Boiling things down...

The 9th Circuit Appeals Court recenly stated that government schools retain the final authority regarding appropriate curricula in schools and that parents cannot overrule the decision of the school as to what it will teach and what it will not.

Yet, the same leftists who believe public education to be a proper role of government somehow oppose government involvement in situations where children seek abortions.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today about a New Hampshire law, passed by the NH legislature, requiring parents to be notified in case of a minor child seeking an abortion.

Most political issues in America today ultimately can be reduced to a discussion as to the legitimate degree of state power and which areas of public policy are to be handled at each level of government.

Statists who claim federal domain over the education of children cannot reasonably place responsibility for the failure of that education to anyone but the state. If the state insists on teaching children about sex, beginning in the first grade, minor children who get pregnant ought be considered failures of state policy, and responsible law should require the government to admit mistakes and failures of its policy, just as the Democrat party almost uniformly demands of President Bush when it comes to “his” Iraq policy.

The only alternative is to conclude that pregnant minors do not represent a failure of government policy, in which case no admission of guilt or wrongdoing would be necessary or expected.

If and when government policy produces results contrary to the stated intent of the original policy mission, responsible government must admit its shortcomings and present plans for future improvement. A government which usurps power not explicitly given to it and deliberately or systematically hides its failures is not a credible government, and is not a government that operates in the interests of the People it purports to represent.

Those who oppose government notification to parents of minors seeking abortion can only do so in an attempt to hide or diminish the levels of government failure.

The statist left claims abortion is about protecting individuals from improper government interference into the 'privacy rights' of individual Americans. However, these same leftists take quite a different approach when the 'privacy rights' argument is used when it comes to eliminating social welfare programs, publicly funded school systems, mandatory retirement savings accounts, restrictions on gun ownership, property redistribution through use of eminent domain law, or restoring the natural property rights of income earners.

No, the truth is that the majority of the “pro-choice” loud mouths who oppose parental notification simply wish to avoid any recognition of failure of government policies they have spent a lifetime advocating.

Statist
Abortion
Government schools

While France burns...

Don't just dismiss John Murtha...

When we went to war in Iraq, most Americans believed the primary focus of our mission was to eliminate a maniacal dictator who possessed and/or was seeking to acquire WMD.

Additionally, we were told that the former President of Iraq funded and otherwise aided global terrorist attacks. Some have argued that he contributed to the 9/11 planning as well as the Oklahoma City bombing.

Saddam and virtually all important members of his government are dead or in jail. He is no longer a threat to the United States.

John Murtha made the statement yesterday that the time to end US occupation of Iraq has arrived. Many knee-jerk reactionaries will dismiss him as another in a long-line of liberal Democrats who oppose war as a matter of policy.

However, Congressman Murtha ought not be dismissed so casually without proper and careful thought concerning his point of view. He is, after all, a retired United States Marine with combat experience in numerous war zones. This man has seen war, and has watched people die as a result of war. George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and most of the GOP Senators have not. Sean Hannity has not, Rush Limbaugh has not. John Murtha has paid the price which affords these men the opportunity to live the lives they do, and he has earned the right to speak and be heard.

For 2 ½ years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait – the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction – but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

TThe threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the real possibility that al Qaeda could move into Iraq and fill the void left empty by the removal of U.S. forces. On the other hand, it is not an absolute certainty that they will. Perhaps the Iraqi people will display a sense of nationalism and pride long since lost and forgotten in France, Germany and Spain.

However, America cannot simply continue to bear the overwhelming costs of this war almost unilaterally on an indefinite basis. Our homeland my be no safer today than it was on 9/10/2001, given the reluctance of our government to implement strict immigration controls or racial profiling. Our economy hangs on the balance, due to the ever-increasing costs of war, natural disaster, new drug benefit spending, new spending on public schools, and on, and on. Is there no limit to the spending programs that our government believes it can fund, either through taxes, printing money, or borrowing from foreign governments?

We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being “terrified” about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

Given all of the failed promises made by George Bush, including his desire to limit government and install Constitutional judges to the Supreme Court, at what point does a rational, thinking person begin to doubt his decisions regarding Iraq given the growing divide between his words and actions on virtually all other issues that he has faced in the past 5 years?

The results of bureaucracy...

WESH 2 News from Orlando, FL reports:

More than a dozen tractor-trailers are sitting idle near Orlando International Airport, the latest bureaucratic foul-up in an effort to deliver water and other supplies to Hurricane Wilma victims.

The cost to taxpayers is $900 per truck, per day for at least 13 trucks, which have been driving around the southeastern United States for 22 days. That's $250,000 for a shipment that has yet to be delivered.

It isn't the only shipment. Just last week, hundreds of tractor-trailers were discovered parked at the South Florida fairgrounds in Palm Beach County, full of ready-to-eat meals, water and other supplies that were never delivered.

That's $250,000 that American families have had taken away from them and their children to accomplish absolutely nothing. When will People stand up and declare "enough" ??

FEMA

Colleges hostile to diversity...

The University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire has told an RA that he may not lead a Bible Study class anywhere on campus.

The controversy began on July 26, when an administrator banned RAs from leading private, non-school-sponsored Bible studies in their dorms out of concern that students might feel “judged” and that Bible study–leading RAs might not be sufficiently “approachable.” Undergraduate RA Lance Steiger contacted FIRE, which on October 10 asked UWEC Interim Chancellor Vicki Lord Larson to lift the Bible study ban. Receiving no response, FIRE took the case public on November 2, resulting in public outcry and condemnation of the policy from state and national lawmakers.



Finally, in a November 8 letter, the University of Wisconsin’s general counsel attempted to justify the Bible study ban by claiming that UWEC has “consistently followed” a “viewpoint neutral” policy prohibiting RAs from organizing or leading “all organization [sic] or activities.” This claim contradicts UWEC’s own job description for RAs, which gives RAs the responsibility “[t]o help organize and promote educational, recreational, social, and cultural activities that the students want and need,” and asks them to “actively assist” in the “political” programs of the dorm.

I thought colleges are supposed to be places of higher education where virtually all ideas are considered and weighed against one another. I suppose all ideas are welcome except Christianity.

The Iraq War resolution...

There has been quite a bit of historical rewriting going on these days as to the actual reasons we went to war in Iraq. House Bill 114 of the 107th Congress ultimately became law, and the legal justification Bush used to invade Iraq.

In it, I count 23 whereas clauses.

I count 9 that directly deal with WMD related issues. They are:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Further, the following 5 clauses deal directly with terrorism, and imply Iraq's future role in further terrorist attacks against the United States:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40);

6 clauses talk enforcing United Nations resolutions:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

1 clause talks about the neo-con philosophy of US orchestrated international peace:

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Yet, only two clauses talk about the Iraqi people:

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Yet, the war party insists that we went to war to free the Iraqi people and incite a wave of democratic fever throughout the Middle East. They have apparently forgotten what they voted on back in October 2002, just as have the Democrats who now assert that "Bush lied" us into war.
Iraq war resolution

Bush lied...

David Limbaugh thinks that the only way to fight the left's "Bush lied" mantra by showing it for the falsehood that it is each and every time it's tried. Here is Norman Podhoretz' latest attempt to set the record straight.

Here is Boortz' rant from today:

Unless you've been hiding under your bed, you know that Democrats have stepped up their campaign to convince the American people that over two thousand young men and women of the American armed forces died in Iraq for one reason and for one reason only, Bush lied. The problem with this "Bush lied" charge is that Democrats know full well that it simply is not true. The issue for Democrats though is not whether or not the charge is true, but whether or not they can convince the American people that it is true. For politicians ... and I'm referring to politicians on both sides of the aisle ... the truth is whatever you can convince the people that it is. The problem with this particular attempt to create a new truth is that it is undermining our war on terror and endangering the men and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yesterday I gave you a reading assignment for a Wall Street Journal article by Norman Podhoretz titled "Who is Lying About Iraq?" Here's your link in case you missed it yesterday. In his 10-page essay, Podhoretz does an excellent job of showing just how completely dishonest the Democrats are being in their attacks on Bush. The problem we face here is that people who are convinced that Bush lied about the reasons for going after Saddam won't bother to read the article. These people just don't want to be inconvenienced by the truth.

On the same issue, last night we had an object lesson in just why leftists hate Fox News Channel. Brian Wilson appeared on Special Report with Brit Hume to specifically address some of the "Bush lied" claims being made by Democrats. The first Democrat featured in Wilson's report was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Reid recently said that his vote for using military force to remove Saddam was based " ... on a number of things. Yellowcake. Aluminum tubes. Secret meetings by Iraqi agents in Europe. Training facilities in Iraq training terrorists." Well, that seems to be at variance with what Harry Reid said on March 17, 2003. On that date Reid said "I agree with - and have long supported - the ultimate goal of disarming Saddam Hussein. Removing this despicable tyrant from power will make the world a safer place." Hmmmmm .... no mention of yellowcake, aluminum tubes or terrorist training. He just said that the world would be a safer place with Saddam out of power. Anti-Saddam then. Pro-Saddam now. Go figure.

Oh -- and don't give me flack about that "pro-Saddam" line. To say that the United States should not have gone to war in Iraq is to say that Saddam Hussein should not have been removed from power. You can't have it both ways.

Next we have Michigan's Democratic Senator Carl Levin: Just a few days ago Levin, in pushing the idea that Bush lied, said "President Bush said before the war you cannot distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein." Is it true? Did Bush really say that? Some reporters pressed Levin and his aids to come up with the specifics of that quote ... when Bush said that you cannot distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The best that Levin's office could do was to come up with a White House briefing on September 25, 2002. At that event Bush was asked who he considered to be the greater threat to the United States, Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. He answered: "Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror ... you can't distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda when you talk about the war on terror. You can't distinguish between the two because they're both equally as bad." Does it seem to you that Levin took that statement out of context? Of course he did! And since Fox News Channel didn't let him get away with it, that makes Fox News Channel a right-wing extremist hate machine.

Carl Levin wasn't through with his distortions and lies. He also claimed that Bush said that Saddam trained the 9/11 hijackers. Take the way-back machine to January of 2003. Bush was asked if he thought that Saddam had anything to do with training the 9/11 hijackers. His response? "can't make that claim." OK, Senator Levin ... you're move.

It's not news that politicians lie. They do -- Republicans and Democrats alike. The news here is that you won't find the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Time or Newsweek going out of their way to investigate the claims made by Levin, Reid and the rest of the "Bush lied" cabal the way Fox News Channel and The Wall Street Journal did. Why, that would be out of the mainstream, wouldn't it?

Another public school failure...

Bradford County High School, Florida (from the Gainesville Sun):

A standing-room-only crowd packed the Bradford County School Board Room in this close-knit city Monday night, but only two parents got a chance to speak about a rash of violent attacks that rocked the district's high school this fall.

Nearly 100 other residents - including the parents of a 14-year-old girl who was beaten unconscious twice in a school bathroom - left the meeting unheard because the board limited public comment to three pre-scheduled speakers.

Calls to School Board Chairwoman Vivian Chappelle's home and cell phones seeking comment after the meeting were unanswered. None of the School Board members nor Superintendent Harry Hatcher spoke about the violent incidents during the meeting. Bradford High School's principal, Karl Wendell, did not attend.

Another mother, Karen Moore, said teachers have no control in the school. She said her son came home with a report card listing 21 absences and a grade of 87 percent in a class he wasn't even taking.

Government schools

French racism...

As the recent riots have shown, France has an enormous problem with assimilating its immigrants. Presumably a country that opens its national doors to foreigners actually wants people to move there from abroad.

However, in France, the socio-economic strata are set up so rigidly as to restrict assimilation once the immigrants have arrived. While first generations of foreign-born "Frenchmen" accept the social safety nets and lack of upward mobility, we now see subsuquent generations growing tired of being excluded from the opportunities afforded to native-born Frenchmen.

When government and social policy create artificial glass ceilings, those wishing to rise up above them will inevitably try to break through. We've seen the same forces at work in America, first with the rise of women, and then with the rise of black people.

Ultimately, one must conclude that the French government and the French culture has been built on a deep-seated sense of racism, as its structure assumes that immigrants do not wish to improve their lives, instead choosing to live in housing projects and accepting unemployment for generation after generation.

Frankly, I cannot place all blame for the riots on the teenagers doing the damage night after night. When young people look into the future, and see nothing but despair and struggle, it is not inconceivable that some may turn to desperate acts to call attention to their own plights.

I can only wonder how long America will avoid a similar scene, given the large numbers of people trapped in the inner city schools and housing projects, large numbers of Mexican and South American immigrants told they are only here to do jobs Americans "won't do", and the reality of our nation's coming economic collapse.

Combine that with the dire predictions of the 9/11 Commission, Michael Chertoff, Condoleeza Rice, President Bush and many others as to the virtual inevitability of a terrorist attack being carried out again in this country using a WMD device, and I see a recipe for terrible disaster.

Of course, many will only blame the lawbreakers, to which much blame will be due, however, the socio-economic policies shoveled down onto the masses by our government will also be to blame in large measure for having contributed to, instead of rectifying, pre-existing societal problems. People who feel powerless to exert significant control over their own lives will inevitably rebel. It has happened time and again throughout history, and only a racist could convince himself that certain groups of people don't wish their children opportunities equal to those of their neighbors.

Check out this column by James Antle III on French racism that got my mind churning this morning.

Democans/Republicrats...

The Maryland GOP posted the following in response to Howard Dean's appearance on Meet the Press yestersay:

Maryland Republican Party Chairman John M. Kane called on Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean to issue a retraction and apologize for his comments on Sunday’s nationally televised program “Meet the Press.” During his appearance with Tim Russert, Dean made a false statement regarding Chairman Kane and failed to apologize for his party’s attacks on Lt. Governor Michael Steele.

“Howard Dean made a damaging and slanderous statement yesterday on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press,’ which I view as defamation of my character. Dean’s comment was wholely incorrect and I am personally distressed that the Chair of the DNC would state mistruths on a national program. I am demanding that Howard Dean promptly apologize to me for his slanderous comment,” Kane stated.

I'll wait for the filing of Mr. Kane's slander and defamation lawsuit. Until such time as that occurs, I'll just conclude that the phony "outrage" represents nothing more than political rhetoric designed to confuse simple minds into thinking that the Democrat and Republican parties are different and in competition with one another.

Pacifism...

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stuart Mill

Rhetorical mastery...

Karl Rove gave a speech to the Federalist Society yesterday. He spoke plainly to the current condition of our Federal court system, and properly identified the only two prospects for the future.

We will see one of two things come to pass. The courts will, on their own, reform themselves and return to their proper role in American public life; or we will see more public support for constitutional amendments and legislation to reign them in. It will be one, or it will be the other.

I wonder if Mr. Rove understands that the growing outrage on the part of the People extends beyond the courts and also has its sights set on the ever-increasing Unconstitutional powers being regularly exercised by the Congress and the President.

Karl Rove
Federalist Society

Journalism in warzones...

Most people should deduce that accidental deaths are an unfortunate but inevitable occurence in military hotspots, such as many places in Iraq are today.

Recently, a Spanish judge issued arrest warrants for 3 American soldiers, saying that:

"There is sufficient reason to believe they are responsible" for the deaths of Couso and a Ukrainian journalist killed in the same attack.

Not so fast, says Frederick J. Chiaventone at The American Thinker, who "is a novelist, screenwriter, and retired Army officer , who taught International Security Affairs at the US Army’s Command and General Staff College."

According to him:

It is a sad fact that journalists lost their lives during the campaign in Iraq but this was not unexpected by the news agencies and it is hardly unavoidable whenever reporters cover a war zone. To be rather blunt, it is the cost of doing business.

There is no disputing that the tank fired the rounds in question as, in the case of Couso and Portsyuk, there were any number of witnesses and, in videotape of the incident, the American tank is clearly seen on the bridge in Baghdad revolving its turret and firing in the direction of the camera.

None of these facts are in doubt but it helps to know that these were not deliberate assaults on journalists but tragic and understandable accidents of war.

Here is the most critical portion of his essay:

While teaching Media and Military relations at the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College I had occasion to show to my students two photographs – one photograph was of a television journalist aiming a camera, the other of a man aiming a shoulder-mounted anti-tank missile of Soviet manufacture. To my students, all experienced officers of many years service and representing not only the United States but a number of other nations, the photos were virtually indistinguishable. It was a sobering experience for them.

The bottomline is that crimes require both an act, and an intent. Clearly in this case, the act was committed by Americans who were in a warzone trying to defend their lives and carry out their mission.

However, self-defense is always a defense to murder, and it appears that this journalist was nothing more than a casualty of circumstance, and an unfortunate victim of bad timing.

It's too bad that these "judges" don't spend more time condemning the murderers of Daniel Pearl or Paul Johnson instead of the inventing crimes in response to the unfortunate, but unintended, deaths of journalists like Jose Couso.

Jose Couso

Government schools continued...

The Sierra Times published this article in reaction to the recent 9th Circus' court ruling that clarified State supremacy over parental sovereignty in government schools. Excerpts include:

I know this sounds harsh, but while I sympathize for the children, it's difficult to feel sorry for the parents. After all, they were the ones who turned custody of their children over to the government school system for six or seven hours a day, five days a week. Were they really all that surprised when the schools tried to undermine their parental authority?

By placing your child in the care of a government-run indoctrination center, you are saying that you trust the government to raise your child, essentially giving up your due process and privacy rights. You are admitting that the government is able to give your child something you cannot provide. When you consider how poorly the government manages everything else, why would any reasonable person think things would be different when it comes to education?

Note that the Ninth Circuit believes the school district's actions "were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose." In other words, those in control of public education have but one concern: the welfare of the state. Seeing to it that your child receives a quality education can only conflict with that.

There really isn't any way to sugar-coat this, so I'll just come right out and say it: If you willingly submit your child to the trappings of the government school system, then you have no right to complain about what they are taught.

This author is right. While it's easy to direct anger at the out of control Appeals Court in California (an arm of the government), doing so only shifts blame from the parents who entrust their children to the State to be educated.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the 9th Circuit Appeals Court is totally out of control, and the United States Department of Education should be disbanded under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Nevertheless, the notion that the government would teach the children about the ineptness of government makes no sense whatsoever. Therefore, what else can parents expect from government schools?

Government schools

Bush AWOL on freedom...

RedState.org has hit the debacle in the House over the budget bill right on the money.

Where is the President of the United States? Sources say that he is not lobbying members by phone or inviting to them to see the new decorations in the Oval Office. As usual, when it comes to cutting spending, the Administration is completely AWOL choosing to stay on the sidelines. The Office of Management and Budget hasn't even sent the Hill its Statement of Administration Policy yet! So the President is willing to pull out all the stops to pass a prescription drug benefit for Medicare but not take a small step for freedom by reducing spending – even when doing so could salvage yet another bad week for him politically.

When I see things like these going on, I can only conclude that George Bush wants Hillary Clinton to win the next election.

How can conservative Americans continue to buy into the Bush mantra of spreading freedom around the world while it continues to be stymied here at home? Perhaps the implication is that Americans are too free, so we should live under a more tyrannical government while encouraging others to enjoy that which we once had here in America.

Big government Republicans
Bush-Clinton cabal

Do yourself a favor and read this...

An absolute must read from Buchanan:

Under Bush II, social spending has exploded to levels LBJ might envy, foreign aid has been doubled, pork-at-every-meal has become the GOP diet of choice, surpluses have vanished, and the deficit is soaring back toward 5% of GDP.

Bill Clinton is starting to look like Barry Goldwater.

So great is the crisis on the Mexican border even the liberal Democratic governors of New Mexico and Arizona have declared states of emergency. Meanwhile 35,000 U.S. troops stand guard—on the border of South Korea.

When Ronald Reagan went home to California, his heirs said, “Goodbye to all that,” and embraced Big Government conservatism, then neoconservatism. If they do not find their way home soon, to the principles of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan, they will perish in the wildness into which they have led us all.

Pat Buchanan

Government schools...

According to George Will:

The nation's reddest state -- last year, and in six of the last eight presidential elections, Utah was the most Republican state -- is rebelling against President Bush's No Child Left Behind law.

Several good points are raised by Will in this column, including the notion that a Republican State doesn't need to automatically fall in line behind the wishes of Republicans in Congress or the White House.

In a concept foreign to George Bush, the People of Utah actually believe in the dying concepts of federalism and the value of local control over education. Hopefully parents in other States, both red and blue, will remove the wool covering their eyes and recognize the abject failure called the United States Department of Education.

Utah takes its stand against federal usurpation by standing on the 1979 federal law that states: ``The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the federal government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the states.''

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
- Thomas Jefferson

We have been warned.

Government schools

I'm fed up with conservative and racist being synonymous in the MSM...

I am so tired of hearing about the Republican party, and by extension American conservatives being racists.

Who said "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.
"I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice." about Clarence Thomas? Democrat Senator Harry Reid.

Who drew this cartoon, calling Condi Rice a “house Nigga”? Ted Rall, a liberal Democrat.

Who wrote “In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.” ? An anonymous editorialist with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel whose piece seems to share the same rhetoric with mainstream Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer.

Who said “Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people." about Michael Steele, a black Republican looking to win the first state-wide office in Maryland? Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat

Which party currently has a 40+ year veteran who has been a member of the KKK? Robert Byrd, a Democrat.

Which party had a higher percentage of Senators vote for the Civil Rights Act, at a time when Democrats occupied nearly every Senate seat from the segregated South? The Democrat party.

Which former Vice-President's father voted against the Civil Rights Act? Al Gore, a Democrat.

Which group of Americans always declare that welfare cuts hurt blacks, even though more white families are on welfare than black families? Liberal Democrats.

Which party has controlled the governments of most urban areas for decades with little progress to show for their promises to bring equality and justice to minority communities through legislation, affirmative action, education spending, and social programs? The Democrat party.

Who wanted to have a draft for the Iraq war until he learned that the percentages of whites dying were represented a higher percentage than aggregate demographics of all Americans? Charles Rangel, Democrat.

Which party opposes plans to return taxes collected from families in areas where schools are substandard so as to allow children to escape the cycle of substandard education? Democrats.

Whicy party opposes optional privitazation of Social Security, a system that transfers wealth from black males to elderly white women? Democrats.

Which party insists that affirmative action and reparations are necessary to enable the advancement of black people? The Democrat party.

By no means I am suggesting that bigotry is a Democrat monopoly, but suggesting that Democrats are the best or only hope for blacks is just plain fantasy.

Here are a collection of links, and links to links which help you understand the truth, if you so desire.

Democracy Project
Black Conservative

Big government reacts to gas price outrage...

Walter Williams wrote a column today which puts a thick smokescreen in front of the current debate about oil and gas prices as well as the record profits of oil companies.

First, let me just say that I hold dear the concept of free markets and support handcuffing government officials who seek to manipulate the economy through subsidies, tax loopholes, price floors or ceilings, minimum wages, price "gouging" laws, labor laws, or extreme trade policy.

However, I'm afraid that the current situation regarding the oil companies is nothing more than the chicken coming home to roost. A government big enough to give large corporations, including the oil companies, all the tax loopholes, subsidies, breaks and shelters they currently enjoy, is big enough to take them all away.

Here is one example of government interference, according to CATO:

After all, there were 325 oil refineries in the U.S. in 1981, but only 149 remain today. The explanation resides in the fact that we had a lot of refineries back in 1981 not because of market forces or the lack of environmental regulations, but because the government subsidized the existence of small, inefficient refineries.

Whole industries of lawyers and accountants exist solely to advise large businesses on how to shield themselves from tax liability, and certainly our monstrously complex tax code contains many provisions that the oil and gas companies have been able to take advantage of. Since the tax reform under President Reagan, the tax code has been tweaked over 10,000 times according to Neal Boortz, almost always to the advantage of the "poor", the wealthy corporate executives, or the politicians at the expense of the "average American" everyone claims to support and value.

According to the LA Times:

The sheer size of the industry's profit mountain makes it a tempting target. Together, the 29 major oil and gas firms in the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index are expected to earn $96 billion this year, up from $68 billion last year and $43 billion in 2003.

The last new U.S. refinery was completed in 1976.

From AP, posted on Forbes.com:

Together the five companies - Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BPAmerica and Shell Oil USA - reported more than $25 billion in profits in the July-September quarter as the price of crude oil hit $70 a barrel and gasoline surged to record levels after the disruptions of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Critics allege that oil companies have deliberately chosen not to push back against environmental regulations in order to build new facilities. Certainly these oil giants have the ability to pressure Congress for some relaxation from the environmental agenda pursued by the radical left, if they wanted to. The question is: have they tried to lobby against the restrictions? Or have the oil execs decided to accept the environmental agenda, knowing they would one day use it as a crutch to explain high prices and low investment on their part?

The oil industry defends itself by explaining that capital investment in new refineries or production facilities are a 20-year investment, and that uncertainty in future markets have made executives wary about dumping profits into what could become economic quicksand.

Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) are pushing a bill that would essentially levy a tax surcharge on oil firms when oil's market price exceeds $40 a barrel. The money would be rebated to consumers.

The industry contends that such taxes would be unfair and would restrain exploration.

Wait, I thought we were told that exploration investment was low because of uncertainty over future market demand, not due to a lack of investment capital?

On the other hand, what would stop oil companies from shutting down production were they upset over excessive government action? The consumer seems to be in a tight spot. Either keep paying the high prices to insure a supply, or risk shortages in exchange for potentially lower prices.

A recent vote in the Senate which opens up the ANWR reserve to oil exploration has been condemned by Democrats who claim that we will not see any oil from there for 10 years, and the quantity won't be enough to influence prices. Fortunately, only 13 Senators voted to allow any supply found in ANWR from being exported with 86 voting to ban the exports.

I said Williams' article is a smokescreen. He seems to be interchanging profit and revenue. Even with all of the environmental costs and so forth, the oil companies are STILL making huge profits. If we were talking about record revenue, despite record high expenses, it would be one thing. But, there is no substitute product for petroleum, and the federal government has been complicit in our dependence on it. Instead of bailing out Chrysler, United Airlines or subsidizing Amtrak, it could have invested in a real rail system comparable to the one in Europe which I have ridden several times.

In this isolated case, I am nervous about knee-jerk "free-marketism", because we're dealing with perhaps the most inelastic good in our whole economy, and the current crisis is due in large part to past government interference.

Finally, Williams seems to imply that without mega profit potential, oil is too difficult to produce and market. If an oil company ONLY profited $1 billion in a quarter, is he saying it wouldn't be worth it? If so, then you can expect to see me operating the next big oil and gas business in America sometime in the next decade.

Ultimately, the oil industry fortells the wider future of the American economy. The oil companies claim that future uncertainty prevents them from investment, which inclines me to believe that a major economic downturn is coming and the oil companies know it.

Why else would they be nervous about the future market of the most inelastic good in the world's strongest market?

Doe v Groody...

The left has made a large issue over the case of Doe v Groody, citing Judge Alito's dissent in which they claim he sanctioned the strip searches of family members found in the home of a suspected drug dealer.

Here is the decision.

Interestingly, the author of the majority (2-1) opinion was none other than Michael Chertoff. Have the leftists bothered to tell America about the virtue of our Secretary of Homeland Security, which they must believe to be true as he ruled on the case as they would have liked?

Dominique de Bush...

Malkin has posted an excerpt from a Bloomberg story talking about further capitulation to the worthless bums rioting in France by Dominique de Villepin.

Is the French response to lawlessness and the failures of the multitudes of social safety nets significantly different than our federal government's response to the "victims" of Hurricane Katrina?

A dose of realism...

Does this man look French? The media would have you believe that he is just a "disenfranchised" citizen of France fighting systematic oppression and inequity.

The reality that European and American intellectuals refuse to confront lies much closer to the notion that immigrants who once flocked to France for the generous welfare benefits now use violence to demand even more unearned rewards. Of course, the lives they have in French "ghettos" greatly exceed those achievable in their homelands.

I consider myself to be a realist, directly opposing the so-called intellectuals, who trump actual events with articulately formulated theory. Despite mountains of proof contradicting their ideas, they cling to their beliefs with iron fists. Unfortunately, I am often considered a pessimist because of my dire view about the coming collapse of western civilization.

As the rest of the western world opposes America because we have demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy of socialism, we creep closer all the time toward that which we once defeated. Since the days of Joseph McCarthy and the fall of the Soviet Union, overt communists have repositioned themselves as "progressives", "liberals", Democrats, "environmentalists", "anti-war activists", and "feminists".

The results have been less than desirable. Our feminized military routinely punishes and imprisons soldiers for carrying out routine military operations. Government schools recently won court approval to dictate to parents when sexual education will commence, and declared parents' rights to control school curriculum virtually non-existent. Families in America are in dire straits as fathers have been replaced with state welfare. Affirmative action contributes to the advancement of unqualified individuals are the expense of those who ancestors built this Republic. Feminists at Harvard ignited mass outrage at the school President for merely suggesting that men and women may be chemically and biologically different. Homosexuals have invented a new classification known as "hate crimes" that are often used against those who favor the time-honored idea that heterosexual married couples are necessary to self-preservation, and optimal for balanced child-rearing. Illegal aliens in America enjoy greater liberties than those who supply the very social services they have come to demand and declare as their own property. Subversive behavior by college professors, media figures, and supposedly religous leaders receive protection from the ACLU who instead place Christians and American nationalists in their cross-hairs. Environmentalist insist our dependence on oil contributes to global climate change, and attempt to curtail our economic advancement by advocating government regulation of property. Supposed peace demonstrators have perverted Christianity into a philosophy of pacifism that does not permit self-defense or self-preservation of peaceful people whose lives are under direct threat.

All in all, I see a dark future for this country, as most Americans seem not to have yet awoken to the clear and present danger posed by radical muslims determined to regress the world into their dark fantasy of a global islamic state where only jihadis enjoy the full rights to punish or murder their women and children who don't act "properly" according to Sharia law.

Just in recent years, we've seen bombings and innocent deaths in England, France, Germany, Netherlands, Iraq, Israel, America, Kenya, Saudia Arabia, Somalia, Indonesia, Thailand, Russia and many others. All at the hands of muslim radicals who believe their God commands the murder of innocence. Meanwhile, the leftists around Europe and North America continue to insist that blame lies with western culture or beligerent acts against otherwise peaceful people to whom enough social welfare has not yet been extended. Some on the morally bankrupt left even further the idea that today's global jihad is legitimate retalliation for the Crusades of 1000 years ago.

Optimism is a trait to be admired, but only in so far as some tangible evidence exists upon which to base it. At present, I see precious little that meets such criteria.

Here are several articles addressing the downfall of France that we are witnessing now.
Caroline Glick
Daniel Pipes
Pat Buchanan
Mark Steyn

Gary Hart and Iraq...

Last night on Hannity & Colmes, Gary Hart appeared to discuss a variety of topics. His last statement was the one with which I agreed the most, and all Americans would do well to consider.

Paraphrasing, he said "The center of al-Qaeda is not in the Middle East. The center of al-Qaeda is in Europe."

I couldn't agree more, and I find this truth to be the best reason to abandon our war in Iraq. Aside from the Unconstitutional nature of Bush's Declaration-less war, we need to pull out or at least pull back so that we are in better position to face threats from people actually in positions from which they could inflict damage on our country in significant ways.

Most of the people we face and kill in Iraq are nationalists who just want us to leave so they can have their country back. They may appreciate our initial invasion and overthrow of Saddam, but they believe the longer we stay, the more likely we are to establish extended or permanent bases on their land. I can't blame them one bit for feeling that way. I sure wouldn't want some illegal aliens camping in my backyard promising to leave as soon as I stop trying to force them out.

UPDATE: Check out this thread on FR. It's a transcript from Mark Steyn talking about the Eurabian civil war which has begun.

Average age of the world's great civilizations...

I often ponder the paragraph written at the top of this page, and debate myself about where we are in the chain of progression.

I believe that we are currently in bondage to our federal government which taxes labor in order to transfer wealth from the makers to the takers. We are moving out of this phase as support for the Fair Tax plan grows, as it does every day.

I believe that a rise in spiritual faith has recently begun to happen in America, and will continue to grow as the threat from the islamic murderers becomes more real and less deniable.

Courage will come when the events happening in Paris right now begin to happen here, or worse, when the nuclear weapons are unleashed upon the American homeland. Americans of all stripes will shed the baggage of partisan bickering to unite in common defense of the homeland.

When we prevail over the forces of evil, which we inevitably will do, we will once again find ourselves a truly free people living under a representative government established to protect individual rights.

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. - Thomas Paine

Let's get it on.

Hush hurts conservatives...

Rush continues to advance the notion that Bush is a conservative, when most of us know that he is not. In fact, CATO came out recently with an analysis demonstrating that Bush has expanded government more than even LBJ!

If Rush were a conservative, he would point out that Bush is a liberal, and that when the Democrats and the left media attack his policies, they are actually attacking their own policies of huge government and expanded federal power through micromanaging the lives of individual Americans from Washington.

Tom DeLay on tax reform...

Tom Delay wrote an editorial in today's Washington Post. In it, he states that Bush's tax reform panel failed miserably. Delay is a co-sponsor of H.R. 25, the Fair Tax bill.

Is that why Democrats are eager to see him be taken down as majority leader in the House?

Interestingly enough, the sponsor of the Senate bill on the Fair Tax plan is none other than Sen. Chambliss who just this week was defending food stamps and farm subsidies. Seems to be an awfully odd combination... Sadly, only one other Senator has signed on thus far, Tom Coburn of OK.

Liberal government schools...

Thanks to Boortz for this gem.

NBC TV 4 in Los Angeles reports:

More than 800 Los Angeles Unified students walked out of their high schools Wednesday as part of a nationwide protest against the administration.

Adults accompanied groups of students "in all cases" as they left from 10 high schools -- Los Angeles High, Van Nuys High, Downtown Business Magnet, Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet, Marshall High, Hamilton High, Fairfax High, Orthopaedic Hospital Medical Magnet, Lincoln High and Belmont High, said Dan Isaacs, the district's chief operating officer.

"Our issue... was safety, and I think we fulfilled our mission, frankly," Isaacs said.

The groups varied in size from 10 to 250, he said. The district sent staff, school police and youth relations personnel to walk with the teenagers and made buses available to take the students back to school when they got tired.

Some students may have splintered off from their groups, but Isaacs said he expected the majority either returned to campus or went home for the day, which was relatively free of incidents.

Chavez: No to FTAA...

In keeping with the old cliche about politics creating strange bed fellows, I find myself agreeing with Hugo Chavez on the issue of FTAA.

According to ABC News:

Venezuela's president, an outspoken critic of a U.S.-sponsored free trade arrangement for Latin America, prepared to address thousands of like-minded protesters Friday at a rally coinciding with the start of a regional summit.

President Bush has hoped to promote the Free Trade Area of the Americas at the 34-nation Summit of the Americas beginning Friday. The deal proposed by Washington would break down trade barriers from Alaska to the tip of South America.

Leaders attending the two-day summit had agreed ahead of time to focus on creating jobs and reducing poverty.

Sadly, President Bush has fallen prey to the wishes of the multinational corporations who desire cheaper labor than they are able to employ in this country.

From AmCon:

As one executive of a large American multinational company—once a prominent manufacturer in the U.S., now almost entirely making its products overseas—said to me recently, “You show me a company that doesn’t do its manufacturing in China, and I’ll show you a company that can be beaten, competitively.”

A country that retains no manufacturing base is a country ripe for defeat both economically and militarily. Who will be left in America to bear the burdens when our nation faces the outcome of these disastrous free trade policies? Surely it won't be the men who are acquiring huge wealth by offshoring our manufacturing industries.

GOP smoke and mirrors...

From Fox News:

The bill, passed by a 52-47 vote, makes mild cuts to the health care programs for the elderly, poor and disabled, but leaves the food stamp program untouched.

...

The Senate bill is estimated to trim $36 billion, or 2 percent, from budget deficits forecast at $1.6 trillion over five years. The cuts total $6 billion for the plan's first year, with deficits predicted to exceed $300 billion.

...

Still, there is plenty of sugar to go along with the fiscal medicine. The bill contains about $35 billion in new spending to go along with the cuts

...

It passed after the Senate rejected, 68-31, a bid by conservatives to make much of the aid available through school vouchers.

The bill includes $3 billion to subsidize television converter boxes for an upcoming changeover to digital broadcasts.

How long can the GOP keep up the big lie that they support fiscal conservatism?

More family destruction by the 9th Circus court...

I found this story on CNS News first, and also read the Court's Decision, here.

According to the 9th Circuit Court:

We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the informationto which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.

The 9th Circus court bases its opinion on several other faulty opinions, one such being the Meyer v Nebraska, the other being the Pierce v Society of Sisters.

This 9th Circus summarizes those two cases, stating:

If all parents had a fundamental constitutional right to dictate individually what the schools teach their children, the schools would be forced to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine moral disagreements
with the school’s choice of subject matter.

This is faulty because a school could avoid moral disagreements by sticking to basic subject matter such as reading, math, hard science, and factual history.

The "court" continues:

Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex; they have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.

Actually, since the schools are paid for by the people via taxes, the taxpayers DO in fact possess absolute legal right to determine an acceptable curriculum. In fact, the people hired to admininstrate the schools do so at the sole wishes of those who pay their salaries and are subject to the goals of those who pay the bills.

Neither Meyer nor Pierce provides support for the view that parents have a right to prevent a school from providing any kind of information sexual or otherwise to its students.

Again, this statement presumes that government school administrators exist independently of those who pay them instead of operating at the behest of the taxpayers. Taxpayers do so in order to hire people to work on the behalf of the taxpayers. When those people hired by the taxpayer cease to operate according to the wishes of those who employ them, they are in violation of the terms of their employment.

Perhaps the Sixth Circuit said it best when it explained, While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child. Whether it is the school curriculum, the hours of the school day, school discipline, the timing and content of examinations, the individuals hired to teach at the school, the extracurricular activities offered at the school or, as here, a dress code, these issues of public education are generally ‘committed to the control of state and local authorities.’

Again, these "judges" have forgotten that all Americans have taxes withheld or confiscated in order to pay for these schools. If public schools were entirely tuition based, I would concur with their conclusion.

Brown and Blau compel the conclusion that what Meyer-Pierce establishes is the right of parents to be free from state interference with their choice of the educational forum itself, a choice that ordinarily determines the type of education one’s child will receive. The School District’s design and administration of the survey in no way interfered with that right. Indeed, it was only because the parents had selected the school they did that their children were asked the questions to which the parents objected.

Wrong again. A parent cannot possibly know what may occur at a school at the time the parent decides to enroll his child at that school. How can a parent be expected to consent to some future act which has not yet been conceived?

Because we hold that the School District’s administration of the survey did not violate a fundamental right,...

How about the fundamental right of parents to be told the truth about what goes on in school? If parents cannot trust what they are told by government officials, the whole system would soon collapse, and rightly so. A government that lies to its people cannot be permitted to exist without alteration.

First, neither education itself nor the legitimate functions of a public school are limited to the curriculum. Such a view construes too narrowly the aims of education and fails to recognize the unique role that it plays in American society.

Here is a clear demonstration of how the left views school as a tool for social engineering. Schools aren't limited to teaching math and reading, but also assume the burdens of indoctrinating children with proper social views such as the wonders and beauty of government dependency.

Quoting Brown v Board of Education:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society.

Karl Marx would be proud to know that his philosophy has been adopted in America. How is compulsory school education consistent with individual liberty? The Brown excerpt goes on to state that denial of an OPPORTUNITY of education is wrong, yet it contends that school attendance ought be required.

Protecting the mental health of children falls well within the state’s broad interest in education.

In other words, molding the minds of children into accepting the notion of the nanny-state is a proper function of government. Not only is indoctrination acceptable, it is compulsory!

Ultimately, this case demonstrates all that is wrong with government schools. Government schools are run by people who think they are above answering to those parents and taxpayers who are forced to pay their salaries. This scenario can be resolved by going straight back to the famous words once written by Thomas Jefferson.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

A school board which procures for itself a power to indoctrinate children as it sees fit, regardless the wishes of those who employ the board members, is destructive to the people and must be totally abolished.

I find it rather ironic that the same group of leftists who demand freedom from government intervention when it comes to abortion declare absolute government authority when it comes to sex education. How can one person conclude that government may determine what a child must learn but not how that child ought to behave?

The bottom line is that the author(s) of the consent form deliberately misrepresented the nature of the survey to be administered.

Why would they find that necessary if their intent was honest and virtuous? The answer, clearly, is that their motive was not honest or noble, as holds true of the leftist agenda nearly all the time.

Those on the left often go to great lengths to hide or distort their true agendas because they know that otherwise, the people would quickly and comprehensively reject them.

Turbin's freudian slip...

On the Fox News Channel, they played a clip of Senator Dick Turbin saying that he was pleased with his meeting today with Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito.

Turbin said, referring to the abortion debate, that he felt Samuel Alito recognized the "unenumerated right" in the Constituton to "privacy", the left's code word for abortion.

From the San Jose Mercury News:

"Although he didn't go quite as far as John Roberts did in his hearing, he satisfied me that he recognized this to be one of the unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and he led me to believe that he felt that it was an established right," Durbin said. "I think he believes in the fundamental right to privacy."

Perhaps I'm missing the boat here, but isn't "unenumerated" another word for non-existent?

Judicial activism

Senator Byrd farther right than most...

The Byrd amendment, propsed today, would reduce the number of H1-B visas offered each year to foreign high-tech workers who wish to come to America and steal jobs from those already here.

One of the big problems we have in America has to do with how many foreign students we educate in our schools and universities who promptly return home after their education has been completed.

Not only are the number of enrollments available for Americans decreased to make room for foreign students, but we are also exporting our competitive advantage to other countries as well.

The results are fewer Americans being able to get admitted to institutions of higher learning, while the ones who do are forced to compete against more qualified people in other countries.

What kind of mentally deranged government would make the acquisition of higher education for its own people more difficult to obtain while using its system of education against the very people who built by increasing the earning power and competitiveness of foreign workers?

The bottom line is that the people who built this country retain absolute right to determine who may come here and who may not. Despite the mentally ill left in America who advance runaway immigration on the basis that "America is a nation of immigrants", only a suicidal people would continue to import sick and poor people who come here and destroy our social services or those who wish to come here and drive labor down for people already here.

Sadly, Senator Byrd seems to be more conservative than many of the Republicans I've seen in the Senate lately...

Senator Chambliss is also a RINO...

Saxby Chambliss opposes any cuts to food stamp programs, since the indirect result of food stamps is to put more money in the pockets of farmers who are already struggling.

I'll make a prediction right now. The Republicans are going to get up there one by one, and talk about how important it is to control spending growth (not eliminate programs and duplication between agencies), but each will defend his or her pet projects, as we saw recently from Ted Stevens and his "bridge to nowhere". They will perpetuate the notion that spending more on one program will actually result in less spending on some other program or an increase in tax revenues which will "reimburse" the government for its previous expense. Therefore, no cuts actually need to be made. Instead, we should accelerate short-term spending so that long-term spending (after they are long gone from the Senate) goes down.

Of course, FDR and LBJ tried just that policy, and it failed miserably. Subsidization of industry only generates more of that industry, causing the numbers of producers (farmers in this case) to grow much larger than the free market can support.

He also opposes any reevaluation of the farm bill. Maybe someday, Senator Chambliss will get around to explaining the legality he assumes to take money from my family and give it to another family who chose to farm for a living.

In conclusion, the Senator suggests that we cannot renig on "our promises" (read: vote-buying schemes conducted by Republicans) to farmers. I suppose he would also oppose reniging on promises made to Social Security and Medicare recipients.

The best thing the Senate could do for American farmers would be to repeal NAFTA and CAFTA.

More communism from Chuck Grassley...

From his own website:

Now I know there has been discussions out there on whether or not I would be offering my payment limits legislation to this package. I have not backed off from wanting to address the issue of 10% of the farmers getting 72% of the payments.

Sen. Grassley is on the Senate floor, right now, talking about another failed government attempt to "fix" the American economy. He continually talks about the biggest farmers reaping most of the benefits of the federal handouts to farmers.

Once again, does it ever occur to these people that perhaps the whole program should be scrapped, and market forces should determine which farmers survive and which do not?

Would Senator Grassley also support federal programs which give payments to "mom and pop" stores put out of business by Walmart? Where does this insistence by government to implement socialist policies end, short of complete economic collapse in America?

Phony conservatism...

From Reuters:

In the latest sign of Republican worry about high energy prices, the head of the Senate Finance Committee said on Tuesday he wants large oil companies to donate 10 percent of their record profits to help poor Americans pay winter heating bills.

Republicans are growing increasingly concerned about oil profits triggering a consumer backlash when winter heating bills start to arrive in the next few weeks. The government forecasts natural gas costs in the U.S. Midwest will soar by 61 percent while heating oil in the Northeast jumps nearly 30 percent this winter.

Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said he sent a letter to oil companies to "embarrass" them into contributing to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

Voting for people like Charles Grassley is supposed to be "the lesser of two evils"?? Who is he running against, Joseph Stalin?

Big government Republicans

Turbin supports foreign energy dependence...

Now that the Senate "hijackers" have opened the doors to the public once again, there is a debate going on about the ANWR drilling legislation that recently went through (finally).

Several thoughts come to mind, especially when I listen to Senator Turbin (C-Stalingrad).

He began by telling us that ANWR was first closed to development in 1960 by President Eisenhower. He did not explain, however, under what authority the President and Congress conducted that theft of property from the People of Alaska. What right do Senators from Rhode Island or Oklahoma have to dictate to the People of Alaska how they may or may not use the land in their State?

Second, Senator Turbin says that ANWR is one of the few remaining protected parcels of land, and that it is a vital interest to the People of our country. Frankly, whether or not it is a barren wasteland, it is not accessible to 99% of Americans, so the logic behind an argument that I should support keeping its status as protected is doubly faulty. Not only do I not have any legal right to do so, but I have no practical reason to do so either.

Of course, in my fantasy world, some Senator would make a motion to kick Senator Turbin out of the Senate for blatantly lying. I cherish our system of government and its structure which provides for open debate on the relevant issues, but for a United States Senator to take to the floor, in front of television cameras broadcasting himself around the country and around the world via the internet, is absolutely dispicable and cannot be permitted to continue if our Republic is to survive.

Just for the record, here are the facts about federally owned land, of which Senator Turbin claims ANWR is one of a very few remaining parts.

According to NationalAtlas.gov: "The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States."

Scowcroft v Bush...

Years ago, when I was learning to spell and add number, Brent Scowcroft was the National Security Advisor for George H W Bush. Apparently he has been shunned by the men with whom he closely worked and once mentored in the past because his foreign-policy ground in "realism" conflicted with the Wilsonian approach favored by the pro-war Neo-conservatives, led by Rumsfeld and Cheney.

The New Yorker magazine has a long essay about Scowcroft, the Bushes, Iraq, and America's foreign policy.

Ultimately, the success or failure of our current foreign policy comes down to a single question. Do human beings universally yearn for individual liberty and all the burdens and challenges that go along with it?

While I once believed that notion to be true, a reflection over the past months of Americans who willingly, even eagerly, reject freedom in exchange for the relative ease of government services and "security" forces me to conclude that a significant percentage of human populations do not wish to accept the difficulty of freedom and independence. Thus, the current Wilsonian world view advanced by George Bush is utopian and will fail.

Brent Scowcroft
Iraq
Neo-conservatives

Big government conservatism...

According to Yahoo! News:

"For those people who say, 'Well, I can take care of myself no matter what, I don't have to prepare,' there is an altruistic element — that to the extent that they are a burden on government services, that takes away from what's available to help those who can't help themselves," Chertoff said. "That is a matter of civic virtue."

Well, there you have it. Republicans and their appointees in the federal government believe that government's role is to "help those who can't help themselves".

Of course, government's role according to our Constitution (remember that??) is to secure the rights of individual Americans to be secure in their lives, liberties, and property. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sadly, government schools and the infusion of communists into our government and media have infected whole generations of People in this country with the false notion that government services are a right, and personal responsibility is something only rich people ought to practice.

The article goes on to state that getting the public to heed government preparedness warnings will likely prove difficult. Gee, you think? After decades of being told NOT to take care of themselves and their families, they think people are just going to wake up and decide to sacrifice their carefree lifestyles in favor of disaster preparation planning?

Last week, Jeb Bush stepped up to the plate in chastising Floridians who were unprepared for Hurricane Wilma despite numerous efforts to warn them and remind them to make necessary arrangements ahead of time. Instead of providing for themselves, Florida's bottom feeders wasted no time in complaining about the "slow response" of FEMA and other government agencies, some barely waited for the storm to pass before they began their cries for government help.

But Dr. Vincent Ferrandino, executive director of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, cautioned against using the schools as messenger except "when it's absolutely necessary, and we consider it an issue of national importance."

"Schools need to be a place where important issues are discussed," Ferrandino said. "But we need to be careful that we don't use the schools constantly for everybody's latest and greatest new idea."

No, sir. How about using schools constantly for the age-old, tried and true ideas handed to us by our founding fathers about each man pulling his own weight and taking precautions for the well-being of his own family?


Soviet conservatism

Ray Nagin the bigot...

According to the Socialist Worker Online:

“How do I ensure that New Orleans is not overrun by Mexican workers?” New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was actually applauded when he put that question to a meeting of local business leaders.

HispanicBusiness.com responded:

“At a time when this great country has united to lend a helping hand to those affected by the ravages of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the USHCC, finds the recent public statement by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to be offensive, divisive and highly inappropriate.

Of course, I really couldn't care less what this phony mayor said, or what he may have meant. The real story is why hasn't this story shown up in the MSM?

Frist is too weak...

If I were the GOP Senate leader, I would have said this in response to the "stunt" performed by Turbin and Reid today:

"We as the majority are done trying to work with these people. They've showed time and again that they are nothing more than obstructionists, as Tom Daschle could verify, and the American people are not willing to permit this juvenile behavior to continue.

We are moving forward on the agenda of the American people with or without the Democrat party. They can not be allowed to hamstring real progress on a number of critical issues any longer.

The future America hangs in the balance, and while the Democrats obsess over intelligence formerly substantiated by the CIA, the Senate Intel Committee, Bill Clinton, Sandy Burger, Madeline Albright, William Cohen and others, this government ignores critical problems.

Illegals are overrunning our country, destroying our social services. Annual spending by the Congress has reached all time extremes and threatens to sink our ship as our debts continue to be financed by China and others not necessarily our closest allies. Islamofascists continue to fester in the shadows of America, preparing for the next attack in their jihad. Families are crumbling, schools are not educating people, businesses are driven out of the marketplace by frivolous lawsuits filed by shameless lawyers, and our manufacturing base has been driven offshore by CAFTA and other internationalists in exchange for an increase in service industry jobs.

Iran and North Korea are dangerously close to being nuclear powers while our own energy production has remained stagnant for decades and will be obscure soon without major investment.

The Democrats have stood in the way of each and every policy put forth to solve these problems without any credible alternative, and they no longer represent the American people who put them in this body as Senators. Either they are with us, and the American people, or they are against us."

Instead we have Bill Frist talking about "preserving the institution" and not following the RATs into the "gutter" and so forth. I say follow them into the gutter, sir, you are in the majority!! They are down on the mat in the 15th round of a prize fight for America's future, and you want to give them a hand getting back on their feet. Why??

Reid and rule 21...

Senate Democrats won't let go of the "Bush lied" mantra.

I predict that they will try to impeach Bush and/or Cheney, and their plan will backfire when Cheney resigns and Bush appoints Condoleeza Rice to replace him, which will of course be a prelude to her victory over Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Cindy for President...

Is there always someone with pink hair at leftist get togethers?

Terror in your town...

A website run by a woman named Laura Mansfield has a 6-part series in radical islam in America which is very worth reading. And very scary.

Religion of Peace

Dean steps in it again...

On the Chris Mathews program last night, Howard Dean appeared. Here is the transcript.

Here's an excerpt from the exchange:

DEAN: The position we support is a woman has the right to make -- and a family has the right to make up their own mind about their health care without government interference.

MATTHEWS: That's pro-choice.

DEAN: A woman and a family have a right to make up their own minds about their health care without government interference. That's our position.

MATTHEWS: Why do you hesitate from the phrase pro-choice?

DEAN: Because I think it's often misused. If you're pro-choice, it implies you're not pro-life. That's not true. There are a lot of pro-life Democrats. We respect them, but we believe the government should...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in abortion rights?

DEAN: I believe that the government should stay out of the personal lives of families and women. They should stay out of our lives. That's what I believe.

MATTHEWS: I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is a pro-choice position.

DEAN: The party believes the government does not belong in personal...

MATTHEWS: I'm learning things here about the hesitancy I didn't know about before. We'll be right back with Howard Dean.

DEAN: You know what you're learning...

MATTHEWS: Now, you're getting hesitant on the war and hesitant on abortion rights. It's very hard to get clarity from your party.

So, why does Howard Dean support government interference with such family issues as where their children are educated or how retirements are planned for?