Even the slow to realize Liberals are finally beginning to get the idea that our President is a monumental asshole…to everyone.
These are not good times for the Republic (and if you laughed or scratched your head at me calling America a republic, I rest my case). – Jonah Goldberg
But they are amusing times, at least for those of us capable of extracting some measure of mirth and schadenfreude from the president’s predicament.
With the sand running out on the Obama presidency, it’s finally dawning on the president’s friends and fans that he can be a real jerk.
Consider the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. For the last six years, he’s spent much of his time rolling his eyes and sneering at Republicans. His subspecialty is heaping ridicule on conservative complaints about, well, everything and anything. If it bothers conservatives, it must be irrational, partisan, churchy, fake, hypocritical — or all of the above. Meanwhile, poor Barack Obama, while not always without fault in Milbank’s eyes, is the grown-up, the good guy trying to do good things amidst a mob of malcontents and ideologues.
That is, until this month. President Obama wants to get a trade deal passed. He needs Democrats to do it. But, Milbank laments, Obama’s blowing it.
“Let’s suppose you are trying to bring a friend around to your point of view,” Milbank writes. “Would you tell her she’s emotional, illogical, outdated and not very smart? Would you complain that he’s being dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with his knee-jerk response?”
“Such a method of a persuasion is likelier to get you a black eye than a convert,” Milbank notes. “Yet this is how President Obama treats his fellow Democrats on trade…”
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.
Yes, well, true enough. But lost on Milbank is the fact that this is precisely how Obama treats everyone who disagrees with him. When Obama — who ran for office touting his ability to work with Republicans and vowing to cure the partisan dysfunction in Washington — treated Republicans in a far ruder and shabbier way, Milbank celebrated.
Of course, he was hardly alone. The president has spent his entire presidency insisting that his political opponents are, to borrow a phrase from Milbank, “emotional, illogical, outdated and not very smart.” Republicans, in Obama’s view, are always dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with their knee-jerk responses.
To pick just one of countless examples, there was a White House summit on health care in 2010. The president invited members of Congress to discuss the issue in good faith. He then proceeded to treat every concern, objection and argument from Republicans as dumb, dishonest or emotional. They were, according to a column by Milbank, “stepping into Prof. Obama’s classroom.” Milbank marveled at how the “teacher” treated them all “like his undisciplined pupils.” Whenever someone said anything politically inconvenient, the president replied that those were just partisan “talking points.”
When Sen. John McCain, his opponent in the previous election, noted that Obama had broken numerous promises and that the 2,400-page bill was a feeding trough for special interests, Obama eye-rolled. “Let me just make this point, John,” Obama said. “We’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.”
He responded to Sen. Lamar Alexander — he called him “Lamar” — “this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight.” When it was Rep. John Boehner’s turn to speak, Obama reprimanded “John” for trotting out “the standard talking points” and, in the words of a palpably impressed Milbank, forced Boehner to “wear the dunce cap.”
Again, this was all quintessential Obama then, and it’s quintessential Obama now. All that has changed is that he’s doing the exact same thing to Democrats, and it’s making them sad. Specifically, he’s accused Sen. Elizabeth Warren of not having her facts straight. He says she’s just a politician following her partisan self-interest.
But here’s the hilarious part: Liberals can’t take it. The president of NOW, Terry O’Neill, accused Obama of being sexist. O’Neill sniped that Obama’s “clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn’t know what she’s talking about.” She added, “I think it was disrespectful.” Both O’Neill and Sen. Sherrod Brown also sniff sexism in the fact that Obama referred to Warren as “Elizabeth.”
“I think referring to her as first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps?” Brown mused with his typical syntactical ineptness.
Of course, in that White House health care summit and in nearly every other public meeting with Republican senators and congressmen, he referred to them all by their first names.
The great irony is that when Republicans complain about Obama’s haughtiness and arrogance, liberals accuse them of being racist. I hope I don’t miss that phase of this spat while I’m off making the popcorn.
With the talk of how bad Islam is for civilization and the question of just what to do about it, we are seeing those lightly informed about American history claiming that our founders–in particular George Washington–warned us to stay out of “foreign entanglements.” In fact, however, Washington neither said this, nor meant for such a policy to be enacted.
Many on the left and the isolationist right try to use the father of our country to support their ideas against the GOP and to justify their hope that the USA will pull out of the Middle East. Specifically they cite Washington’s farewell address where a retiring president supposedly warned Americans against getting involved with foreign nations and getting caught up in those evil “foreign entanglements.”
On one hand, it is quite amusing to see lefties in love with a founding father or American history and principles for the first time in their lives, certainly, but it isn’t just the left revealing a sudden respect for a founding father with citation of Washington’s address. On the other hand those Ron Paulites and his isolationist wing on the right have for years been bandying about Washington’s farewell address as some sort of “proof” that one of our “first principles” was to stay away from foreign nations.
So, what was Washington really saying? Did he warn us against “foreign entanglements”? Did he think the U.S. should steer clear of all outside political situations and relegate ourselves only to trade with foreigners?
We have to point out, that Washington never used the exact words “foreign entanglements” in his farewell address. That has been a decades-long misconstruction of his last letter to the nation. He did ask why we should “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,” but he never used the exact words “foreign entanglements.”
