Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds: The Feds’ Coming War Against Homeschoolers

Welcome to our fourth episode of Probable Cause. Our topic for this episode is homeschooling. We will be discussing homeschooling as a major step towards independent and critical thinking, and of course, by doing so, challenging the system. I’ll be talking about how and why the government sees this ever-increasing trend, homeschooling, as a major threat, and various tactics and attack scenarios that will be implemented by the feds in its war against American homeschoolers. We will also identify various steps and activities that can be taken by homeschooler communities to preempt the coming federal government’s war against them.

As previously, I will be providing my take based on what I have been observing, through my own personal lens, reasoning and analyses, and will pose questions for you to consider. And as usual our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here , here , and here.

Listen to the full episode here:

A Few Related Links

Keep it in the Family

What is Homeschooling?

Home Schooling - History, Legal Background, Legal Trends, Effects, Future Implications

Research Facts on Homeschooling

Do home-schoolers do better in college than traditional students?


SUBSCRIBE

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds: Libertarians- The Likely Kindling Point of the Coming Revolution?

Welcome to our third experimental episode of Probable Cause. I want to thank all of you who joined our interactive discussion in our previous two episodes. For this episode I am going to share with you my responses to the questions posed during our first episode: Do you believe we will have some sort of revolution here in the United States in the near future? If so, in your opinion, where will it come from? Which segment of our population do you see likely to revolt?

I will be providing my answers based on what I have been observing, through my own personal lens, and based on my very own experiences, views, reasoning and analyses. And as usual our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here and here.

Listen to the full episode here:

A Few Related Links

Libertarians Are Not the Tea Party

How the Religious Right and the Libertarians buried the hatchet

Unfashionable Outreach: Libertarians and the Christian Right

Tea Party

Evangelicals and Tea Party Overlap in Congress, Public

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

Homeschoolers: A Snapshot

SUBSCRIBE

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds: Uniting for a Revolution … and the Morning After

Welcome to our second experimental episode of Probable Cause. On this episode we will be delving deeper into our previous topic: clarifying which meaning of the word revolution we are basing this discussion on, using the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as an example and context to illustrate why revolution is not an end unto itself, discussing the upsides and pitfalls of uniting for a revolution both in the short and long term, and much more!

In our previous episode I provided a very brief account of my own direct experience with the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For this episode I will get down and dirty with more details and highly personal experiences, and challenge the USA version of the Iranian Revolution. I’ll talk about the Iranian dissenters during the Shah Regime: the intellectual elites, the workers’ movement, the nationalists, the centrists, and the ultra-religious right. I will tell you how the dissent went from simmering to percolating and boiling, and then reaching the point of radical revolution, and how and why differences were put aside for the common goal during the initial stage. And finally, I will give you the account of what took place the morning after … immediately after the initial objective was fulfilled-the regime change. Get ready, you will be listening to a version that is vastly different from the Hollywood movies and hostage-taking news footage and videos shoved-down your throat by the US media.

We will revisit our previous questions, and then some more. Just like last time, our next episode will be based on your reaction, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episode click here

Listen to the full episode here:

SUBSCRIBE

Where will the revolution in the USA come from … assuming it will ever come?

Welcome to our first experimental episode of Probable Cause. Our first few podcast episodes will explore different ideas and formats in order to determine how we can make this new podcast series interactive and spontaneous.

On this episode, after a brief introduction and discussion of the objectives behind this new show, we will delve right into our first topic: the likelihood of a revolution here in the United States, identifying (or predicting) the political segment(s) of our population most likely to revolt.

We will also discuss the general notion of revolution and the importance of not viewing a revolution as an end unto itself, together with my own direct experience with the 1979 Iranian revolution.

This episode is only the beginning of our interactive debate and discussion of this particular topic. We have several important questions for you, and our next episode will be based on your responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

Listen to the full episode here:

SUBSCRIBE

Let’s Talk about VUI: Voting Under the Influence

Revisiting ‘The Lesser of Two Evils’ Mentality

The real face of our two-party but one-establishment system of politics seems to have made a rare appearance again with Obama’s speech last Tuesday. That is, to those among the wannabe gullible majority, since a small fraction have known this true face for a while. The good news is that finally we are seeing a significant number of apologists who are coming to the realization of being taken for a ride during this last election. The not so good news has to do with the depth of this new realization, thus the extreme vulnerability of being misdirected and exploited again, over and over, as has been done for decades.

ObamaSpeechArticleLast May I put forth a discussion topic on the issue of casting votes based on the ‘lesser of two evils’ decision-making process. Here are the questions I posed back then, which I am posing again now that we have more people waking up to smell their new Whitehouse Roses:

“Don’t you consider this, at least to a degree, to be acceptance of ‘no hope for real change’ when it matters the most, during elections? First, to readily accept that we are limited to only choices that have been declared as viable by the same MSM and establishment we seek to change. Second, to helplessly adopt a mindset that says evilness is an inevitable prerequisite for viable candidates.”

Then this on the fallacy of justifying one’s choice-making process based on the ‘degree of evilness’:

“When it comes to ‘evilness,’ there is no reliable standard of measurement. Let’s say, for example, that the pre-selected options are: Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain. How do you measure their degree of ‘evilness?’ For arguments sake, let’s say there is a ‘standard of evilness’ measurement, and when applied to these candidates you get the following data: on a scale of ‘0 to 100’ on the evilness measurement index (‘100’ being absolute evil, ‘0’ being no evil qualities), McCain ranks 98, Clinton 96, and Obama 94. Based on this do people feel justified in voting for the lesser of the given three, even though that candidate still ranks extremely high in ‘evilness’? I’m just asking. I really want to get your take on this.”

Many referred to the previous administration’s figureheads as evil; many of us would find that aptly put and easily justified. After all, they sanctioned torture practices, extraordinary rendition, and world-wide assassinations; they took away civil liberties and put in place police practices ironically named the Patriot Act; they increased secrecy and decreased (ceased) accountability; they established untouchability and granted themselves immunity fit for kings, such as the State Secrets Privilege invocations; they spied on and illegally wiretapped Americans with no cause or oversight; they lied and engaged in preemptive wars … [Read more...]