“Large And In Charge” Michelle Obama Is Demanding To Weigh Your Toddlers In Daycare

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

michelle_butt

 

Who the hell died and put Moochelle in charge of our kid’s snack time?

Well, as the saying goes, she’s Large And In Charge. And if your kid is too fat, she wants to know.

Bureaucrats from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will weigh and measure children in daycare as part of a study mandated by First Lady Michelle Obama’s Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.

The agency published a notice in the Federal Register on Friday proposing data collection on what meals are served in professional and home daycare facilities and how much physical activity children perform.

“Children will be asked to cooperate with study staff who will weigh and measure them for the Standing Height and Weight Form,” the notice said.

The study is required by section 223 of Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by Mrs. Obama and passed in 2010. The main aspect of the law implemented new standards for school lunches.

A lesser-known requirement of the law is the “Study on Nutrition and Wellness Quality in Childcare Settings (SNAQCS),” which the USDA announced Friday. The public will have 60 days to comment.

The USDA said the data collection is important since more than 30 million kids are in daycare.

Privacy? Yeah, you don’t have that.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Choices? You don’t have those either.

But, nagging? For sure. Because your kid will eat what Moochelle tells her to eat. And nothing else.

I don’t remember seeing this sociopathic control freak on my election ballot. How about you? The fact that she is monitoring our children, and then creating regulations governing what we feed them? Well, that’s how I spell FASCISM.

If she wants to micromanage her own kids’ meals? Not my concern.

And if people want to voluntarily submit to her tyranny? Well, there’s apparently no law against stupidity.

But I’ll be damned if I let an unelected busybody dictate what my daughter is allowed to eat.

Michelle Obama needs to go back to tending her White House vegetable garden.

Oh, excuse me, Michelle Obama needs to go back to asking Juan and Miguel and Esmerelda to tend her White House vegetable garden. And it might be nice if she forced her own little princesses to eat the crap she’s foisting on our kids.

Fat chance of that. Do as Her Majesty says, not as she does. And of course she gets to eat cake.

.

.

Share

Mandatory Voting? An Idea So Dumb Only Obama Could Propose It

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Obama Dunce CapYou know where they have Mandatory Voting? Cuba. Iran. The old Soviet Union.

Obama’s kind of places, for sure. Because the party in power always “wins,” with 99.9% of the “vote.”

So it comes as no surprise he’s floating the same compulsion here.

They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier for people to vote.

How much easier can it be? You register. You show up. You vote.

Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

I did not know that Australia was fascist. You learn something new every day. Remind me not to move there.

“If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country,” Obama said, calling it “potentially transformative.” Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would “counteract money more than anything.”

Because we need more uninformed nincompoops deciding the outcome of what’ll essentially devolve into a beauty contest.

Freedom means the right to abstain from action, including voting. We don’t have a “none of the above” option on our ballots. So boycotting the polls on election day is the next best thing. You’d think a Constitutional Scholar would grasp that concept.

You’d be wrong. The only thing Obama wants to do with the constitution is shred it.

But he’s got that “change the political map” thing right. So you gotta give him points for chutzpah. Dragging all those apathetic slackers out of mom’s basement and welfare queens out of their nail salons on election day will undoubtedly serve the interests of the Party of Government, ie the Democrats. People who work for a living already vote. It’s consumers of government who sit on the sidelines, content to wallow in their government cheese.

They just sort of assume the gravy train will roll on unabated. It must’ve really burned President Jarrett’s shorts when that assumption didn’t work out last November.

Not to mention that his “counteract money” line is mendaciously disingenuous coming from a guy who raised and spent more than a billion dollars on each of two presidential campaigns, mainly from untraceable foreign sources.

By the by, who spends the most on our elections? Liberal interest groups funded by the likes of George Soros and Tom Steyer. I’ll bet Dear Leader “forgot” to mention that. And of course the public employee unions, who can’t spell Republican let alone vote for one.

Mandatory voting? It’s an idea so dumb, so antithetical to the Founding Fathers’ notions of Liberty and personal responsibility, that only a power-mad narcissistic megalomaniac could embrace it.

Which of course means that Maxine Waters or Bernie Sanders has already put forth the requisite constitutional amendment requiring it.

.

.

Share

Obama’s EPA Is At It Again: “If You Like Your Barbecue Grill, You Can Keep Your Barbecue Grill”

Share

Stop.the_.EPA_-300x192

 

First they “suggested” that we go vegan to Save The Planet.

Now Obama’s storm troopers are going to regulate our backyard barbecues using the Clean Air Act.

The Environmental Protection Agency has its eyes on pollution from backyard barbecues.

The agency announced that it is funding a University of California project to limit emissions resulting in grease drippings with a special tray to catch them and a “catalytic” filtration system.

The $15,000 project has the “potential for global application,” said the school.

The school said that the technology they will study with the EPA grant is intended to reduce air pollution and cut the health hazards to BBQ “pit masters” from propane-fueled cookers.

Charged with keeping America’s air, water and soil clean, the EPA has been increasingly looking at homeowners, especially their use of pollution emitting tools like lawn mowers.

Get ready for the denials.

If you like your barbecue, you can keep your barbecue.. Like we’re gonna fall for that one again, right?

02-grill-girlThe EPA has already effectively outlawed wood burning stoves.

And we all know what they’ve done to destroy the coal industry in this country.

So using the same rules to regulate barbecues like mine is the logical next step.

Here’s their first proposal:

The school is proposing two fixes to reduce emissions from barbecues. First, they want to cut back on grease flare-ups. The idea: “A slotted and corrugated tray is inserted immediately prior to meat flipping, and removed immediately after. This short contact time prevents the tray from over-heating and volatilizing the collected grease. This collected grease will then drip off into a collection tray and can be used at the pit master’s discretion.”

But it’s the second phase that really shows how nuts these EPA clowns are:

But, total capture isn’t “practical,” so a filter and fan are proposed for installation. “The secondary air filtration system is composed of a single pipe duct system which contains a specialized metal filter, a metal fan blade, a drive shaft, and an accompanying power system with either a motorized or manual method. This system can be powered by either an exterior electric motor with a chain-driven drive shaft, directly spinning the fan blade, or a hand-powered crank,” said the project write-up.

Good freaking grief!

Can you imagine anything so ridiculous? A smokestack and soot scrubbers encasing your backyard grill?

Yeah, that won’t be expensive! Or cumbersome. Not to mention, batshit insane.

smokestack-diagram_0
Typical EPA-approved smokestack scrubber setup. Substitute “your grill” for “wet scrubber” and you’ll get an idea of where they’re going with this.

 

 

Can you imagine cooking ribs inside that contraption?

The Obamunists have got to be stopped. Now. Before they mess with our grilled meat.

.

.

Share

City in Idaho Threatens to Arrest Christian Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex “Weddings”

Share

gay pride flag

Houston’s homofascist lesbian mayor has a kindred spirit in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. And that means yet another assault on religious liberty.

Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to $1,000 in fines, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, two ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.

“Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,” attorney Jeremy Tedesco told me. “The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.”

The wedding chapel is registered as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

However, the chapel is also a for-profit business and city officials said that means the owners must comply with the local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed in 2013, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.

City Attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review in May that the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel likely would be required to follow the ordinance.

“I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance,” he said.

He also told television station KXLY that any wedding chapel that turns away a gay couple would in theory be a violation of the law “and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.”

Wilson confirmed to Knapp in a telephone conversation that even ordained ministers would be required to perform same-sex weddings, the lawsuit alleges.

“Wilson also responded that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from the ordinance because the Hitching Post was a business and not a church,” the lawsuit states.

And if he refused to perform the ceremonies, Wilson reportedly told the minister that he could be fined up to $1,000 and serve up to 180 days in jail.

Remember when Liberty meant something?