That dispensed with, we move on to the assumed isolationism of George Washington’s address. What did he mean and did he mean it to be a permanent principle from which the U.S. should never stray?
First of all we must realize that the U.S. had been up to its neck in “foreign entanglements” before it had even become a nation. With wars against the French decades earlier, then the rebellion against Britain with help from the French, pleas to the Dutch for loans, not to mention intrigues in Canada and clashes with Spanish holdings in the new world, the progenitors to the United States, with all that our nascent nation was already a key player on the international stage.
Further the United States had envoys in most of the major European nations long before Washington’s farewell address. So, to say that the U.S. was isolated from the rest of the world and that Washington’s entreaty meant for us to stay that way, to say that this was some axiomatic delineation of American foreign policy is a wrong headed claim. The U.S. was already so “entangled” that it couldn’t be untangled.
One of the important goals of Washington’s letter was to shore up his own foreign policy decisions. Washington had angered the Jefferson/Madison wing of the federal government when he decided not to side with France against England after our revolution ended. In fact, while leaning toward being an anglophile, Washington tried to tread a fine line of “neutrality” between France and England. His farewell address was in part meant to justify a policy choice he had made as president. It was less a doctrine for the ages and more an immediate act of politics.
There was also an important bit of reality that caused Washington and Alexander Hamilton to eschew full support of France and lean toward England. We didn’t have the naval power to back up any major involvement in Europe. In fact, if we had decided to jump in with France, there was no way at all we could have escaped major damage from the extensive and powerful British Navy if we sided too directly with France.
Washington’s idea of neutrality was based in part on the complete inability of the U.S. to back up its foreign policy. But even in that case he did not say in his address that we should forever stay away from any foreign involvement.
Here is the key section of his address:
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
To warn Americans against “permanent alliances” really should go without saying. Decades later a fast friend of the United States basically said the same thing when he, Winston Churchill, said there are “no eternal allies” and “no perpetual enemies” for any nation.
Washington went on to say, though, that sometimes we must form alliances. “Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture,” he wrote, “we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Obviously he understood that always staying neutral–as Paulites and liberals maintain–is not possible.
It should also be realized that this was Washington’s (and Hamilton’s) vision. The farewell address was not an explication of standard practice even when it was written, but Washington’s ideals. Many founders disagreed with this vision. So to act as if an isolationist policy was a singular founding principle is a horrible misread of history.
In To the Farewell Address, the seminal book about Washington’s document and the era in which it was given, Felix Gilbert warned us all not to accept these flawed misconstructions we are discussing here as an explanation what was going on with Washington’s farewell address.
In the conclusion to his essay, Gilbert wrote:
Because the Farewell Address comprises various aspects of American political thinking, it reaches beyond any period limited in time and reveals the basic issue of the American attitude toward foreign policy: the tension between Idealism and Realism. Settled by men who looked for gain and by men who sought freedom, born into independence in a century of enlightened thinking and of power politics, America has wavered in her foreign policy between Idealism and Realism, and her great historical moments have occurred when both were combined.
In other words, today’s neo-isolationist view of America’s “real” foreign policy ideals is woefully incorrect. The U.S. was never isolationist as a first principle. Ron Paul and his isolationists are wrong and so are the liberals who have a sudden and uncharacteristic respect for a founding father.
Finally, it must be noted that this article of mine is discussing only one thing and that is the purpose of Washington’s farewell address when it was delivered in 1796 and what it means to American first principles. I have no interest in using this piece to excuse or justify anything that happened after Washington left the scene. This article is not meant to ascertain what amount of foreign policy is optimal, only that isolationism is not an American first principle.
If WWI or WWII were wrong or our Middle East policy is misguided, those are discussions for other articles, not this one.
So despite all the brown-nosing, sucking up, and general, all around ass kissing President Obama has done to the Ayatollah of Iran, he still urges our own kids to join his jihad.
Way to go, Obama.
On Friday, President Barack Obama slobbered all over himself to come to the aide of the Iranian Mullahs–mostly to spite our Israeli allies. But on the very same day Obama gave the Mullahs his undying love, the Ayatollah urged our own kids to join the world wide movement of violent, Islamist jihad.
On Friday, Obama disgorged a“holiday” statement telling the Mullahs that he was celebrating the Muslim holiday of Nowruz (this one a non-religious holiday). During the statement Obama slobbered all over the wonderfulness of the Mullahs and treated them as America’s true friend.
Yeah, these are the same people who kidnapped the American hostages in 1979, the same people famed for their “death to America” rallies, the same people who have exported terrorism all around the world and helped our enemies killing hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq. These are the people Obama says are his friends.
I say his friends, because these Islamist terrorists are not America’s friends. Obama sure may love them, but they don’t love us. And they never, ever will.
If you can stomach this creep, here is his video statement:
Obama disgorged a series of lies in his Nowruz statement, but no paragraph was more filled with lies than this one:
As I have said many times before, I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully, with diplomacy. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon. Together with the international community, the United States has said that Iran should have access to peaceful nuclear energy, consistent with Iran’s international obligations. So there is a way for Iran–if it is willing to take meaningful, verifiable steps–to assure the world that its nuclear program is, in fact, for peaceful purposes only.
