The Value of "Stuff"

Education...In a nutshell, education is the future prosperity or destruction of this country. Yet our education system is failing. People on the left claim we don't "invest" enough of our tax dollars in education and if we simply tripled the education budget, all problems would be solved. People on the "right" claim that the real problem is the material we are using to teach with. That is a symptom, but not the root cause of the problem. The real problem with education is that we have made it a so called "right". Education is free for all and everyone gets an opportunity to attend school. Now, there are countries in Asia and Africa where families would kill to get their children just the opportunity to learn to read, meanwhile, in many inner cities the dropout rate is well over 50%. Why is that?

The answer is simple, and BHO's financial policies have demonstrated that answer perfectly. By flooding the world market with US dollars, they have become so easy to come by that they are losing their value. Money is a commodity and therefore people want it. We must make education a commodity as well and that means putting an end to the free ride education system. A child's education must be something of value in society. It must be of value to the parents as well as the children.

Question: How much value does something have in society where not only is it given away for free, but it becomes mandatory for people to take it, whether they want it or not?

The answer is none.

The solution is to make education something to fight for. Make education something to earn. Privatize the schools and allow them to compete. Give large tax incentives to low income parents of children who excel in school. Force parents to actually take the time to actually bring their children to and from the school they attend rather than sticking their children on free public bussing, after all, parenting is a responsibility, not a right. Set up different types of schools for children with different abilities. Above all, parents must have final say so in subject matter taught when it comes to moral, social and religious issues. One reason parents no longer take interest in their children's educations is that they are given no say whatsoever in what or how their children are taught. The problem with the Bush "no child left behind act" is that it should have been labelled the "no child gets ahead act" because that is how it, and the education system in general is set up. Rather than making an education system that is nothing more than a one size fits all production line, we must tailor the education system to the individual needs of individual students or the society based on individualism that we have come to love will be lost to the circular file of history.

One last thing, the same thing will happen to our healthcare system that is happening with our education system if those who want to destroy our country succeed in implementing obamahealthcaredestruction. Nobody in this country will even care about going to a doctor because it will be as tedious as the dmv and as useless as our education system.

There is more than one kind of equality

Cross Posted at Left Coast Rebel


"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal..."

That is a loaded phrase in itself. We can argue the meaning of nearly every word. Whether you believe in an actual Creator or not, it is hard to dispute that we are created. Perhaps a more modern way (although not better) of saying it would be "...all people begin life equal". That is not exactly what "created" means to me but it is an acceptable paraphrasing if creation would offend someone. But what about this "equal" thing.

Equal does not mean "same". Surely no rational person would argue we are all the same. Even when we are first born we are all different. Life is wonderful because of diversity. Anyone who would prefer to live in an ant colony has a bleak outlook at best. So equal does not mean that we look or behave the same. As we grow we become more different. This results in the long limbs and torso narrow waist and broad shoulders that make an Olympic swimmer; the size, musculature, and near preternatural quickness that makes an NFL linebacker; the innovative, questioning, and exacting mind of an inventor, or the compassion and intelligence it takes to become a doctor. With these differences in ability and structure come different levels of capacity for achievement. I will never be an NFL lineman, a great painter, a ballerina, or invent the next iPhone. But there are many things that I am quite good at, and my opportunities are wide and varied, if not actually infinite.

We are not physically or mentally all the same.

Not to burst anyone's bubble but realistically speaking we are not even all born with the same opportunities. If Paris Hilton had not been born a Hilton it is unlikely she would have had a tv show, been in a movie, had a recording deal, or been a fashion icon. If Chelsea Clinton was not the daughter of Hill and Bill she would not be getting married at the old Astor estate. I was born with more opportunity than almost anyone born in Zimbabwe or China. Malia Obama has a much different position in life than any other little girl from Chicago just by virtue of who she is.

So even when we are born we are not equal in actual position.

So we are not equal in ability or position but we are also not equally different:

The range is not all or nothing. It is different by intricate and infinitesimal degrees. A person not born into Paris Hiltons position could very well become more successful or famous. Rags to riches stories still happen here everyday. But what separates Ussain Bolt from Tyson Gay as fastest man alive? Less than Milliseconds.


So in what way are people equal? How can men be equal when they are so different?

Because of our differences in ability and position the only way to MAKE us the same is to treat people differently. To give to some and take from others and, yet, we will all still be different. Because we really cannot give; we can only take.

So if people are born different, have different opportunities by birth, and the only way to make people the same is to treat the differently then how can we be Equal?

By controlling the only thing we actually have control over. Our interpersonal dealings. The dealings of people can be dealt with equally. We can TREAT all people equally. We can do unto others; how we would like others to do unto us. And being that we are not all equally moral or ethical and must create governments to protect the non-aggressive from the aggressive evildoers in our midst then the best we can do is to create such a government where all people are treated equally under the law. That is all I ask for.

To take it one step further we have to decide as a species if we are going to seek material equality (as Obama and the socialists are for) or equality under the law (as the founders were for) because you cannot have both. If we decide on material equality then we must treat everyone differently under the law. And if we choose equality under the law then we will necessarily have to accept differences in material possessions.

And if we choose material equality then we will remove the wide and varied opportunities that now exist to better ones position than that which they received at birth.