Liberals love to harp on the “separation of church and state” when it suits their (often nefarious) purposes. No religion in the public square! Unless it’s a Christian minister ordered at gunpoint to perform a same-sex “wedding.” Then, party on dudes!

The state will compel you to sin. The state will compel you to celebrate sin.

And they’ll subpoena your sermons if they think you’re complaining about that.

This is not America. We were a nation founded by people seeking religious freedom, people who fled government oppression of their beliefs and rites. They came to these shores to be left alone, to be free from persecution.

Now the government they created to guarantee their freedom has become the oppressor, cloaking its thuggery in the guise of “equality.” The homofascists use that word, but it does not mean what they think it means. This new tyranny is the antithesis of the Founders vision. And its goal is to ensure that every last vestige of religious liberty is eradicated, because homosexuals believe they are “more equal” than anyone else.

.

.

.

Share

Change, Intervention, and Dependency

Share

The concept of the government “solving” all the problems of the world has crept into our society over time. With every new program, every new entitlement, the public has  gradually become accustomed to the government solving the ills of the world. And what of fact that the government seemed to make all of these problems worse? Well, that’s neglected. After all, the government is taking care of it-I don’t have to worry about it, right?

Starting with the “progressive” movement in the late 19th century and accelerating greatly since the great depression, the government has vastly increased it’s meddling in human affairs.  Ignoring the Constitutional limits on its power, the government has expanded its powers and influence to impact everyone’s life, many times, with negative results.  This begs the question; does it really work?

While going over every government intervention would require writing a book, it might be prudent to to take an in-depth look at one: public education.

Since 1970, per pupil cost of public education, according to investors.com

Far from being an engine of wealth creation, the education system is bleeding the economy to death. The U.S. spends 2.3 times as much per pupil in real, inflation-adjusted dollars as it spent in 1970, but the return on this ballooning investment has been less than nothing.

And what is that return?  First, let’s take a look at some results of public education over time.  Here is the graduation rates in the Us, by state, in 1990.

Next, here are the same figures for 2006

So, all this extra money, and graduation rates continue to drop?

Next, let’s take a look at how much different states spend on education.  The next image is from the census bureau.

Then from the same report

Utah spent the least per student ($5,257), followed by Arizona ($6,261), Idaho ($6,283), Mississippi ($6,575) and Oklahoma ($6,613). All 10 of the states with the lowest spending per student were in the West or South.

So, what are the results of this huge disparity?

Recent studies reinforce the disconnect between spending and achievement. For example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) “Report Card on American Education, a State-by-State Analysis 1976– 2000” concluded that “it is clear after studying the data and results that the policies of the past have failed to meet the educational needs of our country’s children. If we continue to spend more money on the existing educational system in an attempt to buy our way to better student achievement, we will condemn another generation of students to mediocrity.” The ALEC study showed no correlation between conventional measures of educational inputs (such as expenditures per pupil and teacher salaries) and educational outputs (such as scores on standardized tests). Simply stated, increased funding does not translate into improved achievement.

An analysis of per-pupil expenditures on a state-by-state basis is illuminating. For example, in the 1998–99 school year, Utah spent $3,807 per pupil whereas Maryland spent $7,059. There is little evidence to suggest that equalizing resources between the two states would equalize achievement. In the 1998 NAEP, 31 percent of eighth graders in both Utah and Maryland scored at proficient or better in reading, despite the large discrepancy in per-pupil expenditures. Also, based on several standardized tests, the ALEC report rated Iowa (ranked 32d in per-pupil expenditures) as having the top-performing public elementary and secondary schools in the nation, followed by Minnesota (14th in spending) and Wisconsin (9th). At the bottom of the achievement ratings were Mississippi (50th in spending), the District of Columbia (5th), and Louisiana (39th).

Expenditures per student have increased over time, and the distribution of the expenditures has been according to popular emphasis: The level of teacher education has increased, teacher experience has increased, and student-teacher ratios have fallen. But the desired outcome—student achievement—has remained flat.

So two of the sacred cows of education do not stand up to scrutiny.  Namely, class size and expenditures.  Both are mantras of the left, yet neither have any statistical relevance to graduation rate.  In simple terms, they have NO IMPACT AT ALL!  This however, does not dissuade the left from raising them as issues at any time educational funding is discussed.

This is just one example.  There are so many more.  For example, the government has run social (in)security into the ground. It’s a ponzi scheme anyway-one that makes Mr. Madoff look like a rank amateur.

They created the fraud and waste infested Medicare and Medicaid programs.  They’ve had 40 years to stop the (now, hundreds of) billions of dollars in yearly fraud and waste, with no meaningful results.

They were negligent over obvious warnings and caused the great recession with the CRA and by ignoring all of the warning signs that Fannie and Freddie were about to implode.  Instead, at the time, they attacked those releasing the warnings. They now deny their involvement, and instead blame the administration that released multiple warnings over the course of several years.  Ironically, the very warnings they ignored.

Even the Post Office is failing!  Not a good track record, yet the American people continue to accept these programs, and many ask for more.  Based on their record, they’re going to do a great job with health care, right?

As previously stated, as all of these programs are enacted, the people become comfortable with the concept of the government addressing social problems and issues, no matter how badly government performs.  But, there is a second, perhaps more damaging aspect to this; that government assistance creates dependency that allows for influence.  To illustrate this, let’s go back to the education example.  The public school districts obtain most of their funding either locally, or at the state level (note that this varies greatly by state).  However, the federal assistance they receive, as well as the federal funds the states receive, if removed, would cause a “crisis” in the schools.  They have become dependent on these funds to provide the services that they have established.  Any threat to that funding therefore creates a reaction from the benefiting organization.

It is helpful to remember that the first priority of any bureaucracy is self-maintenance.  The stated purpose or task of a bureaucracy is secondary, and is only done to the extent that the primary goal is met.  When the primary goal is threatened, there is an immediate reaction.  Even surviving at a diminished scale is not acceptable.  Protests will be organized, politicians will be lobbied, children & seniors will be exploited, and rent-a-mob will be paid, all in order to maintain the status quo (and influence/power!), even if that status quo is dysfunctional, or even destructive.

In this situation, government is in the position to issue mandates to states, communities, and organizations in order to receive government funding.  Government can use its checkbook as a means to push their agenda on the recipient organization.  If the government is leftist, the mandates will be to the left-if the government is to the right, the converse holds true.  Since the recipient organization is now dependent on the government money to maintain itself and it’s power, it has little choice but to go along with the scheme of the day.

Many organizations, in turn, lobby the government to help craft these mandates, or simply support them with some well-timed contributions and/or PR campaigns.  They then have the opportunity to use their influence over government to push their agenda.  When so many politicians and organizations are left leaning, is it a surprise that they manipulate us into following some leftist scheme that create more problems, or exacerbates existing ones?  The lobbying organizations use their influence over the government to manipulate the government into exerting influence over still others to push an agenda.

To illustrate, let’s again go to the educational arena.  With the government having an increased role in society, other groups benefit from the intervention, prompting them to lobby, donate, and otherwise influence the government’s activities.  For example, increased spending and decreased student to teacher ratios benefit the NEA.  The NEA supports and lobbies for the increased spending and benefits from all of the additional teachers that are hired as a result.  More teachers lead to more union dues, which lead to more money with which to influence the government, which leads to more teacher and union dues…you get the point.  In the end, powerful groups gain more power by influencing the government’s actions, as well as assuring their own funding stream.  Since many of these organizations, and particularly the NEA are leftist, the mandates that the government decrees are increasingly socialist in nature.  Here is evidence of the political nature of the NEA.  It is a long video, so the part of interest is at 16:00.

