Saturday, July 24, 2010

No. 18: Education

Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.

"Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever." That was a famous quote by the pioneer of childhood indoctrination, Vladimir Lenin. Lenin knew that children were impressionable. That they have vulnerable minds that can be molded according to your political ideology. That's why he targeted the children. The survival of his beloved soviet state depended on the children being properly indoctrinated. No. 18 on my countdown of things Liberals don't believe is Education.

Education, as I define it, involves the teaching of fact. Fact is truth. There is no denying fact. There is no arguing it. Fact is fact and education is the teaching of fact. The three school subjects that deal predominantly with fact are Math, Science and English. 2+2 is 4. The earth's atmosphere is predominantly nitrogen. And a sentence requires a subject and a verb. These are facts. History also contains facts but you have to be careful here because history is something that is prone to opinion, which Liberals love to teach. I'm for teaching historical fact but strongly opposed to teaching opinion.

Liberals disagree. They see our education system as an opportunity to further their agenda. Young minds are ripe to be molded and so they've chosen our education system as ground zero for advancing the Liberal cause. And this is no doubt the source of the major problems that our education system faces. After all, it's hard for our kids to score well on standardized tests when they are being taught about American imperialism, the salvation of the New Deal, and the great philosophy of Chairman Mao. And when you have teachers scolding students for wearing their "Jesus goggles" then you can see which direction we're headed. The more time you spend furthering your politics, the less time you have to teach basic scientific, mathematical and historical fact.

It begins with teachers. Now, this is dangerous ground for a conservative because teachers are considered saintly in Liberal eyes. Criticizing teachers will immediately invite a skewering from the Left because teachers can do no wrong. The reality is that, like all other professions, there are good teachers and bad teachers. But try saying that to Liberal and prepare for a tongue-lashing. The same people who call for the lynching of Catholic priests who commit sex crimes within the church willingly turn away without a whimper when a teacher is caught doing the same thing. Teachers are saintly. They can do no wrong.

The problem is that the teachers unions have made it virtually impossible to weed out the bad teachers. Again, teachers can do no wrong. So the bad teachers are firmly entrenched in the education system and continue to teach children regardless how incompetent or ineffective they may be. Ask any administrator about the difficulty in firing a teacher and prepare yourself for a long story. If Liberals believed in education they would be in favor of getting rid of the bad teachers. But education and indoctrination are two very different things.

Then there's the immense power of the teachers unions. They have lots of money and they wield it effectively, almost all of it going to the coffers of the Left. In return, the Left looks after them. The longstanding American tradition has been to keep education local, funded locally, run by local officials. This trend was bucked when Jimmy Carter established the Dept of Education, and so began the federal gov't digging their grubby little hands into our education system. This was also about the time the teachers unions began to grow in power. The more power the feds have in education the easier it is to lobby and influence that power. Simply put, it's easy for a union to influence a few congressmen rather than have to influence multiple school districts that are funded and run independent of the feds.

The Left will say that money is the problem. We don't spend enough on education and we don't pay the saints who teach nearly enough. They ignore the fact that education spending has done nothing but increase over the past 2 decades. They ignore the fact that the US spends more per student than the nations whose children kick our butts on standardized tests. They ignore the fact that the more we spend on education, the poorer we perform. But then again, ignoring facts is a centerpiece in Liberal education.

Mention things like charter schools, private schools or school vouchers and the Liberal will give you another tongue-lashing. Again, they ignore the fact that these types of schools consistently outperform public schools despite having fewer resources and paying their teachers lower salaries. Seems to me that if Liberals wanted good education for our kids then they'd acknowledge these facts and do what they could to maximize the availability of these alternatives to the public system. But who cares about facts? The Liberals dig their heels in and demand more money for education while the teachers unions stand firmly behind them. And if you oppose more money, then you obviously don't care about the children.

Barack Obama believes in public education. One of his first actions as President was nullifying the D.C. voucher program. This program was enormously successful and very popular with many inner city parents. But education is a public matter. So the President killed the program, and then enrolled both of his children in a pricey, prominent local private school.

Common sense Americans see education as many things, one of those being a civil rights issue. John McCain called it the civil rights issue of our time during his 2008 campaign. There are many inner city students, many of them black, who are trapped in inner city schools simply because of their address or their zip code. These schools do nothing but fail. And by that I mean fail to teach. Of course, the students themselves pass, enough so that many kids graduate high school unable to spell their own name. These schools are riddled with crime, drugs and teenage pregnancy. Children who attend these schools aren't going to learn as much as they are going to survive. Learning math and science takes a backseat when your life is literally in danger. It's a shame. A travesty. No student should be forced into that kind of environment. Not in this country. Not ever.