It would likely keep the Norma Jeans of the world from becoming Marilyn Monroe, or Elvis A Presley from becoming the King of Rock and Roll; or of Cassius Clay becoming Muhammad Ali. Of course, it would also limit the ability of Paris Hilton to be, well, Paris Hilton.



We can't have it both ways.

Kook
-via my iPhone

Top 10 Best US Presidents of All Time 10 thru 8

Cross Posted at Left Coast Rebel

View Full Album

So a few days ago I posted my list of 10 Worst Presidents of all Time, I was prompted to do this because of the recent publishing of a ranking of the presidents by someone in the Legacy Obama Echo Chamber media.  THAT list was pretty much upside down and inside out, so I thought I would make my own list.  You will notice that in my list character and personal honor may take a higher position than some miraculous political achievement, and that is totally by design.

#10 [Tie]  two one term presidents (by choice) are tied for #10 To have the power of the Presidency and voluntarily give it up speaks to a man’s character and that is one reason I put these two on the list.  One shaped our boundaries in the west. (a blessing and a curse), and the other had undeniable character and a vision for the panama canal.

Polk - was a workaholic who worked long hours. He was elected to the House of Representatives and became Jackson's floor leader in the fight against the National Bank. His term as President was 1845-1849. Polk achieved his four major objectives - the acquisition of California, the settlement of the Oregon question, the reduction of the tariff, and the establishment of the independent treasury.  Polk had announced before taking office that he would not seek a second term, a promise he kept. 

Hayes – Accepted the nomination for House of Representatives but refused to campaign because he was still commissioned and on active duty in the military.    Won the Presidency in an election that seemed to be replayed in 2000.  Hayes insisted that all political appointments be based on merit and made his advisors rotate posts so that they did not become complacent.  Hayes never planned to run for a second term in office and retired in 1881. He spent the rest of his life devoted to causes of importance to him such as providing scholarships to African Americans and encouraging temperance. He believed in and proposed civil service reform measures. Further, he set down a policy that would eventually lead to the development of the Panama Canal.

#9 Truman – Did not even want to be vice-President, telling FDR’s man to “go to hell, I am for Jimmy Byrne”  later was convinced to take it.  When FDR died he said, “Boys, if you ever pray, pray for me now. ... When they told me what had happened, I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me. I've got the most terribly responsible job a man ever had."  George Will called Truman the last great leader the nation has had. As president at a most crucial period in the nation's history, it fell to him to make decisions that would determine the shape of events, both at home and abroad, for the next half-century. He set the course not only for the Free World's resistance to the march of communism, but for the resurgence of Western Europe. His policies laid the foundation for the recovery of Germany and Japan and the integration of Europe. Truman insisted that atomic power should serve the ends of peace and not only war. He took the first steps toward re-integration of the races in the military after Woodrow Wilson segregated them.  Maybe one of the most humble presidents we have had, especially in the 20th century.

 

   #8  Eisenhower –Ike understood the battle that would shape the twentieth and, so far, the 21st century: “Now we face a battle to extinction. … Our form of government is under deadly, persistent, and constant attack.” He warned friends about liberals who “would merely advance us one more step toward total socialism, just beyond which lies total dictatorship.” It was time, he proclaimed, to “combat remorselessly all those paternalistic and collectivistic ideas" that would eventually cause "the collapse of self-government.” Eisenhower was the first Cold Warrior, and he understood that the ideological war was very real.   In 1953, Eisenhower brought all these views with him into the White House. His first inaugural address set the tone: “Forces of good and evil are massed and armed and opposed as rarely before in history.…Freedom is pitted against slavery; lightness against the dark.” To the end of his presidency, his basic message never changed. Midway through his second term, he was still warning that “the menace of communist imperialism” had “almost unlimited power.” “Peace, national safety—survival itself—demand of America strength in its every aspect.”  Yep ,“I like Ike”

How am I doing so far?

Stay tuned for the rest of the list…

-KOOK

Made in the USA: Bill Cosby

Socialism, Social Justice, and Collectivist Redistribution schemes only work because the Statist/Collectivist/Socialist/Communist etc. is able to convince people that they cannot make it in the  Free Market, Liberty and Freedom loving system that we (used to?) have.  But there has never been a wealth creation machine better than our (old?) system.  As an aside, I picked Cosby because it is his birthday today. 

Bill Cosby, born July 12, 1937, and raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is one of four sons born to Anna Pearl (née Hite), a maid, and William Henry Cosby, Sr., a sailor in the U.S. Navy. During much of his early childhood, Cosby's father was away in the U.S. armed forces during World War II.

As a student, he described himself as a class clown.  But he was a devoted athlete,  was the captain of the baseball and track and field teams at his elementary school in Philadelphia and was also class president.  In Junior High, Cosby began acting in plays as well as continuing his devotion to sports.   He went to Central High School, but in addition to the sports, Cosby was working before and after school selling produce, shining shoes, and stocking shelves at a supermarket to help the family. He failed the tenth grade and instead of repeating the 10th grade he dropped out…

…In our collectivist narrative this is where the story would start to play sad music, young Cosby would be forced into gangs and violence, a rich capitalist would be found to blame, and Cosby would have either died of a drug OD, or from Gang violence; living in the projects and on the government dole.  Just more glaring proof that what we need around here is more redistribution of wealth.  Some Social Justice…

BUT:

He got a job as an apprentice at a shoe repair shop which he liked, but could not see himself doing it the rest of his life.  After deciding the life of a cobbler was not for him he joined the Navy.  While serving in the Navy, Cosby worked in physical therapy with seriously injured Korean War vets.  This helped refocus his priorities.  He soon realized the need for an education and finished his equivalency diploma via correspondence courses.

