Mental Disorder Reaches Epidemic Status

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.

Recent research suggests that a common mental disorder in Washington DC is spreading through the US at a staggering rate, leaving the populace mentally feeble and unable to comprehend reality.   The name of the disorder is Do Something-itis, or Do Anything-itis.  The disorder is said to impact the brain in such a way that the patient believes that government intervention can solve problems.   This from Dr. Hiram Lockjaw, senior scientist at the CDC:

These problems used to be contained in the centers of power, academia, media, and law.  Most civilians affected resided in “blue” states.  We use electoral maps to track the progress of the disease.   We started to see an expansion of the illness in 2006, but then, in fall 2008, the disease advanced as never before.  While true numbers may never be known, it is suspected that there are tens of millions citizens infected.

For those of you who use the same math as Nancy Pelosi, or are a recent graduate of a public school, the number is 1,654,986,653,657.  Dr. Lockjaw continued:

The disorder manifests itself in several interesting ways.  One, of course, is the complete denial of being sick. The afflicted tend to state that they believe in “change.”  However, when questioned, the afflicted cannot really state what this “change” is-other than that the aforementioned “change” will “change” the world for the better.  The intelligence of the victim is either low, or is made low by the illness, however we are unclear as to whether or not this is due to exposure to public education.  The other, and perhaps most devastating symptom is the delusion that the government makes things better, not worse.  Victims are rendered incapable of understanding that the Carter and the Clinton administration is to blame for the housing failure, as well as the resulting banking failure.  They also seem to have delusions that spending government money in a random fashion benefiting political cronies will somehow stimulate the economy.

That would explain a lot.  Dr. Lockjaw goes on to explain the course of the disease.

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.

As the disease progresses, the patient will become jealous of anyone who has more money, education, works harder, or otherwise is more succesful than they are. They begin to believe that this is some sort of “unfair” conspiracy directed at them.  They deny any connection between their laziness, pot smoking, or living in their mother’s basement and their current state.  Their physical appearance begins to change as well, eventually looking like…

 

Do Something-itis victimDo Something-itis Victim.Angry Do Something-itis Victim

Needless to say, dear reader, I was alarmed.  What is to stop this disease from overtaking the continent and turning our nation into France?  Luckily, there is a treatment available, according to Dr. Lockjaw:

We have discovered that by exposing to patient to reality, he or she can become a productive member of society.  Having the patient listen to Rush Limbaugh is sometimes effective, however,Jim Quinn or Michael Savage are just as, if not more, effective.  However, our greatest breakthrough is what we have called “Reaganex.”  Reaganex is the most powerful, and most successful treatment we have available at this time.

Well well well, at least one governement agency is doing it’s job.  Oh wait, this is parody!

Originally Published: 2-21-09

Share

Public School Fail: When all Else Fails, Cheat!

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.

One of the criticisms of standardized testing is that schools will “teach to the test.”  In other words, they teach the anticipated content of the test, leading to a narrow and dumbed down curriculum.    In Atlanta, they obviously misunderstood that axiom, and decided to “cheat to the test.”

A year-long investigation first orchestrated by former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) and now released by current Gov. Nathan Deal (R) has unearthed cheating and unethical behavior across every level of the 55,000-student Atlanta Public School System. The Atlanta Journal Constitutionreports:

“Teachers and principals erased and corrected mistakes on students’ answer sheets.

Area superintendents silenced whistle-blowers and rewarded subordinates who met academic goals by any means possible.

Superintendent Beverly Hall and her top aides ignored, buried, destroyed or altered complaints about misconduct, claimed ignorance of wrongdoing and accused naysayers of failing to believe in poor children’s ability to learn.”

The 800-page report was released to the Associated Press Tuesday through an open records request. Superintendent Hall was awarded the national Superintendent of the Year award in 2009, and through her attorney she “steadfastly denies” that she knew or should have known of any allegedly widespread cheating. The State begs to differ.

The yearlong investigation confirms rumblings for weeks that educators at nearly four dozen Atlanta elementary and middle schools cheated on standardized tests by helping students or changing the answers once exams were handed in. Some teachers held “changing” parties at their homes to fix student answers.

Head over to The Blaze, and read the rest.  It is a sad tale.  

When Conservatives and Libertarians talk about large government entities being  inherently corrupt, this is what we mean.  It is not a flaw, it is a feature.   It is also a hallmark of liberalism-as long as it looks or sounds good, it is good-the truth be damned.  It didn’t really matter if the kids actually knew anything, it only mattered that the results looked good.

Doesn’t that entire “looks good or sounds good” argument extend to all liberal schemes?  We’re still being told that the Porkulus was a great success, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  We’re told that the last employment numbers were great, even though half the jobs created were McJobs.  We’re also being told that were’re in a recovery, yet no one seems to be  actually  recovering, except, that is, government and it’s power.    But, it looks good, and it sounds good, so it becomes the narrative.

This can even be extended as a comparison to the leftist notion of “equality.” Conservatives and libertarians believe in equal opportunity.  The left believes in equality of outcome.  Of course, the leftist variety doesn’t really help anyone-it usually hurts people by fostering dependency.   In this example, the kids really don’t know anything more than they did, and perhaps less, but like all leftist schemes, it looks and sounds good, and it helps to keep them in power. Essentially, they screwed everyone to make some look better, and in the end, everyone lost.