That's why common sense Americans favor vouchers. Let the responsible inner city parents send their kids to their school of choice, where they can be safe, where they can learn, where they have a fighting chance to kill the vicious cycle of poverty by learning what they need to succeed in life and get out of the ghetto. No way, say the Liberals. Instead, they just want to dump more money into that failing inner city school. It's lack of funding that's the problem. And if you oppose this, then you don't care about the children, and you're probably a racist to boot.

In truth, the Liberals (and the teachers unions) know that once a voucher program kicks in then those failing schools will bleed students to more competent schools. The bad schools eventually collapse, leaving many teachers and administrators without a job. Even worse, vouchers would shift the power in our education system away from the government and the teachers unions and toward the parents. When the parents can take their child and their tax dollars out of a school, you'd better believe they will have more power. No way will the Liberal ever allow that.

Even more disastrous for the Liberal cause would be the likelihood that a voucher system would result in more success in our education system. More inner city students would thrive, would succeed in life, would escape the inner city and embark on illustrious careers. This is bad politics because people like that could become Republicans. No way will the Liberal ever allow that. Instead, it's best for those inner city kids to stay in the failing school, and stay in the ghetto where they belong, dependent on government aid (and the Democrat party).

Thus the focus in education is not education, but rather indoctrination. Keep the kids from learning fact, and instead teach them ideology. Keep them away from success and instead keep them dependent on the government. If they were to succeed they could potentially become free thinkers. That's a dangerous thing for the State. Lenin knew it, and so do Liberals.

Friday, July 23, 2010

No. 19: Fairness

Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.

I remember growing up and playing many backyard baseball games. Despite their benign appearance, these games were often hotly contested. There are few things more competitive than preteen boys seeking neighborhood bragging rights. Despite the heated competition, the contests were remarkably civil. The rules were followed and there were few arguments. However, on occasion the issue of fairness would come up and it was usually out of frustration. The scene would play out something like this…the game is tied, it’s been a tough back-and-forth, both teams are playing hard. Suddenly one kid belts a homer over the fence to win the game. A kid on the other team, upset about losing, throws his glove to the ground and yells “that’s not fair, you cheated”. Of course we all knew that kid was full of it. The game was won fairly, there were no rules broken, he was just mad because he lost. Yet, that didn’t stop him from claiming injustice. Such is the perception in the mind of a child and a full-grown Liberal.

Sound familiar? Number 19 on my list of things Liberals don’t believe is Fairness.

When I talk about fairness in this post I am talking about it in its truest form. I clarify this because Liberals love to use fairness as a rallying cry for their platform. Fairness is a major motivator for them. They seek fairness. They impose laws to achieve fairness. They speak of fairness whenever they can. They use it to appeal to average voters because all common sense Americans are for fairness. The problem is they define fairness in a completely different manner. It has a different meaning to them. So when I say Liberals don’t believe in fairness I mean fairness as a typical common sense American would define it, not as a Liberal would define it.

Injustice is defined, in part, as the violation of the rights of others. Fairness is defined, in part, as being free from injustice. If the rights of others are violated it is unjust, and if injustice exists then it cannot be fair. Sounds simple enough. Well, not according to Liberals. Simplicity is not their forte. We’ll start with the tax system.

The Constitution guarantees equal protection for all citizens. One person’s rights cannot be violated for the sake of another person’s rights, and all of our rights bare equal standing under the law regardless of who or what we are. So a common sense American would say that a fair tax system would be one in which all Americans paid the same percentage of their income to the government, or perhaps would be based on consumption rather than income. In such a scenario, I would pay something like 20% in federal income taxes, my neighbor would pay twenty percent, so would the guy down the street and the guy on the other side of town. Nothing would change that number. If my income went up, I would pay 20%. If my income went down, I would pay 20%. That’s fair.

Not so in the mind of Liberals. The Liberal says that everyone paying the same percentage is completely unfair, thus rewriting the definition of fairness altogether. In their minds if I make $1 million and my neighbor makes $10,000 then a fair tax system would be one structured so that after taxes we both end up with, say, fifty thousand bucks. That’s fair. Never mind all that injustice stuff. They understand that I have the right to pursue more income so long as I do it legally. And they understand that the Constitution doesn’t allow me to be singled out and taxed more severely simply because I am more successful in my pursuits and make more money than my neighbor. Singling me out based upon my success would violate my right to equal protection and thus would be unjust, and by definition unfair. Imposing higher percentage taxation on someone based upon success is discriminatory. So what? Say the Libs. Fairness in their eyes can only be defined by outcomes, not by the means in achieving those outcomes. It’s only fair if we all end up with equal amounts of stuff regardless of effort, talent or skill, so sayeth the social justice doctrine.