There are several lies, there, of course, but the biggest one is Obama’s claim that the Mullahs issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms. This is a flat out lie.
No Ayatollah, no Mullah, and no Iranian has ever issued any such fatwa.
The invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has done extensive research into compilations of Khamenei’s published fatwas. (See here and here, and citations therein.) No such fatwa has ever been published.
In a sharia state, particularly the one in Iran that is actually run by the country’s top sharia jurists, fatwas are important statements of governing law, like statutes are in the U.S. Yet despite repeated requests, Iran has never produced the purported anti-nuclear weapons fatwa from Khamenei.
McCarthy even notes that Islam is not incompatible with nuclear arms. After all Pakistan is one of the most strict sharia states in history and it has had nuclear arms for decades.
Regardless, Iran has no fatwa on nuclear weapons despite Obama’s lies. Finally, Obama delivered a final outrage in his Nowruz statement by saying that Republicans are exactly like the Iran’s worst Islamist terrorists.
About the desire for diplomacy, Obama said this:
The days and weeks ahead will be critical. Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain. And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution. My message to you–the people of Iran–is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek.
So, there are people “in both our countries” don’t want “diplomacy?? Since when do Republicans not want diplomacy? And how are the hardliners in Iran that want to murder all infidels just like the Republicans in our country? If that doesn’t make your blood boil? Obama you are a cretin.
President Obama made dead sure that Hillary Clinton would never get caught using illegal private email systems while Secretary of State by refusing to appoint an official internal inspector general for the Dept. of State during Hillary’s tenure, a new report shows.
It is the duty of the president to make sure that every government department has its own appointed Inspector General to serve as an internal watchdog over an agency. But during Hillary’s entire tenure, Obama never bothered to fill the vacant IG office for the State Department.
I mean if there’s not Inspector General then, there’s going to be no inspections!
A new report by the Washington Examiner reveals Obama’s complicity in giving Clinton all the cover she needed to do whatever she wanted as Secretary of State by making sure there was no watchdog to keep her honest during her stint at State.
“The White House is saying that the State Department has responsibility for making sure their officials and staff follow the law, but the White House is responsible for making sure they have the tools to do that and they fell down on that job in making sure they have the No. 1 tool, and that’s an inspector general,” John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan open-government group, told the Washington Examiner.
“I told you guys the Senate GOP would screw us over on DHS funding, but even I had no idea Mitch McConnell would capitulate so easily. I assumed he’d do a major song and dance first, but instead he just went all Ned Beatty in Deliverance the moment Barack Obama looked at him funny.” –Eunuch Mitch McConnell Squeals Like a Pig
“This is a total victory for the Obama position,” said a GOP senator unhappy with McConnell’s plan
“Counterfeiters use the reputation of a trademark, which brand manufacturers have built up on the basis of the quality of their products, to fool consumers about the true origin and quality of the goods.” — Wikipedia
Last November, Americans voted out the turkeys. The noxious policies of Obama and theSocialists Democrats were given the old heave-ho, like holiday giblets gone gamy. The Grand Old Party was handed both houses of Congress in the kind of landslide victory seen about as often as Halley’s Comet. Rejoicing was heard throughout the land — at least, that part of the land which still subscribed to old fashioned notions like the rule of law. Little did we realize that we’d voted in counterfeits, cheap knock-offs that looked good in the display case, but fell apart once they got in the rain.
Two months in, and the GOP has retreated more often than the Royal Italian Army. If these are the mutts we’re looking to for salvation, it’s time to head for the shelters. Republicans under the direction of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner have surrendered to the Democrats on every issue, from immigration to net neutrality. They’ve rubber-stamped Obama’s new attorney-general nominee, Eric Holder Light. If we don’t need a new army, we sure as hell need some new generals to run the old one.
After going to the Senate floor and slamming Obama’s executive amnesty in November, McConnell hoisted the white flag of surrender … Obama attacked the time-honored American tradition of separation of powers with his executive amnesty and for that reason alone, House Speaker John Boehner and Mitch McConnell should’ve gone to the mat and done everything necessary in their power to overturn it. However, the GOP leadership and “establishment” don’t really want to change how Washington works. There’s something wrong with a party that can be frightened with just a dirty look into not shutting what is one of the most useless departments of the Federal government and at the same time, claims to be for Constitutional and limited government. This is why the American people and conservatives are angry at them and don’t trust them.(After The Latest Mitch McConnell Surrender, Why Should Conservatives Even Bother Supporting Republicans)
People love to hear themselves talk, particularly if they have nothing to say. In fact, the less they have to say, the more often they tend to say it. This is true of most people, but most especially those incorrigible swindlers that a negligent electorate unaccountably installs into the seats of power. Anyone announcing a desire to run for office should be immediately disqualified from doing so. The 114th United States Congress proves the point.