WHAT?  he finished school?! 

He  won a track and field scholarship to Philadelphia's Temple University in 1961-62, and studied physical education while running track and playing fullback on the football team. Cosby also joined the school's chapter of the Omega Psi Phi fraternity.

HE WENT TO COLLEGE? 

Even as he progressed through his undergraduate studies, Cosby had continued to hone his talent for humor.  When he began bar tending at  a club in Philadelphia, he became fully aware of his ability to make people laugh. He worked his customers and saw his tips increase, then ventured on to the stage.

…AND WORKED!?

Cosby left Temple to pursue a career in comedy, and in 1963, he received national exposure on NBC's The Tonight Show.  He went on to release Bill Cosby Is a Very Funny Fellow...Right!, the first of a series of popular comedy albums in 1964.

DROPPED OUT OF SCHOOL AGAIN?

In 1965, when he was cast alongside Robert Culp in the I Spy adventure series, Cosby became the first African-American co-star in a dramatic television series, and NBC became the first to present such a series.  I Spy finished among the twenty most-watched shows that year, and Cosby would be honored with three consecutive Emmy Awards for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series. Cosby went on tot become a regular guest host on The Tonight Show.   

SUCCESS!

He returned with another series in 1969, The Bill Cosby Show, a situation comedy that ran for two seasons.  While only a modest critical success, the show was a ratings hit, finishing eleventh in its first season.  Still the show was cancelled.

HE MET WITH SOME MORE FAILURE… And:

After The Bill Cosby Show left the air, Cosby returned to his education. He began graduate work at the University of Massachusetts, qualifying under a special program that allowed for the admission of students who had not completed their bachelor's degrees, but who had had a significant impact on society through their careers. This professional interest led to his involvement in the PBS series The Electric Company, for which he recorded several segments teaching reading skills to young children.

WENT BACK TO SCHOOL?

In 1972, Cosby received a Masters degree from the University of Massachusetts and was also back in prime time with a variety series, The New Bill Cosby Show. However, this time he met with poor ratings, and the show lasted only a season.

FAILED AGAIN….and then….

He was much more  successful with the Saturday morning show, Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids.  Cosby received his Doctorate in 1976 from the University of Massachusetts.   Temple University, where Cosby had begun but never finished, would grant him his bachelor's degree on the basis of "life experience".

SUCCESS!…and FAILURE…

During the 1970s, Cosby, made some successful comedy films that countered the violent "blaxploitation" films of the era. However, much of his work could be considered failures such as: Mother, Jugs & Speed (1976) ; A Piece of the Action; and California Suite. In addition, Cos (1976) an hour-long variety show featuring puppets, sketches, and musical numbers, was canceled inside of a year.

RATINGS GOLD:

Cosby's greatest television success came in September, 1984 with the debut of The Cosby Show. The program aired weekly on NBC and went on to become the highest ranking sitcom of all time. The Cosby Show was unprecedented in its portrayal of an intelligent, affluent, nonstereotypical African-American family.

 The Cosby Show is one of only two American programs that have been #1 in the Nielsen ratings for five consecutive seasons.  Cosby, always outspoken for his views on the decay of what he considers black culture, the breakup of the black family, people not taking responsibility for themselves, etc.,   came under sharp criticism for His Pound Cake speech. He was largely unapologetic for his stance when he made similar remarks during a speech in a July 1 meeting commemorating the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. He further described those who he felt needed help as "blacks [who] had forgotten the sacrifices of those in the Civil Rights Movement." Cornel West defended Cosby and his remarks, saying, "[H]e's speaking out of great compassion and trying to get folk to get on the right track, 'cause we've got some brothers and sisters who are not doing the right things, just like in times in our own lives, we don't do the right thing.”

So from the son of a maid and a Navy fighting man, shoe shine boy, high school dropout…To a college educated, critically acclaimed, wildly successful, multi millionaire ($400m+ est.)… He wasn’t born rich, he was not a great student, no foreign benefactors(cough)….but he made it in the USA

Of course, he was also a failure many times.

-KOOK

The Difference between Sympathy and Empathy

 Closing Guantánamo Fades as a Priority - NYTimes.com

The above linked article from the NYT discusses how support for the plan to close the prison at Gitmo went from having a slight majority of support on inauguration day, to nearly 60% majority for keeping it open by March.  Certainly the failed bombing attempt in Times Square has increased the support for keeping terrorists off our soil and stirring up the anger levels again.  But I believe there is more to it than that.

The Moonbat plan was to close camp Xray and move all the prisoners to some civilian prison on US soil.  Several Liberal Lawmakers made political hay out of the plan by saying that they would be glad to house the terrorists in their states.

I think that is where things began to falter for the hope’n’change crowd.  It went from theory to reality.

“close gitmo!, no military tribunals!, civil rights!”  “close gitmo!, no military tribunals!, civil rights!” “Bush  Lied, people died!”

 

  “We are bringing them to your city”

 

 

“close gitmo!, no military trib….no…wait, what?  near my home and my children? In my community?  No, I want Gitmo closed but I don’t want them in my backyard.”