The results for public education are seen every day.  Violence, pregnancy, poor test scores, and increasing drop out rates have all continued, or even increased, with the advent of increased funding.  It actually appears that the social engineering aspect of education is the goal. With the teacher acting as facilitator, the children are guided, mislead, and manipulated to a pre-determined ideological mindset.  Again this is all set from Washington, with the left and the lobbyists manipulating each other, and, in the end, you and I.

Additionally, government and its supporters seek to eliminate all functional or ideological competition.  Taking the lead of most totalitarian regimes in the last century, they seek to eliminate threats to their eminence and power.  Other ideas are poisonous to their plans, so they are banned.  For example, home-schooled children do not meet their leftist ideological goals, and perform at a higher academic level.  Rather than take what works from this system, the left seeks to ban it.  Again, if high scores and knowledge were a concern, they might study the matter.  However, the goal is indoctrination, so home schooling must be ridiculed, restricted, and then banned.    They have not let this goal drop from their list of priorities, and they are using their influence with the state and federal governments in a schemes to gradually restrict, then ban, home schooling.  They can use their influence to write government legislation or regulations to their liking, while the other entities are subjected to the whims of the leftist government, as well as their well-fed supporters.  After all, government assistance comes with strings attached!

So, where does this leave us?  Caught in the middle of lobbyists, government, interest groups, thugs, goons, and mobs.  Each group uses it’s influence over government  to enrich and empower itself.  in turn government uses it’s “endless” checkbook to fund schools ( and other entities), and makes demands in exchange for the funding.  In the end, we all lose.

The solution to this mess is simple; return the federal government to its Constitutional role.  When the government does little, as it should, there is no motivation to influence it.  If the government has no influence over education, why would the NEA pay off some congressmen or senators?  If the federal government stayed out of health care, why would the insurance companies, big pharma, the unions, and any of a number of  leftist groups attempt to influence it?  If the government didn’t try to control and thereby ruin our energy supply, why would big oil try to influence it?  In the end, it is the size of government that creates the problem.  A large and powerful central government invites corruption and creates dependency-cutting it down to size solves both problems.  Power does corrupt, and the more power the government attaches to itself, the more corrupt it becomes.  It matters little if the administration is Democratic or Republican, the size of government, and it’s accompanying corruption, makes victims of us all.

Note:  this is a re-posting of an earlier article.

Share

Obama Steps Up Deportations – of Land Rovers…

Share

 photo dhs-deports-land-rover_zps3fe1059d.jpg

Finally, an illegal alien Obama’s DHS will seize and deport – a Land Rover Defender

They can’t stop the flood of illegal aliens waltzing in from Mexico.

And they’ve never caught a terrorist in an airport.

But, fear not, because Obama’s crack DHS storm troopers are locked and loaded, mobilizing on a moment’s notice to pounce on a threat more sinister than you could ever imagine — Old Land Rovers.

When Jennifer Brinkley saw a line of law enforcement vehicles coming up her driveway last Tuesday she didn’t know what to think. “I haven’t done anything wrong.”

The Homeland Security agents were not there to take her away, they were looking for illegally imported Land Rover Defenders. Brinkley had bought one via the internet last year and had invested more than $60,000 into the rare vehicle.

She thought she had checked it all out and she legally owned it. “They popped up the hood and looked at the Vehicle Identification Number and compared it with a piece of paper and then took the car with them,” she said.

Due process? That’s only for the La Raza crowd. Regular Americans are at the mercy of Dear Leader’s bureaucracy, and his EPA takes no prisoners.

She told Fox News that she was told the agents seized the vehicle because they thought it violated the Clean Air Act — though at the time, they weren’t completely sure. She also said her vehicle was just one of 40 that feds seized in various locations that same day for the same reason.

Cars they’ll deport.

Criminal illegal aliens, not so much.

Oh, did I mention that Obama’s fascists have done this before? Ayup. They really hate Land Rovers. Curiously though, they don’t go around seizing old Chevys and Vettes, presumably because Government Motors and his UAW buddies wouldn’t approve.

Hey, I wonder if the military assault vehicles he just gave Bergen County meet the EPA’s emissions standards? I’m guessing no. But that’s OK, laws only apply to the common folk. The bureaucrats can do whatever they want. Just ask Lois Lerner.

Share

Common Core: Right Wing Groups to be Described as ‘Fascist’

Share

school_crossing_sign

I haven’t covered it as much as I should, but Common Core is the latest indoctrination program for use in the public schools.  And, since it’s a leftist creation, it’s full of lies, indoctrination, and blind obedience.  And, since the socialist state can tolerate no dissent, all opposition has to be smeared and discredited.   In that vein, it appears that Common Core dictates that all “right wing group” be portrayed as fascists, even though fascism and Conservatism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.  The Federalist Papers has more…

Via The Daily Caller:

Hillsdale professor Terrence Moore, author of  “Story Killers: A Common Sense Case Against Common Core,”  exposed some of the more distressing aspects of the controversial Common Core education standards program, saying that all teachers must tell young students that all right-wing groups are fascist.

Moore highlights how it is not just the reading lists and course materials — which have already attracted a large amount of criticism — that need to be examined by parents. It’s also the teaching notes and standard curriculum; the notes and standards come as part of a comprehensive package. Moore noted through his research that a distinctly political slant is introduced, one which dictates not only what children are taught, but also how they should be taught.

Next thing you know, they’ll be encouraging kids to turn their parents in for being “fascists.”    In the end, it is clear that Common Core is far more like fascism than any freedom loving American.

Share

GLAAD’s Tolerance: Agree Or You Are Anti-Gay

Share

gay_naziGLAAD is a militant intolerant tyrannical homosexual group which by its words and actions espouses a philosophy where persons absolutely must believe their way about homosexuals to be considered tolerant. If you are a public figure and believe differently than GLAAD they will cause a ruckus at your place of employment, try to get you fired, and put you on their blacklist. GLAAD has no concept of disagreeing while being civil. Most everyone, if not all, in conservative punditry espouse their own views but don’t go after particular public figures trying to get them fired for them believing differently.  Liberty loving conservatives/libertarians try to persuade others to change their views with words, not with threats, coercion, intimidation or force.

Then there are some spineless Republicans, journalists, and others in conservative circles who have either fallen for GLAAD’s perverted interpretation of what constitutes tolerance or are scared sh*tless so they believe its defamation to speak negatively about homosexuality. Courage is required to stand up to these fascists. The timid either need to shut the hell up if there not going to stand up for liberty or reach down deep inside themselves and gain some courage and stand up for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Robert Oscar Lopez of American Thinker explains what happened to him when he was blacklisted by GLAAD:

I won’t hyperlink this, but if you go to GLAAD’s website and seek out their “commentator accountability project,” you will find my name.  This is GLAAD’s blacklist.  Within hours of GLAAD’s publication of my addition to the list, which amounts to an excommunication from polite society, an e-mail was sent to the president of my university, along with dozens of other high officials in California, with the announcement: ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ PLACED ON GLAAD WATCH LIST.

The e-mail stated clearly that as a result of my being placed on this list, I would never get a direct interview in the United States.  (Whoever “they” are, they made good on the threat, because when I was brought onto Al Jazeera, they made sure that I was the only one critical of gay adoption, versus two hosts and two other panelists who were for it, and the host cut my microphone.)

According to the press release sent to my university, any media outlet introducing me would be bound to introduce me as an “anti-gay activist” certified by GLAAD as a bigot.  When I read the claims of this e-mail, I wondered if this would be true — would media in the United States really introduce me by saying I was certified as “anti-gay” by GLAAD?