The worst kept secret in America is that the Democrats do not want the Keystone Pipeline to go forward. The reasons they use as an excuse for their resistance to Keystone escape anyone with a modicum of common sense. They publicly worry about the possibility of a spill from the pipeline causing an environmental disaster. The statistics I was able to find suggest that there are somewhere around 2.5 million miles of pipeline throughout the United States. Not all of these transport crude oil, with some carrying natural gas and other types of fuel. Do accidents happen? Most certainly they do. Does that mean we should not build the Keystone Pipeline to take advantage of the tar sands oil in Canada? Most certainly not. To make that leap of logic, one would also have to stop building cars because people have accidents in them. The list of examples that apply could go on for quite a few paragraphs, but I think you get the idea.
But, with the Democrats desperate to stop Keystone, they are using every excuse they can manufacture to put on the brakes. With the Republicans in charge in Congress making it known they will pass a bill approving the final construction of Keystone to go forward, they are getting even more desperate. Even though President Obama is sure to veto the bill, his friends in Congress want to keep him from having to make that very public choice. Therefore, they have been offering amendments to the Senate bill that will approve Keystone. I found two of those amendments to be unusual, but not so much surprising.
Fox News – Among the Democratic amendments killed by the Senate was a proposal to put an 8 cent fee on every barrel of oil which would move through the pipeline and also require financial disclosure of those who benefit from the tar sands project in Canada.
Okay, so the Republicans in the Senate were able to kill the amendments. That’s a good thing. But it begs the questions to be asked. Why single Keystone out to tax the oil that passes through it? Yes, I know they call it a fee, but that’s just a tax in disguise. Just to give you an idea of the revenue that would raise, every 1 million barrels would $80,000. You can see that would grow exponentially as more oil flowed from Canada.
To the other amendment that was killed, which is what prompted me to write this post, why is it so important for the Democrats to know who will profit from the tar sands oil being pumped south to Texas? I thought that’s how this country is supposed to work. If you see a particular product or service that you are interested in furthering, and you have the money to back that particular venture, then you are free to invest to your heart’s content. To the liberals in America who seem to miss the point, making a profit is the point of the entire process. Making said profit is not an evil deed.
Are the Democrats so worried that someone will make a dollar besides their liberal friends in the alternative or green energy sectors? Or do they just have a particular dislike of all things related to the oil and gas? They clearly embrace the jobs that are supposedly being created in the green energy fields. In contrast, they shy away from the jobs that the Keystone Pipeline will create. It appears to me their priorities are fairly clear.
Iran recently announced their decision to run ‘exercises’ of their naval operations. Small in scope and size, it doesn’t mean they aren’t a direct threat to the United States.
Last month, the Iranian Fars News Agency announced that the fleet would undertake a three-month mission and would consist of a destroyer and a helicopter-carrying vessel.
While the Iranian deployment may consist of two vessels, the commander of Iran’s Northern Navy Fleet, Adm.l Afshin Rezayee Haddad, said that Iran would send a “fleet” to the Atlantic Ocean.
These ships undoubtedly would be under constant U.S. Navy observation while trolling along the U.S. East Coast and possibly in the Gulf of Mexico.
The ships could use Venezuela as station to refuel and resupply, or could return to Iran.
All one of those ships would need to do is launch a crude nuclear device to detonate in the atmosphere above the United States to cause an EMP effect.
National security experts have expressed alarm over the announcement by Iran that it will position its warships off the coast of the United States, from where they could launch a nuclear warhead to explode at high altitude to create an electromagnetic pulse.
That could knock the American electrical grid out of commission, disrupting supplies of energy, food, communications, fuel and more for a long period.
And to make matters worse, the device could be launched by a commercial vessel.
These experts agree that there would be no warning and that the U.S. missile defense system would not be able to respond in time to prevent the high altitude nuclear explosion.
They also believe that if such a missile were launched, it would not be from an Iranian warship but from a commercial vessel sailing along the East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.
“It shows they could put a weapon on a boat or freighter, and if Iran has ballistic missiles it could put it anywhere on the U.S. coast,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and currently a senior fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute.
Hmm, wasn’t Iran one of those countries Obama spoke of?
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.” – Barack Obama, May 2008.
So because his sympathies lie with the Muslims, he has continued to ignore the threat posed by a nuclear Iran since he took office 6 years ago. Even someone who is an Iranian supporter still should see the threat they pose and how they will act when armed with a nuclear weapon.
I’m not saying our President lacks insight when it comes to foreign policy, and can’t decipher the facts as presented to him in his daily briefings, or even that he’s dumb.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that Barack Obama would have trouble tracking a badly wounded elephant in four feet of fresh snow.
“John Boehner has just squandered the election results before the Republicans even are sworn in.” – Rush Limbaugh
“$2.5 billion for illegal immigrants and Obamacare is funded through the fiscal year, that’s a conservative speaker? I don’t think so. It’s a sad day that John Boehner doesn’t realize that there was an election … he is everything that’s wrong with Washington. He’s a Democratic Party-lite … He should not be the speaker. He should be replaced.” – Sean Hannity
“I think he ought to be able to pick up some Democratic votes for speaker this time.” – Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
Barack Obama might consider John Boehner to be his own personal Santa Claus, but for those folks who believe that amnesty and Obamacare are roughly as desirable as an outbreak of herpes in a nunnery — in other words, most of America — the House Weeper is the Grinch who stole Christmas.