There is the real break in the mental processes that separates logical, pragmatic, realistic, liberty loving, constitutional libertarian thought from  impassioned, emotional, irrational, illogical moonbat ‘thought’. 

When the argument for closing Xray went from some theoretical exercise where the terrorists would be housed out of sight and out of mind, and the libtards could feel that they were being morally superior and all goody- goody, safe in the knowledge that Khaled Sheikh Muhammed was being treated with Kid gloves, but far far away from them; to theoretically being held within 30 miles of their homes with underpaid and undermotivated civilian guards the whole thought experiment was made real.

This is something I have expressed before.  When any of the Liberals pet issues is put into a perspective where it would actually affect them, the tune suddenly changes.  They move from Sympathy to Empathy.   Sympathy for the perceived situation, to empathy with how actually being in the situation feels.

Other cases in point:  Many are against hunting, feeling as though it is animal cruelty.  In several cities suburban hunting permits for deer are issued to well qualified archers.  There is usually the obligatory protest of people wanting to “live with Nature” until a deer runs into the side of their Hummer H3 and dents it all up.  Then there is the chorus of “kill bambi” which reinforces what farmers and ranchers have known all along, Man and Animal can coexist, as long as both sides are controlled.  Fact: Deer are hard on crops, fences, and automobiles and until the Sympathy for Deer becomes Empathy with someone who has had the beejesus scared out of them and cost them a few thousand bucks in auto repairs by a suicidal deer, it is not “real” to some people.   

Take Arizona and the illegal immigration debate as an example; it is very easy for a senator from a northeastern state, or someone who lives in a gated community far removed from the border to denounce what the citizens of Arizona have been clamoring to have for years.  Arizona needs to secure the border it shares with a foreign country because there is a serious crime wave going on down there and no one but Arizonans are going to do anything about it.  Arizona has no hope to stop the crime wave if they cannot control the free movement of foreigners back and forth across their border.   Now, if one of Nancy Pelosi’s grandkids was kidnapped by a foreign invader from mexico, do you not think that immigration reform would suddenly find its way onto the House Calendar?  It is like the old west in southern Arizona now, with the criminal element coming into the state to commit its’ crimes and then hightailing it back across the border, like Pancho Villa or something.

I remember when I was younger there was a huge debate in Missouri regarding “bussing”.  Many rural and suburban schools were predominately White, and many inner city schools were predominately Black.  This was obviously (to democrats) a problem.  In support of this was the fact that inner city schools performed more poorly than those of the suburbs.  Now, I firmly believe that the real source of the problem is not Race, but one of culture. There is nothing inherently inferior about anyone’s skin color or ethnicity. 

But I can take any child and ignore them, never teach them right from wrong, show them that might always makes right, that society “owes them something”, and turn them into the perfect weapon of self destruction. 

The solution was to spend huge amounts of taxpayer money on “bus-ing”  white kids to inner city schools and black kids to Suburban schools.  I would have argued that the lower test scores and higher dropout rates in the cities was not related to race at all and would have probably spent the money on some sort of job creation, community outreach, and parenting classes for families in those areas where performance was suffering.  But that is not what happened, does anyone care to guess or remember the result?  Performance of both types of schools went down, violence went up, and parents got angry.   Once the feral kids who were (un)raised by people succored from the government teat were introduced into schools where more parents took an active role in their children’s education everyone suffered.  The issue was not because some kids were black and some were white,  it was because a majority in one group were effectively tutored in how to be a productive member of society, and a majority of the other group were raised as though in the wild.  This whole issue went from being a sympathetic thought experiment in forced diversity, to an empathetic real world experience of what happens when children who have never been taught how to behave in society mix with less violent ones who were raised by people who believe that you can socially engineer the demographics of a city. 

One more short example:  Two years ago there was a huge sympathetic outpouring of support for a little known Freshman Senator from Illinois to become The President of the United States.  He promised Hope, and Change.  People said, “just give him a chance.”  The sentiment was one of sympathy for his message, and the historic nature of  half black man as president.  Now that we have moved into an empathetic situation of dealing with he and his friends’ policies more and more people agree with those of us who said that he had no executive experience, had questionable judgment in choosing friends and associates, and no more cared about the rights of  the oppressed or the economic opportunities of the poor than any other Despotic ruler throughout history, irrespective of his genetics.  Popular sentiment is now changing.  But that is ok, society forgets these lessons every two generations or so.