Sounds like liberalism to me.

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

Welcome to the “Progressive” Utopia of Detroit

Share

Here is a recipe from our “progressive” friends…

Mix the following…

  • High Taxes
  • Liberal planning and feel good programs
  • Failing schools
  • Labor unions
  • High crime
  • Corruption
  • Social Justice

Bake for several decades.  Beat on occasion if capitalism breaks out.

Ding

Look at the lovely liberal Detroit, ready for serving…

The NY Times covered this…

It was the largest percentage drop in history for any American city with more than 100,000 residents, apart from the unique situation of New Orleans, where the population droppedby 29 percent after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, said Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College.

The number of people who vanished from Detroit — 237,500 — was bigger than the 140,000 who left New Orleans.

“Even if we had depressing issues before, the decline makes it so much harder to deal with,” said Samantha Howell, 32, who was getting gas on Tuesday on the city’s blighted East Side. “Yes, the city feels empty physically, empty of people, empty of ambition, drive. It feels empty.”

I bolded that last line, because that is the end result of socialism.  People stop trying, the government either takes care of everything, or prevents people engaging in independent economic activity (usually both).  And when able, people will escape such as system, unless their government puts up a wall, or some other barrier.

Steve, at Motor City Times, has additional insights into the decline of this once great city.

Detroit was the prototype for LBJ’s grand social experiment that put big government front and center in all affairs. Looking at the results today, there is no denying that big government has failed miserably.

Detroit was once an economic powerhouse. Today it home to staggeringly high unemployment. Worse, accompanying the high unemployment, there is another interesting and under-reported statistic that does not bode well for the city. Detroit’s two largest employers , by far, are the city itself and Detroit Public Schools.

Get over to Motor City Times to see the rest.

At any rate, it would seem that decades of liberal policies have wrecked a city.  And our leftist friends want to do this to the entire country.  Just keep that in mind.

 

Share

Liberal to English Translation

Share

I know many liberals and have asked them all the same question, “You detested that Bush spent so much money and raised our national debt, yet Obama is quadrupling this debt and has, in fact amassed more deficit spending than all other Presidents combined. Does this bother you?”

Every single time the answer has been, “No, it doesn’t bother me because he is spending money on things that need to be done.”

To which I state something along the lines of, “You mean like A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film, or $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees, or $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service, or lastly, how about $850 million for Amtrak.”

This is usually where the conversation either turns ugly or ends, because when confronted with the truth, the average liberal cannot deal with it. It is hard to call these things investments when they are what they are – government waste and misuse of our tax dollars.

The liberals have been so successful the last few years because of a number of reasons. The liberal media is in their back pocket for one, and have been a very useful tool of the liberal. The liberal media has even adopted the language of the liberal. For example, it’s not raising taxes, it’s “investing.” It’s not abortion, it’s “choice.” They’re not illegal aliens, they are “undocumented immigrants.” For you see, to make their far left agenda more palatable to the average American, they have to – because it is so radical.

So I have compiled a partial list of liberal to English translation. It is in no particular order and of course only a partial list because it is constantly being changed and updated.

“The constitution is a living, breathing document.” = A fundamentally flawed document (Spoken by Obama in a radio interview in a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview) that changes with political expediency

“Deficit Reduction” = Tax Hike

“Religious right” = Christians who are conservative

“Bipartisanship” = Arlen Specter

“Intolerance” = Opposed to liberal agenda

“Propaganda” = Conservative point of view

“Assault Weapons” = Virtually any firearm

“Cut” = Reduction in the rate of growth

“Pandering” = What Republicans do when supporting something liberals don’t like, usually applies to the NRA or religious right

“Profiteering” = Not losing money

“Managed competition” = Government takeover

“Overheated economy” = Prosperity

“Fully fund” = Blank check

“Diversity” = Multiple groups that adhere to the liberal agenda

“Special interest groups” = Non-liberal groups

“Fundamentalist” = Conservative

“Greed” = Profit motive

“Multiculturalism” = When placed in context to other countries, it means that America is to blame for all that is wrong in the world and that the USA is only one country among many, NOT the leading nation in the world

“Choice”= Abortion – not to be confused with the choice of personal liberty, that is not allowed under the liberal system

“Oversight” = Government

“Working Americans” = Only lower and middle class Americans

“Conduct a review” = Strategic delay

“Insurgents” = Terrorists

“Rigid Ideologue” = A conservative that stands up for his beliefs

“Compromise” = Only comes about when people agree with liberal agenda

“Affirmative Action” = Racial Preferences

“Lies” = “Policy Differences”

“Patriotism” = Paying more and more taxes is often equated with being a patriot

“Racism” = Open criticism of the Obama administration

“Closed-minded” = Does not agree with liberal agenda

“Right wing extremist” = The GOP

“Social responsibility” = Redistribution of wealth

“Corporate welfare” = Gross revenue minus taxes

“Corporate subsidy” = See ‘corporate welfare’

“Deserving poor” = People who vote for liberals

“Tax the rich” = Increase taxes on anyone making $250,000 a year or higher, $200,000 or, er, I mean $150,000 a year – *sigh* this number keeps getting lower

“Freedom Fighters” = Terrorists, Somalia Pirates, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc…

“Decriminalization” = Legalization

“Regulate” = Ban

Share

Classic CH 2.0: Some Brief Thoughts on the Nature of Ideological Warfare

Share

Here’s a post from this past spring. I think it has some relevance to right now.  -Matt

Remember this quote from Michelle Obama?