The Obama/Boehner bill is a piece of pork-laden profligacy so atrocious that even a pair of demented hard-core leftists like Nancy Pelosi and the Cherokee Bolshevik from Massachusetts opposed it — and anytime a statist duo like that turns its back on a trillion-plus dollars in proposed federal spending, you know something stinks worse than a road-killed polecat on the 4th of July. Pelosi and Red Lizzie Warren, of course, are never against spending per se, just on who is permitted to do it. This places them, for once, on the same side of the wire as El Rushbo:
[Campaign finance] limits have practically been obliterated, which means that corporate donors can just start giving left and right. It used to be a limit of $37,000. Now it’s $737,000, something. It’s incredible. But the point of it, do you know why it’s in there? You know why? The Republicans put it in. You know why it’s in there, folks? This is how corporate America’s gonna defeat the Tea Party … it’s a Republican establishment ploy that kind of dovetails nicely with Obama sicking the IRS on the Tea Party to basically eliminate them as a viable threat by relaxing a registration in Dodd-Frank that pretty much permits corporations to spend any kind of money they want on politics … Obama and John Boehner want a bill that the bases of their respective parties reject.
Red Liz, on the other hand, has built a career on bashing Wall Street, a pastime popular since the halcyon days of old Jay Gould (“I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half.”). Not that some of those sticky-fingered stock swindlers and felonious financiers don’t deserve a decent bashing now and again. But, just as not every Democrat is a communist agent (there’s probably one or two socialists), not everyone in the financial markets makes their living by stealing bread from the mouths of widows, orphans, and disabled war veterans. In fact, without Wall Street, America might well be Mexico without the high standard of living. In which case, we’d all be sneaking across their border.
Meanwhile, Boehner-clone Mitch McConnell and the beady-eyed pickpocket, Harry Reid, have professed surprise that Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are holding up the vote on the Cromnibus in the Senate:
[…] the two Republican lawmakers demanded a vote on a proposal to cut funds from the bill that could be used to implement President Obama’s new immigration policy, ending any chance the measure could clear the Senate and be sent to the White House with a minimum of fuss … Senate Republican leaders have pledged to challenge Obama’s immigration policy early in the new year, after the GOP takes control of the Senate. But Cruz suggested they shouldn’t be entirely trusted to keep their pledge. “We will learn soon enough if those statements are genuine and sincere,” he said, in a clear reference to Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner.
Why in the world would Ted think that? Maybe because every time McConnell and Boehner enter the ring, they throw up their hands and holler “NO MAS!” before the bell sounds for Round One.
In the opinion of this humble observer of the asylum we all have to live in, the devolution of the political parties and the government established by our constitution in America is nearly complete. The so-called two parties system of Democrats and Republicans has devolved into an amorphous group of what we might call “Politocrats”. The Politicorats pretend to stand for something they believe will encourage the uninformed tuned-out electorate to vote for them, but they are only interested in their own power, perks, and prestige. So, in that sense, there is little noticeable difference in the two parties when they are in power. When they are out of power, however, they expend great energy and money to convince the electorate that everything wrong in the country is the fault of the party that is in power. Those contrived differences aside,they know that the way to increase their power, perks, and prestige is to make sure that they pass laws and regulations that increase the size and power of the central government (federal, state, or local); thereby, diminishing the power of the electorate. In today’s news there are two examples of the lack of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans; even after the People spoke out in the recent elections demanding change:
This devolution process has been going on for a very long time. As one would suspect, the process has, out of necessity, created an ever bigger bureaucracy to manage the daily affairs of the ever growing government. It’s arguable today which group; the Politocrats or the Bureaucrats, has the most power. The trend seems clear. The Politocrats are becoming less relevent with each passing year. Soon, they will be left with only their perks. Their power will be a thing of the past. If polls are any indication, they have already lost their prestige.
At the top of the power food chain are those who act behind the curtains to manipulate governments around the world for their own gain. The own directly or indirect the majority of the world’s central banks and they use their great wealth and power often through NGO’s like the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Tides Foundation, as well as influential think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or the Trilateral Commission to manipulate the Poliocrats of the most important nations on the planet to pass laws and regulations under the guise of helping the less fortunate or to seemingly punish themselves (the rich). You’ll also find them behind and profiting most wars and financial crisis. Yet, after many decades of this game, they themselves come out as the only winners. Wealth and the power that goes with it inevitably is redistributed to them. For the purposes of this post, I’ll call them the Powercrats. The ultimate dream of the Powercrats is to take their model for controlling nations and apply it the world as a whole. Playing the “long game”, they are working eliminate borders and national sovereignty and establish a world government with a single financial/banking system based on a universal currency, which they will control. They were behind the establishment of entities like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. They promote international trade agreements, in which “trade” is but a small part of the agreement really are: a control system. They push the UN’s Global Warming nonsense, the idea that the UN should control as the law of the sea, world justice systems, and the internet. One increment at a time, nations are giving up their power to these global entities.