-KOOK

Legislate Yourself as you Legislate Others

Cross posted at leftcoastrebel

The golden rule says “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”  This rule works very well in the interpersonal dealings of individuals. In this era of hyper-regulation of everything, I just wish people would legislate themselves like they want everyone else to be legislated.  Progressivism and hypocrisy go hand in hand.  They regulate all these activities because they Care so darn much!  But their caring does not always translate into changing their behavior.  It usually just manifests itself in them wanting to change yours.  It is the same old cliché we always use to illustrate socialism:  Socialism is getting into they guy standing next to you’s pocket to give the beggar some change.
Pamela Anderson uses her popularity to endorse PETA, who would like to wager on whether or not Pam calls Terminex if she sees a bug or a rodent in her house?  Do you think Pam would like to swim in her pool with frogs?  You think if she found a snake in her garage she would just let it live there?
Algore’s activities and hypocrisy are the stuff of viral email legend.  Does he drive a Prius, or better yet take the train, or ride a bike, to his speaking engagements?  Use a chalkboard and old fashioned megaphone to save electricity?  Do you suppose they turn the AC off for his speeches?  If Al truly believed the nonsense he was spreading he would only hold his speeches outdoors in a park during daylight hours and stand on a tree stump and shout his message.  But, sadly, no, he uses all the modern conveniences of life that his Billionaire status affords him.
Take any of the A-List stars in Hollywood who are make such impassioned pleas regarding the poor.  Show me the first one that gives up their limos, yachts, airplanes, and mansions to lift a whole tenement out of poverty; or, point out the one that does not have a good tax lawyer on retainer.
Remember all the tax cheats in the administration?
My Grandmother has always said that those who wish to control others every second of the day are usually those that do not have control over themselves. 
As I have stated before, if you have a pet cause that you want government to get involved in you must also accept all the other pet causes everyone else has.  We all have our interests, and it would be easy for us all to try to legislate our views on even the most mundane things onto others.
For instance, I would outlaw Crocs.  I would outlaw all info-mercials and most ’reality’  TV.   But if I could do all of that, and more, then the person next door would also get to outlaw my 4x4 truck, talk radio, guns, and inefficient antique tractor.  They might decide that fatsos like me should not be allowed to purchase Krispy Kreme donuts.  It would be their right to legislate me just as much as it was mine to legislate them.  Until their activities cause me quantifiable harm, I have no right to do anything about it.
I don’t have to buy ugly foam shoes, I don’t have to watch info-mercials or the Flava of Luv because Free Market Capitalism created DVR.  If you feel strongly about trading automobile safety for the perception and status of being a good person  trade in your limo for a smartcar…fine; I will be driving my truck.
This was the genius of the Founders.  They restrained government and gave it specific, limited powers.  This was to protect your rights and freedoms as much as the next person’s.  When our President laments the fact that government is not restrained, and that the constitution is a list of negative liberties, that it doesn’t say what the government can do.  Half of that statement is true; and by design, and a good idea.  The other half is false.  The Constitution from, the perspective of the Federal Government, is a list of negative liberties.  From a personal standpoint it is a list of positive liberties.  Power is to the people.  This saddens many, if not most, of our governmental types, and that is precisely the reason the Constitution is written that way.  Now as to the statement that the Constitution does not say what the Federal Government can do; yes it does, very plainly,  it is just that it is supposed to be very limited; again, much to the dismay of Congress Critters and big Government types.  When every pet cause is dealt with from a Federal level, and all causes rise to the  level of “crisis” the only people who win are those in power.  We all lose.  Oh sure, the turtles will get their tunnels, but the government giveth and the government taketh something else away. 
-KOOK

I'm tired.

The title is true, I'm tired from a long day of driving and playing with race cars so I am posting this e-mail that I recieved earlier (and edited slightly). Now I'm going to pass out.


I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.   
  
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes."  Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times their real value and 1000 times their needs at less than my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.   
  
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Christian people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. 
  
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.   
  
I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois. I'm glad that the 98% of black Americans that voted for obama know the principles of Marxism so well. Most of them can quote the Communist Manifesto verbatim.
  
I think it's very cool that we have a black dictator and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I think it's ironic that a black man who is enslaving us all in the name of the all-knowing government after swearing on the Lincoln Bible cover draped over a Koran   
  
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News?  Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.   
  
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.   
  
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. Not only do I have a carbon footprint, but my feet and the rest of me is made of carbon just like our home planet. Still, my carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're a red Bolshevik through and through..   
  
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a "disease", and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? Drug users chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I gave up marijuana permanently. If someone is going to stop using drugs (including tobacco), a true desire to change behavior is necessary. How many people try to catch malaria by choice? At the same time, heroin is NOT an airborne virus!!!
  
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next?  Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"?  And, no,  I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion.  I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, and who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.   
  
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war?  You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave?  Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are?  Not even close.  So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.   
  
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Florida where there has been bipartisan corruption by those who public office for years. Not to mention our bipartisan, bisexual governor cheats on his boyfriends in Obama's cabinet, and under his bed, and on air force one. Our governor changes parties more often than he changes sexes-now that's change you can believe in!!!   
  
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.   
  
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.   
  
I'm real tired of people blame me for their problems. Recently, when someone said that I, and all of my race owe "reparations" to descendents of Antebellum slaves. My reply was if their housing project, food stamps and wellfare checks, plus affirmative action aren't enough, I will be happy to sell them to Arab slave traders in Gaza (it's big business there after all). Simple fact, the poorest people in America live better than most national leaders in 3rd world countries and yet they complain. Still, I hope they don't learn what life in Zimbabwe or North Korea is like the hard way. I believe deep down most of you feel the same way which is what separates America from the rest of the world. Be thankful you live here and prepare for the toughest challenge you have ever faced in stopping the atheist liberal agenda. You best believe those on the other side aren't going to go away quetly, and will have no problem torturing persecuting and even killing you because you are their enemy and the only common ground between us and them is a cemetary!

Multiculturalism – Where ‘zero tolerance’ unity of thought results in diversity of skin color

As some of you may be aware I have a younger family member who lives with me while she attends college.  She is a sharp cookie, and although she does not agree with me on every issue, nor I with her, we do agree on a good number of philosophical points.

Frequent readers know that I detest affirmative action and quotas for pretty much any use.  I have taken a little heat in the past for my comparisons regarding the amount of “diversity” on TV and in advertising and the actual demographics of this nation.