Well, the answer to that question remains mostly unanswered.  Aside from that one fling on Al Jazeera, since GLAAD placed me on their blacklist, no secular media outlet has invited me on its show in the United States.  In-depth interviews with me have been broadcast in Chile, Russia, France, Ireland, and a number of other nations.  In the United States, Christian broadcasters like the American Family Association and Frank Sontag’s “Faith and Reason” show in Los Angeles have interviewed me.  And I’d been interviewed, prior to the GLAAD blacklisting, by Minnesota affiliates of NBC, CBS, Fox, and NPR, as well as a number of newspapers.  Since GLAAD’s blacklisting, none.

Prior to GLAAD’s blacklisting, I had received calls from people at universities discussing their interest in having me come to campus and give speeches.  Three were working with me to set up dates.  Since GLAAD’s blacklisting, none.  Those who had discussed this with me said point-blank that their superiors did not want to create controversy.

That is the power of GLAAD. 

Original Post:  TeresAmerica

Share

MSNBC Talking Head Melissa Harris-Perry: All Your Children are Belong to Us

Share

I think it’s getting even more amazing for the regressives in that they are slipping more and more.  And, in that slippage, they’re letting out more and more of their ideas, and they don’t even get that it’s the most totalitarian drivel.  I guess if you live in the unreality bubble, it’s a matter of time before you slip and think that tyranny is the normal state of man.

In the latest example of regressive truth slippage, we have Melissa Harris-Perry, who happens to think that all of your children are belong to us.  MRC has the video…

Now, this whole concept of children belonging to the “community,” read, the state, is not new at all. Here are some historical references…

When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
Adolf Hitler
Speech November 1933, quoted in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer

Kinda reminds you of public education, doesn’t it?

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

— Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

Harris-Perry must have been doing her homework!

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.
Vladimir Lenin

That would be the goal, wouldn’t it?

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. Vladimir Lenin

Just to make sure that no one missed it.

Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.
Joseph Stalin

Hey, why depend on dead dictators to show the origins of Harris Perry’s thinking?

Remember how the Clinton administration viewed children and “human capital.”  These principals are at work in our country as we speak! -Editor 

Shortt also cites Robert Owen, one of the Anglo-American world’s first influential socialists, who developed a similar philosophy of education. Owen believed that children should be separated from their parents as early as possible and raised by the state. He believed people were exclusively the products of their social environments, and that if nurtured properly by the state, could be molded into whatever was desired. A key to the thinking that went into forming the official ideology of state-sponsored education was that human beings are innately good, not sinful, and that human nature could be perfected by the right kind of educational system. The ideology that eventually developed would hold that children could be molded into willing consumers of the products of big business and obedient servants of government. In short, the aims of state-sponsored schools were to transform thinking, highly individualistic and very literate citizens into an unthinking, collectivized mass. The slow but steady decline in literacy of all kinds was a by-product.

Yes, the children belong to the community!

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future.”

–Professor Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard

Getting a better idea now?

“Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are…[a] National Department of Education…the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society.”

     –William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America, 1932 National Chairman of the American Communist Party (1933-44, 1945-57)

OK, I know, that’s overkill.  But what Harris-Perry is talking about.  Totalitarian systems always take children, claiming that they are belong to the state.  They take them in the name of nurturing and protecting them, but in the end, what they are doing is enslaving them to a failed ideology.  And, they also get the added benefits of the students coming out uneducated, unthinking, unquestioning, and following the regressive ideology to the nth degree.  After all, there is free stuff to be had.

 


You can support the work of the CH 2.0 with your Amazon purchases, at no additional cost to yourself!
Share

Some Thoughts on Human History and Progressives

Share

 

Many of you might have noticed that I often put quotations around the word, “progressive.”  Over the last couple of years, I’ve probably wasted a thousand keystrokes doing that, so I might as well explain why.

For the vast majority of human history, mankind has lived in a state of tyranny.  This probably started not long after cave man Ugh realized that his neighbor, Argh was weaker than him, and carried a smaller club.  After Argh’s untimely demise (with the exception of some tribal societies), the course of mankind was set.

As mankind developed from hunter gatherers to simple agrarian societies, to city states, and then empires, a variety of chieftains, kings, dictators, warlords, priests, priestesses, and self declared “gods,” have ruled mankind.  During those  countless ages, the average person lived, or died, at the whim of his or her self-appointed leader.  Economies were controlled, taxes were high, incomes were close to nil, and the average person often died as penniless as they were at birth.  Economies centered on the wealth of the leaders, not on the people, so  pestilence and starvation killed many when it did not need to happen.  There was little to no income distribution.  There was the top class; the leaders and their enforcers, and there were the peasants.  There was not even a hint of equality or justice, just oppressive rule.  (I know that Rome was, for a time, a republic, and some Greeks practiced democracy, but even then, they were a drop in the bucket when compared to the total history of man)

These tyrannical leaders did not tolerate dissent, or even the chance of dissent.  people were tortured, maimed, and executed to insure the power of the ruler(s).  People were killed for treason, heresy, or for simply knowing someone who might have done something.  There was no, “taking to the streets.”  Such events would have been met with lethal force.  Not only that, the entire town in which such a thing occurred might be razed in retaliation.

The leaders during those dark times were said to be wiser, stronger, more suited to rule, and it had been ordained by God that they should have power.  And all the while, excesses and corruption were the order of the day.

However, as the centuries passed, progress-REAL progress, was made.  The Magna Carta established that people have some rights, though it is not as codified as are the rights in our Constitution.   Also, John Locke, among others, formulated the ideas of natural rights and the social contract.

Our Founding Fathers were the next in line for real progress.  They created, in the Unites States Constitution, the greatest charter for human freedom ever devised. They embraced the idea of Natural Rights, in the human freedoms are from God, and that government exists to protect those rights-and cannot take them away.  Humans were protected in their right to free speech, their freedom of religion, their right to defend themselves, their right to property and all the others that we tend to take for granted today.  In our Republic, man rules himself, and government exists only to do those functions that man cannot do for himself, such as national defense, enforcing contracts, establishing courts, coining money, and so forth.  Or at least, that’s is how it’s supposed to be.

However, the forces of tyranny did not rest or concede when true human freedom started to emerge.  The next stages of tyranny were  Communism, followed by the original “progressive movement,” and then Fascism.  All of these are related in terms of the fact that they center power in an elite, that then control all aspects of human behavior.  Their only differences are in process and scope.

The results were horrific.  Over a hundred million people were killed in the name of Communism.  Fascism might have  equaled  that, had they not been stopped by WW II.  The “progressives,” operating in Western Democracies, had to move slowly.  Incrementalism has been their primary operating procedure.  However, they inspired the Nazi’s with their love for eugenics, and were “fellow travelers” with the other two movements.

Over the decades, “progressives,” operating under a variety of labels , have moved through our institutions.  They have used a variety of justifications to give the Federal government more power.  They have taken control of education.  They are in control of the MSM.  They have crafted  regulations  that destroy business and industry.  They created social programs that have encouraged dependency, and then have created economic crisis to fill those programs to unprecedented levels.  They have legalized sexual assault in the name of “security.”  They have also used the created and false crisis of global cooling, global warming, climate change in order to justify the reduction of our lifestyles.  All of this, of course, will be monitored and controlled by the authorities.

Their desire for control extends to all aspects of human life.  Government wants to tell us what kind of food can we eat- even if we can grow our own.  We are told how much water our toilets can use.  The kinds of car we can own-and eventually, even if we can own one is to be determined by unelected  bureaucrats.    What kind of house we can build, the healthcare we can recieve, and a host of others, are all in the crosshairs of the “progressives.”  They even seek to control mass media and the internet to control the free flow of information.  In the end, are we free if the government dictates so many of our basic human functions?

We also see how the “progressives” treat those that disagree with them. Conservative and Libertarian students are threatened and punished on   campuses, where free speech is curtailed, and labeled as “hate.”  Union members and other “progressives” engage in violence and intimidation to silence those that dissent.  The Consitution itself has been declared “outdated,” or “irrelevant.”  The Founders themselves are attacked and discounted.  After all, if we are to be controlled by an all powerful government, the very ideas of freedom have to be attacked, silenced and discredited.