What is it that the Powercrats want? They imply that they want a One World Order. Seriously? Since we serfs are losing all of our freedoms anyway, we should probably wish them much success. We should wish them success because what they are much more likely to end up with is One World in Chaos! In my humble opinion, order is the last thing they will achieve. They are in the process of creating a monster they will not be able to control. Just look around you. Do you see more order or more chaos in the nations they are currently manipulating?
I fear mankind will forever be his own worst enemy.
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
Contrary to the popular Democratic Talking Points, Obama is NOT tough on immigration.
Well, Obama kept his promise to SOMEBODY. Immigrant deportations under the Obama administration fell 14 percent in fiscal year 2014 compared to the prior year, according to data from a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This is the lowest number under his administration so far.
Democrats can argue to the contrary all they want that Obama is tough on illegals and deports them, but the numbers say otherwise. Republicans were right in their continued statements that deportations have fallen, and argue the administration has inflated its deportation data by including people turned away at the border. If you don’t get here, you don’t count in the numbers!
The numbers come from Obama’s own ICE agency, and they’re not pretty.
About two-thirds of the 316,000 people deported were returned home after being detained at the border.
They never crossed into the US. It also said border removals fell 9 percent compared to 2013.
Deportations of people from within the United States fell to roughly 102,000, which is a 23 percent drop from 2013.
“I am sorry for a fellow when, every time he goes off by himself, he is in the worst company he was ever in in his life.” – Sam Jones
“The President’s unconstitutional action is a direct threat to our Republican system of government and will have catastrophic consequences for the American people. It must be stopped.” – Sen. Jeff Sessions
“Anyone who believes that the GOP will have a newly chastened Obama to deal with in 2015 must be living in one of those states where marijuana was recently legalized … his idea of compromise was for the Republicans to tell him which of his bills and policies they were ready to support.” – Burt Prelutsky
“The only group the GOP leadership is not afraid of fighting are the grassroots conservatives in their own party.” – Jeff Crouere
The official Republican response to the latest Obama usurpation? A few blustery statements of faux outrage followed by a quick trip out of town for the Thanksgiving holiday. If resistance like this had been the standard in 1776, we’d be pledging allegiance to the queen — and given this president’s lunatic obsession with institutionalizing the LGBT agenda, that’s not too far off. Even the Obama Justice Department has branded their boss a rogue:
The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Counsel to the President directed the Justice Department to investigate whether the president had the authority to take contemplated actions with regard to illegal immigrants via executive order. In a letter dated 19 November, they found he did not. On 20 November, he did it anyway.
Justice Department attorney Karl Thompson, writing for the White House Office of Legal Counsel, said:
“The Executive cannot, under the guides of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences. An agency’s enforcement decisions should be consonant with, rather than contrary to, the congressional policy underlying the statutes the agency is charged with administering.”
Barack Obama has used his time in office to peddle prevarications from Timbuktu to Kalamazoo. It’s cost him the goodwill of the American people, of course, but thecommunists and the New York Times still love him. And those are the only two redlines about which he’s ever really cared.
Based on his subversive actions, by definition Barack Obama is indeed making war against America, and it’s high time Congress responded by declaring their own war on a man who became a domestic enemy the day he violated his oath by refusing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (Time for Congress to Declare War on Obama)
“Obama has NO constitutional legal authority whatsoever to alter, circumvent, subvert or otherwise ignore the standing laws of the United States concerning Immigration and Naturalization.” – North American Law Center
“It is no accident that Obama is announcing amnesty on November 20th – Mexican National Revolution Day.” – Free Republic
“It is the sense of Congress that this purported Executive Order is a usurpation of the legislative power vested solely in the Congress of the United States and, as such, is null and void.” –Proposed Concurrent Resolution Of Congress
Barack Hussein Obama must be the only graduate in the history of Harvard University that can’t read:
Article I – Section 8, under the enumerated powers of Congress, the U.S. Constitution assigns all legal authority to establish rules and regulate United States Immigration and Naturalization solely to the U.S. Congress, which has indeed established a uniform set of rules for immigrating to the United States and becoming a United States citizen.
Article II relative to the Executive powers of the Oval Office makes no mention of any law-making authority whatsoever, any powers to regulate Immigration or Naturalization rules, or any power to circumvent or subvert the Laws of the United States as established by Congress. There is also no mention of Executive Orders or special executive powers in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. (REPUBLICANS CAN STOP EXECUTIVE ORDER AMNESTY DEAD)
Nonsense, of course. Obama can read — off a teleprompter, at least. He knows damn well what he’s doing is illegal. But, like every tyrant that ever lived, he’s decided that not only is he above the law, he IS the law.
Obama’s favorite justification for his executive action is that “Congress failed to act.” No, Mr. President, Congress did not fail to act, it chose not to act in granting amnesty. There is a difference. A determination not to act is, by itself, a deliberate act. This is how the framers constructed our system of government. Congress considers and debates a great many bills. Not all of them pass. This is not “failure” in the conventional sense, but decision by declination. It constitutes a prudent and calculated process.