But the concept of fairness in Liberal minds goes way beyond taxation and redistribution of wealth. They’ve even titled one of their key pieces of legislation the Fairness Doctrine to echo their never ending pursuit of fairness. This law basically states that any political or news program must present both sides of a political argument so the people can hear the whole story. Equal time. That’s fair. And if you don’t comply then you can’t use the airwaves. You can be shut down. That’s fair.

The common sense American knows about freedom speech. We know we have the right to free speech, specifically the right to speak our political opinions without punitive government action. If we speak our political opinion and the government takes action to silence us then our rights have been violated. Violation of rights is unjust and thus, by definition, unfair. Hogwash, say the Liberals. Equal time is fair, even if you don’t want to hear the buffoon who lacks common sense, and even if we shut down the radio station for refusing to air that buffoon’s opinion. It’s fair. That’s why we call it the Fairness Doctrine. It’s a wonder they don’t call our graduated income tax the Fairness Tax.

Thomas Sowell said (loosely quoting) that few things have been as damaging as the word “fair”.

George Washington said that we are a nation of laws not of men. Ooh, the Liberals hate that.

We Americans know all about fairness. Our nation was founded on it. “All men are created equal…” were the words used to announce our new nation. We know fair when we see it. They can use the word all they want in attempts to deceive us, and they no doubt do so because they know how appealing fairness is to America. But don’t be deceived. There is nothing truly fair about the Liberal agenda, no matter how much they say so.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

No. 20: Common Sense

Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.

Some of the smartest people I know barely made it out of high school. And some of the dumbest people I've ever met have a wall full of diplomas and a long line of initials behind their name. Number 20 on the list is COMMON SENSE.

Common sense is something that is acquired through life not by lectures or reading books, but by experience. It's the experience of life that teaches us that familiar form of knowledge that we call common sense. You can't get it in a classroom.

Perhaps that's why Liberals don't understand common sense. To them it's a bit of a mystery and therefore probably doesn't exist. In the mind of a Liberal, if it can't be taught at Harvard or Berkeley then it isn't worth knowing. And as far as I know, there are no courses at Harvard entitled "Common Sense 101". Although it wouldn't be a bad idea. This is not to say that the highly educated lack common sense. No. But I am saying that wisdom and education are two completely different things and are not interchangeable terms.

In today's political environment we talk about common sense all the time. Often you hear your neighbors complain that Washington just doesn't get it, or is out of touch, or doesn't understand the common American. What these people are saying is that the politicians in Washington lack common sense. And since many of those politicians are Liberals, and many of them are also highly educated, the complaints your neighbors have are legitimate. Let's take a few political topics as examples.

When it comes to the economy, Liberals say tax more and spend more. This is Keynesian economics at its worst. Increase the public sector and you grow the economy. Keynes is taught a lot in our major universities but many of those learning it have never actually met a payroll or balanced a checkbook. You see where I'm going? Common sense says the US economy is so massive that no amount of government spending can grow it. Common sense says that if you tax a business owner, or require him to pay for his employees health care, or impose a minimum wage on him, or tack on any other union-sponsored employee benefit, then the ones who get hurt the most are the consumer. Increase the cost of business for a business owner and he either cuts costs (starting with personnel), stops hiring, or raises the price of his goods and services. These are the things they are less likely to teach at Harvard because it contradicts Keynesian theory, and the Liberals miss out on some important knowledge. So it's just assumed that if you increase the cost of doing business the business owner is simply going to eat that cost and everyone wins. There's nothing sensical about that.

In regards to health care, let's talk about supply and demand. Common sense tells us that if you increase the demand for a service without increasing the supply, then you essentially have a shortage. The Liberals think this is silly. They believe that flooding the health care sector with some 30 million newly insured folks who are suddenly gifted with free health care will result in great health for all. So their bill does nothing to address the supply thing, and they dismiss those of us who talk of rationing as obstructionist and silly fear-mongerers.

Most recently there is the unemployment package currently being debated in Congress. President Obama demands the GOP pass additional unemployment benefits right away. The GOP demands that those benefits be paid for before we pass them. Common sense says that part of the reason why so many people are unemployed is because the economy is bad, and part of the reason the economy is bad is because businesses aren't confident about the future, primarily because of our growing deficits and massive debt. Therefore, adding on to the debt with unpaid unemployment benefits isn't doing much good for the unemployed. Not so in the mind of Liberals who call the GOP insensitive and greedy for not helping the jobless.