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed.”

She was far more prophetic than she will ever know.

Since Obama’s election, millions of Americans have become more informed, and more involved.  The Tea Party movement has galvanized millions in calling for smaller, more responsible government.  We are reading more and more, and in many cases, writing extensively and otherwise exchanging information.  We are in the process of returning the GOP to its roots.  We are engaging in nothing less than a peaceful ideological revolt against the left-and we’re meeting with some success.

These are all encouraging signs.  However, we must realize one thing:  enlisting in this “army” is a lifetime commitment.  This isn’t like WWI, or WWII.  There will be no definitive capitulation.  There will be no surrender ceremony, after which we get go home to the old status quo.  Our adversaries will never give up.  They may be defeated, or delayed, but they will go to ground; hiding within the bureaucracies, universities, and other institutions.  They will continue to indoctrinate youth.  They will continue to spin lies and propaganda.  They will continue to divide and exploit by race, economics, gender, or religion.  And, when they see the opportunity, they will strike out at freedom via regulation, legislation, and legal decisions.  Failing that, they will resort to thuggery and violence.

We look to be victorious in November.  We might win again in 2012.  Even if we are more successful than our wildest dreams, we will still be needed.  The candidates that we support will need our help, and our guidance, should they stray.  We will need to take to the streets when needed.  We will need to counter the left’s propaganda, as well as discuss the news and ideas that the MSM refuses to cover.

The lies of the left wither in the daylight of the truth.  Let’s shine that light.

Have you enlisted?

Image Credit: 2 Sisters Knit

Share

Liberal tolerance? Not if you disagree with them…

Share

Following comments made by on Monday’s O’Reilly Factor, long time political analyst at National Public Radio, Juan Williams was fired by NPR. What did Williams say? He gave his personal opinion about being on an airplane with Muslims.

“I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the Civil Rights movement in this country … But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Is that a fireable offense? Some would say no. But this isn’t Williams’ first dust up with the higher ups at NPR. In 2009, NPR had asked Fox News to stop referring to Williams as an NPR Political Analyst. This stemmed from comments he made about First Lady Michelle Obama. He referred to her as having a “Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going.”

Carmichael was a black activist in the 1960s who coined the phrase “Black Power.” Also, after the Carmichael quote, Williams’ position at NPR was changed from staff correspondent to national analyst.

Even Whoopi Goldberg, who recently stormed off stage during a taping of the View in which Bill O’Reilly said that 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims said that Williams should not have been fired. While discussing Williams’ firing, the ladies of the View came to the consensus that all Williams was doing was giving an honest, personal opinion and that he should not have lost his job over it. G host Patricia Heaton, famous for playing Raymond’s wife on Everybody Loves Raymond said it best when she remarked that had Williams said he got nervous when he was around Tea Party people, he would never have been fired by NPR.

The ladies at the View aren’t the only ones who have something to say about this. Bill O’Reilly has said that NPR should not receive taxpayer dollars since they are in essence censuring Williams. Former Speaker of the House, New Gingrich and former Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin have both voiced similar statements.

What we have here is a taxpayer funded, far left organization pretending to be a non-biased news outlet firing someone because of a personal opinion that they did not happen to agree with.

Share

Blog Focus: A Plague of Incurious, Liberal Know-it-Alls

Share

As part of the Blog Focus Feature, I couldn’t resist posting this from Reaganite Republican.

A Plague of Incurious, Liberal Know-it-Alls

Does it ever occur to them that there might be a reason for the things other people do?

Richard Pecore has an illuminating and insightful piece in America Thinker today- sure applies to my personal journey and long-evolving political philosophy, and I’m sure some of this will sound mightily familiar to you…some excerpts (highlights mine):

Liberals feel compelled to tell us they know better, without ever asking a question. They do so without giving a second thought to why Conservatives might disagree or believe as we do. They do so without investigating whether our belief system might even be a better fit for them.

Having digested their entire belief system based upon liberal schooling and maintained their slanted viewpoint with liberal media, the idea that their own ideas could be misguided has never occurred to them. Their liberal mindset precludes that possibility because their entire ego is tied up in it. If their ideas are wrong then they are wrong and their words have no value. Questioning their own value system therefore, usually elicits anger or violence from them.

You’ll have to click here to read the rest.  Trust me when I say that it is worth the jump to Reaganite Republican.

Share

Liberalism: Losing is Winning, and Winning is Losing

Share

In the upside-down world of the Liberal Zone, things take on a surreal quality.  I know the saying that suggests, “only a liberal can stand on his head and tell everyone else that they’re upside down,” but what I saw this morning takes the cake.

Apparently, an Ottawa youth soccer league has decreed that if a a team wins by more than five goals, they lose!  For more on this steaming pile of liberal fail, here are some comments from the National Post.

The Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league’s newly implemented edict is intended to dissuade a runaway game in favour of sportsmanship. The rule replaces its five-point mercy regulation, whereby any points scored beyond a five-point differential would not be registered.

Kevin Cappon said he first heard about the rule on May 20 — right after he had scored his team’s last allowable goal. His team then tossed the ball around for fear of losing the game.

He said if anything, the league’s new rule will coddle sore losers.

“They should be saying anything is possible. If we can get five goals really fast, well, so can the other team,” said Kevin, 17, who has played in the league for five years. “People grow in adversity, they don’t really get worse…. I think you’ll see more leadership skills being used if a losing team tries to recuperate than if they never got into that situation at all.”

Well, leadership skills are bad, folks.  That implies that some kids can think for themselves and adapt.  The left would view that as counterrevolutionary and dangerous, so that is to be minimized.

Mr. Cappon said the organization is trying to “reinvent the wheel” by fostering a non-competitive environment. The league has 3,000 children enrolled ranging in age from four to 18 years old.

“Everybody wants a close game, nobody wants blowouts, but we don’t want to go by those farcical rules that they come up with,” he said. “Heaven forbid when these kids get into the real world. They won’t be prepared to deal with the competition out there.”

Paul Cholmsky, whose four- and six-year-old boys play in the league, said the intended goal of a default-lose rule might backfire in teaching life skills.

“If there’s one team that’s consistenly dominant and one team that’s not, well, that’s life,” he said.

Gentlemen, these children ARE being prepared for life…in the nanny state.  Let’s say that Junior decides not to study in school, and his career options consist of; “do you want fries with that?” The government will fear for his self esteem and thoughtfully redistribute some wealth from the kid that made A’s, and is successful (forget that this causes the successful kid to hire less people, or even lay some off).  If Junior buys a house that he can’t afford, no problem!  The nanny state will come to the rescue!  In fact, the nanny state will force banks to lend him the money!  Remember that in the nanny state, people have equality of outcome, NOT opportunity.  Failure will be rewarded, and success will be punished.

I really hope that some parents will tire of this fail and form leagues that actually teach real life lessons, like hard work, practice, and learning from failure.  Just rescuing people leads to dependence and failure.

Share

Leftist Professor is Booed for Condemning Arizona Law

Share

Here is a video of a liberal professor being booed for attacking the Arizona Immigration law.

Note that she repeats the tired lie that the law about the law being about racial profiling.  I wonder if she read it, or is she simply lying?  Did you notice that her speech consisted of mostly meaningless liberal double talk?

Here is some more analysis on this event from Campus Reform.

It seems a major disconnect exists between the students at Arizona — as evidenced by the Soto video — and the student senate. The student government voted 9-1 to pass the bill denouncing the Senate Bill 1070, yet students voiced their opposition to Soto’s derision of the bill in a manner not conforming to the view that all University of Arizona students are opposed to the sane law passed by the state.

Nationwide polls show 65-70 percent of American’s favor what Arizona is doing and 70 – 75 percent of Arizona residents polled favor the bill. The student senate at the University of Arizona appears to be run by left-wing zealots who would have joined in standing with the Democrats who clapped for the Mexican President as he lambasted the new Arizona law in Washington DC.

This whole ordeal shows that apathy and indifference to the left on college campuses is the reality, not that students are inherently leftist. When left to their own devices, students would rather enjoy time with friends then engage in politics.

However, when students no longer fear for their grades by conforming to their teachers leftist views, moments like the one Soto found herself confronted with are the norm.

It seems that there are some weaknesses in the indoctrination machine.   I’d say that is some good news.  It also got me thinking of this in terms of the “big picture.”  We know that public education, from government pre-school to government universities, are all set up for indoctrination.  This system is designed so throughout a young person’s life, they will get a steady dose of government sponsored propaganda.  The final product, so to speak, is intended to be an unquestioning, dumbed-down drone, suitable for subservience to a top-down controlled state.

The snag that the “progressives” face is that they haven’t eliminated the free flow of information.  In a state that denies the citizenry the ability to speak and get information for multilple sources, none of the people in that audience would have been able to read the bill.  They wouldn’t know that the POTUS, Janet Napalitano, or the professor here, were lying through their teeth.  They would have no access to information that shows the damage that illegal immigration causes.  They would know nothing more than what the government told them. They would be little more than bleating sheep (mmm, mmm, mmm).

Still wondering why Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd were hired?  Their disdain for free speech is openly stated.  If they had their way, the “progressives” would have their utopia; in which AGW was “real,” there would be no death panels (even though granny died awful young), and any information that proved the elites wrong would disappear down the memory hole.

Share

Education in Arizona Just Improved Significantly

Share

While the main focus in Arizona has been the immigration law, they are up to some other things that are going to infuriate the left.

One is particular, is HB 2281.  Here are some excerpts (formatting changed to make it easier to read)…

15-111. Declaration of policy

THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO TREAT AND VALUE EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE.

Uh-oh!  How are the “progressives” going to use race and class to separate us?  How are the La Raza folks going to indoctrinate more useful idiots to hate the “gringos?”