But the president uses this contrived “failure” as a pretext to arrogate the authority of another branch of government. He wields his pen to legislate by executive decree. He well knows he is exceeding his power … The president’s executive order to legalize illegals by nullifying existing law, constitutes a stunning abuse of office: usurping the power of Congress, while abdicating his duty to uphold and enforce the laws. (Three things that are illegal about Obama’s immigration plan)
Now that Obama has crossed a constitutional Rubicon, or in this case the Rio Grande, it’s the supreme duty of the American Congress, Democrats as well as Republicans, to stop him. The nation probably deserves more; it certainly deserves no less.
Most Americans, at least most Americans who watch TV know Mike Rowe from his hit television series, Dirty Jobs. And what’s not to like? He’s a very likable guy, who isn’t above poking fun at himself, he honors hard working Americans across the country and has even launched a non-profit foundation to help out of work Americans find jobs – dirty or not.
From his foundation’s website:
The mikeroweWORKS Foundation announced its partnership with Scholarship America to establish the mikeroweWORKS Foundation Education Scholarship Program. The 2013 fund has been set at $250,000. The program is set up to award individual scholarships to applicants who want to pursue a career in the skilled trades. All successful applicants meeting the eligibility requirements may be awarded up to $2,500.
Scholarship America, the nation’s largest non-profit, private-sector scholarship and educational support organization, has distributed more than $2.7 billion to 1.8 million students across the country through various programs.
But recently, Mike made a splash for a bit of a different reason. It seems that some unknown (possibly until now) Liberal had been using Mike’s Facebook page to try and sell his books. Mike had not read the books, much less endorsed the author, but none-the-less this person felt empowered to use Mike’s notoriety to hawk his wares.
Now if that were all to the story, you nor I would even be aware of it, but of course, it’s not. This Liberal not only tried to use Mike’s Facebook page, he also insulted Christians, Republicans, and even Mike Rowe, himself.
Here is what transpired, in its entirety:
~ First, the rantings of the Liberal Hothead ~
Jim Green: It is ALARMING when we do the demographic post mortem on this election, because it is probable that it was decided by our RACISTS–voting against President Obama, who wasn’t on the ballot—that gave the Republicans their election wins—OUR GREED AND IGNORANCE, Amazon.com
Why is the media avoiding that we have a U.S. Senate bought and paid for by the Koch Bros/1%–and what they want for their dollar is to cut THEIR taxes [for pure GREED], and cut regulations to increase the bottom line [for pure GREED]….in short “OUR GREED AND IGNORANCE” [Amazon] ruled the day
Why on Earth would ANYONE vote Republican? A reptile has more decency than the Republicans in Congress! Only an odious toad would pass Ryan’s budget or gut Food Stamps—and these depraved snakes made them THEIR HIGHEST PRIORITY! If only one child in America goes hungry because of the Republican’s War on Children it explains why—IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A CHRISTIAN, AND VOTE REPUBLICAN, Amazon/Kindle
A CHALLENGE….will you PLEASE explain to the American people why you vote/are a Republican—because for the life of me I cannot understand WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE REPUBLICAN! (NO trashing the Prez as a reason—it may make our RACISTS happy—but it is an idiotic explanation/justification.) See: “IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A CHRISTIAN, AND VOTE REPUBLICAN,” on Amazon/Kindle
~ Next, Mike’s Epic Response ~
Hi there, Jim
Greetings, from somewhere over Colorado. It appears you’re still trying to sell some books on my Facebook page. Personally, I haven’t read them, and based on your marketing strategy, I suspect I’m probably not alone. Since part of your approach seems to involve me, I thought perhaps I might offer you some unsolicited marketing advice. I hope it’s not too presumptuous, but these tips have served me well over the years, and I can’t help but think you and your marketing team might benefit from their immediate implementation.
1. Consider starting off each blurb with a friendly salutation. In my experience, a little cordiality goes a long way, especially when you’re trying to persuade someone to give you money.
2. Think about addressing your audience as something other than “racists,” “reptiles,” and “toads.” I get that you want to be provocative, but if your goal is to sell your book, a number of well-known studies have proven it’s best not to insult your potential customers.
3. Reconsider your commitment to caps and exclamation points. These are excellent choices when warning people about a fire, a volcanic eruption, an ebola outbreak, or a looming tsunami. But I’m afraid their use in the context of a book sale implies a level of urgency that may exist only in your mind. If you really want to persuade thoughtful people that Christians can’t vote for Republicans and remain Christian, you’ll need to appear credible – not hysterical. Lower case should work just fine.
4. Consider limiting each blurb to a single entry. When you post the identical screed four times in a row, it looks very much like a broken record sounds. This will lead people to conclude that you’re either a) inept at posting, or b) deliberately obnoxious. Neither conclusion is likely to lead to a sale. Remember, most people see posts like yours as small piles of vomit that they can quickly step around. But when the same vomitus post appears multiple times, you force my friends here to slosh through a virtual lake of spew. Ironically, this will not only make more people like you even less, it will decrease the odds that someone who might actually share your world view will feel inclined to purchase your book. (I’ve deleted all of your redundant posts from this morning, but left the original. You’re welcome.)
5. Regarding your overall claim, I’m not an authority on Republicans or Christians, but last I checked, America is still populated by plenty of both. Unless you wish to alienate a majority of the country, you might consider something a tad more conciliatory. Something like – “There is no “R” in Jesus – But There’s G-O-P in Gospel!”