And then there's the Tea Party. This is a group of citizens who stand on a platform of common sense: balanced budget, reduced spending, living within our means, adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law. The problem is that we Tea Party folks are just average folks. We get up and go to work everyday. We pay bills and scratch to save money and prepare for our future. We don't have fancy diplomas and therefore - in the eyes of Liberals - we're just a bunch of dumb rubes who don't understand the complicated things like government. It doesn't matter that we have to adhere to a strict budget every day. If we don't have a Harvard diploma then we don't have credibility. Common sense just aint enough.

But in my opinion the biggest reason why Liberals reject common sense boils down to their positive attitude towards Socialism. The Libs grew up on college campuses, playing the Sitar, quoting Neitsche (sp?), and swapping chemically induced philosophies about how the world should be. Therein lies the appeal of Socialism. The notion that all people would work together - not for themselves as individuals - but for the benefit of the collective. This is the fast track to utopia, heaven on earth. This is how we arrive at the glorious moment of everlasting peace, harmony and an end to suffering. It's a beautiful thing, if only we could realize such a beautiful dream. They bemoan the fact that socialism has gotten a bad rap because of bad leadership, that so many brutal dictators have been associated with it and thus people are too quick to dismiss it as evil. If only a leader could emerge who was compassionate and sensitive, understanding and empathetic, while at the same time implement socialism, then we would all see the glory in such a system. Sounds good on paper.

But common sense tells us that people aren't going to behave that way. I'm not going to work my can off so my neighbor can sit on his. Eventually, I'm gonna realize that I can sit on my can and get just as much. And if enough of us do this, well, the system implodes. That darn practicality thing is such a buzz kill.

And common sense tells us that socialism hasn't been victimized by brutal dictators, but rather the brutal dictators are more of a product of socialism itself. Simply put, people aren't going to consent to such a life unless there's an iron fist and a thick boot imposing it.

Oh phooey, say the Liberals. What do you know? You've never read Marx, or Neitsche. You don't understand, such a simple minded folk.

So the next time you are engaged in a discussion with a Liberal ask yourself if there is any common sense behind his argument. You may be surprised at what you find.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

No big surprise

Remember a few months back when Bart Stupak made a last second announcement that he and the President had come to an agreement regarding the health care bill? Stupak and several other "conservative" democrats were holding out until the legislation included a direct ban on federal funding for abortion. The libs in charge were never going to agree to that, so this issue looked to be the deal killer for Obamacare. And then, a last minute "deal" was struck. President Obama made a cross-my-heart-pinky-swear (also known as an executive order) to Stupak that they wouldn't spend any taxpayer dollars on abortion. Stupak no doubt made Obama say the "stickle a needle in my eye" stipulation as well. No taxpayer dollars for abortion.

That was good enough for Stupak, and so he switched his vote with the foolish notion that Obama would stay true to his word. Guess what. He was wrong.

Today we learn that federal taxpayer dollars are indeed being earmarked for abortions. No big surprise. Of course, the administration is silent on the issue. No word from Robert Gibbs beyond the usual verbal pauses, no comment from Kathleen Sebelius, no word from the Chief of Staff. Nothing. Which essentially proves what we all knew from the beginning, and what Stupak should have known...that executive orders are not enforceable and are useless when it comes to legislation. Obama never intended to keep taxpayer dollars away from abortions, he just needed a good sell to get Stupak's vote, making Stupak arguably the biggest Congressional sucker in the modern political era.

And it also confirms two other hunches that this blogger had: Barack Obama is a liar, and Bart Stupak is a coward.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010


Ah, the NAACP. What was once a valiant organization with a noble cause has now degraded into nothing more than a bunch of political hacks and character assassins. To put it simply, the NAACP has lost all credibility. No one listens to them anymore except for the extreme Left who still believe the nonsense they spew. That's the primary reason why George Bush stopped going to their annual convention. They simply lost relevance.

And now today we hear about the NAACP taking several days to vote to condemn the Tea Party on grounds of racism. My point has been made for me. Racism is slowly transforming from a significant domestic issue to a political one. It is becoming a political club that one group uses to bash the other. It has become a means of slander, a means of discrediting those with whom you disagree. And, to be honest, those who use the club to bash have absolutely no interest in ending racism. No way. It's too powerful a weapon for them to do away with it.

There is no evidence - none - that the Tea Party is racist. I count myself among them and would not if I ever saw a racial component to their message. But that doesn't matter. The NAACP disagrees with the Tea Party - primarily because the Tea Party opposes big entitlements - and therefore the NAACP must destroy the Tea Party. Time to get out the club.