As you can see, “progressives” are not progressive. They are REgressive.  They seek to return us to a state in which we are controlled and dominated by a small elite.  And just as the monarchs of old, they seek the “divine right of kings,” in order to gain and maintain control over us.  Of course, they tell us that it’s for our own good, but they proceed from the faulty premise that they know better than us, and that we cannot self govern.

We were born into a state of freedom.  In terms of human history, this is a rare and precious gift.  Only the tiniest fraction of all humans that have ever lived have enjoyed these freedoms.  If we allow the Regressives to take them away, it might be centuries before they re-emerge, and hundreds of millions will die in the process.

Are we going those freedoms, and the future of mankind, over to a small elite that “knows what’s best?”

NOTE: This is yet another post that could be turned into a small book.  Obviously there are things I could not touch on without making it my first book. Feel free to let me know what I missed in the comment section.

Share

Sikh Shooting, and the Big Lies in the Coverage

Share

By now, we’ve all heard of the mass shooting at the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin.  And we’ve seen the coverage of the shooter, Wade Michael Page.  But, Bob Belvedere at TCOTS makes a significant point, and one that needs to be explored…

For nearly eighty years now, the Left has engaged in one of the most successful Big Lie campaigns in it’s history.

They have been able to get the vast majority of the people who have lived in this country [and in the other countries of The West] since the 1930?s to believe that Fascism is a Right Wing system of belief.  The Left has deftly convinced Americans that Fascism is nothing like Communism, that the former is crude, militantly nationalistic, and only interested in absolute power and brutal control [‘Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles…’], whereas Communism / Socialism is merely seeking to bring about Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity [‘Imagine no possessions…’].  Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth: Fascism is merely a transitional stage between mild Statism [Modern Liberalism] and Socialism.  In other words, it is decidedly a belief system of the Left — grown as it was in the sterile laboratories located in the minds of Leftists like Benito Mussolini. 

In it’s successful effort to distance itself from Herr Hitler and Il Duce, the Communist Propaganda Machine was able to get people to see Fascism as a Right Wing phenomenon, and this has the benefit of allowing them to label any conservative a Fascist at will — a very useful tool in politics, as we have seen.  The Progressives in America have adopted this practice, kept this meme alive.  Because of World War II, people have ever since associated Fascism with the Nazis, so, therefore, anytime you accuse a person on the Right of being a Fascist, a certain set of images enters the brainwashed mind of the hearer.

Knocked it out of the park!

I’ve made the point, many times, that Fascism is a leftist construct.  For example, I recently quoted this from the American Nazi Party website…

The American Nazi Part is extreme right wing, is it?  Here is something right from their own platform…

We demand the creation of an honest, self-sufficient, debt-free economy based solely on the productive capacity of the Aryan worker, which will guarantee conditions of full employment and price stability. We also demand public control of all banking and credit institutions as well as all utilities and all monopolies, confiscation of all conglomerate holdings, cancellation of all usurious debt, comprehensive profit sharing in all basic industries, and the institution of a national program of interest-free loans for families, farmers, and small businessmen.

We believe that the proper function of an economy is to serve the economic needs of the people, not to make profits for big bankers and huge multinational corporations. We must put an end to both economic freeloading and economic exploitation in America. There must be no place for parasites who draw their sustenance from society without giving anything in return. We also believe that HONEST WORK is the only legitimate basis for wealth – not speculation, usury, or money-manipulation – and that a sound economic system must rest, not on debt or some extraneous metal, but on the productivity of the Aryan worker alone. We believe further, that money is properly a medium of exchange and store of value, not a commodity like bread or steel, and that therefore money and credit should not be issued for profit, but to serve the legitimate needs of the people without interest. Finally, we believe that it is unnecessary for any rational society to suffer unemployment when there is work to be done and people who want jobs. We must have an economy based on the long-term interests of the man who works for a living, not the chronic loafer or the man who lives by renting out his capital.

Yes folks, this is a so called right wing movement.  This could come right from an occupod!

But, according to our leftist friends, these are right wingers. Because, as you all know, redistribution of wealth is a big right wing tradition, right?

Then, for the reaction to the big lie?  Bob quotes Stacey McCain…

 Stacy McCain describes the latter very well:

The timid defensiveness of some conservatives — who run away screaming the minute they hear the word “racism” spoken aloud — is the exact opposite of political wisdom. Having been so often and so unfairly accused of “hate,” they have internalized their liberal antagonists’ worldview to such a degree that they pre-emptively fear the smear:

“Oh, let’s denounce the crime, then move on and ignore it, because we might be targeted with a guilt-by-association smear attempting to connect us with this tattooed skinhead freak we never heard of until he killed six people.”

Not only is this reaction gutless — needlessly defensive — but it makes conservatives look like shameless political opportunists: If the guy who killed the Sikhs had been an Occupier or an Islamic jihadi, the right-wing blogosphere would have been raising hell. So when the shooter turns out to be somebody categorized as a right-winger, conservatives are not going to score any points for integrity and courage by whining that this is unfair and then trying to ignore it.

When the Left does this, we automatically notice it, don’t we?

Essentially, the left takes and attributes their bastard stepchildren, the fascists, on to us.  And, to complicate things, many on our side buy into the big lie!

History is there.  It is real, and it vindicates our side at every turn.  We have the facts, so there is no reason for us to hide.  If a fascist murdered a group on innocent citizens, it shouldn’t be politicized, but understood.  However, since the left makes up lies with which to spin their yarns, we are obligated to correct them.

Share

Chuck Schumer Channels Nazi Germany, Goes After Americans Attempting to Escape Taxes

Share

We’ve talked about taxes quite a bit here.  We covered that when Maryland passed a special tax on millionaires, one third of their millionaires disappeared, and the state ended up losing money.  When NY passed oppressive cigarette taxes, New Yorkers found ways to evade it, and the state missed their income projections by several country miles.  And, we covered that the early 90’s luxury tax cost tens of thousands of jobs, and then the government ended up paying more for unemployment benefits than they collected in revenue.  In short, tax increases kill jobs, and result in the creation of new and different means to evade them.

I’ve often joked that the liberals will eventually want to “build a wall” to keep people from escaping their “paradise.”  Apparently, Chuck Schumer (Douchenozzle, NY) has taken this a bit too seriously, and has proposed legislation to create a “tax wall,” of sorts.  God Father Politics has some more…

For centuries, millions of Europeans came to the United States to escape the oppression of tyrannical regimes. Others came for expanded economic opportunities. With the rise of Nazism in Germany, many Jews saw the handwriting on the wall and got out with their possessions before it became illegal to do so. Most didn’t. Gary North’s comments put a fine edge on the point:

The hypothetical Jewish family in question should have done a lot more than sew gold coins into their clothes in 1939. The head of the household should have sold his house and his business. He should have transferred all of the family’s assets to Switzerland, England, or the United States. Then he should have directed the family to pack their bags and follow their money. After August 31, 1939, this became illegal. World War II broke out.

Sen. Chuck Schumer and some of his fellow Democrats want a new law placed on the books. It’s called “Ex-PATRIOT”: “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy.” The proposed law is in reaction to Eduardo Saverin’s decision to renounce his American citizenship which Democrats like Schumer believe is a “scheme” to “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.”

So then, Mr. Saverin wants to escape taxes in the era of Obama’s class warfare.  Then, just as he’s about to get away, Schumer wants to consfiscate his wealth, just like the Nazis did with the Jews.

Isn’t it funny, in a tragic, history-is repeating-itself kind of way?  The administration, as well as OWS, creates the class warfare to vilify people that create wealth-just like the Nazi’s did with the Jews.  Then, Schumer proposes legislation to does just what the Nazi’s did to the Jews.  Once again, we see that the 30’s are being repeated before our eyes.