15-112. Prohibited courses and classes; enforcement

A. A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.

3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.

4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.

Can you see why the left will have a tantrum about this?  They can’t use race and class to pit people against each other, and promote racial/class collectivism rather than individuality.  They just banned the liberal agenda!

Also, where are we as a country when a state HAS to ban openly teaching the overthrow of the US government from the classroom?   Why should this even be necessary?

B. IF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DETERMINES THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IS IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A, THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SHALL NOTIFY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL THAT IT IS IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A. IF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DETERMINES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SUBSECTION A WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER A NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION, THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION MAY DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO WITHHOLD UP TO TEN PER CENT OF THE MONTHLY APPORTIONMENT OF STATE AID THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE DUE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL ADJUST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL’S APPORTIONMENT ACCORDINGLY. WHEN THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DETERMINES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION A, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL RESTORE THE FULL AMOUNT OF STATE AID PAYMENTS TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL.

C. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL PAY FOR ALL EXPENSES OF A HEARING CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.

D. ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO TITLE 41, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 10.

E. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT:

1. COURSES OR CLASSES FOR NATIVE AMERICAN PUPILS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW.

2. THE GROUPING OF PUPILS ACCORDING TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING CAPABILITY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, WHICH MAY RESULT IN A DISPARATE IMPACT BY ETHNICITY.

3. COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE THE HISTORY OF ANY ETHNIC GROUP AND THAT ARE OPEN TO ALL STUDENTS, UNLESS THE COURSE OR CLASS VIOLATES SUBSECTION A.

4. COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE THE DISCUSSION OF CONTROVERSIAL ASPECTS OF HISTORY.

F. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT THE INSTRUCTION OF THE HOLOCAUST, ANY OTHER INSTANCE OF GENOCIDE, OR THE HISTORICAL OPPRESSION OF A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED ON ETHNICITY, RACE, OR CLASS.

Sections E and F are the parts that will never be discussed or acknowledged by the left.  The legislation does not ban ethnic studies. It desegregates ethnic studies.  It doesn’t avoid or ban the discussion of “oppression,” or genocide.  The legislation simply removes the liberal agenda from the equation.

That is why there is going to be a massive tantrum in Arizona.

This is a serious blow to the left.  We know that the left gains members by separating people into groups and then pitting those groups against each other.  They de-emphasize individuality and stress collectivism.  They convince people that due to their racial or class “identity,” that they are oppressed by another group, and it is only with the assistance of the left can they achieve anything.  Then, after the groups are dependent on the “government drug,’ they will always support the political party that promises to continue the dependency.

After all, if you actually teach people to think beyond color and class, they may start exhibiting that “independent thinking” that the left hates so much.  Remember John Dewey?

Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

Arizona is taking a big bite out of the indoctrination machine, for that, they should be applauded.  Of course, it’s safe to predict that the left will make baseless accusations of racism and Nazism.  Then again, that’s all they have.  If they discuss the actual merits of the legislation, they will lose.

H/T: American Thinker

Share

Some Brief Thoughts on the Nature of Ideological Warfare

Share

Remember this quote from Michelle Obama?

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed.”

She was far more prophetic than she will ever know.

Since Obama’s election, millions of Americans have become more informed, and more involved.  The Tea Party movement has galvanized millions in calling for smaller, more responsible government.  We are reading more and more, and in many cases, writing extensively and otherwise exchanging information.  We are in the process of returning the GOP to its roots.  We are engaging in nothing less than a peaceful ideological revolt against the left-and we’re meeting with some success.

These are all encouraging signs.  However, we must realize one thing:  enlisting in this “army” is a lifetime commitment.  This isn’t like WWI, or WWII.  There will be no definitive capitulation.  There will be no surrender ceremony, after which we get go home to the old status quo.  Our adversaries will never give up.  They may be defeated, or delayed, but they will go to ground; hiding within the bureaucracies, universities, and other institutions.  They will continue to indoctrinate youth.  They will continue to spin lies and propaganda.  They will continue to divide and exploit by race, economics, gender, or religion.  And, when they see the opportunity, they will strike out at freedom via regulation, legislation, and legal decisions.  Failing that, they will resort to thuggery and violence.

We look to be victorious in November.  We might win again in 2012.  Even if we are more successful than our wildest dreams, we will still be needed.  The candidates that we support will need our help, and our guidance, should they stray.  We will need to take to the streets when needed.  We will need to counter the left’s propaganda, as well as discuss the news and ideas that the MSM refuses to cover.

The lies of the left wither in the daylight of the truth.  Let’s shine that light.

Have you enlisted?