Homicide is the leading cause of death in black males under the age of 24. Nearly 90% of those homicides are committed by other blacks. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise. 70 plus percent of all black children are born out of wedlock. Black men are deserting their families, their children. Drug abuse remains a major problem in the black community, as do high school dropout rates, abortion, unemployment, diabetes, heart disease and AIDS. Yet, topping the agenda for the NAACP is the Tea Party!

The NAACP ignores the neo-black panthers. They said nothing about the black panthers obstructing a polling station. They said nothing about Harry Reid predicting an Obama election victory because "he doesn't speak with a negro dialect". Nothing.

They condemn Rand Paul for objecting to a small portion of the Civil Rights Act, calling him racist. Yet, they LOVE Senator Robert Byrd, an ex-Klansman who once hated blacks and actually filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

They opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. They opposed Alan Keyes for Senate. They mock Michael Steele. Association for advancement of colored people? More like advancement of liberal colored people.

It's a joke. Any black American citizen should see that. There are serious problems in the black community and yet the NAACP does nothing to solve them except, of course, to blame the white man. I think it's about time for us to recognize the NAACP as a political organization and nothing more. They are true to ideology which trumps all. Equality is only a part of the cause if it fits within their ideology. Racism is only a part of the cause if it involves their political opponents. They are a political lobby group. What would Dr. King think? I think he'd say it's time we ignored groups like this if we are to unite as a nation and achieve true equality, true equal rights and a true end to racism once and for all.

Racism will never die so long as minority lobbyist organizations refuse to let it die in order to advance their political agenda.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Re-emergence of quotas

An interesting story has recently begun circulating in regards to the Dodd-Frank Financial regulatory bill. Before I get to it, a few comments of my own. First, the bill does not address derivatives. Anyone with any economic sense understands the key role derivatives played in the housing sector collapse of '08. This involves the packaging and reselling of mortgages to big companies who take on the risk. If the company is really big and takes on a lot of risk then you get an AIG-like scenario. Derivatives are ignored in the bill.

Second, there is absolutely zero reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. None. Nada. Zip. Basically these two companies just continue doing business as usual if this bill gets passed. Again, anyone with any economic sense understands that Fannie Mae, perhaps more than any other company, played a major role in the housing collapse. Yet they get a free pass.

However, what is included is a reintroduction of hiring quotas. According to sectio 342, any financial company doing business with the federal government will be REQUIRED to employ a certain percentage of minority and women employees and these requirements will be overseen and enforced by 20 new government agencies. Yes, private companies will be FORCED to hire people based purely on gender and race. Does this in any way conform to our belief in equal rights and equal protection? Of course not. But this President and this Congress sees it differently.

This is a bad bill. The GOP will stand against it and they, of course, will be attacked for it. They'll be accused of standing up for Wall Street, placating to greed, looking out for big business, etc. Typical politics. No one would dare suggest the GOP is standing up for equality. Hopefully, reason and truth will prevail. Hopefully this bill will be killed.

Friday, July 09, 2010

Holder strikes again...

In today's news: The Justice Dept is now looking into the Oakland police trial, investigating whether or not federal law may have been violated.

To be clear. The police officer in question has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter and faces up to 5 years in prison, and yet many people in Oakland feel that verdict is so unacceptable that they must riot and loot the city.

So the Justice Dept has decided to take a look. Hmmm. Why? Why this case? There are cases of involuntary manslaughter all over the country. Could it be because of race? Rest assured, had this officer accidentally killed a white man the Justice dept would hardly be getting involved.

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Holder The (Not So) Wise

Interesting news. Eric Holder has filed suit against the state of Arizona for its recent immigration law.

This is the same man who is defending the US government in the health care case. The same man who dropped charges on the Black Panthers who were caught on film blocking access to a polling station and intimidating would-be voters.

So, according to Holder, if a cop in Arizona were to stop someone for a traffic violation it would be unConstitutional for the cop to demand proof of immigration status, yet completely acceptable for that person to be forced to purchase health insurance. And if that person were blocking access to a polling station then he couldn't be touched at all, especially if he were black.

That's the logic and wisdom of our current attorney general...the man who announced that the Arizona law was unconstitutional while also admitting that he had never read it. He refused to utter the words Islamic extremism so as not to offend anyone. And he felt it was wise to move the KSM trial to NYC at taxpayer cost to show-off the glory of the American justice system while he also potentially damaged his case by announcing that he would achieve a conviction and a death sentence for the 9/11 murderer.

That's Holder the Not-so Wise. Anyone else have trouble sleeping at night knowing this buffoon is in charge of our justice department?

Holder The (Not So) Wise