I am reminded of the South Park episode on the South Park flag:

The episode begins with an argument about the South Park town flag. It depicts four white figures hanging a black one on a gallows. The blatant racism incites Chef's indignation and leads him to believe that the whole town is racist. The Children are eventually given the job of redesigning the flag and when they unveil it, it is a multicultural flag of different colored stick people holding hands…with a black stick figure on the gallows. 

Chef and the rest of the adults find out that the children had not even noticed that the flag was racist, thinking that the issue at hand was capital punishment. Chef realizes that, when the children looked at the flag, they only saw five people, with no regard to their colors, and is touched: he realizes that, in believing the whole town racist while throwing the slur "cracker" around, he was being the racist one. . Chef delivers the moral of this story: his inclination to anti-racism almost made him a racist himself; perceiving things according to race leads only to further racism.

In our world today we have “forced diversity” where diversity becomes un-diverse.  Everybody seems to have a dance card they have to fill with their “black” friend, and their “gay” friend, and their “asian” friend.  We’ve become hyper-racist to the point none of you probably pulled up short at my insertion of “gay” into a discussion on race.  That is how bad it has gotten, if you are perceived as anti-homosexual, you are also a racist.  Never mind being anti-homosexual being wrong; how did that become race based?

Look at the Lefty bomb throwers; they are the ones attempting to marginalize the entire TEA movement because "we are all a bunch of white raaacists”.  The term racist is used to completely discount every issue.  Don’t agree with the President?  Racist.  Don’t agree with AZ’s immigration law? Raacist!  Don’t agree with unlimited welfare? Raaacissst.  Don’t support green initiatives?  Racist.  Vote *gasp* Republican?  raaaaacisssst.

If your grassroots group is not a uniformly multicultural multi-ethnic melting pot (actually the less white people the better) then you absolutely positively must be racist.  

We all fall into this trap.  The white demographic in this area of the country is around 75%, therefore 75% of all the people in any given group ANYWHERE around here could be assumed to be caucasian non-spanish.  Instead, unless we can show a picture of just how many skin tones were at a Rally, we are apparently proven to be Racists.  To hear the loons tell it we are all marching in sheets carrying burning crosses.

It has gotten to the point that even advertisers are beginning to poke fun at our hyper-racialism.  The new ads for the young ladies kotex has a beautiful young lady stating that she was picked to be the spokesperson because of her beauty and her indeterminate ethnicity so as to appeal to a wider audience..and blah blah blah…

What this does is point out that there is a LOT of thought given to race when products are designed and advertised.  I refuse to believe this sells more feminine hygiene products, cheeseburgers, or even TV shows.  But do believe the more we market to groups and the more we divide people up and check people off the worse the situation becomes, not better.

When I was a kid I watched Family Ties, not because they were white, but because Michael J. Fox was fantastic as Alex P. Keaton.  I watched The Cosby Show, not because they were black but because it was a great show.  When I was young I watched The Jeffersons, and Diff’rent Strokes, and Sanford and Son, and the Dukes of Hazard, Magnum PI, A-Team, Knight Rider, Simon and Simon. I got older and watched Arsenio Hall, not because he was black, but because he was better than Leno or that other idiot, for a while. I watched In Living Color instead of Sat Night Live.  I loved Home Improvement.  Color did not play into my TV watching habits, quality of the show and its relevance to me or its entertainment value did.  On another note, I can promise you, I never bought (or begged my mom to buy) a happy meal because of the color of the little kid in the commercial (usually it had more to do with Lego’s), ditto with breakfast cereal.

Little Cousin’s point was, when diversity just happens, it is diversity.  When Diversity is forced, it is someone else’s opinion of diversity, and I will add, it is certainly not the product of any diversity of thought.  Until the never-sufficiently-to -be-damned Liberal left quits using Racist as every other word, as a be-all and end-all to any disagreement, we will never be post racial.  We must not allow them to drag us into showing our “diversity” credentials at every turn.  I think from here on out the proper response to any cry of RAAACISSST should be, “that is absurd, how dare you bring race into the argument in order to obfuscate the true issue, I will not devolve into that type of hateful rhetoric, you debase yourself” – and if nothing else, they will just call us stoopid while they try to google the definitions to “obfuscate”, “devolve”, “rhetoric”, and “debase”.

Multiculturalism – Where ‘zero tolerance’ unity of thought results in diversity of color, welcome to 21st century Amerika.

-KOOK

History Channel's "The Story of Us" and Irony

I watched the first episode of this great documentary series on the history channel tonight. It covered events leading up to the revolutionary war and it dovetails nicely with a couple of books I recently read. I find it very ironic that an otherwise entertaining and excellent series covering information that should be required material for every citizen of this country was introduced/prefaced by a man that apparently has little understanding of, or reverence for, the material itself. The series was introduced by none other than his one-ness, The pResident, chairman zero.

Secondly, does anyone else find it odd that a sitting president is endorsing a History channel documentary like Marlin Perkins hawking Mutual of Omaha insurance? What is next, selling an energy drink or some sportswear?

Maybe he should watch it instead of reading a TelePrompTer script of what one of his handlers thought a true blue USA loving American would say... You know what a good President would have actually felt and thought...

-Kook
via iPhone

Deconstructing our Progress to Communism Pt. II – Commerce Clause

   We the People are engaged in a battle over our future.  Are we going to remain a Constitutional Republic, or are we going to devolve in a communistic tyranny ruled by a politburo of non -representatives elected through sham elections like Iran, Cuba, Russia, or Venezuela?   Yesterday the focus was on the faulty premise that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun.  Today’s focus is on another clause that our current would-be Kings and Queens in Washington think gives them the power usurp all authority reserved to the states or the people.  The “Commerce Clause”, Article I section 8.3 which reads:

[the congress shall have power…] “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

The part of that statement which so much debate has been centered upon is “To regulate commerce…among the several states." Luckily we do not have to be confused as to what the framers meant, as they clearly laid out their intent in their writings.  reading their correspondence, there should be no debate at all what the proper understanding of those words should be. But as was pointed out yesterday, the small minority of our non-representatives who would hazard a guess as to where their unlimited power is derived from, will likely quote this clause.
Indeed Speaker Pelosi issued a press release on her website in September 2009 where she expressly said just that: Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: 'Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform'

“…  But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce.  Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”

So according to this widely held interpretation these 16 words nullify the tenth amendment.  IF congress can regulate the commerce that goes on within a state because the prices and availability of a product or service in one state impacts the prices and availability in another, then there is literally no end to what they can control.  How convenient  for them.  This is clearly not what the founders meant. The original intent of the framers is clear.  Madison said to Cabell :

“For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.”
Allow me to translate into more easily understood language. 
I did not refer to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States."  [in my response].  I purposefully left that part out because I always thought that in the future people would misunderstand the meaning unless it was  put into context.  If not, it would be too easy to extend this power to the same level as the power reserved to the federal government to regulate relationships with other nations.  It is very clear that this language grew out of an abuse of power by states that had ports and harbors against states that did not. The language was intended as a protection to keep one state from harming another by restricting its trade, not as an additional power given to the Federal government over the states; however, the Federal government is the only agency we could give this authority to, and so we did.

   Remember, until the mid 20th century any goods received from a foreign nation were received by ship.  This put States without ports and harbors at a serious disadvantage to states who did.  Imagine Kansas or Oklahoma's vulnerable situation if they had to pay taxes  on every product imported to every state that was crossed en route to the final destination.  imagine a ship from China delivering products to the port in Long Beach, CA en route to Kansas.  California could then charge tariffs to Kansas, and every state subsequently after that could charge both CA, and KS, as the product moved across their borders.  What a nightmare that would be.  This is the reasoning behind the Commerce Clause.  The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to keep this internal turmoil out of trade, to allow all the states to access shipping and receiving points.  This is further explained in Federalist #42, and Madison mentions that one of the reasons for this language’s inclusion into the constitution was because it was a noted weakness of the articles of Confederation as well as several Nations in Europe at the time.
It was meant as a restriction on states from harming other states, not to create an  all encompassing evil overlord Fedzilla government. 
Unfortunately over the years the courts have wavered back and forth on this issue and the most recent passing of the buck by the court has been this:
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985),

Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional system and that the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position. But the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all congressional action—the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated.

The recent Firearms Freedom laws are set to test this theory, but it is unlikely from the above decision they will. Folks, if we don’t like Pelosi et. al. view of things, we have to vote them out, because the courts are likely going to take a pass on this.  This may be one of the most important litmus tests on a prospective candidate, “what is your opinion regarding the proper role of the Fed with respect to the Commerce Clause”
-KOOK

Winning the war of Ideology

There is a war of ideologies going on in this country which has been growing in intensity.  Whether it began in 1860, or in 1900, or in 1776, is all debatable.  What is no longer debatable is that it has now reached an intensity that we have not seen in my lifetime.  Our ancestors left whatever lands they hailed from to come here for a reason.  They no longer wanted to be ruled.  They came from countries ruled by “the divine right of Kings”, Dictatorships, Theocracies, and many fled the tide of Socialism and it’s children Nazism, Fascism, and Communism.  They came because only in this country could a person be free to rule themselves.  To determine for one’s self, what was in one’s own best interests.  To risk, and to either reap the rewards, or suffer the consequences, on their own terms.

The old battle of  whether there could be Self Determination or to be ruled and  taxed by someone unaccountable to you was won on the battlefields of the Revolutionary war. It was a radical concept at the time that men could be free to rule themselves, and we won it, briefly at least. But in that battle of ideologies’ place came a newer more insidious battle. 

I wrote yesterday that in the continuum between Anarchy (lack of Government) and Tyranny (total Government control) our left and right has been constantly sliding down the hill towards Socialism, and Tyranny,  for over 100 years.

   It was easy to make the distinction between a king sitting on a throne who got his power from his father and would give his power to his son, who was wholly unaccountable to the people and ruled by the sound of his voice; and a body of citizens, chosen by citizens, to protect us from criminals and foreigners.  That argument is easily summated and digested.  It can be understood by the smallest child.  It really comes down to being bossed around by a bully, or being governed by a group of your peers.   A much harder debate is the Role of that government once enacted.  The Founders were very aware that once started a government just grows and grows and they tried to warn us of it.  Now our Government no longer listens to the people.  We are not represented.  Those of us who produce things are being bled dry by those who produce nothing to give what we have worked for to those who will not work.

Here is the question: Is the role of government to fulfill all of your wants and desires, or is it to remove roadblocks in your pursuit of happiness?

The problem is that it is difficult to properly articulate freedom’s principles into a  slogan easily shouted or to hold the goldfish-like attention span of TV addicted people today. All of the debates over Liberty vs. Tyranny boil down to just a few simple questions.

What do you want out of life?  Which system of government will best allow you to achieve those goals?  Are you a dependant or are you free?  These are the questions we should focus on. 

Let me start with the last one first.  You cannot be both “Free” and “Dependant” Children are dependant on their parents for the Housing, Education, Food, and their Healthcare.  Likewise, many of our “citizens” are dependant on the Taxpayers, via the Government for all of these things.  The price for these “Free” things and this willing dependency on the government is the loss of your “Freedom”.  It is that simple.  If you willingly accept Government Housing (which more and more of it is indirectly), Government Food (in which governments regulate every aspect from growth to consumption), Education (which between the public schools controlled at the federal level and the takeover of student loans as part of healthcare reform encompasses nearly everything), and Government Healthcare, which was just proclaimed via fiat across the land, then you have given up your Freedom for Dependency and you should be aware that now, just like when you lived under your parents’ roof, your Provider has the right to dictate all aspects of your behavior as a condition of your dependency.  You have willingly given them the right to tell you where to live, what to eat, what doctor to use, and not only what school to attend but soon probably what course of study. It is not a far step to how many children you have, indeed if your are beholden to the taxpayers for your existence that is a logical, reasonable, parental function.  That is the price for your Free stuff from the Government.

So, ask your liberal friend or family member what their goals in life are, and then demonstrate to them how it is absolutely within the Nanny State’s purview to re-direct their goals to something else in the interests of those in power. 

I choose Freedom, not Dependency;  Liberty, not Tyranny.

-KOOK

I call Driver’s Seat: I don’t care who sits on which side of the backseat.

Several of my family & friends were opining  last night  on the recent passage of the healthcare bill and a common theme seemed to be that although it was not perfect, that was what these people were elected to do, and also that despite what you might hear this is not fascism.  Why?  because fascism is what happens when Republicans go bad.  So it can’t be Fascism.

Sigh.  It bears repeating, and I must admit prior to a year ago I did not have the understanding that I do now because, I too, am the product of a public education.

Simply put, Left and Right are relative terms.  The Left is always to the left of the Right and the Right is always to the right of the Left.  So in a simplistic viewpoint it looks like this.  Those two are far apart aren’t they?  The problem is this viewpoint is at 300% zoom.

If you can wrap your mind around that, then you need to realize something else, The Left and Right can both be FAR to the left and they are still to the left and right of each other.   If we zoom out of the above picture to about 150% zoom we can see the constitution quite a ways over to the right. 

The politicians in this country have successfully confused many of us as to what the labels in politics mean.  The first thing that you have to get over is that  Democrats-Gone-Wild does not equal Socialism or Communism and that Republicans-Gone-Wild does not equal Fascism or Nazism.  All of these –isms, get their roots from Marx and Engles, and Socialist Theory.

Socialism is the parent philosophy of Communism, Fascism, and Nazism.  All three use the Marxist principles to raise up certain parts of the population against a perceived enemy to effect higher levels of Governmental control and loss of personal freedom and liberty.  Communism extols the virtues of Class Struggle, “Worker’s of the World Unite”; incidently the USSR was the Union of Socialist Soviet (Workers) Republic.  Fascism lifts up the State, “Everything from within the Nation, nothing from outside”; the word Fascism is from Fasciti which is a bundle of sticks symbolizing National Unity.  Nazism demonizes certain races, Africans, Jews, whatever; and Nazi is the acronym for National Social German Workers Party.  All of these end in Tyranny.  At the turn of the twentieth century both of our political parties fell in love with Socialism.  Democrats thought that Communism was the ideal situation, and Republicans believed that Mussolini was onto something.  This is where the old wives' tale of Fascism arising from an out of control right wing party came from.

Our Founders believed in Personal Liberty, Freedom, and Self Determination based on Free Market principles.  “That which Governs best, Governs least”  it was a very radical idea, and it birthed the greatest nation this world has ever known.  This political philosophy gives politicians and government very little power over individual rights and freedoms and is just not very much fun for politicians, who covet power and control.  Beginning during the reconstruction period following the Civil War, some might say at the beginning of the Civil War,  our Federal government began a slow steady march toward a strong central Government and really took off in the early 1900’s.  We have lost our way.  The real left or right is Total Government Control; be that a dictatorship, an oligarchy, socialism and its’ offspring, a theocracy, or a monarchy on the Left vs. Anarchy (which is an absence of government) on the Right. Our Constitution was designed to give us just enough control to maintain order while still allowing maximum personal freedom to realize our dreams.  The other philosophies place power in the hands of a select few, end up subjugating the people, and crush Hope. If we zoom out to 100% zoom we see that this is closer to our reality now.  The Blue vertical Line would be a Centrist position. The Goal should be somewhere closer to where the founders anchored us with the constitution.

Our politics have to be rooted to something solid and real because if our beliefs are not pegged to something stationary and solid, it leads to the arguments we currently have over left and right.  These arguments are like two small children in the backseat fighting over who gets to sit on the left or on the right, which doesn’t really matter if the car is being driven over a cliff.  We have to take control of the car.

 

There is a part two to this story, which I will share with you soon.

-KOOK