And, then again, OWS doesn’t like Jews either.

Linked at Doug Ross.  Thanks! 

Share

Occupy Oakland Disrupts Local Burger King: Apparently, you aren't allowed to "have it your way"

Share

I guess Burger King is apparently not among the 99%, so they have to go too.   At any rate, Verum Serum has the video…

Apparently, some Occupods tried this in Boston as well…

So, for a group allegedly formed to advance freedom and “democracy,” they sure do want to tell us what we can do, like going to Burger King.   The 99% is also, obviously, too stupid to not choose to eat there, so the Occupods must stop them.  Isn’t that nice of them?

Share

Some Thoughts on Human History, and Progressives

Share

Many of you might have noticed that I often put quotations around the word, “progressive.”  Over the last couple of years, I’ve probably wasted a thousand keystrokes doing that, so I might as well explain why.

For the vast majority of human history, mankind has lived in a state of tyranny.  This probably started not long after cave man Ugh realized that his neighbor, Argh was weaker than him, and carried a smaller club.  After Argh’s untimely demise (with the exception of some tribal societies), the course of mankind was set.

As mankind developed from hunter gatherers to simple agrarian societies, to city states, and then empires, a variety of chieftains, kings, dictators, warlords, priests, priestesses, and self declared “gods,” have ruled mankind.  During those  countless ages, the average person lived, or died, at the whim of his or her self-appointed leader.  Economies were controlled, taxes were high, incomes were close to nil, and the average person often died as penniless as they were at birth.  Economies centered on the wealth of the leaders, not on the people, so  pestilence and starvation killed many when it did not need to happen.  There was little to no income distribution.  There was the top class; the leaders and their enforcers, and there were the peasants.  There was not even a hint of equality or justice, just oppressive rule.  (I know that Rome was, for a time, a republic, and some Greeks practiced democracy, but even then, they were a drop in the bucket when compared to the total history of man)

These tyrannical leaders did not tolerate dissent, or even the chance of dissent.  people were tortured, maimed, and executed to insure the power of the ruler(s).  People were killed for treason, heresy, or for simply knowing someone who might have done something.  There was no, “taking to the streets.”  Such events would have been met with lethal force.  Not only that, the entire town in which such a thing occurred might be razed in retaliation.

The leaders during those dark times were said to be wiser, stronger, more suited to rule, and it had been ordained by God that they should have power.  And all the while, excesses and corruption were the order of the day.

However, as the centuries passed, progress-REAL progress, was made.  The Magna Carta established that people have some rights, though it is not as codified as are the rights in our Constitution.   Also, John Locke, among others, formulated the ideas of natural rights and the social contract.

Our Founding Fathers were the next in line for real progress.  They created, in the Unites States Constitution, the greatest charter for human freedom ever devised. They embraced the idea of Natural Rights, in the human freedoms are from God, and that government exists to protect those rights-and cannot take them away.  Humans were protected in their right to free speech, their freedom of religion, their right to defend themselves, their right to property and all the others that we tend to take for granted today.  In our Republic, man rules himself, and government exists only to do those functions that man cannot do for himself, such as national defense, enforcing contracts, establishing courts, coining money, and so forth.  Or at least, that’s is how it’s supposed to be.

However, the forces of tyranny did not rest or concede when true human freedom started to emerge.  The next stages of tyranny were  Communism, followed by the original “progressive movement,” and then Fascism.  All of these are related in terms of the fact that they center power in an elite, that then control all aspects of human behavior.  Their only differences are in process and scope.

The results were horrific.  Over a hundred million people were killed in the name of Communism.  Fascism might have  equaled  that, had they not been stopped by WW II.  The “progressives,” operating in Western Democracies, had to move slowly.  Incrementalism has been their primary operating procedure.  However, they inspired the Nazi’s with their love for eugenics, and were “fellow travelers” with the other two movements.

Over the decades, “progressives,” operating under a variety of labels , have moved through our institutions.  They have used a variety of justifications to give the Federal government more power.  They have taken control of education.  They are in control of the MSM.  They have crafted  regulations  that destroy business and industry.  They created social programs that have encouraged dependency, and then have created economic crisis to fill those programs to unprecedented levels.  They have legalized sexual assault in the name of “security.”  They have also used the created and false crisis of global cooling, global warming, climate change in order to justify the reduction of our lifestyles.  All of this, of course, will be monitored and controlled by the authorities.

Their desire for control extends to all aspects of human life.  Government wants to tell us what kind of food can we eat- even if we can grow our own.  We are told how much water our toilets can use.  The kinds of car we can own-and eventually, even if we can own one is to be determined by unelected  bureaucrats.    What kind of house we can build, the healthcare we can recieve, and a host of others, are all in the crosshairs of the “progressives.”  They even seek to control mass media and the internet to control the free flow of information.  In the end, are we free if the government dictates so many of our basic human functions?

We also see how the “progressives” treat those that disagree with them. Conservative and Libertarian students are threatened and punished on   campuses, where free speech is curtailed, and labeled as “hate.”  Union members and other “progressives” engage in violence and intimidation to silence those that dissent.  The Consitution itself has been declared “outdated,” or “irrelevant.”  The Founders themselves are attacked and discounted.  After all, if we are to be controlled by an all powerful government, the very ideas of freedom have to be attacked, silenced and discredited.

As you can see, “progressives” are not progressive. They are REgressive.  They seek to return us to a state in which we are controlled and dominated by a small elite.  And just as the monarchs of old, they seek the “divine right of kings,” in order to gain and maintain control over us.  Of course, they tell us that it’s for our own good, but they proceed from the faulty premise that they know better than us, and that we cannot self govern.

We were born into a state of freedom.  In terms of human history, this is a rare and precious gift.  Only the tiniest fraction of all humans that have ever lived have enjoyed these freedoms.  If we allow the Regressives to take them away, it might be centuries before they re-emerge, and hundreds of millions will die in the process.

Are we going those freedoms, and the future of mankind, over to a small elite that “knows what’s best?”

NOTE: This is yet another post that could be turned into a small book.  Obviously there are things I could not touch on without making it my first book. Feel free to let me know what I missed in the comment section.

Share

Classic Conservative Hideout: Individual Rights Vs. The Collective

Share

When we speak about the rights of the individual, we are saying something very different than the left’s view of the topic.  Our founders carefully crafted a Constitution that is designed to protect us from the excesses of government.  However, a sufficient percentage of the people have not guarded those rights against government intrusion, until just recently.  Those excesses are readily apparent in our country today:  federal control of education, health care, environmental law, interference with personal property rights, and a litany of others, all in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and it’s writers, interfere with the everyday citizen’s ability to live as he or she pleases.  Limits on religious expression, speech codes, censorship, and oppression are all also beginning to take a toll in the rights of the American citizen.

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation”

-James Madison

Our Bill of Rights is a prime example of the founder’s intent.  It guarantees the rights of the individual, while at the same time; the other sections vastly restrict the powers of the government.   The document was created with those concepts in mind.  Today, many liberals lament the fact that the Constitution stresses what the government can’t do, rather than what it can.  To this, I must respond, “That’s the way it’s supposed to be!” Our founders warned us about the threat from the left, even before the left existed.  Their warnings are valid because no matter the underlying philosophy, tyranny is tyranny.

