How many times have I written that "we are winning?" Here is an article from Newsweek touting the immediate future for American Exceptionalism and its inclusion in our new school textbooks . . . . . . while the guy who hates the concept is still President !!!

The company behind Advanced Placement courses for U.S. high school students will release a revision to the standards for AP U.S. history on Thursday morning, after significant pushback from conservatives who claimed the redesigned course framework, released last year, painted American history in too negative a light.

The new framework significantly pares down last year’s framework, simplifying and condensing the course’s Thematic Learning Objectives from 50 to 19, according to an official at the College Board, the nonprofit organization that administers AP exams. In the process, a new section on the concept of “American exceptionalism” has been added. Some names that were omitted from last year’s framework, such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, have been added—a key sticking point for critics of the prior document, who objected to Founding Fathers being omitted and negative aspects in American history being more emphasized, they claimed, than positive periods. Ben Carson, a GOP presidential candidate, said the curriculum was so anti-American that students who complete it would be “ready to sign up for ISIS.”

The revised framework will be effective immediately, and doesn’t require a change in any textbooks, according to the College Board. High school classes in many parts of the country begin in three weeks. Teachers Newsweek spoke with say that AP tests are typically written a year in advance, and said they expected the test will be reviewed in light of the changes. According to College Board, however, the test has not yet been written.

Source:  Newsweek

Utopian political fantasies and American Exceptionalism put into existential (real) context:

40 share

One of my blog opponents,  asked this question:  What is your major opposition to world peace and unity? Is it that you have a need to feel superior over peoples of different ethnicities, cultures?

I thought it a good idea to give my answer in this particular post:  

From the Editor:  

[evil] World peace in the absence of military might is impossible, and, as such, a feckless imagination. "Unity" as you frame it, is the loss of national sovereignty and self determination.

The doctrine of national or American Exceptionalism is grossly and intentionally misrepresented, in the Progressive, "Its not fair," camp of academics. The fact of the matter is this: no country has ever had the very beginnings its governmental system, evolve from thoughtful debate, careful planning and compromise . . . . . . . . none.

The Doctrine of National Exceptionalism has nothing to do with "we are better than all others." Rather, it is about being the very best we can be, of and within ourselves, as a nation. While there is a competitive aspect to the existential reality, it has never been about putting down others are making the same effort.

It is your side that voted in, gradeless reports at Stanford, an academic effort that failed and miserably so. In reality,  this academic experiment was a put-down of those who were successful,  by comparison.   

It is your side that gives trophies to all, and awards even the most minimal of effort.  Again,  a failed social experiment that punished those who were and are successful in their given endeavor.   

And it is your side of the aisle that is surrendering our place, as THE balance of power in an evil world, all out of an idiotic sense of faux fairness and perennial pandering to those who hate America without good reason.

More than this, your question assumes a white bias on my part despite the fact that it is your side that invented slavery and ethnic bias.  I and millions of folks I represent, do not despise other ethnicities; we oppose the blatant and partisan stupidity of any political move that seeks to divest this nation of its successfully crafted foundations.  It is not blacks or Hispanics we “hate,’  it is collectivists and angry social reformers we cannot bear. 

And more questions?

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison criticizes the Obama Department of Defence for a wasteful transformation of our international military presence.

Senator Bailey does not use the language, but she is complaining against the Obama agenda of "taking down" an arrogant national mystic, in this case, effecting our international military presence.

Opening words in a Politico Op-ed by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (S-Tx): For the future security posture of U.S. military forces and for the fiscal health of our nation, our military construction agenda should be guided by these words: build in America.

At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military determined that our armed forces would be best trained and equipped for service when stationed on U.S. soil. Thus, our military adopted a “force projection” strategy that allows service members to deploy from home, rather than being based primarily overseas.

The Overseas Basing Commission reaffirmed the force projection strategy in 2005. It lauded the insights and vision behind Defense Department initiatives to transform the military and re-station tens of thousands of military personnel back on U.S. soil. Congress has legislated and appropriated accordingly.

We’ve now invested more than $14 billion to build housing, stationing, training and deployment capacities at major military installations. Deployment of U.S. forces from Germany to Iraq, for example, was complicated by denials of air and ground routes through several European countries. We have proved we can best deploy from the United States — and we can do it more cost effectively.

However, the DoD’s current military construction proposal would set in motion a worldwide transformation of U.S. basing that would expand our overseas presence. DoD is pursuing expensive, and in some cases duplicative, military construction projects in Europe, South Korea and Guam, without demonstrating adequate cost efficiencies, projected costs or a broader basing strategy.

This shift in global posture fundamentally disconnects with stateside basing capabilities and reverses the Overseas Basing Commission’s recommendations. . . . . READ MORE >>>

Editor's notes: what we have in this op-ed is an informative complaint by the Senator concerning continued excessive spending originating from the Obama administration. Anytime you see or hear the word "transformation, " you must know that we are talking about the Obama agenda of "fundamentally transforming the United States." He is committed to a One World agenda on the larger scale and a redistribution of wealth and services on a national scale that is identical in nature to the theft of hard earned income and innovative investments and a consequential welfare style handout of that money to those who have not otherwise qualified themselves to meet their financial needs and wants.

Hutchison is complaining that this agenda has affected military outlays and plans, as well. It is obvious from her testimony that the Obama One World Concern is making preparations for our national army to become a part of a larger international force. Of course, this transition will take a number of years, but the beginnings of this Marxist agenda is being implemented as we write. Secretary of Defense, Gates, a throw back from the Bush Administration, is an enthusiastic member of this World One military transition.

The article is well worth the read. As far as Senator Hutchison is concerned, the debate is not just about the untimely expense of money (we do not have) but the military readiness of the US Military in response to future international crisis. She is concerned that we are not only spending money we do not have, we are placing our military into an international circumstance that does not care about the particular concerns of its individual member nations, and most definitely the United States. Obama and his yes-men do not believe in a "superior" US national military force. They are disbelievers in the doctrine of American Exceptionalism and, more than that, are busy working to diminish the reality of that doctrine. With this op-ed, it is clear that the move to transform America into a third rate world power effects all phases of our national politic.

Besides being the worst thing to ever happen to the Democrat Party, Obama is proving to be an unmitigated disaster with regard to our nation, beginning with our military presence in the World -- jds.
.