aib bin ‘Ali bin Sinan bin Bahr An-Nasa’i, Sunan An-Nasa’i, trans. Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Vol. 5, No. 4075, pp. 66-67.  2) A Muslim strangled a Jewish woman: Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 5, No. 4362, p. 21.  3) A Muslim killed a man who said he did not believe in Islam and would never become a Muslim: The History of al-Tabari: The Foundation of the Community, pp. 149-150.

[10]         The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, p. 38.

[11]         The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 464.

[12]         Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, No. 2670, p. 296.  A variation of this, specifying pre-pubescent boys instead of children in general, was reported in Jami’ At-Tirmidhi:

Samurah bin Jundab narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: “Kill the elder men among the idolaters and spare the Sharkh among them.”

Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, No. 1583, p. 353.  The commentary for this hadith noted that “the Sharkh are the boys who did not begin to grow public hair.”

[13]         “Silent Cry, Sexual Crimes in the October 7 War,” The Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel, February 2024, p. 27, https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:f3c818f3-d9c2-4175-8459-4076c0714374.

[14]         Ibid., p. 30.

[15]         Sahih Muslim, Vol. 5, No. 1731R1, p. 163.  A second version of this hadith reported that Muhammad said, “…do not mutilate (the dead enemy)…”; see Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, No. 2613, p. 264.

[16]         Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 46, No. 2474, p. 380.

[17]         The Clarification Regarding Intentionally Targetting Women and Children, p. 52.

[18]         Sunan An-Nasa’i, Vol. 5, No. 4052, p. 56.

[19]         Ibid.

[20]         Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, p. 274.

[21]         Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 2, Commentary No. 2, p. 276.

[22]         The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 422.

[23]         Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir al-Baladhuri, The Origins of the Islamic State, Being a Translation from the Arabic, Accompanied with Annotations, Geographic and Historic Notes of the Kitab Fituh Al-Buldan of Al-Imam Abu-L Abbas Ahmad Ibn-Jabir Al-Baladhuri, trans. Philip Khuri Hitti (1916; rpt. Lexington, Kentucky: Ulan Press, 2014), p. 155.

[24]         Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Conquest of Arabia, Vol. X, trans. and annotated Fred M. Donner (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1993), pp. 191-192.

[25]         Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 1, No. 791, pp. 513-514.

[26]         The Al Qaeda Reader, trans. and ed. Raymond Ibrahim, (New York: Broadway Books, 2007), p. 167.

[27]         The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), n. 858, p. 782.

[28]         The History of al-Tabari: The Conquest of Arabia,  p. 57.

[29]         Ibid., p. 100.

[30]         Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab at-Tamimi, Abridged Biography of Prophet Muhammad, ed. ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Nasir Al-Barrak, ‘Abdul ‘Azeez bin ‘Abdullah Ar-Rajihi, and Muhammad Al-‘Ali Al-Barrak (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2003), p. 345.

[31]         The Origins of the Islamic State, p. 148.

[32]         The History of al-Tabari: The Conquest of Arabia, p. 80.

[33]         Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, Comments to Hadith No. 1458, p. 244.

[34]         See “The Burning of the Murtadd Pilot,” Dabiq, Issue 7, February 2015, p. 5, https://islamseries.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/dabiq-issue-7-february-2015.pdf.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Speaks About Release of Jeffrey Epstein’s Secret Grand Jury Testimony

In a Business Insider column titled “DeSantis signs law to release records that could explain why Jeffrey Epstein got minimal charges in Florida and  report,

  • Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bipartisan bill into law that unearth more Jeffrey Epstein records.
  • The law will allow for the release of records from a 2006 Florida grand jury.
  • Prosecutors allowed Epstein to plead guilty to only a single prostitution solicitation charge.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday signed a bipartisan bill into law that could finally answer the lingering questions about 2006 grand jury probe that charged Jeffrey Epstein with just one criminal count.

“This is long overdue, but, again, we feel that we just can’t turn a blind eye,” DeSantis said shortly before signing HB 117 into law at a ceremony in Palm Beach. The law goes into effect July 1.

A Palm Beach grand jury investigation, which resulted in just one criminal count, of prostitution solicitation, has long been at the center of controversy for allowing Epstein to escape accountability for raping and sexually abusing girls.

Prosecutors decided to bring just a single victim before the grand jury even though law enforcement had concluded that Epstein sexually abused more than 30 girls, according to Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown’s book “Perversion of Justice.” A compensation program established following Epstein’s death identified 136 of his victims. More recent litigation, against banks that were alleged to facilitate Epstein’s sex-trafficking, put the figure at closer to 200 victims.

Continue reading.

WATCH: Ron DeSantis speaks out on new law that will release Jeffrey Epstein grand jury testimony

©2024. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Second Tranche Of Jeffrey Epstein Court Documents Unsealed

Hunter And His Uncle Can’t Get Their Story Straight About Key Meeting With Joe Biden

James Biden’s Feb. 21 closed-door congressional testimony conflicted with testimonies given by both Hunter Biden and Tony Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter’s.

James Biden says a meeting between him, Hunter, Bobulinski and Joe Biden at a California hotel during the 2017 Milken Institute conference never occurred, according to a transcript of his February testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. Hunter Biden, however, attested that he, James, Bobulinski and his father did in fact meet at a hotel bar during his Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

Hunter Biden testified that he, Bobulinski and his uncle were drinking coffee in a hotel bar at 11 p.m. while waiting to meet with Joe Biden. Once Joe Biden arrived, he shook hands with Bobulinski, and the two spoke, according to Hunter’s testimony.

Hunter was unable to recall any details of the conversation between Bobulinski and his father beyond them talking about Bobulinski’s family member who was suffering from cancer.

Bobulinski claims to remember more details about the conversation.

Joe Biden met with the trio to discuss a business deal related to CEFC China Energy, a Chinese Communist Party-linked corporation, according to Bobulinski’s Feb. 13 testimony before the House Oversight Committee. Bobulinski said “the only reason I was there” was to talk business with the Bidens.

Joe Biden claimed in August 2023 he never “talked business” with Hunter’s associates.

James Biden, when asked about the alleged conversation with Joe Biden, said, “that I know did not happen.”

James Biden claimed that he “could have been there just with Tony Bobulinski” and that he “could have been there with Hunter as well” but that Joe Biden “was never there.”

James Biden previously denied having anything to do with Hunter’s CEFC China Energy dealings but changed his story when investigators presented him with a copy of an agreement featuring his signature alongside Hunter Biden and his business associates.

James Biden brushed off the possible reputational damage to his family over their Chinese business dealings, citing “plausible deniability,” according to Bobulinski’s testimony.

AUTHOR

ROBERT SCHMAD

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hunter Biden Said He Was ‘High Out Of’ His ‘Mind’ When He Threatened Chinese Business Associate, GOP Rep Says

Hunter Biden Insists He Never Would Have Dropped His Infamous Laptop At Repair Shop —The Problem? There Are Receipts

‘No That’s Not True!’: Sunny Hostin Tries To Interrupt Co-Host As She Defends Trump’s Border Policies

Take A Look At Mika And Joe’s Faces As Their Heads Pretty Much Explode Over Trump’s Border Speech

RELATED VIDEO: Sean Hannity: How was Hunter Biden’s business in line with his experience?

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.