Santorum Just Can't Stop Lying
POSTED BY: Kwicko
UPDATED: Thursday, April 5, 2012 00:29
VIEWED: 2501
PAGE 1 of 3
Quote:
On the stump in Wisconsin on April 2, 2012, the Republican presidential candidate filled in his audience on something he was "just reading … last night."
"I think it’s seven or eight of the California system of universities don’t even teach an American history course. It’s not even available to be taught," he said. "Just to tell you how bad it's gotten in this country, where we're trying to disconnect the American people from the roots of who we are, so they have an understanding of what America should be."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/03/rick-sa
ntorum/rick-santorum-says-american-history-not-available-/
Quote:
California has a two-tiered university system, with 23 campuses in the California State University system and 10 University of California campuses.
All 23 CSU campuses offer courses on U.S. History, the Constitution and American ideals, said Erik Fallis, media relations manager for the California State University — indeed, almost every student needs such a class (or two) to graduate.
The story is slightly different at the University of California, which also has an American history and institutions requirement. The graduation requirement can be satisfied with a high school class, except at UC Santa Barbara, which requires a college-level course.
Does that mean the campuses don’t offer American history courses? Not at all.
Of the nine University of California campuses that offer humanities classes — the San Francisco campus focuses exclusively on health sciences — all nine offer American history.
Do those classes get to "the roots of who we are," as Santorum said?
Well, among the offerings at UC Davis is "The American Revolution, 1763-1790." UC Riverside teaches upper-division courses on "Revolutionary America" and "The Early Republic: The United States, 1789-1848." UC Santa Cruz includes a course on the "U.S. Revolution: 1740-1815." UC Berkeley addresses, "The United States from Settlement to Civil War." UCLA has "History of the U.S. and Its Colonial Origins: 19th Century" and "Constitutional History of U.S.: Origins and Development of Constitutionalism in U.S."
Bottom line, of 33 state universities in California, just one, a health sciences campus, doesn’t teach American history — and nearly all graduates have to complete a related course to graduate, whether in high school or college.
What was Santorum talking about?
Santorum’s reading
We contacted Santorum’s campaign to ask for support for his claim but didn’t hear back.
So we tried tracing his reading material ourselves.
Eric Dolan, an editor for progressive news site Raw Story, noted that Santorum appeared to be making a reference to a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, "How California's Colleges Indoctrinate Students."
The March 30, 2012, column by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz argues that higher education is politicized and declining in quality as its curriculum changes.
He notes: "None of the nine general campuses in the UC system requires students to study the history and institutions of the United States. None requires students to study Western civilization, and on seven of the nine UC campuses, including Berkeley, a survey course in Western civilization is not even offered."
Berkowitz is right that most University of California campuses don’t require a college-level course, with the exception of Santa Barbara — though they do require at least a high-school level class.
We didn’t check on class offerings in Western civilization, since that’s not what Santorum said.
Berkowitz also cites a recent report, called "A Crisis of Competence," from the National Association of Scholars, where he’s on the board of directors. It mentions that "the vast majority of our colleges have made a course on the broad themes of U.S. history or government optional."
Then it points oNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gee, what a surprise! Ever since the Netherlands thing, I have absolutely no expectation that anything out of Romney's mouth will EVER be the truth. Makes it easier that way.
When his mouthpiece was asked about that Netherlands bullshit, she kept saying something along the lines of "Mitt is very serious about right to life", or something similar. She never ONCE addressed the reporter asking the questions about the fact that every fucking word out of Romney's mouth on the matter was a bald-faced lie.
Well, smile, he's Mitt...
(and hey, they BUY it...I will never forget the gasps and sounds of shock and disgust as he spun his little Netherlands fantasy, and I wonder how many of the people in that audience still believe it's the truth? I guess whatever works...)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of course, it's " lying " when a Republican is wrong. It's " misspeaking " when a Democrat does it.
Got it.
Point of fact, Obama lied multiple times the other day, when he made his bizarre comment on the USSC and the ruling on ObamaCare.
He said there's no precedent for the USSC over turning a law of Congress. It actually happens all the time.
He said Obama Care passed with a " strong majority ". No, it didn't. It passed the House by only 7 votes.
And the fact is, it doesn't matter if the laws passed 435 and 100 to zero! If the courts rule a law unconstitutional, then guess what? It is !
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Supreme Court has not struck down the central provision of a landmark federal statute since the 30's. So the court doing so now would be against eighty years of precedent.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The Supreme Court has not struck down the central provision of a landmark federal statute since the 30's. So the court doing so now would be against eighty years of precedent.
That's not what first Obama said. He said strike down a law which was passed with a strong majority.
The court has struck down many laws.
There was no 'strong majority' in O-Care's passing, and it's immaterial on how wide or narrow that the vote even was.
But I guess the lesson here is, if you don't want the USSC to strike down a " central provision in a landmark federal statute" , then don't use every arm twisting , dirty back door deal in the book to ram one through, against the will of the people's wishes in the first place !
* Note to everyone* - Do not believe Anthony. He does not know what he thinks he knows on matters concerning of what I think or believe.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If "strong majority" does not matter why bring it up? Of course the law did pass with 60 votes in the Senate.
Yes, the court has overturned federal laws in the last eighty years, but not large pieces of legislation such as this.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
If "strong majority" does not matter why bring it up? Of course the law did pass with 60 votes in the Senate.
Ask Obama why he brought it up.
And it only passed by 12 votes , out of 435 , in the House.
Quote:
Yes, the court has overturned federal laws in the last eighty years, but not large pieces of legislation such as this.
The size of the law is immaterial. That's not ( or should not ) be a concern for the court. Regardless of Obama's heavy handed intervention and attempt to influence the courts decision, it should still rule on the merits and the RULE OF LAW, not to the myopic appeals of one egocentric President.
* Note to everyone* - Do not believe Anthony. He does not know what he thinks he knows on matters concerning of what I think or believe.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The size of the law is immaterial. That's not ( or should not ) be a concern for the court. Regardless of Obama's heavy handed intervention and attempt to influence the courts decision, it should still rule on the merits and the RULE OF LAW, not to the myopic appeals of one egocentric President.
It is not immaterial, and yes the court will judge it on the rule of law. That being said it would still go agaist modern precidence if the court struck it down.
Having trouble understanding words again I see.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As usual, Rappy has nothing of substance to offer on the subject of the thread.
SOP for the GOP.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME