Obama to Kyl: “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.'”

June 21, 2010 at 08:01 (Constitution/Constitutional Issues, Immigration/Illegal Immigration, News, Politics, Society, Video)

Sad state of affairs.


Permalink Leave a Comment

PC Censors Airbrush Out Churchhill’s Cigar

June 18, 2010 at 10:13 (General Stupidity, News, Society)

Pathetic. Go to the link to see the pics.

The face is instantly familiar, the two-fingered salute unmistakable.

But are these actually the same photograph of Sir Winston Churchill?

In the original photograph the war leader has his cigar gripped firmly in the corner of his mouth.

But in the other image – currently greeting visitors to a London museum – his favourite smoke has been digitally extinguished.
Uniform, victory salute and cigar: Winston Churchill in the 1940s and now without his trademark smoke

It seems the man who steered Britain through the most dangerous period of its recent history may have fallen victim to the modern curse of political correctness.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Lawmaker Warns Parks Takeover by Mexican Cartels, Illegals ‘Intensifying’

June 17, 2010 at 16:56 (General Stupidity, Immigration/Illegal Immigration, News, Society)

Yes, there are places in the United States where it is too dangerous for citizens to go. These areas for all intents and purposes belong to drug cartels and human traffickers. And yes, the tree-huggers are keeping the border patrol on horseback so they don’t step on a cactus or something. Pathetic.

Federal environmental laws are handcuffing U.S. Border Patrol agents to a foot-and-horseback strategy as they try to battle Mexican drug cartels and illegal immigrants who are turning wide swaths of America’s border with Mexico into a virtual no-man’s land.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, ranking Republican on the House Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee, said the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in southern Arizona — part of which was closed in 2006 because it was considered too dangerous for Americans to visit — is just the tip of the iceberg.

He said there’s plenty of other parkland along the border that’s either closed to the public or is considered too dangerous because of concern about drug gangs, human smugglers and illegal immigrants, and that the problem is getting worse.

“You travel here in America at your own risk,” Bishop told FoxNews.com.

The reason the parkland along the border has become so hazardous, Bishop said, is because environmental regulations restrict Border Patrol from using vehicles to patrol in those areas — except in special circumstances. In turn, he said, drug cartels are being funneled into those swaths as immigration agents get tougher patrolling private land.

“It’s intensifying,” Bishop said. The Utah Republican is the author of a bill, H.R. 5016, that would allow border agents to patrol parkland without worrying about the environmental restrictions. He described that bill as the solution to the problem.

“They’re not allowing the Border Patrol to do the job that they know they need to do,” he said.

Permalink Leave a Comment

A Story of a Woman And Her Baby

June 15, 2010 at 11:22 (Abortion, Cool, Society, Video)

Look at this! This music, this talent – the children he has and the music they inspired. Because he is alive! Because his mother was brave!


Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama Tries to Silence Opponents

June 15, 2010 at 09:34 (Guns, News, Politics, Society)

Orwellian indeed.

When Obama says “disclose,” what he really means is “disclose gun group membership lists.”

Not surprisingly, these efforts to shut down free speech don’t apply to Obama allies, like Democratic-leaning labor unions. They only apply to groups which are not reliable Obama allies, like Gun Owners of America.

But, for those groups whose free speech is targeted for Obama’s wrath under this bill, the consequences are severe:

* Under Title II of the bill, GOA (and other groups, as well as many bloggers) who merely mention public officials within 60 days of an election could be required to file onerous disclosures — potentially including their membership lists.

* Also under Title II, GOA could be required to spend as much as half of the time of a 30-second ad on government-written disclosures.

* In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government’s snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Here’s an idea: If Obama is so irritated at the Supreme Court’s defense of political free speech by groups like GOA, why doesn’t he apply his sleazy new rules to his political allies, as well?

ACTION: Please urge your congressman to vote against the anti-gun HR 5175. This bill has moved out of committee and has now been placed on the House calendar.

Permalink Leave a Comment

How the Black Panthers Got Away With Voter Intimidation

June 15, 2010 at 09:31 (General Stupidity, News, Politics, Society)

I bet you knew before you read this didn’t you? Yep, it was the Obama people.

The case is straightforward. On Election Day 2008, two members of the New Black Panther party (NBPP) dressed in military garb were captured on videotape at a Philadelphia polling place spouting racial epithets and menacing voters. One, Minister King Samir Shabazz, wielded a nightstick. It was a textbook case of voter intimidation and clearly covered under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

A Department of Justice trial team was assigned to investigate. They gathered affidavits from witnesses—one of the poll watchers was called a “white devil” and a “cracker.” A Panther told him he would be “ruled by the black man.” The trial team, all career Justice attorneys and headed by voting section chief Chris Coates, filed a case against the two Panthers caught on tape. Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the national NBPP, and the party itself were also named based on evidence the party had planned the deployment of 300 members on Election Day and on statements after the incident in which the NBPP endorsed the intimidation at the Philadelphia polling station.

The trial team quickly obtained a default judgment—meaning it had won the case because the New Black Panther party failed to defend itself. Yet in May 2009, Obama Justice Department lawyers, appointed temporarily to fill top positions in the civil rights division, ordered the case against the NBPP dismissed. An administration that has pledged itself to stepping-up civil rights enforcement dropped the case and, for over a year, has prevented the trial team lawyers from telling their story.

Permalink Leave a Comment

The Big Business of Abortion

June 14, 2010 at 10:58 (Abortion, General Stupidity, Gripe, News, Society)

I am shamelessly copying all of this, in case you are too lazy to click the link. It’s that important.

While the rhetoric of the abortion industry relentlessly promises to “empower women” with “information” to make the “best choice” for themselves, pro-lifers know that the “information” always steers clear of educating women about the reality of abortion.

Take the second global Women Deliver conference held last week in Washington. Judging from its website, the conference, co-sponsored by the United Nations Population Fund, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, was designed to concentrate on decreasing maternal mortality in the developing world (something successfully done in the developed world for more than 70 years.) Who could disagree with such a noble endeavor?

But if you dig deeper into the conference’s program and its presenters you’ll discover an inordinate focus on promoting legalized abortion-on-demand in countries whose laws protect the lives of unborn children. The illogic of the conference organizers, like that of pro-abortion non-governmental organizations (NGOs) at the United Nations, is that increased access to abortion equals increased maternal health. It is better access to quality medical care, not abortion, that drives down the maternal mortality rate.

Jeanne E. Head, National Right to Life’s vice president for international affairs and a representative at the United Nations, and a crew of staff and interns stood outside the Washington Convention Center early last Wednesday morning to educate the delegates. They handed out pink bags emblazoned with the words “Celebrate Motherhood” as attendees arrived for the morning plenary session.

The bags contained a life-size fetal model of an unborn child at 12 weeks gestation, a scientifically accurate brochure on the development of the unborn child in utero, and a brochure — which struck right at the heart of the conference — discussing the proven means of reducing maternal mortality rates worldwide.

You would think Women Deliver conference organizers would be thrilled by increased access to information. But you would be wrong.

As fast as staff and volunteers handed out materials to many of the more than 3,000 (mostly female) attendees outside the convention center, conference staff inside the convention center confiscated the pink bags from surprised attendees as they walked in the main doors.

According to one Ugandan attendee (who came outside to get a second bag because her first had been commandeered), the conference staff were telling attendees that the “pro-lifers are trying to ruin our conference,” with information that was “anti-human-rights,” “anti-choice,” “anti-life,” and “anti-woman.”

Anything that might even hint that abortion is not the answer to the world’s problems must be confiscated and destroyed. Dissent must not be tolerated — a familiar pattern not just at the UN but around the country.

Just look to the states and you’ll find the same obfuscation. Common sense laws, supported by a majority of Americans, seek to inform women about the risks associated with abortion, the biological development of the unborn child, and alternatives available, even provide the opportunity to view a real-time ultrasound image of their child. And they are inevitably challenged in court by the pro-abortionists.

Such laws have been held as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court as far back as the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. But that doesn’t stop the abortion industry from filing brief after brief to keep these laws from taking effect.

It all begs the question: why? Simple. When women are given all of the information about abortion and know that there are alternatives, they are far more likely to give their child life. And that cuts into the abortion industry’s bottom line.

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider and promoter of abortion, is a billion dollar industry. In its 2007-2008 annual report, PPFA said that their clinics performed over 300,000 abortions in 2007 — more than 25% of the annual number of abortions performed in the United States. The average cost of a first trimester abortion is roughly $400. Do the math.

Tragically, abortion has become a big business worldwide. And for the international abortion industry — including many of the Women Deliver cosponsors — the women of the developing world represent an untapped market full of profit potential.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Vandals Hit Anchorage Cathedral

June 12, 2010 at 15:13 (General Stupidity, Orthodox Christianity, Religion, Society)

What kind of twisted soul desecrates a church? There is something horribly, horribly wrong with people nowadays.

ANCHORAGE, AK [OCA} — Vandals hit Saint Innocent Cathedral here on Wednesday, June 9, 2010, pillaging the altar’s liturgical appointments and burning pages of the Gospel Book. Several other items were stolen.

According to media reports, the suspects entered through windows in the back of the cathedral some time between midnight and 11:00 a.m. Wednesday.

“The Gospel that was thrown and ripped that we use during the Gospel reading and the hand cross that we use was totally destroyed, cannot be used again,” Father Peter Chris told KTUU Channel 2 News, adding that while the break-in was not the first at the cathedral, it was the worst.

His Grace, Bishop Benjamin of San Francisco and the West, Locum Tenens of the Diocese of Alaska, addressed the issue in a letter to the clergy and faithful of the diocese, the text of which reads as follows.

“It is with great sadness that I have to report the Cathedral of Saint Innocent in Anchorage was broken into the night before last and the altar pillaged and violated. Yesterday, I received a tearful call from Father Peter Chris who came to the Cathedral to find the altar in shambles. Many of the items in the altar were senselessly and shamefully damaged and defaced for no apparent reason. Several items were stolen. The reserved sacrament is intact, as are the relics and the antimensions. But, the Gospel Book on the main altar had pages torn out of it and showed signs that the vandals tried to burn them. The police have investigated and are on top of things.

“We are grateful to God that more damage was not done and that no one was hurt. Please pray for the souls of the people who committed this crime against God and His Church. The condition of the Cathedral, in a very sad way, reflects the spiritual destruction and damage that exists in a human soul that would do such a thing. How truly sad it is that a human being, brought into being by God for no other reason than to share His incomprehensible, divine love, a human being created in His image could mar and deface that image in such a terrible way.

“What is lost or damaged in the Cathedral are only material things. The damage we human beings do to our own souls is much more serious. This should also be a reminder to us all that in this evil age, we need to be methodical about securing our churches from such desecration by mindless, fallen men.”

Permalink Leave a Comment

Liberal Misery in Santa Monica

June 11, 2010 at 10:06 (Funny, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Society)

I imagine heads were exploding. I mean how can you demonize a black woman who is an ex-Muslim turned atheist, and actually lived in and around extremists and knows first hand what she’s talking about? You can’t. They can’t think of one of their stock replies to justify their opinions. I bet they all went home in shock.

One very confused and shaken white-haired gentleman could barely form a question, stammering that he had “great respect” for her but disagreed with almost everything she said. As he rambled on, many of his colleagues began to call at him “What’s your question?” and “No speeches, ask a question!” He finally concluded with a semi-coherent plea along the lines of, “Well, how do we deal with these extremists?”

Ali replied that once you have decided to “deal” with the jihadists, you have legitimized their demands of submission, and that you cannot “deal” with fanatics who wish to destroy your nice free society with bike paths and reusable shopping bags and replace it with a totalitarian theocracy. She went on to object to the vague use of the term “extremists,” asking “Extremists of what?” If we were talking about white supremacists, or radical Marxists or Communists or any other “-ists” that used terrorism and violence to bring about their goals, we would not hesitate to identify the ideas behind their philosophy that drove them to such ends. Why should we hesitate to confront the fact that these particular killers are driven by their fanatical religious beliefs?

She deftly fielded a question about the “perversion” of Islam by fanatics by proclaiming that she was more concerned about the perversion of the word “liberalism,” because of the willingness of many Western liberals to accept and excuse some of the most heinous criminal acts committed by practitioners of the Muslim faith, like arranged marriages, spousal abuse, subjugation of women by force, denial of education to females, and female genital mutilation in the name of multiculturalism and a so-called “respect” for other civilizations. American liberals, she said, appear to be more uncomfortable condemning the ill treatment of women under Islam than most conservatives are. This led her into a repudiation of multiculturalism, and how, despite some honorable intentions in its origins, it had mutated into a belief system that actually denies access to the freedom and justice guaranteed by the American Constitution by allowing injustice to continue within protected minority communities by not encouraging them to assimilate and become full Americans.

In response to a question about how long America should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, she said it was her hope that the Americans would stay for 50 or 100 years, if that is how long it took to modernize those societies, even while acknowledging that there did not seem to be the political will for such an effort to be sustained.

The best question of the evening came from a young man who simply asked what would be the best way to bring about an “Enlightenment” in the Muslim world. She replied that the best way would be to ask them questions about their religion and cause “cognitive dissonance” among those who blindly follow the violent exhortations of their imams. I actually laughed out loud when she used those words, as the cognitive dissonance occurring at that moment in the Track 16 gallery was practically audible. I could swear I heard the word “What?!?” thudding over and over again in the formerly comfortable brains of those around me.

The only applause of the night (!) signaled the end of the evening, and as I lined up to have my book signed by Ms. Ali, I was struck by how short the line was. Out of the 150 to 200 people I guessed were in attendance, only about 25 or so lined up to greet this remarkable individual. As I made my way down the line, I passed pockets of fervent discussion, and caught fragments here and there. I overheard one rather agitated gentleman say, “I just think there are problems in this country that she just doesn’t understand! I mean, what’s the difference between a fanatical mass-murdering Taliban regime and a mass-murdering evangelical Christian in the White House, which this country voted in for eight years?!?”

In Nomad, Hirsi Ali states unequivocally that Christianity and Islam are definitely not equivalent, if for no other reason than Christianity’s willingness to tolerate questioning and even blasphemy without issuing death sentences, and actually calls for a “strategic alliance” between secular people –atheists like herself, Richard Dawkins, and others –and Christians in order to combat the oppression inherent in an unenlightened, unreconstructed Islam (Nomad, pp. 240-241). If this man had asked Ms. Ali his ridiculous question, she could have answered it handily. So why didn’t he? Why was he huddled in the farthest corner of the room spewing his nonsense to his nodding compatriots? What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali had flummoxed him and his fellow travellers into circles of insular outrage?

Well, she was black, so they could not dismiss her as a racist; she had lived in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, The Netherlands and the United States, so they could not call her an ignorant provincial hick; she was an avowed atheist, so they could not call her a Christian bigot on a crusade against peaceful Islam; and she was multi-lingual, articulate, and brilliant, so they couldn’t just call her stupid. All the pejoratives they usually apply to people who disagree with them wouldn’t work, and so they were left to confront her ideas, and those ideas stripped them naked, rent their garments of superiority and condescension into tatters at their feet, and left them angry and confused, whining to each other in the corners of the room, unable to say anything to her face. Their favorite weapons, ad hominem name-calling and sneering condescension, were disarmed.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Liberals and Dems Fail Econ 101

June 11, 2010 at 09:56 (Economy, News, Politics, Society)

Not surprising really.

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents’ (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: “Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.” People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of “somewhat disagree” and “strongly disagree.” This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer “not sure,” which we do not count as incorrect.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

Permalink Leave a Comment

More Guns = Less Crime

June 9, 2010 at 09:31 (Constitution/Constitutional Issues, Guns, News, Politics, Society)

Filed under obvious.

The increase in sales continued well beyond November 2008. From November 2008 to October 2009, almost 2.5 million more people bought guns in the 12 months after the election than in the preceding 12 months. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, doesn’t tell us how many guns each person bought just the number of people who bought them. Most likely though, gun sales rose by more than the number of people who purchased them.

At the same time gun sales were soaring, there was an unusually large drop in murder rates. The 7.4 percent drop in the murder rate was the largest drop in murder rates since the 1999. For those who don’t remember, 1999, when President Bill Clinton and Columbine occurred, was another time when gun sales soared. With people such as Elena Kagan serving as Mr. Clinton’s deputy domestic policy adviser were pushing hard for more gun control, Americans were worried that more gun bans were coming. And in response gun sales soared.

Just as higher arrest and conviction rates, longer prison sentences, or the more frequent use of the death penalty reduce crime, so does letting victims defend themselves with guns. More certain or greater penalties make it more risky for criminals to commit crime. Victims who can defend themselves can also make committing crime more dangerous and deter criminals.

Americans living in the District of Columbia and Chicago have seen this phenomenon themselves. After the ban went into effect in both cities, murder rates rose dramatically. After the Supreme Court threw out DC’s ban and gunlock laws in 2008, the District’s murder rates plunged by 25 percent in 2009. Indeed, my research in the just released third edition of More Guns, Less Crime shows that every place in the world that we have crime data for has seen murder rates climb when guns were banned.

Permalink Leave a Comment

History Returns to Europe

June 7, 2010 at 12:00 (Politics, Society)

Good piece. The chances of the left learning anything are slim to none, but it’s a good try.

Walk the beautiful streets in Munich, Strasbourg and Vienna, and you can see why Europeans thought in the last decades that they had reached the end of history. There is not a soldier to be seen. Sidewalk cafes are jammed midweek with two-hour lunch-goers. Fashion, vacations and sex dominate the ads and billboards.

Bikers, electric commuter trains and tiny fuel-efficient cars zoom by in a green contrast to our gas-guzzling Tahoes and Yukons.

So naturally, there is a general sense of satisfied accomplishment among European social democrats. They believe that finally a quiet sameness across their continent has replaced two millennia of constant European warring and revolution. Now, everybody seems to get an apartment, small car, state job, good pension and peace—and in exchange, all voice comfortable center-left consensus politics.

But beneath the genteel European Union veneer, few remembered that human nature remains constant and gives not even nice Europeans a pass from its harsh laws.

So suddenly the Greek financial meltdown, and the staggering debts that must be repaid, have alternately enraged and terrified northern European creditors. Even the most vocal Europhiles are quietly rethinking the entire premise of a European Union that offers lavish benefits but no sound method of paying for them.

After all, it is one thing to redistribute income by taking from richer Germans and Austrians to give to poorer Germans and Austrians. But it is something else for all Germans and Austrians to extend their socialist charity to siesta-taking Greeks, Italians and Spaniards. For all the lofty rhetoric of the collective European Union, age-old culture, language and nationalism still trump the ideal of continental unity.

But bickering over a trillion dollars in bad southern European debt is not the EU’s only problem. Why, for example, do Europe’s cradle-to-grave entitlements so often end up encouraging declining populations, atheism and lower worker productivity that is readily apparent to the casual visitor?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Hinkle: Israel Committed One Unforgiveable Offense

June 4, 2010 at 13:51 (Politics, Society, Video)

Yep. Go read it all.

What’s the real problem with Israel’s assault on the Gaza flotilla? It’s not the loss of life. Almost nobody cares about that. It’s not the suffering of Palestinians. When Palestinians suffer, the world shrugs.

Remember the worldwide condemnations, the protests across Europe and Asia, the stern rebukes from the world’s high councils in January of last year — when Hamas militants executed 54 members of the Fatah party and tortured 175 more for (allegedly) collaborating with Israel? You don’t? That’s because the killing and torture went on with almost no notice or comment.

How about the world’s outrage in November 2007, when Hamas gunmen killed seven civilians and wounded 80 more during a rally memorializing Yasser Arafat in Gaza? If you don’t remember the outrage, the marches in the street, the scathing U.N. resolutions, that’s because there weren’t any.

Nor did the world weep when the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) suspended operations in Gaza after two staff members were caught in a Hamas-Fatah crossfire and killed. When Palestinian factional violence impedes humanitarian aid, well, tsk-tsk.

Last February, Amnesty International reported that numerous prisoners injured by an Israeli bombing of a prison were “shot dead in the hospitals where they were receiving treatment.” But they weren’t shot by Israelis, so nobody objected.

According to a report by Reuters, “An estimated 616 Palestinians have been killed in factional fighting since Hamas defeated Fatah” in January 2006.

World reaction? Shrug.


Nor did the world object as more than 10,000 rockets rained down on Israeli civilians over the course of several years. It was not until Israel finally had had enough and began going after those firing the rockets in late 2008 that the world sat up and began to insist the fighting stop. On one side, anyway. Across Europe, protesters and vandals went after Jewish synagogues, neighborhoods, and congregations. Attacking Jews in the West, in other words. As if it were somehow their fault.

Nor have there been any marches in the street to protest the behavior of those who organized the flotilla and assaulted the Israeli commandos. There has been equally little objection to the footage from al-Jazeera of men on board the flotilla, the day before the fiasco, chanting “[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!” Khaibar was the last Jewish village taken by the Prophet Muhammad in 628. These are peace activists?

So what’s the real problem with Israel’s assault on the flotilla? Not the loss of life. Not the suffering of Palestinians. The real problem is that Jews defended themselves. That is the one offense in the Middle East the world simply will not forgive.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Bringing Balance to Education

May 22, 2010 at 15:02 (Constitution/Constitutional Issues, Education, History, Media, News, Philosophy, Politics, Society)

That’s what they’re doing. And that’s all they are doing. I have read the actual curriculum online and there is nothing at all wrong with it. Is it bad to dedicate a week to studying the Constitution and Declaration? Is it bad to learn that there were more presidents in the 20th century than JFK? Is it bad to learn that prohibition of a state sponsored religion doesn’t mean that government must treat religion (actually in practice only Christianity) as some disease that must be prevented? Is it bad to mention that the founders went to church? That they prayed? That they themselves said that our form of government would work only as long as society was a virtuous and religious one? Is it wrong to de-emphasize the tribalism and group politics promoted by the left and emphasize the unity that is the United States of America?

We are indeed moving right. The only reason it looks so radical is that the leftward march has become the new normal. Any progress back to sanity is viewed as outrageous and radical.

This is making news because the libs want it to. They want to make it a big deal because they want to make their own liberal national standards. They want the federal government to control what out children learn and what they think. If anyone wants to protest a dangerous idea, protest that one.

The Texas State Board of Education today approved controversial new standards for its social studies curriculum that could affect what students across the country study in their classes.
Texas State board of education will vote on changes to history curriculum.

The 15-member board dominated by conservative Republicans rejected calls for a delay and voted 9-5 to establish new standards for textbooks and teaching history, economics and other civics classes that will take effect in August 2011.

The new standards call for a greater focus on the Biblical and Christian traditions of the founding fathers. It also calls for the teaching of free market principles, how government taxation and regulation can serve as restrictions to private enterprise, and emphasizes the achievements of Republican leaders , including former President Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The new curriculum also states that the system of the U.S. government be called a “Constitutional Republic” rather than a “Democratic society.” Additionally, it inserts a “Celebrate Freedom Week” during which Texas students will study the importance of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

“It’s imperative that our children be taught the original direction of our country,” board member and former chair Don McLeroy, who was voted out of office earlier this year, told ABC News. “And I think you tie that in with the concept of American exceptionalism that we’ve added to the standards. I think that it’s important to understand why America is such a wonderful place.”

McLeroy wrote in an op-ed in USA Today last month that the standards “challenge the powerful ideology of the left,” whose “principles are diametrically opposed to our founding principles.” But the self-described “Christian fundamentalist” argues that the board, which appointed a panel of experts last year to make recommendations, has not overreached on the ideological front.

“All we’re doing is we’re completing the story. We’re restoring the balance,” he said. “I think we’re swinging to the middle.”

Critics charge that the standards are a blatant attempt to insert an ideological and political agenda into Texas classrooms.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Milton Friedman – Socialism is Force

May 21, 2010 at 14:59 (Economy, Philosophy, Politics, Property Rights, Society, Video)

The Dalai Lama should watch this one.

Permalink Leave a Comment

John Stossel – Does Free Trade Exploit the Poor?

May 19, 2010 at 11:05 (Economy, Politics, Society, Video)

Permalink Leave a Comment

Miss OK Gets Ambushed by the Libs

May 17, 2010 at 20:32 (Politics, Society, Video)

And gives a very graceful answer under the circumstances. The left needs to shut up with this stupid insistence that the immigration bill in AZ is racist or would be used by racists, or any other deluded thought that pops into their head… well, when one DOES pop into their head anyway. I wish they would shut the hell up and go sit in a quiet corner and practice thinking for a decade or two.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Sooo, Why Is ILLEGAL Immigration Even Debatable??

May 17, 2010 at 14:00 (Immigration/Illegal Immigration, Philosophy, Politics, Society)

This is why.

The American left has its own millet system, consisting of ethnic (and other) groups defined in large part by their grievances as victims of America. The left provides these groups with attention, representation, and handouts in exchange for their votes. This system has been in place for generations, and it has become the driving wheel of Democratic politics. It has worked nearly as well for them as it did for the Ottoman overlords.

The history of the left in this country is a history of division. Whatever conflict was current — labor vs. management, class vs. class, race vs. race — there you’d find the left, stirring things up in order to derive as much political benefit as possible. A workable democratic system demands a willingness to seek consensus and engage in compromise. The left prefers Balkanization and permanent conflict.

For some years now, it has appeared that the Leftist formula had reached the end of its string. The corrupt and crime-ridden unions were on their last legs, hemorrhaging members even as they drove jobs overseas. Blacks were steadily moving into the middle class and becoming less susceptible to separatist rhetoric. An attempt to transform the university student body into a permanent revolutionary phalanx on the Peronist model had only partial success — students were willing to play while actually on campus, but after graduation, they went on to more interesting pursuits.

So how to keep the pot boiling? The answer was to go find a new millet — or rather, to take advantage of the one next door, of the desperate people fleeing a serial kleptocracy, an uneducated, ignorant, and frightened mass open to all forms of manipulation.

This explains why illegal immigration is so important to the left. It explains why efforts to halt illegal border-crossings, a problem that wouldn’t challenge a six-year-old, are executed so halfheartedly and so often left unfinished (see the recent “virtual fence”). It explains the irrational response to Arizona’s effort to tighten up existing immigration law (not create new law — Arizona’s statute is no more than a reinforcement of existing federal law). It explains the insistence that any solution to the immigration problem provide for amnesty and citizenship for the millions of illegals already living within our borders. It has nothing to do with compassion, nothing to do with fairness or practicality or any of the other reasons offered by “reform” advocates. As is almost always the case where the American left is involved, what it has to do with is power.

The left wishes to use the illegals as a battering ram against the American polity, the same as they used labor, and blacks, and every other group they ever encountered. Illegals will become a new protected class, with privileges and entitlements denied the rest of the populace (including, ironically, current members of previous such classes). They will be discouraged from learning English, as occurs today under the doctrine of “bilingualism,” to assure that they remain a separate presence. A vast bureaucracy will arise to “assist” the new citizenry, funded with billions — oh hell, make that trillions, this is the Obama era — and staffed with sociologists, ethnographers, psychologists, and other disciplines unimagined today. All will be of the same political persuasion. A permanent crisis atmosphere will be generated around the new class. The “Amnestee” question will lead to endless problems and ramifications and act as a permanent indictment of the country and its policies. The native population (not to mention legal immigrants) will grow increasingly embittered and angered. The former illegals will be rendered even more miserable than they are today.

Permalink Leave a Comment

All The President’s Men

May 14, 2010 at 15:02 (Constitution/Constitutional Issues, Philosophy, Politics, Society, Video)

You know, I always thought Glenn Beck was kind of cheesy, but I liked him. And despite what people say, I respect a man who loves his country enough to actually shed tears on its behalf. And he does. I believe that. But I still took him with a grain of salt. No more though.

The things we have seen in this administration and the people that populate it are frightening. I’m not talking about monitoring the phones of citizens speaking to suspected terrorists on the other end of the line (why you would speak to terrorists and why you think you have an expectation of privacy calling a foreign nation anyway is beyond me), or the fact that Cheney used to work for Haliburton (I note that they got a freakin’ HUGE no-bid contract under Obama – where’s the outrage? Could it be they are just the best company for the job?) and therefore any contract they got meant he was somehow in cahoots to take over the world and get rich. I am talking about people that despise the foundation of our country. People that think we are the problem in the world. People that think they and their ilk know better than you and me how to live our lives and want to make sure we do it their way. I’m talking about dangerous people. And the People with a capital P better wake up and take notice before it’s too late..

h/t Flopping Aces

Permalink Leave a Comment

On Lukewarm Christianity- By: Fr. Alexander Men

May 14, 2010 at 11:54 (Cool, Orthodox Christianity, Philosophy, Religion, Society)

I find this to be profoundly moving. One of those quotes that stirs you..

Often what passes for Orthodoxy or another Christian confession is simply natural religiosity which, in its own right, is a kind of opium of the people. It functions as a sort of spiritual anesthetic, it helps a person adjust to his surrounding world, over which one can hang the slogan: ‘Blessed is the one who believes that it is cozy in the world.’ This is all wrong! …Your God is a consuming fire and not a warm hearth, and he is calling you to a place where all sorts of cold winds are blowing, so that what you imagine does not exist. You adapted and developed a completely different teaching to suit your own human needs. You transformed Christianity into a mediocre, popular religion. …Christianity can be authentic and it can be false. The false form is always more convenient. It always suits us better, which is why contemporary religious life is often characterized by a churchly falsehood when people prefer that which is convenient, calm and pleasant, conforms to their own ideas, consoles them, and which they enjoy. It is not at all to this that the Lord called us when he said ‘the gate is narrow’ and ‘the way is narrow.’ Again and again we need to understand that this Spirit is not warmth, but a fire. It is a fire.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Next page »