This bill doesn’t ask schools to teach students what happened on January 6. It tells students what they’re allowed to think about it.

It locks in one narrative and treats any and all facts outside that as if it’s automatically wrong or off-limits, even if you just wanted to look at it from different angles in class.

That’s not education, that’s trying to script the narrative and shut the door on any other perspective and facts.

And for civics and history, that’s the exact opposite of what we’re supposed to be doing. Students should be learning how to dig into sources, weigh evidence, and see why people have differing views over events like this, not memorize a propagandist driven and approved conclusion that benefits Democrats.

Once you start writing the “right answer” into law, you turn a political fight into dogma and dare future politicians to do the same on every other hot topic.

Using the curriculum like that, as a blunt political tool instead of a space for honest inquiry, is a huge red flag and a solid reason this bill should be rejected. As should such narratives, miseducation itself.

A once useful source of breaking news headlines that has since devolved into pushing narratives in favor of Democrats. In short, it is not a trustworthy news source.

Democrats hold nothing but utter disrespect towards conservatives and all citizens on the right. Democrats' disrespect for them comes from a place of elitism.

Corporation for Propaganda Broadcasting.

Narrative Promotion Radio

Propaganda Broadcasting Service

Wikipedia exhibits a clear liberal bias that affects its content. This bias arises from the editorial practices that reinforce them. As a result, conservative or even mildly right-leaning viewpoints are often disallowed, and many topics are framed in a way that leans excessively (if not solely) towards liberal perspectives, despite the platform's claim to be open.

The reliance on specific sources with inherent biases further amplifies this issue, as those sources are often chosen to support particular ideological viewpoints on Wikipedia.

Overall, users should be cautious and critical of the information on Wikipedia, as certain topics may not present a fair representation of all viewpoints. do not represent factuality, and do reflect bias and steering.

Again and again, Tseng shows his complete ignorance of everything cultural and political. Which is typical of NYC progressives. They project their own ignorance and low information state on to everyone else. So much so, that their create these delusional characterizations of others to preserve their and their city's ego and self-importance.

The people they critique are far more informed and in tune than they could ever be. The progressive, especially NYC progressives, latch on to whatever stance their corporate-owned media tells them to. It's only when they do research do they move to the right. There are endless examples of this occurrence of shifting views once a progressive is exposed to wider facts.

These signs were purposefully left up for a week. Despite all the reports, it is evident that individuals with the NYC's Department of Sanitation approved of dehumanizing individuals and even Christians. Not surprising coming from a city of falsehoods built on garbage dumps. NYC is the trash heap, literally. Not the people who vote for Republicans.

Putting aside AFP's dishonest "fact checks" on factual claims by Ian Miles Cheong, critics express that AFP has been spreading disinformation off and on for well over a century.

Rumours.. AKA misinformation

The fact is that data will not be removed from the CDC website.

Implying Intent Behind the Data Removals:

The article suggests that data is being removed due to executive orders from President Trump, particularly related to "gender and diversity." However, the Trump administration has not explicitly stated it would remove such data. The article frames these removals as intentional and politically motivated without providing concrete evidence or official statements, implying a political agenda when the true reasons for the removals remain unclear. Language Choices:

The term “willy-nilly” describes the removal of pages, portraying the action as reckless or careless. This informal language casts the actions in a negative light without offering justification for the removals. Similarly, describing researchers’ actions as “scrambling” implies a crisis, which could exaggerate the situation. Framing of Researchers’ Actions:

The article highlights researchers working to back up and preserve data, presenting their efforts as central to the story. This framing focuses on their actions without exploring any broader context or complexities, giving the impression of a singular focus on their role. Lack of Diverse Perspectives:

The article mainly features voices critical of the data removals, primarily scientists and attorneys advocating for public access. This selective representation limits a full understanding of the situation, reinforcing a biased narrative without exploring other angles.

The best social media site on the internet.

Wikipedia exhibits a clear liberal bias that affects its content. This bias arises from the editorial practices that reinforce them. As a result, conservative or even mildly right-leaning viewpoints are often disallowed, and many topics are framed in a way that leans excessively (if not solely) towards liberal perspectives, despite the platform's claim to be open.

The reliance on specific sources with inherent biases further amplifies this issue, as those sources are often chosen to support particular ideological viewpoints on Wikipedia.

Overall, users should be cautious and critical of the information on Wikipedia, as certain topics may not present a fair representation of all viewpoints. do not represent factuality, and do reflect bias and steering.