Finally, with respect to your “challenge,” I’m not a registered Republican, but from time to time, I have voted like one. If you really want to know why, ask me in a fashion that incorporates the aforementioned steps, and I’ll try to explain it to you.
In the meantime, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS. As you can see, the captain has given me some plastic wings. So clearly, I know what I’m talking about.
For 8 years Harry Reid was the ultimate obstructionist, blocking every Republican amendment, refusing to hold votes on legislation passed by the House, and nuking the filibuster to get Obama’s radical judicial nominees confirmed to the DC Court of Appeals.
So naturally, after he got his ass kicked Tuesday, he wants to “work together” with Republicans.
Hey Harry, in the immortal words of Dick Cheney, “Go fuck yourself.”
I hope Mitch McConnell assigns Reid an office in the basement, next to the trash compactor. And then promptly forgets that Dingy Harry even exists.
The American people didn’t give the GOP a Senate majority so we could work with Democrats. They could have elected more Democrats if that’s what they really wanted. Nope, they gave us the majority to stymie Obama at every turn until 2016 when we can get ourselves a Real President again.
And nobody is freaking out about that more than the climate change clowns. Upcoming Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) doesn’t buy their globull warming bullshit. He’s not gonna give the EPA a blank check. He’ll almost certainly pass legislation enabling the long overdue Keystone XL pipeline project. And when it comes to oil and gas exploration, he’ll be all “drill, baby, drill” on their anti-energy Eco-obstructionism.
No more Solyndras. No more green energy boondoggles. Maybe even a return to sensible coal usage, because cheap electricity is good for the economy.
Senator Inhofe, I have one simple request. Please give us back our incandescent light bulbs. Please?
All of the GOP candidates who won Tuesday ran on repealing Obamacare. So repeal it. Make Obama squirm. More importantly, make Democrats running in 2016 squirm too.
Obama won’t sign a repeal. So let’s defund as much of this atrocity as we can. And push free-market health care ideas — association health plans, real choice instead of mandated coverages so folks can only buy insurance they actually need, and most of all, tort reform.
Along with defenestrating Obamacare the GOP Senate needs to rein in this lawless president’s Executive Order excesses. Yeah, amnesty for illegal aliens, I’m looking at you. We ran on stopping amnesty, and stop it we must. Everywhere that amnesty was an issue on Tuesday, the pro-amnesty candidate lost. That’s a mandate.
So when I heard Mara Liasson spinning these defeats by saying all those candidates now “owe her” I had to burst out laughing. A bunch of losers “owe” Hillary. Yippee! With that kind of support, how could she not win the White House?
Yessiree, no matter how you slice it, the voters firmly repudiated progressive policies. The rain tax gave Maryland a Republican governor. Intrusive regulation and burdensome taxes do not make people happy.
Republicans need to capitalize on these sentiments. Yes, get stuff done. But, and this is key, get our stuff done. Show America that our ideas are superior to Obama’s. If the last 6 years teaches us anything, it teaches us that progressive politics leads to misery, despair, and weakness. America can, and must, return to her rightful place as a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.
Now is the time. This is our destiny. We have the tools. We must not fail.
Quietly, almost as if he applied his inane ‘leading from behind’ strategy to filling the courts, President Obama has begun tipping the scales of justice over towards the left.
President Barack Obama has been quietly reversing the federal appellate courts’ balances over the past six years, with Democratic appointees now holding the majority of seats on nine of the country’s 13 United States Courts of Appeals.
It’s a little-noticed shift with far-reaching consequences.
“With all the gridlock, it is forgotten that one of the most profound changes this Congress made was filling the bench,” New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer told The New York Times. “This will affect America for a generation, long after the internecine battles on legislative issues are forgotten.”
The Senate, led by the Democrats and Harry Reid have changed the rules to make it easier for them to push through the Obama appointees.
Judges appointed by Democratic presidents now outnumber those appointed by Republicans for the first time in more than 10 years. Even more are likely after Senate Democrats last year changed its rules to let a simple majority confirm most presidential nominees, which blocked Republicans’ filibusters.
But even without the filibuster, a minority party can still require that a 60-vote majority vote be cast to confirm a court justice, The Times reports.
When Obama took office, there were 99 circuit judges appointed by Republican presidents and 65 by Democrats. Today’s courts have 77 Republican appointees and 95 Democratic. Many of the nominations have been for justices who are young, meaning they could remain on the bench for decades.
The shift could have ramifications as rulings come for some of Obama’s more controversial actions, including healthcare, immigration reform, and clean air, which are all facing legal challenges and will now likely end up before more liberal judges.
The ripples from these actions are already being felt.
The appointees’ impact is already showing. For example, in the 4th Circuit in Virginia, Justice Henry Floyd, who declared the state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, is an Obama appointee.
The District of Columbia court, considered the second-most influential court in the country behind the Supreme Court, is also now filled with Democratic appointees. Before the filibuster rules change, the court had a majority of judges appointed by Republican presidents. However, now the court has seven Democratic appointees, four of whom Obama selected, and four Republican appointees.
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.
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.
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 districtsobtain 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.