Image Credit: 2 Sisters Knit

Share

Who is Elena Kagan? Some of Her Actual Words

Share

As soon as I finished posting my article yesterday morning, I continued my search for writings on the Internet directly from Elena Kagan herself.  Here are the results of my search:

Harvard Law Review  2001
Presidential Administration

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol114_kagan.pdf

The Daily Princetonian
Several articles written in 1980

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/section/elenakagan/

University of Chicago Law Review, 1995
Confirmation Messes, Old and New

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Confirmation-Messes.pdf

Catalog of Princeton University Senior Theses
However to order a copy of it will cost $54.60 (.35 cents a page) + 6.00 postage.

http://libweb5.princeton.edu/theses/index.htm

She wrote the foreward for “Transformations in American Legal History:  Essays in Honor of Professor Morton J. Horwitz” by David Hamilton & Alfred Brophy.
I could not find an on-line copy to read, but here is the link for it at Amazon.com.  Or you could see if the library or your local book store has it and read it right in the store.

http://www.amazon.com/Transformations-American-Legal-History-Professor/dp/0674033469

I also saved all the free articles to my hard drive just in case they mysteriously disappear somewhere.  I’m still looking for a free copy of her thesis on-line.  If someone finds one before me, please let me know.  I’m not in a position to buy the last two items on the list.  But I would really love to read them.  It has been interesting to me that out of a 156 page thesis, all the papers and blogs have only been quoting two paragraphs.  I’m sorry, but for me, that alone is not enough evidence to say she is a committed socialist, though I do believe she is a committed liberal.

I have not read all of these yet so if I learn anything interesting, I’ll let you know.

For other info on Ms. Kagan, click here

Share

How I Argue in Person Against Leftists

Share

Since the passage of the Health Care Reform bill, my approach to political discussions has changed in a fundamental way: I no longer allow lies to prevail. My style though, like so many other styles, is unique. First of all, I’m not an overly nice guy, I mean “fake” nice smiling at everything people say. In other words, I’m not a politician. What I do emphasize is two things: respect and factual accuracy. These two basic approaches are devastating to the leftists who tend to base their arguments on gross distortions of the truth and emotional appeals. Here are some examples of how this has worked in practice:

– Discussing education with a teacher, one of her arguments for why education in this country is not doing as well as it should was that this “The US is committed to education for all children of all people to the limit of their capacity. This idea is unique, no other country has had either the vision or the resources to undertake this task.” Note: this is a teacher in charge of teaching our children. As many people know, most if not all industrialized countries in the world have a system of universal education at least from K to 12 with the same “vision,” in fact, all of the countries that rank ahead of ours have such a system. Without facts, this discussion would have been based on a false premise and I would have been at a disadvantage. This underscores the importance of independently researching topics that matter to us as a society. It also shows that our teachers need to be better educated before they infect our children with such drivel.

– Recently, I posted a comment on an article written by a conservative and received an email from a liberal who had a problem with what I wrote. He wrote: “I do not go the a website (i.e Huffington post) to read posts that I agree with….I do not need affirmation of my liberals beliefs…..unlike u dittoheads and Beck worshippers who only seek affirmation of your racist and narrow minded views.” We see here clearly that the liberal uses his oft-repeated accusations of racism and stupidity/ignorance laced with other assumptions. My reply was lengthy and so I won’t post it here, but to paraphrase I explained to him my multiracial background, the fact that I read articles from different perspectives, and I suggested that he practice more of that liberal “tolerance” that they preach before he starts accusing people of things he knows nothing of. At the bottom of my email I wrote “God bless you.” This final part was the most important for various reasons, first of all he seemed very very angry and possibly needed to be reminded that though we may disagree, we don’t have to be nasty. Second, the far Left gets even more incensed when conservatives wish them well or invoke God and I wondered if he was that type. If someone is an ideological enemy, it does not mean that they are our mortal enemy (though often the converse is true) therefore we must remember to retain civility in discussions since this is far more powerful that foaming at the mouth (as they tend to do). Respect your opponent and never underestimate him.

– Discussing an article by Newt Gingrich with a liberal, instead of debating the content of the article he went on attacking Gingrich personally, calling out bullet point after bullet point of why he is a terrible person. Here’s one of his gems:

Considering that he cheated on his wife while she was dying of cancer at the exact same time he was trying to impeach Bill Clinton, I’m betting it’s that he’s a lying sack of shit.

For those paying attention, this accusation is false (his marital problems took place more than a decade earlier) but that won’t stop this guy. Another interesting part is that he, in an episode of projection, called Gingrich’s article “intellectually dishonest.” My reply was “you attack the man not the message, THAT is intellectually dishonest… Shame on you for debating things outside this article.” Only after this, did the liberal realize that he was getting out of hand and promised to “tone it down.” Fortunately, we were eventually able to discuss the actual content only to have him misrepresent data and force me to, again, correct him. This is what many on the Left do, especially the more extreme ones, they choose to sidestep the argument completely in favor of pointing out something distasteful yet unrelated. Whenever you see someone opt for attacking a person or thing related to the topic instead of discussing policy head-on, it shows that either they cannot intelligently discuss policy or have opinions that are based on whether they personally like someone or something, as opposed to analyzing the benefits and risks of the policy in question. Having a clear head, pointing out when they are being cruel or dishonest, and having facts on hand is critical to refuting the near-constant barrage of disinformation that liberals spew during debates.

These are just some of my more recent encounters with the Left, all of them show the shallowness of their arguments and highlight the importance of both respect and factual accuracy when engaging them. On the national scene, this becomes more pressing… but I say that the conservative revolution must be from the bottom-up and in the microcosm that is our everyday lives we must make sure that we blast away the silly leftist ideas every chance we get, but do it with respect so that the liberal can back away with dignity. Who knows, we might even convince a few of them in the process.