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

-Thomas Jefferson

Tyranny, whether it comes in the form of Monarchy, Fascism, Marxism, or “progressivism,” attempts to “solve” human problems by government dictate and action.  To my knowledge, there has never been a totalitarian government that has directly said, “ We’re going to oppress you!”  Instead, they appeal to the masses, sometimes with an offer of protection from a real or imagined threat, or other times, with an offer of “equality and justice.”  Some offer relief from economic chaos, while still others offer a sense of pride or belonging.  Some take control by using carefully coordinated media propaganda and the artificial crisis.  Others assume power by a personality cult, threats, or intimidation.  Their functionaries may create laws and regulations with the intention of creating a crisis.  They may build on pre-existing cultural or economic jealousies, building the tensions until they explode into a ”created crisis” that they can then “solve.”  They use mobs of converts to bully and oppress anyone who interferes with their plans.  They will persecute and vilify anyone who speaks out with knowledge of their true inventions.  Dissenters are branded as defenders of the status quo, unpatriotic, terrorists, or otherwise have their reputations destroyed.  They may be deprived of their work, subjected to frivolous lawsuits, or other “punishments” designed to silence them.  Some may face physical danger, even death.   They will accuse their opposition of doing what their own activists do.  No matter how it is presented, totalitarians use empty promises to decieve the people, convincing them that their particular “medicine” is the cure for the problems they face.  They back that up with social disorder designed to advance their point of view, while at the same time, silencing or discrediting those that disagree with them.  They are deceitful, not only about their intentions, but about the true content of their plans.  Their true goal is gain power, and then, to maintain said power.

“single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day…a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, to plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.”

-Thomas Jefferson

Rights hold a different meaning for the left than does the right.  The left see’s the people as a large collective mass, not as individuals.  Their plans and schemes to “help” this mass are top-down controlled programs that do not allow for the individual needs of the people.  Whether it is health care, education, housing, or others, the government places restrictions and requirements on each, eroding the freedom of the individual.  So, when the individual accepts the government “drug,” they lose control over an aspect of their life.  The more of these “rights” that are accepted by the people, the more freedom they lose, until, in the end, their cradle to grave experience is fully managed by the government.   The left also seeks, in the end, to provide these “rights” to everyone, granting them ever-increasing levels of control over the mass and what they can or cannot do.  Since they view the people as a collective mass, they talk about “rights,” like housing, education, and health care. They then apply these to the collective, at the expense of your individual freedom.    At the end of the day, so to speak, the people might have these  “rights,” but they will have no freedom.  After all, if your government controls where you live, your medical care, what you can eat, your salary or wage, your education, your transportation, and what you can say, and where you can say it, how free are you?  Note that all of these examples are now being done, being discussed, or in the process of being enacted.

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”

-Thomas Jefferson

Another concern with this view of rights is that the individual might be sacrificed for the good of the collective.  If a senior or a disabled person has to be denied care to supply those resources for others, it is acceptable to the left.  Ezekiel Emanuel has said as much himself.  If an individual or small group has to be economically ruined to satisfy a policy initiative, it is an acceptable sacrifice.  If a group of farmers has to be bankrupted to protect a fish, it will be done.  The top-down regulation cannot accept or account for the needs of individuals, only the collective.   In the last century, millions of individuals died in socialist experiments, five-year plans, and the Great Leap Forward.  These statistics were acceptable to the leadership, as long as the collective was maintained, and more importantly, the power of the leadership went unchallenged.

“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”

-Thomas Jefferson

It is also important to note that the totalitarians do not always restrict  rights by direct action.  They will often create circumstances in which individuals will have no opportunity to exercise their enumerated rights.  Elected officials and government appointees have advocated for the control of web content, and the regulation of what one can say, and in what circumstances it can be said.  Similarly, talk radio is to be attacked by mandating changes in local ownership to those people that will not run conservative programming, in spite of the obvious advertising revenue.  The left  will, of course, say that people still have the freedom to speak; they’ll just close the venue.  In other situations, they will create regulations or taxes in order to create scarcity or make a product too expensive for a common individual to purchase or own.  Again, they will hide their intentions in claims of fairness, diversity, environment, and equality, but the true intention is again to gain and maintain power, while at the same time shutting off dissent.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

-George Washington

The left also views the human family with disdain.  In the communist nations, efforts were made almost immediately to disrupt the family’s influence over children.  Education was co-opted almost immediately, with children being placed in government sanctioned programs at the earliest age possible.  Home schooling was banned, and private schools were either required to adopt the government program, or were closed altogether.  The purpose was, and still is, to indoctrinate children to the leftist point of view.  Independent thinking and the ability to use logic and reason to address problems are enemies of the left.  A person that can look at their situation and realize that the government is the cause of their problems is a stumbling block for the left.

Also, the government schools have actively worked to separate children from any religious beliefs that they were taught at home or in Church.  In the leftist totalitarian state, there can be no power higher than the state itself.  Religion must be ridiculed as “unsophisticated” or held up as a sign of a limited intellect.  Discrimination and restrictions on religious expression are soon to follow, either passed as law, or mandated by courts.  In the end, the left is jealous of God’s influence, and wishes it for itself.

At the same time the left is creating “rights” that do not exist in our Constitutional Republic, they go about systematically limiting the individual rights that our Constitution guarantees.  Speech codes ban freedom of expression on campuses as “hate.” Religious expression, particularly when the religion in question is Christianity, is being banned from schools and in the public square.  Even in the face of last year’s Supreme Court decision, opponents of the Second Amendment are still working towards a “gun free” America.  Other groups are attempting to use environmental regulations and misapplying eminent domain the deprive property owners of the use of their land and homes.  The power of the states to manage their own internal affairs is being controlled and dominated in defiance of the Tenth Amendment.  Activist judges, some of whom openly boast about making policy, legislate from the bench, creating rights that do not exist, and striking down ones that do.  This is a slow transformation of America, from a free state, to a socialist one.

The left views each human life as a burden; one more mouth to feed, one more brain to indoctrinate, one more body to medicate, one more statistic to manage.  Conservatives view each human life as an opportunity.  We believe that each human being can make decisions for themselves, and manage their affairs without the interference of the state.  Additionally, we can point to examples of government interventions either increasing problems, or creating new ones.

If we are to maintain our freedoms, and recover the full use of them, Americans from all walks of life must stand up and demand them.  This has started, but there is much to be done to stem the tide of tyranny that threatens to overtake us.  The days of political apathy are over.

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

-Benjamin Franklin

 

Share

Who Indoctrinates the Indoctrinators? Teachers Required to Think Socialist to Get Degrees

Share

In light of the renewed focus on public education, courtesy of the current public union mess, I thought it might be a good idea to take another look at how teachers are trained.  Here is a post from December of 2009.

The People’s Republic of China generally makes no distinction between education and propaganda or indoctrination. All three share the common task of changing man. The agencies of education, indoctrination, and propaganda are legion—newspapers, posters, and propaganda leaflets, neighbourhood gatherings for the study of current events, as well as political rallies, parades, and many forms of “mass campaigns” under careful direction. It is evident that the schools constitute only a small part of the educational program.

When the Communists came to power in 1949, they took up three educational tasks of major importance: (1) teaching many illiterate people to read and write, (2) training the personnel needed to carry on the work of political organization, agricultural and industrial production, and economic reform, and (3) remolding the behaviour, emotions, attitudes, and outlook of the people.

Why start with this?  Undoubtedly, many of you already know from simply reading the preceding section.  As we observe the educational establishment in this country, we start to see some interesting parallels between education in communist countries, and what is happening here in the US.

Next, let’s take a look at this from FIRE.

All signs are that the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities is planning to enforce a political litmus test for future teachers. The university’s College of Education and Human Development intends to mandate certain beliefs and values—”dispositions”—for future teachers. Yet that is not enough. It even intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the wrong beliefs and values-those who it judges will not be able to be brought around to the correct beliefs and values of “cultural competence” even after remedial training.

Here are the key excerpts regarding how the group describes the “obligatory,” “indispensable” features of “cultural competence” on the level of “Self”:

Our future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression.