-AG

Original Post: NeoRepublica

Share

It just doesn't matter…

Share
  • Emotion
  • Feel good rhetoric
  • Guilt
  • Political correctness

These all seem to be the underpinnings of the what the left sometimes uses to justify their legislative decisions. At least that is what appeared to be the case when Representative Phil Hare (D – IL) was approached at a town hall meeting recently. In a video that has gone viral after being posted on youtube, you can hear the good Congressman say, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this.”

Let that sink in.

We have an elected official publicly stating that he disregards what he took an oath to uphold and defend. It would seem that the Constitution needs to be defended from him. But let’s have a listen and then I will discuss his words a bit further.

Before I get to the discussion on his words, and in the interest of fairness, Rep. Hare has released a video in an effort to clarify his own remarks.

Okay, in the first video he begins telling a story about someone taking their child to the hospital. Rep. Hare says,

“It’s when you take your child to the hospital and you think its really bad and you heart is thumping and bumping and bumping and bumping while you’re waiting for the doctor to tell you what it is and then the doctor comes out and says its going to be okay, except you don’t have insurance and you’re stuck with a ten or fifteen thousand dollar bill and your heart starts pumping again and you’re “What am I going to do?”

Let’s deconstruct this.

First of all, I have taken my children and other close family members to the hospital and I can well understand that feeling you get when waiting for the doctor to find out how your loved one is doing. When you are waiting to find out if they will be okay, or if you need to brace for the worst. That is a terrible feeling and an awful experience to have to endure. I have been there, done that and without going into a lot of personal details, suffice it to say that even when I had to wait to hear the worst from a doctor, not once did I worry about the ensuing hospital bill. Not even when I did not have health insurance, for I knew that there were avenues for me to pursue and that my thoughts had to be about my family who was in the hospital. The finances could wait, in fact they did wait and after the ordeal was over, I made arrangements with the hospital and worked things out. Was it easy? No. But then that is life, isn’t it?

Additionally, the doctor would never mention the fact that you don’t have health insurance, because the doctor is just a tad bit preoccupied with saving the life of your loved one. Doctors in hospitals never even know whether you have insurance or not. That is the job of the admitting staff and the billing department.

Further, Rep. Hare says something about being stuck with a ten or fifteen thousand dollar hospital bill and you don’t know what you are gonna do. Well, how many people think nothing of going into debt to the tune of twenty, twenty five or even thirty thousand dollars just to purchase an automobile? Do they worry and turn to their government? No, they make payments and pay the car off. This is no different and for a lawmaker to use this emotional rhetoric to justify passing a piece of legislation is reckless and very unprofessional.

The exchange between Hare and some of his constituents goes on from there and he is asked, “Where in the Constitution…” by another person when he cuts that person off, retorting, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.”

Then in his rebuttal video he says that his words were taken out of context. That he meant he wasn’t worried that the health care bill would be ruled unconstitutional. Hmmm, that is a new one on me; taking your own words out of context. I am curious, how does one do that? Well Rep. Hare, I am afraid you can’t. You were asked a direct question about where in the Constitution it authorized Congress to force people to purchase a product, in this case health insurance, as a condition of citizenship. Your answer was, “I’m not worried about the Constitution on this, to be honest.” I do not see how that can be construed any differently. Not once did in that video did someone ask you if you thought it would be ruled unconstitutional. The constituent was asking where you thought the power to force purchase of health insurance was shown in the Constitution. Even a few seconds later when Hare asked the person to restate the question, he responded that he did not know where in the Constitution it gave Congress that authority.

One would think that anyone voting on this legislation would at least have an idea of the Constitutional authority granting them the power to force purchase of said insurance. Now I will admit that the people asking him the questions were pretty combative, and it seemed he lost his cool later on in the video when he left the room, not bothering to answer any more questions. But for him to say that the Constitution does not matter to him on this, whether he was mad or not is very revealing.

Also, in the video he purports to have read the bill not once, but THREE times. That is over EIGHT THOUSAND PAGES. I would say that if this is true, then Rep. Hare has an awful lot of free time on his hands, because not only is it a lot of reading, that reading is dry and convoluted legalese; not something you can skim over.

What we have here is another example of an elected official that is woefully out of touch with the American people. All I can say is, thank God my representative is John Shimkus. I have met the man and I can assure you that he would never disregard the Constitution in this callous manner.

Let me wrap this article up with a quote from Barack Hussein Obama, “…we’ve got to make some honest decisions, and that’s what elections are for.”

Share

From the Culture Wars: Sweden to Jail Homeschoolers

Share

Sweden is often held up as an example of a model socialist democracy- one where there is material plenty, freedom, and a wide array of social services.  It sounds like the best of both worlds, doesn’t it?  Well, maybe-kinda-sort of.  Apparently, some Swedes aren’t so “free” in the model socialist democracy.

STOCKHOLM (LifeSiteNews.com) – The government of Sweden is taking a hard line against homeschoolers, proposing a bill that will only allow home education under “extraordinary circumstances,” reports the Home School Legal Defense Association. The bill is expected to pass in the Swedish parliament, following a review by the Supreme Administrative Court, and will allow for homeschooling families to face criminal charges.

The news of the socialist government’s hardening attitude toward homeschoolers comes following the state seizure eight months ago of seven year-old Dominic Johansson, whose parents were educating him at home. Since the removal of Dominic by police from a plane the family had boarded with the intention of moving to India, Christer and Annie Johansson have been allowed to see their son for one hour every five weeks.

Despite the seizure of Johansson, homeschooling is not officially illegal in Sweden. But the statist views of the current government are deeply antagonistic towards any movement of citizens away from the state control of education.

Basically,  these folks were attempting to leave the country, and they were taken off the plane?  What are they going to do next, build an…oh… say… maybe a wall?

SO here we have a socialist state that is very concerned about control.  This should not surprise us.

HSLDA said that while Sweden is often portrayed as a “social utopia,” what is not widely known is its antagonism toward homeschoolers, “and, in reality, anyone who deviates from what the Swedish government defines as ‘normal’.”

One American homeschooling mother, Lisa Angerstig, who is married to a Swede, said that the government is becoming “increasingly aggressive,” having already fined the family the equivalent of U.S. $1400.

“Sweden is a beautiful country,” she said, “and the people are very nice. But the government has become increasingly aggressive about education, trying to require that all children go to the state schools. For a country that prides itself on human rights, this type of aggressive behavior is quite shocking.”

What these people are forgetting is that in socialist states, there are no freedoms that are not granted by the government.  Therefore, what the government can give, the government can take away. There are no unalienable rights, other than the state’s right to do as it pleases.

Given the stance and actions of our current government, it shouldn’t be a stretch to assume that it can and eventually will happen here.  Remember, in the socialist state, all must be indoctrinated.  There can be no real dissent, or no real options.   Everything is from the state, and all is of the state, including you; body, mind, and soul.

Share

Is it live? Or is it Memogate?

Share

Posted and then hurriedly taken down from Politico’s Live Pulse blog was a memo that was allegedly from the Democrats and was rife with talking points on how to fight the “Republican smear campaign” against Obamacare.

“The memo hit the inbox about noon Friday, looking for all the world like Democratic talking points for health reform.

Sensitive internal documents find their way into reporters’ inboxes all the time. Sometimes they get published. Sometimes they don’t. The ones that do are the ones that look, sound and feel credible to the reporters covering the story. This one does, with its talk of a full SGR repeal, the JCT estimate and a streamlining of the insurance exchanges.”

The “SGR” referred to in the memo is the sustainable growth rate mechanism, or the ‘doc fix’ that the Democrats are leaving out of the health care reform bills so that they appear more fiscally sound than they are. The ‘doc fix’ is the reduction of payments to physicians that accept Medicare payments. By putting it in the health care bill, it makes it score as much more costly by the Congressional Budget Office. The Dems have decided to leave that little nugget out and vote on it later this year, thereby allowing Obamacare to be less expensive. The memo that found it’s way to Politico talked about that very thing and also about other ways to get around discussing the true aspects of Obamacare.

For example:

“We have increasingly noticed how right wing fringe media are trying to pick apart the CBO score. We cannot emphasize enough: do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead focus only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered.” [emphasis theirs]

So there you have it. If indeed this memo is authentic, then you have the Democratic leadership admitting that the CBO scoring is inaccurate. This memo was the subject of an article at the National Review Online, as well and it goes on to instruct Democrats to rely on talking points that Obamacare is “good for physicians,” and to frame the debate on Medicaid in percentages instead of actual numbers of uninsured Americans:

“Under reform-according to Table 2 of CBO’s letter today – cover 95% of American (not counting undocumented workers). It is ideal to use “95 percent” instead of letting the media frame the discussion that 23 million Americans are still uninsured. Some Republicans who are against reform have tried to assert the 23 million are inconsistent with the President’s Sept. 9, 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress that there are 30 million Americans without health insurance.”

But is this real? Or a hoax? As the piece in Politico points out:

“There would seem to be two possibilities. One is an outright hoax, with some dirty trickster hunched over a keyboard to fashion a memo so realistic-sounding in substance and tone that even seasoned health reporters could get fooled.

The other is a more complicated explanation – perhaps a draft that somehow got into circulation, even before it was widely seen within the party staff and committees, but nonetheless represents the point of view of the Democrats heading into a critical weekend vote.”

The Democrats called on Politico to pull it from their website and labeled the memo a hoax. Of course they would, I mean not even the leadership in the Democratic Party is dumb enough to put their name on this. Either way, this demonstrates how the left works because even though this memo is probably too good to be true, the talking points listed in it are basically what the left has been spouting for the last few days. Even Michele Bachmann as a guest on Mark Levin’s radio show on Friday said that when talking to her Democratic counter parts about the health care bill, they resort to talking points even in discussions with colleagues. That is very sad. To spout talking points to the media is one thing and even though it is annoying, it is understandable. But to have to fall back on them when discussing legislation with other Congressmen is just very, very disheartening to hear.

Now more than ever, we need to make the next election cycle count. It is time to run these far left, talking point spewing, spineless, faux-moderate Democrats out of town on a rail.

Full memo here.

Share