Future teachers will understand that they are privileged & marginalized depending on context … It is about the development of cultural empathy, if you will. Teachers first have to discover their own privilege, oppression, or marginalization and also are able to describe their cultural identity.

Future teachers will recognize & demonstrate understanding of white privilege[.]

Future teachers will understand the importance of cultural identity and develop a positive sense of racial/cultural identity[.]

On the level of “Self & Others,” future teachers must take the Intercultural Development Inventory, “which measures five of the six major stages of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” Their “Cultural Intelligence” also will be assessed. They must reveal a “pervasive stereotype” they personally held about an identity group, and presumably argue in their paper that this view has now been “challenged” on the basis of their experiences with that group. They also will be assessed regarding “the extent to which they find intrinsic satisfaction” in being in “culturally diverse situations.”

So, the prospective teacher MUST have certain attitudes and beliefs to gain an educational degree?  Where is this coming from?  To answer that, let’s go back to our original source.

Class and class struggle were related concepts that occupied a central place in the ideology, and a specific aim of education was to develop class consciousness so that all citizens, young and old, would become valiant fighters in the class struggle. School regulations stipulated that 10 percent of the curriculum should be set aside for ideological and political study, but, in practice, ideology and politics were taught and studied in many other subjects, such as language, arithmetic, and history. Ideology and politics permeated the entire curriculum and school life, completely dominating extracurricular activities.

Seeing the comparisons?  Ideology is being pushed as curricula, and the teachers are being required to advocate it in order to either be admitted to an educational program, or to graduate!

Also, take note of the fact that students must reveal a “pervasive stereotype” that they had.  This is also a communist indoctrination tool.  Citizens, particularly in China, where I believe the technique originated, are “persuaded” to “confess” their “sins” (failing, at some point, to be a good communist).  There is a great deal of pressure involved.  This has the effect of weakening the individual, and appealing to the larger group for forgiveness. It successfully uses peer pressure and guilt to bring about a “conversion” to communism.  Note also that the prospective teacher must then state how they enjoy the alternative (communist) views, and should extol its virtues.  The Chinese have found this to be quite useful as an indoctrination technique.

Here is some more from FIRE.

Future teachers create & fight for social justice ...”

Finally, in the area of “Self & Society,”

Future teachers will understand that despite an ideal about what is considered common culture in the United States [“the American Dream”], that many groups are typically not included within this celebrated cultural identity and more often than not, many students with multi-generational histories in the United States are routinely perceived to be new immigrants or foreign. That such exclusion is frequently a result of dissimilarities in power and influence.

One of the sources for this critique is to be the concept of the “myth of meritocracy in the United States.”

This is significant.  Cultural Marxism is a direct attack on western culture, which has, as one of its tenants, an individual’s ability to achieve.  When individuals have the ability to succeed, or even the perception that they can achieve, many will seek to do so, and will achieve success.  Those serve as an example to others, who then think, “If they can do it, I can do it too.”  If this permeates a culture, the people will rely upon themselves to meet their needs, therefore lessening the need for, and the power of, government.   Innovation, free enterprise, and success will follow, providing the most prosperity to the most people.

Conversely, in the socialist state, dependence and hopelessness are vital tools to keep people under government control.  If the government provides for your every need, you are in de-facto slavery to said government.  After all, if the government controls where you live, your medical care, your personal funds, your access to food, and your means of transportation, the settings on your thermostat, the media you  can view, read, or listen to, or even work, do they not effectively control you?  To achieve this level of hopelessness, it is then necessary to convince (indoctrinate) people that they cannot succeed…that dark forces (capitalism, racism, freedom, and so on) are preventing them from having a good life, and that the people’s only salvation can come from the state.

Through thinly veiled ideas of redistribution, like “social justice,” the government will promise these “hopeless” individuals a piece of someone else’s labor.  Of course, all they ask for in return is the grantee’s  freedom.  Once successful, the victims will no longer try to succeed-it will not even be a thought that crosses their minds.  Being taught that it is impossible anyway, they will gladly submit to government control of every aspect of their lives.  In this scenario, government will have succeeded in psychologically neutering their subjects, creating a pliable mass of sheeple that will be dependent and mostly complaint.

For more on this idea, look at the definition of “learned helplessness.”

Learned helplessness, as a technical term in animal psychology and related human psychology, means a condition of a human being or an animal in which it has learned to behave helplessly, even when the opportunity is restored for it to help itself by avoiding an unpleasant or harmful circumstance to which it has been subjected.

It is useful to note the shift in emphasis in Marxism from class to culture.  Marxism in the US follows the “Frankfort School” model of Cultural Marxism, which emphasizes cultural differences rather than class.  For more information on Cultural Marxism, kindly look here.

Yet another aspect of this attack is that we are being separated by our differences rather than being united on our shared values.  We are being pigeon holed into “hyphenated Americans”, rather than simply Americans.  I’ve always seen this as a means to create discord, or fan the flames of old grievances.  When the left does this, they move in to exploit the discord, enhancing their own power at our expense.  Of course, separating us and creating conflicts distracts us all from our real enemy…Marxism (progressivism, liberalism socialism, fascism-it seems our left has taken on flavors of all of them).

So where do these teachers enter into the equation?  Well, if the children have to be indoctrinated at ever-younger ages, there must be teachers trained to do just that.  To make sure that all students are indoctrinated, the left must also insure that all teachers are indoctrinated.  We have to keep in mind that socialism is not a system that cannot tolerate dissent very well.  In fact, socialist states often collapse once the people are able to hear and express ideas openly.  To prevent this from occurring, Marxists must attempt to achieve a monopoly on education.  Think of this when the elites disparage home schooling.  Consider it when they attack private schools and universities.  Ponder it when they want “universal pre-school.”

This level of control over the educational system has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the education, as on those criteria, the public system loses at every turn.  It is the control of the system for all that the left desires.  Once under complete socialist control, the education will continue to be more about indoctrination than knowledge, and there will be no recourse or alternative.

Think of it this way; imagine that people are trapped under socialism.  All they hear, see, read, and are told, extols the virtues of the state, yet they are in poverty, dealing with high levels of crime, corruption, scarcity, and substandard conditions.  Everyone is, with the exception of the ruling class.  If a person in that environment hears that there is a better way, one in which they might be able to gain more from their labor, or be able to speak and live freely…would they be interested?  It sure seemed to work against the former Soviet Bloc.  Had it not, they would not have had to build walls to keep their own people in!

This would also explain why the Soviet Union jammed Radio Free Europe, why the Chinese censor the Internet, why the Iranian regime was severely challenged by protestors using Twitter, why Hugo Chavez is shutting down any media outlet that disagrees with him, and why the Cubans even covered an electronic billboard that we put up on our embassy.  They don’t want their people hearing alternative points of view, or that freedom is a better option than slavery.  Ideas are infectious, and the socialist seeks to stop them from spreading.  It’s also why education is concentrated in the hands of the socialist state.  If the state can thoroughly indoctrinate everyone, starting from the earliest age possible, they can mold the thinking and behavior of a generation; making it less likely that people will have independent thoughts in the future.

Come to think of it, this might also explain why people in our own government are now proposing the complete control education, the airwaves, and the Internet.

Thankfully, FIRE, and other groups out there will fight against these schemes.   We should support this resistance in any way we can.  People must be free in their own thoughts and beliefs.  By resisting the leftist takeover, we delay the drive to the socialist state.  It is useful to remember that a truly free society can tolerate dissent and real diversity of thought…socialist societies cannot.  We don’t have to “convert” anyone to maintain our freedom, but the left must indoctrinate EVERYONE, to achieve total power.  For that reason, we can delay them (at least at this point), but if we’re able to get Conservatives into power, we can start dismantling the liberal power structure in DC.  This will free the states and local communities to fight liberalism at home, which is where that fight begins… and where it can be won.

Share